|
My favourite part about the last pages of this book is just how wrong Roy ends up being about everything.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
sebmojo posted:My favourite part about Durkon getting vamped is that he chose it. Malack gave him ... three? four? fairly reasonable alternatives and he refused them all. They weren't really that reasonable. They were just reasonable for a horrible evil vampire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think Burlew's admitted to changing some story elements a few times because he hates the idea of people seussing out what's going to happen, which strikes me as a terrible flaw for a writer to have. That is something almost all serial writers do. The difference between a good one and a bad one is that the bad one changes major things that make the plot incoherent and the good way changes minor things that flow naturally enough you didn't know there was another idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Occam's razor: Malack thought he was himself because the vampire was talking, not the soul of Malack. Not like he's gonna advertise being a fantasy yeerk. This isn't supported by the text though, Here Malack: I see so clearly now why Tarquin's advice never sat well with me. It is not the parent-child relationship I long for these days-it is that of the colleague. No-the sibling. I had seven brothers once, you know. In that dim other like so long past. While here in the Latest: Nokrud: It all goes smoothly. I have convinced the dwarf's allies to accept me as the dwarf himself--despite having slipped up on his ridiculous accent a few times. e: I guess the conclusion I would like to draw is when there's a contradiction in the text it isn't reasonable to "handwave the contradiction" but instead "Maybe there's still something we don't know". bigpolar posted:I was kind of hoping this would turn out like the forgotten realms vampires, where good people who were turned into vampires were fine until the uncontrollable thirst hit. Like the famous battlerager in the last Drizzt novel. It looks like Burlew is more of a fan of the Buffy style demon vampires. High five fellow traveler of the hard road to tread,  ImpAtom posted:That is something almost all serial writers do. The difference between a good one and a bad one is that the bad one changes major things that make the plot incoherent and the good way changes minor things that flow naturally enough you didn't know there was another idea. I feel like GRRM of ASOIAF is the exception that proves the rule to this, every one of his twists feels like an effort to prevent people from predicting things and just running with the results for all they're worth. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:42
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That is something almost all serial writers do. The difference between a good one and a bad one is that the bad one changes major things that make the plot incoherent and the good way changes minor things that flow naturally enough you didn't know there was another idea. I guess I just don't see the point of swerving the audience to punish them for figuring you out. It's some Vince Russo poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Nokrud: Honestly, a much better name than Durkula.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I guess I just don't see the point of swerving the audience to punish them for figuring you out. It's some Vince Russo poo poo. Because once the audience has figured something out they become immensely unreceptive to the actual reveal of the twist. They get upset and say it was "predictable" even if it was something that was predictable because it was well-foreshadowed and obviously built up to. You can't change every twist because some obviously need to occur even if they've been predicted but switching minor twists up keeps the audience from getting bored. Is it logical? Nope, but human beings are not logical. They will get upset about 'boring and predictable twists' even if 'boring and predictable' is shorthand for a logical conclusion to a story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Zetetica posted:Was Nergal ever shown to be evil? Malack was evil, certainly, but that doesn't mean his god necessarily was. Lawful Neutral seems like it would suit a god of death just fine. Malack claimed he was an unspecified Neutral alignment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:My favourite part about Durkon getting vamped is that he chose it. Malack gave him ... three? four? fairly reasonable alternatives and he refused them all. They weren't really reasonable at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:06
|
|
Zogundar posted:Malack claimed he was an unspecified Neutral alignment. Oh, well if the evil guy says he's not evil, we should certainly take him at his word.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:They weren't really reasonable at all. Compared to 'let's fight to the death right now?' Sure they were. They weren't reasonable for Durkon because Durkon was who he was. So him refusing them was an inevitable consequence of his character. And the ultimate consequence of that is that he's now trapped inside a being of ultimate evil, about to bring horrible death and destruction to his beloved homeland. It's good and clever writing, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think Burlew's admitted to changing some story elements a few times because he hates the idea of people seussing out what's going to happen, which strikes me as a terrible flaw for a writer to have. Which is one of several reasons I don't visit the GitP forums anymore. I'll toss my predictions here in GoonLand where there's much less chance of them affecting the plot than if I'd done it there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Oh, well if the evil guy says he's not evil, we should certainly take him at his word. Neutral Evil is a neutral alignment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Oh, well if the evil guy says he's not evil, we should certainly take him at his word. sebmojo posted:Neutral Evil is a neutral alignment. I was wrong, I remembered the wording incorrectly. He said "neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil," and that Neutrality suits them better. Malack didn't strike me as a big liar (He "withheld information" as he said, but he didn't really go around lying to people.) But then it seemed like he was not considering himself evil, so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:I don't think this is what's being implied by Durkula automatically being promoted to "High Priest"--there are probably other clerics of Hel, but as a high-level cleric who is now a vampire he's probably the most powerful. He's the High Priest by default, as the only Cleric to actually worship her now. Granted, Durkon is probably one of the higher leveled clerics in the world, with Redcloak being one of the few higher, so he's a good a canidate for High Priest as any. In all honesty if I was a DM and a cleric player said he was going to do that I'd allow it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I'm a bit disappointed that Hel is just straight-up villainously evil. That's 2 for 2 on death gods being evil, and I'm not sure the Eastern Pantheon has a one (Rat?). Hel is a pretty big shithead. Her not being evil would be surprising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
I have a feeling that Rich could have gone either way on Durkon and on exactly how many Kilonazis the latter clocks in at currently; and that only in this strip Rich finally made up his mind to go with basically the worst possible outcome for the order he could come up with. See, the few last strips were on a fairly positive note. You're thinking, look at the order, look at their capabilities and team spirit, they pulled through even the crazy few last hours and now Roy's sorting everything out, they'll do fine against any threat. And if that's what you're thinking, a plain old 'oh no evil is afoot' cliffhanger isn't going to have a lot of impact. So sure, you can still go with that and make do with what tension is left, but it's much better if you can instead punch your audience right in the gut and destroy that optimistic state of mind with a decisive "LOL NO".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Kruller posted:Hel is a pretty big shithead. Her not being evil would be surprising. Remember that all the dudes that go into the corresponding Norse afterlife are waiting in a bleak darkness to row a ship made of fingernails to fight against all the guys that got into Valhalla come Ragnarok. She would be a pretty strict antagonist to the other Gods of the North. Norse afterlives are so goddamn 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Let's remember some of the plotlines that will come up in the next book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Let's remember some of the plotlines that will come up in the next book. Indeed, that paper-cut could have gotten a nasty infection by now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
TheAceOfLungs posted:Indeed, that paper-cut could have gotten a nasty infection by now. In the Dwarven Lands it's called "treevenge."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Let's remember some of the plotlines that will come up in the next book. That led me to notice this lengthy setup: (Or whatever you'd call it) Sabine Gets Along with V http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0903.html (One panel examples) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html Wonder if that will come up again. Especially since it also seems to tie into the Nale/Sabine relationship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This isn't supported by the text though, Here OK. Here's the thing. My explanation is "A creature that's existed for 200 years probably won't have the same interpretation of its situation, or it would be dishonest with itself." The biggest problem with your reading is a logical one. Let's say you're right. First the reader finding out would require a long explanation from a dead vampire who is literally just gone. Undead don't get an afterlife. Even if his allies knew about this weird process you're describing, it would have happened long before they were born, so why would they know details? This comic doesn't do exposition without a source, and the source is ash. Second, who's motivated to change Durkon now? Durkula sure as hell isn't. The other PCs don't understand what Durkula is and would try to destroy it if they did. They're already on the fence. Why would they trust information from an evil source that would ultimately be a compromise with their friend's soul? All the other players know almost nothing or have established other means. Even Durkon himself would ask to be staked and raised. Lastly what narrative purpose would it serve? Character development for a dead, unrezible bit character? Backtracking on the recent character development for Durkon? Introducing new, convoluted exceptions to established 3ed rules with little to no foreshadowing? None of these are good ideas, and none are tendencies Rich has. Like I said, your idea rests on the interpretation of personal pronouns of a couple of monologs, and is convoluted. Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:He's the High Priest by default, as the only Cleric to actually worship her now. What makes you think that's the case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Another thought. Malack said that giving Durkon free will in the pyramid would be . . . confusing to him. We know that the vampire entity has access to all of the soul's memories, it could work to adopt them as its own rather than something it simply steals from the soul. Malack did seem to want and expect Durkon as he was to remain at some level, not just a blank evil shell. It may be that he would have encouraged/forced that result on the vampire entity if he had maintained control. VVVVVV That's a very plausible explanation also. Grogquock fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:OK. Here's the thing. My explanation is "A creature that's existed for 200 years probably won't have the same interpretation of its situation, or it would be dishonest with itself." Or that the two souls were better integrated. Durkon is in direct conflict with LE Durkon (as the French would say), Malack's soul wasn't necessarily hostile toward his partner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:What makes you think that's the case? To quote Durkon: "Nobody worships 'er, much less serves as 'er priest"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:To quote Durkon: "Nobody worships 'er, much less serves as 'er priest" Does dying of vampirism count as "dying of sickness" metaphysically? Personally, I'd mark it down as "in battle" but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Does dying of vampirism count as "dying of sickness" metaphysically? Personally, I'd mark it down as "in battle" but who knows. Doesn't matter much, because his soul isn't going to any afterlife for now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Does dying of vampirism count as "dying of sickness" metaphysically? Personally, I'd mark it down as "in battle" but who knows. That very comic has that exact argument, where Hel says the cause of death is sickness and Thor points it out it was a magical sickness contracted in battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Let's remember some of the plotlines that will come up in the next book. Thanks for linking that. The first time through, I missed the part about Dwarfs having two livers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:OK. Here's the thing. My explanation is "A creature that's existed for 200 years probably won't have the same interpretation of its situation, or it would be dishonest with itself." That's an interpretation but one we have much less evidence to support, its more of an assumption you're making. quote:The biggest problem with your reading is a logical one. Let's say you're right. First the reader finding out would require a long explanation from a dead vampire who is literally just gone. Undead don't get an afterlife. Even if his allies knew about this weird process you're describing, it would have happened long before they were born, so why would they know details? This comic doesn't do exposition without a source, and the source is ash. This isn't a logical flaw/conclusion, it doesn't really make sense sorry. quote:Second, who's motivated to change Durkon now? Durkula sure as hell isn't. The other PCs don't understand what Durkula is and would try to destroy it if they did. They're already on the fence. Why would they trust information from an evil source that would ultimately be a compromise with their friend's soul? All the other players know almost nothing or have established other means. Even Durkon himself would ask to be staked and raised. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing. quote:Like I said, your idea rests on the interpretation of personal pronouns of a couple of monologs, and is convoluted. Have you read pathfinder's rules on vampires? There's several subraces; its a very simple explanation to assume there's possibly more than one way to make a vampire. Also you made a contradiction, specifically: quote:Lastly what narrative purpose would it serve? Character development for a dead, unrezible bit character? Backtracking on the recent character development for Durkon? Introducing new, convoluted exceptions to established 3ed rules with little to no foreshadowing? None of these are good ideas, and none are tendencies Rich has. Please show me where in the entirety of 3.5e there's a staff with a cleric spell that speeds up the Vampiric process? Durkon was created by a house ruled process, ergo, everything "established" is out the window beyond a few guidelines. You seem to be making some sort of metanarrative argument when all that's really required is to look for evidence in the text in order to come up with a plausible and consistent explanation for an inconsistency. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Yeah if you're going to be willfully obtuse I don't really see the point in arguing with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That's an interpretation but one we have much less evidence to support, its more of an assumption you're making. Take it to the GITP forums, dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That's an interpretation but one we have much less evidence to support, its more of an assumption you're making. Posts like this, for a month and a half. I am going to miss the comic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:Norse afterlives are so goddamn I think it's actually the other way round...
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
I really hope Nokrud's plan to bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands entails knocking on doors and passing out pamphlets trying to get dwarves to accept Hel into their lives
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Take it to the GITP forums, dude. Yes discussing the comic is clearly off topic and should cease. quote:Yeah if you're going to be willfully obtuse I don't really see the point in arguing with you. Its hard to see what you were even arguing in the first place, maybe you should have been more clear rather than making assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yes discussing the comic is clearly off topic and should cease. No but being a huge sperg lord and weirdo kind of are frowned upon here and flourish on the GitP forums hence the joke of telling you to go there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:No but being a huge sperg lord and weirdo kind of are frowned upon here and flourish on the GitP forums hence the joke of telling you to go there. Which would be kinda true if I did sperg regarding the rules or what have you but I only pointed out there's a discrepancy between what one character said and what another character said and that it implies a something; the only thing remotely close to rules sperging was, well, my response essentially being: "The only thing worse than pedantic rules lawyering is incorrect pedantic rules lawyering" as Eifert Posting brought up "rules".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 19:27
|
|