New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 346
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Skyron, Andromeda
    Gender
    Male

    annoyed Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loreweaver15 View Post
    That's what I think too; it was fairly poorly demonstrated prior to 948, but Durkula's comments to Durkon about how it "usually" works tip it over into "this is just how it is" territory.

    I'm just really sick of the other side being misrepresented so much.
    I'm really sick of the argument about vampires in OOTS in general.
    Last edited by Jaxzan Proditor; 2014-04-15 at 05:45 PM.


    Peelee’s Lotsey

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falbrogna View Post
    Because it's interesting and serves the story's purposes. 'nuff said.
    That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?

    That's not a third thing the same as someone casting Magic Jar on someone else doesn't make it "a third way to be born".
    There's vampires, and there's Hel's spirits who can possess undeads/people. Durkon isn't being "corrupted" because he's been driven to the back seat and can't feel anything about his new condition.
    It's that simple.
    From the audience's point of view, if you're correct, then what's happening to Durkon is not what happens to most vampires. That's a layer of complication that would require some attention and explanation, if it were true.

    This very thread proves that the answer is no.
    We're never going to get 100% buy-in for any explanation. There will always be one or two lone holdouts. As far as I'm concerned, the question is settled.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Loreweaver15's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Great Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?

    From the audience's point of view, if you're correct, then what's happening to Durkon is not what happens to most vampires. That's a layer of complication that would require some attention and explanation, if it were true.
    Yeah, that's easy; the very simplest of story routes would be if Durkon was going to run into other vampires at some point along the way, where we'd get that attention and explanation, and this would turn out to be a misdirection (if it was true). On up from that: setting up fascinating internal struggles no matter WHAT the standard form of vampirization was, introducing Hel as an antagonist, basically any reason that you have for introducing this negative energy spirit is a narrative path for both the Hel's Hand and I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Buffy theories.

    Not to mention that it's literally been two strips since the revelation, roughly 60% of which was spent in an unrelated flashback. Are you expecting some kind of instant gratification for the "level of attention and explanation", or are you expecting Rich to tell us a story?
    3DS Friend Code: 3067-5674-0852. Currently running: Emerald.

    Latias, Groudon, Rayquaza, Kyogre promised to JustPlayItLoud for a shiny Gastly, Gulpin, Frogadier, and Dedenne. Regirock, Regice, Registeel up for grabs.

    Spoiler: Living Shinydex Progress 31/718 Newest Shiny: Buneary
    Show
    Gen I: 9/151
    Gen II: 6/100
    Gen III: 7/135
    Gen IV: 3/107
    Gen V: 3/156
    Gen VI: 2/69


    Come visit World's Finest Gaming on Tumblr or Facebook or even our Youtube channel and watch me stream!

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Banned
     
    zimmerwald1915's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loreweaver15 View Post
    Not to mention that it's literally been two strips since the revelation, roughly 60% of which was spent in an unrelated flashback. Are you expecting some kind of instant gratification for the "level of attention and explanation", or are you expecting Rich to tell us a story?
    Well, given the Giant's statements on the matter, I expect more payoff than setup, and more revelation than mystery, from here on out. Particularly as Durkon is not the central focus of The Order of the Stick.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Well, given the Giant's statements on the matter, I expect more payoff than setup, and more revelation than mystery, from here on out. Particularly as Durkon is not the central focus of The Order of the Stick.
    Its the second strip in the book, so there is definitely going to be more mystery and setup. And quite frankly it seems obvious to me that the central focus has in fact shifted towards Durkon for the time being. Given that we are literally seeing inside his head and all...
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loreweaver15 View Post
    That's what I think too; it was fairly poorly demonstrated prior to 948, but Durkula's comments to Durkon about how it "usually" works tip it over into "this is just how it is" territory.

    I'm just really sick of the other side being misrepresented so much.
    So you're back off the fence then?

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Banned
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?
    What is it that you exactly want after barely two strips? I don't get it.

    We're never going to get 100% buy-in for any explanation. There will always be one or two lone holdouts. As far as I'm concerned, the question is settled.
    Feel free to think so if you want, but the comic's present inconsistencies still say that the answer is no.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Loreweaver15's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Great Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    So you're back off the fence then?
    I'm clinging to the "This is how it works" side of the fence, grumpily refusing to step down onto the grass :P
    3DS Friend Code: 3067-5674-0852. Currently running: Emerald.

    Latias, Groudon, Rayquaza, Kyogre promised to JustPlayItLoud for a shiny Gastly, Gulpin, Frogadier, and Dedenne. Regirock, Regice, Registeel up for grabs.

    Spoiler: Living Shinydex Progress 31/718 Newest Shiny: Buneary
    Show
    Gen I: 9/151
    Gen II: 6/100
    Gen III: 7/135
    Gen IV: 3/107
    Gen V: 3/156
    Gen VI: 2/69


    Come visit World's Finest Gaming on Tumblr or Facebook or even our Youtube channel and watch me stream!

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falbrogna View Post
    What is it that you exactly want after barely two strips? I don't get it.
    Barely two, three, who can count?

    What I would want, to even consider your theory plausible, is a plausible reason for Rich to throw two methods of vampirization at Durkon (one of which isn't really vampirization, but looks just like it) when one would work just as well, then not let the audience know immediately that that was happening. Without that, it's as plausible a plot twist as "That's not really Durkon; it's an illusion cast by the werewolf god Frank to fool Durkula." Also technically possible, but unlikely in the extreme without some hint from Rich.

    You can propose ANY theory and justify it with "It's for story purposes. We don't know yet." What is your support for THIS theory?

    Feel free to think so if you want, but the comic's present inconsistencies still say that the answer is no.
    Ah, right, the inconsistencies you won't tell me about. What inconsistencies can't be explained by a dark spirit absorbing Malack's memories and identifying with him? Specifically, with quotes from the text?
    Last edited by jere7my; 2014-04-16 at 10:45 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Loreweaver15's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Great Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    What I would want, to even consider your theory plausible, is a plausible reason for Rich to throw two methods of vampirization at Durkon (one of which isn't really vampirization, but looks just like it)
    One.

    One method of vampirization.

    One!

    Under the Hel's Hand theory, Malack and Durkon are the exact same kind of vampire!

    The only difference is that Durkon's body has been hijacked by Hel's negative energy spirit!

    Why are you still insisting that they're two different kinds of vampires?
    3DS Friend Code: 3067-5674-0852. Currently running: Emerald.

    Latias, Groudon, Rayquaza, Kyogre promised to JustPlayItLoud for a shiny Gastly, Gulpin, Frogadier, and Dedenne. Regirock, Regice, Registeel up for grabs.

    Spoiler: Living Shinydex Progress 31/718 Newest Shiny: Buneary
    Show
    Gen I: 9/151
    Gen II: 6/100
    Gen III: 7/135
    Gen IV: 3/107
    Gen V: 3/156
    Gen VI: 2/69


    Come visit World's Finest Gaming on Tumblr or Facebook or even our Youtube channel and watch me stream!

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loreweaver15 View Post
    One.

    One method of vampirization.

    One!

    Under the Hel's Hand theory, Malack and Durkon are the exact same kind of vampire!

    The only difference is that Durkon's body has been hijacked by Hel's negative energy spirit!

    Why are you still insisting that they're two different kinds of vampires?
    Read what's in parentheses, there.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Loreweaver15's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Great Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Read what's in parentheses, there.
    What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

    Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

    Just like Malack.

    It's vampirization!

    It's the same thing!

    The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!
    Last edited by Loreweaver15; 2014-04-16 at 10:52 AM.
    3DS Friend Code: 3067-5674-0852. Currently running: Emerald.

    Latias, Groudon, Rayquaza, Kyogre promised to JustPlayItLoud for a shiny Gastly, Gulpin, Frogadier, and Dedenne. Regirock, Regice, Registeel up for grabs.

    Spoiler: Living Shinydex Progress 31/718 Newest Shiny: Buneary
    Show
    Gen I: 9/151
    Gen II: 6/100
    Gen III: 7/135
    Gen IV: 3/107
    Gen V: 3/156
    Gen VI: 2/69


    Come visit World's Finest Gaming on Tumblr or Facebook or even our Youtube channel and watch me stream!

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loreweaver15 View Post
    What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

    Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

    Just like Malack.

    It's vampirization!

    It's the same thing!

    The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!
    The point is, in the world of vampire fiction, "body hijacked by a negative energy spirit" is one of the main methods of making a vampire. If Rich is using that method to hijack Durkon's body, but isn't calling it vampirization, he's using something that looks just like one standard method of vampirization on top of another standard method of vampirization.

    Honestly, I don't think that's terribly complicated, and I've explained it like three times.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    If "having a puppeteer parasite in [one's] brain" doesn't require vampirism, I have to wonder why any of the Order do not have puppeteer parasites in their brains, since apparently it's an evil god's I-Win button.

    Or does it require dying and coming back? Assuming for the sake of argument that no member of the Order has died off-panel, that leaves "why doesn't Roy?" He sort-of worships the Northern gods, meaning Hel is part of the pantheon he falls under, so it wouldn't even be a different evil god.

    Or it's something that can only happen to a vampire, that nonetheless has nothing to do with vampirism, and that you don't actually think happened--a purely semantic exercise in Devil's Advocacy, otherwise known as "thoroughly pointless even by this forum's standards."
    Last edited by Kish; 2014-04-16 at 10:59 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #195

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    This is so stupid.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    The point is, in the world of vampire fiction, "body hijacked by a negative energy spirit" is one of the main methods of making a vampire. If Rich is using that method to hijack Durkon's body, but isn't calling it vampirization, he's using something that looks just like one standard method of vampirization on top of another standard method of vampirization.

    Honestly, I don't think that's terribly complicated, and I've explained it like three times.
    mind control and possession are not only in the domain of vampires. Even if its just able to affect undead, saying possession = vampirism is just incorrect.

    and now, allow me to ask you a question. If your theory is to be true, what is your explanation for Malack giving out right contradicting information?
    Last edited by Keltest; 2014-04-16 at 11:36 AM.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    mind control and possession are not only in the domain of vampires. Even if its just able to affect undead, saying possession = vampirism is just incorrect.
    How fortunate, then, that that's not what I said!

    One common way of depicting vampirism is to show someone's body being hijacked by a dark spirit. I don't think this is a controversial statement; it's basically how it works on Buffy. Another common way of depicting vampirism is to show them being corrupted by insatiable bloodlust, which is what Falbrogna et al. claim happened to the shaman that became Malack. In both cases, the vampire generally ends up with an aversion to sunlight, a lust for blood, etc.

    Falbrogna's theory would have us believe that Durkon was afflicted with the second form of vampirism, then also afflicted with something that looks, to the audience, exactly like the first kind of vampirism, but isn't. Yes, Exorcist-style possession is also a thing, but here we've got both things going on in the same vampirized body, which seems pointlessly complicated and confusing for the audience. Why would Rich hit Durkon with vampirism, then install a dark spirit that gives every impression of being a second form of vampirism, but isn't really? And then not give any indication that the "corrupting bloodlust" kind of vampirization ever happened? It staggers the mind! It would be like showing us Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider, then later revealing that he's actually from Krypton and the spider-bite had nothing to do with anything.

    I truly don't know how to explain this any more clearly.

    and now, allow me to ask you a question. If your theory is to be true, what is your explanation for Malack giving out right contradicting information?
    I'm not sure what "right contradicting information" is. Could you provide specific quotes from the text?

    I re-read everything Malack said after being revealed as a vampire, and found nothing to contradict the notion that the evil spirit absorbed all the shaman's memories and identified with it, which is also a standard memory-absorbing trope. He remembers having brothers, e.g., but remembers drinking their blood much more strongly, which fits with the notion of absorbed memories not being quite as strong as real ones. He tells Durkula he'll be "...confused" for a while if he's released from thralldom too soon, which fits with the notion that it takes a while for the dark spirit to absorb all the memories.

    This is, incidentally, exactly how vampirism is depicted on Buffy: vampires who talk about their life before being vamped generally use the first person. "I died so many years ago." It's common shorthand when writing dialogue for vampires; I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here.
    Last edited by jere7my; 2014-04-16 at 12:29 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    How fortunate, then, that that's not what I said!

    One common way of depicting vampirism is to show someone's body being hijacked by a dark spirit. I don't think this is a controversial statement; it's basically how it works on Buffy. Another common way of depicting vampirism is to show them being corrupted by insatiable bloodlust, which is what Falbrogna et al. claim happened to the shaman that became Malack. In both cases, the vampire generally ends up with an aversion to sunlight, a lust for blood, etc.

    Falbrogna's theory would have us believe that Durkon was afflicted with the second form of vampirism, then also afflicted with something that looks, to the audience, exactly like the first kind of vampirism, but isn't. Yes, Exorcist-style possession is also a thing, but here we've got both things going on in the same vampirized body, which seems pointlessly complicated and confusing for the audience. Why would Rich hit Durkon with vampirism, then install a dark spirit that gives every impression of being a second form of vampirism, but isn't really? And then not give any indication that the "corrupting bloodlust" kind of vampirization ever happened? It staggers the mind! It would be like showing us Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider, then later revealing that he's actually from Krypton and the spider-bite had nothing to do with anything.

    I truly don't know how to explain this any more clearly.



    I'm not sure what "right contradicting information" is. Could you provide specific quotes from the text?
    outright, my apologies. Anyway, for example, he mentions resurrection would be a complicated way of killing the person he was today. If he were a spirit, that would not be any more complicated that just decapitating him. He mentions that he will release Durkon when they get back to Bleedingham, when he will feel more like himself. Yet if Malack were a memory spirit, even one with the Shaman's memories, he would know the process takes longer than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    I re-read everything Malack said after being revealed as a vampire, and found nothing to contradict the notion that the evil spirit absorbed all the shaman's memories and identified with it, which is also a standard memory-absorbing trope. He remembers having brothers, e.g., but remembers drinking their blood much more strongly, which fits with the notion of absorbed memories not being quite as strong as real ones. He tells Durkula he'll be "...confused" for a while if he's released from thralldom too soon, which fits with the notion that it takes a while for the dark spirit to absorb all the memories.
    Except HPoH is clearly NOT confused, nor would he be upon being released. If anything, he would be MORE confused the longer Malack waited.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    This is, incidentally, exactly how vampirism is depicted on Buffy: vampires who talk about their life before being vamped generally use the first person. "I died so many years ago." It's common shorthand when writing dialogue for vampires; I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here.
    Buffy was very inconsistent with that. Most vampires were described as blank slated who had the personality taken over by a demon, Angel was portrayed s having a split personality, rather than the same one simply with no conscience. And later on they appear to abandon the possession idea entirely.
    Last edited by Keltest; 2014-04-16 at 12:36 PM.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Anyway, for example, he mentions resurrection would be a complicated way of killing the person he was today. If he were a spirit, that would not be any more complicated that just decapitating him.
    Casting a seventh-level spell with a 1000GP material component is a bit more complicated than shoving a bit of wood through someone's chest—and Malack says exactly that: "Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."

    He mentions that he will release Durkon when they get back to Bleedingham, when he will feel more like himself. Yet if Malack were a memory spirit, even one with the Shaman's memories, he would know the process takes longer than that.
    We don't know when Malack is expecting to return to Bleedingham. He says, "Until then, you will help us achieve our goals as my servant." Sounds like he has other things to take care of before then; this is a hypothetical timeline issue. And "more like yourself" is not "100% like yourself"; he might just mean "able to impersonate Durkon reasonably well," which Durkula can do now. It might be a minor inconsistency, but it's pretty handwavey.

    Except HPoH is clearly NOT confused, nor would he be upon being released. If anything, he would be MORE confused the longer Malack waited.
    "Confused" = "not acting like the Durkon I remember" and/or "not accustomed to your new body yet." The ellipsis before "confusing" suggests he's using a circumlocution here. Letting the dark spirit get settled in Durkon's brain and rifle through some memories before releasing him from thralldom seems polite. And Durkula does need an explanation of why sunlight burns in 882; "confused" seems like a pretty reasonable description to me.

    Edit: I thought of a third possibility: that there's a period of imprinting when a vampire is sired, and if it's released before the imprinting is through then it might turn on its sire, or just leave. So there are three possibilities:

    1) "You might not know how to be a vampire yet, and walk into a patch of sunlight (like you do a few strips later), so I'm going to keep you on a leash for your safety."

    2) "You won't have had a chance to absorb many memories yet, and it would break the polite fiction that you're still my friend Durkon if you forgot my name, so I'm just gonna keep you thralled until you're a little more Durkonish."

    3) "Newly minted vampires aren't born with any attachment to their sire, but a few days of thralldom fixes that. I'm going to keep you as a thrall so you don't try to eat my face."

    (Keep in mind that Malack's dialogue serves ulterior motives here. For most of his conversation with Durkon, he wants to give Durkon the impression that he's a reasonable being; saying "Oh, actually, I was never really the shaman; I'm actually a demon" doesn't seem like the way to go. And Rich wanted to set the audience up to think Durkula was one kind of vampire before revealing at the end of the book that, no, Durkon's not even slightly in charge anymore.)

    Buffy was very inconsistent with that. Most vampires were described as blank slated who had the personality taken over by a demon, Angel was portrayed s having a split personality, rather than the same one simply with no conscience. And later on they appear to abandon the possession idea entirely.
    Regardless, most of the non-ensouled vampires on Buffy referred to their pre-vamped lives, when they did, in the first person. See Spike, pre-ensoulment, talking about being William. This is not a novel or unusual way of treating demon-possession-style vampirization.

    Here's a question for you: if the dark spirit of Hel has nothing to do with vampirization, if it's an independent possessing spirit that has no connection to Durkon or vampires apart from opportunistically taking control of Durkon's body, why does Hel say "Nergal's snake may have sired you" when speaking to it? It was never sired, right?
    Last edited by jere7my; 2014-04-16 at 02:03 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Casting a seventh-level spell with a 1000GP material component is a bit more complicated than shoving a bit of wood through someone's chest—and Malack says exactly that: "Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."
    The execution may be more co9mplicated on Durkon's part, but its effects on Malack would be nearly identical. Youll also note that he did not say "a complicated way of killing me." He specifically said it would be "destroying the person I am." Implying that durkon might as well kill him, because he's be taking away everything that made Malack who he was anyway.



    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    We don't know when Malack is expecting to return to Bleedingham. He says, "Until then, you will help us achieve our goals as my servant." Sounds like he has other things to take care of before then; this is a hypothetical timeline issue. And "more like yourself" is not "100% like yourself"; he might just mean "able to impersonate Durkon reasonably well," which Durkula can do now. It might be a minor inconsistency, but it's pretty handwavey.
    If that's the case, there is no indication for it in any of the comics, especially since he didn't want to be out there in the first place.



    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    "Confused" = "not acting like the Durkon I remember" and/or "not accustomed to your new body yet." The ellipsis before "confusing" suggests he's using a circumlocution here. Letting the dark spirit get settled in Durkon's brain and rifle through some memories before releasing him from thralldom seems polite. And Durkula does need an explanation of why sunlight burns in 882; "confused" seems like a pretty reasonable description to me.
    Alright, point for the sunlight thing. But I don't know how mentally dominating someone could in any way be considered beneficial to them unless it prevents them from hurting themselves inadvertently, which we clearly see did not happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    (Keep in mind that Malack's dialogue serves ulterior motives here. For most of his conversation with Durkon, he wants to give Durkon the impression that he's a reasonable being; saying "Oh, actually, I was never really the shaman; I'm actually a demon" doesn't seem like the way to go. And Rich wanted to set the audience up to think Durkula was one kind of vampire before revealing at the end of the book that, no, Durkon's not even slightly in charge anymore.)
    Im fairly confidant that Rich is capable of giving that impression without giving malack conflicting dialogue. If it came to that, Malack could simply not bring his past self up, or have Malack speak about it completely in the third person.



    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Regardless, most of the non-ensouled vampires on Buffy referred to their pre-vamped lives, when they did, in the first person. See Spike, pre-ensoulment, talking about being William. This is not a novel or unusual way of treating demon-possession-style vampirization.
    but that doesn't mean it has any relevance on what Rich is doing either.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Here's a question for you: if the dark spirit of Hel has nothing to do with vampirization, if it's an independent possessing spirit that has no connection to Durkon or vampires apart from opportunistically taking control of Durkon's body, why does Hel say "Nergal's snake may have sired you" when speaking to it? It was never sired, right?
    That depends on what degree you consider the spirit to "own" Durkon's body, I suppose. How else would you refer to someone in someone else's body? Regardless of what is meant by it, she immediately follows up saying that "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls."
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Banned
     
    zimmerwald1915's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    If "having a puppeteer parasite in [one's] brain" doesn't require vampirism, I have to wonder why any of the Order do not have puppeteer parasites in their brains, since apparently it's an evil god's I-Win button.

    Or does it require dying and coming back? Assuming for the sake of argument that no member of the Order has died off-panel, that leaves "why doesn't Roy?" He sort-of worships the Northern gods, meaning Hel is part of the pantheon he falls under, so it wouldn't even be a different evil god.
    This point seems to have gone unaddressed, which is a shame.

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    This point seems to have gone unaddressed, which is a shame.
    Hel outright states she got her High Priest because Durkon was a dwarf who died. I didn't think it needed addressing, since its more or less dealt with in comic.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    The execution may be more co9mplicated on Durkon's part, but its effects on Malack would be nearly identical.
    Uh, yes. That fits with the dialogue. Why do you think it has to refer to more than the method of killing him?

    Youll also note that he did not say "a complicated way of killing me." He specifically said it would be "destroying the person I am." Implying that durkon might as well kill him, because he's be taking away everything that made Malack who he was anyway.
    Yes. If Malack the evil spirit who absorbed the shaman thinks of himself as the shaman, only better, than that's exactly what he would say.

    If that's the case, there is no indication for it in any of the comics, especially since he didn't want to be out there in the first place.
    Except for the line about having things to do before unthralling Durkula. That's an indication right there that Malack isn't just going to travel home and release him.

    Alright, point for the sunlight thing. But I don't know how mentally dominating someone could in any way be considered beneficial to them unless it prevents them from hurting themselves inadvertently, which we clearly see did not happen.
    We saw Durkula do the equivalent of stubbing his toe. If Malack weren't able to command him, wouldn't it be reasonable for Malack to worry he would get into some more serious trouble? If Durkula went running for the sunny outdoors, don't you think Malack would want to be able to say "STOP RIGHT THERE, YOUNG MAN"?

    Im fairly confidant that Rich is capable of giving that impression without giving malack conflicting dialogue.
    Which is what he did. He did, however, give Malack dialogue that could be interpreted multiple ways.

    but that doesn't mean it has any relevance on what Rich is doing either.
    The fact that it's the way it worked in a very widely known pop-culture representation of vampires means it's fair game for Rich to draw upon, and in a perfect world would stop people being confused by Malack referring to his pre-vamping self in the first person.

    That depends on what degree you consider the spirit to "own" Durkon's body, I suppose. How else would you refer to someone in someone else's body? Regardless of what is meant by it, she immediately follows up saying that "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls."
    Exactly. Not "You were birthed in my halls"; "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls." If she were talking to her possessing spirit hiding inside a vampire, she'd speak to him directly. Something like "Nergal's snake may have sired the vampire, but you were birthed in my halls." Hel clearly thinks of the dark spirit as an essential part of the vampire.

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Hel outright states she got her High Priest because Durkon was a dwarf who died. I didn't think it needed addressing, since its more or less dealt with in comic.
    So Hel sticks dark spirits into every dwarf that dies, or just those that die heroically in battle?

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    So Hel sticks dark spirits into every dwarf that dies, or just those that die heroically in battle?
    how many undead dwarves have you seen besides Durkon? Like, at all? And of them, how many of them are sentient in any way?
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Banned
     
    zimmerwald1915's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    how many undead dwarves have you seen besides Durkon? Like, at all? And of them, how many of them are sentient in any way?
    Push the question back a bit. How many dwarves have we seen at all besides Durkon (before the current book)? I only remember three: Kraagor, Kaboom Redaxe, and the unnamed duergar black marketeer who supplied Haley's Resistance.

    EDIT: also, we have potentially two more examples of vampirism in addition to Malack and Durkon.

    Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs
    Show
    I'm away from my book, but if I remember correctly, in the graveyard where Eugene was buried, there was tombstone that read something like "<decedant's name>, totally not coming back as a vampire, honest!" So our examples would include this person and his presumptive sire. The graveyard would be in the Northern Lands, Hel's domain.
    Last edited by zimmerwald1915; 2014-04-16 at 02:45 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Setting aside the issue of why it would be something only Hel can do, that Loki, Tiamat, Rat, and so on can't do. Setting aside the fact that a question I asked of Loreweaver is now an argument between Zimmer and Keltest.

    Who said anything about "undead"? The claim was specifically that it wasn't part of vampirism; anyone advocating that claim needs to explain what exactly the abilities and limitations of this extremely-hypothetical brain parasite are (and then explain why believing in the brain parasite makes more sense than believing in the possession model of vampirism).

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Uh, yes. That fits with the dialogue. Why do you think it has to refer to more than the method of killing him?
    Because Malack doesn't say "it would kill me" at any point. He says it would "Destroy the person he is today." Implying that he would not outright die, but would lose a fundamental part of his person (ie the vampirism).


    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Yes. If Malack the evil spirit who absorbed the shaman thinks of himself as the shaman, only better, than that's exactly what he would say.
    So youre now suggesting that not only does he have the shaman's memories, he has his personality too? So... besides being composed of negative energy, how is there a possessing spirit in this scenario at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Except for the line about having things to do before unthralling Durkula. That's an indication right there that Malack isn't just going to travel home and release him.
    unless youre talking about this comic I cant find the scene youre thinking of. And if you are talking about that one, obviously they aren't done there yet. They haven't found the gate at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    We saw Durkula do the equivalent of stubbing his toe. If Malack weren't able to command him, wouldn't it be reasonable for Malack to worry he would get into some more serious trouble? If Durkula went running for the sunny outdoors, don't you think Malack would want to be able to say "STOP RIGHT THERE, YOUNG MAN"?
    possibly, but Durkon immediately know that it was the sun burning him, and both he and Malack were able to survive for a little while in the sunlight. Long enough for Durkon to go "Oh crap, sun!" and turn around, at least.


    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    The fact that it's the way it worked in a very widely known pop-culture representation of vampires means it's fair game for Rich to draw upon, and in a perfect world would stop people being confused by Malack referring to his pre-vamping self in the first person.
    Again, the fact that it could have inspired him doesn't mean that it is a reliable or relevant source for what happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my View Post
    Exactly. Not "You were birthed in my halls"; "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls." If she were talking to her possessing spirit hiding inside a vampire, she'd speak to him directly. Something like "Nergal's snake may have sired the vampire, but you were birthed in my halls." Hel clearly thinks of the dark spirit as an essential part of the vampire.
    That doesn't even make sense. Durkon is, for all intents and purposes, not there for the purposes of conversation. Plus, up to that point, she WAS talking to the dark spirit specifically, since we can see Durkon having no say -at all- about what is happening. he cant even taunt futilely at Hel.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Push the question back a bit. How many dwarves have we seen at all besides Durkon (before the current book)? I only remember three: Kraagor, Kaboom Redaxe, and the unnamed duergar black marketeer who supplied Haley's Resistance.

    EDIT: also, we have potentially two more examples of vampirism in addition to Malack and Durkon.

    Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs
    Show
    I'm away from my book, but if I remember correctly, in the graveyard where Eugene was buried, there was tombstone that read something like "<decedant's name>, totally not coming back as a vampire, honest!" So our examples would include this person and his presumptive sire. The graveyard would be in the Northern Lands, Hel's domain.
    there have been a handful of unnamed background dwarves that may or may not have been bearded gnomes. And youre forgetting Hilgya.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Banned
     
    zimmerwald1915's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vampire question settled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Setting aside the fact that a question I asked of Loreweaver is now an argument between Zimmer and Keltest.
    Erm, why should this be a problem? The discussion has more or less resolved into being between factions rather than between individuals, as open, public discussions are wont to do. If one wants to keep a discussion private, one can always resort to PMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    And youre forgetting Hilgya.
    Shame on me

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •