Oh, I totally disagree, Tarquin. That's a great ending.
According to Rich on the boards:I wonder if that is the end of this "book." That would be winner.
I'm guessing it didn't have a release date, as well?So, the calendar reveals the name of the next book compilation. Spoilered for those who want to wait until the official reveal...
"Blood Runs in the Family"
That last pun is fantastic.#937: Travel Time
There's nothing about the new strip I don't love. I heart Julio Scoundrel so much.
TRILBY.But Belkar would look adorable in a fedora!
Durkon's alignment has switched to evil. The strip bases it's facts on D&D game knowledge, and in every book alignment change is part of the vampire transformation. How long Durkon can control his urges is the issue. Evil doesn't mean he's going to kill everyone. It just means that he he's not afraid to hurt other people to get what he wants. We just may not know how the plays out for a while.Can anyone out there see how that could backfire?
Too be fair, Belkar is evil as well and he (usually) doesn't fuck things up for everyone else... mostly because he has an outlet for his tendencies. In Durkon's case, he could just value his friends enough that he'd be willing to do TERRIBLE THINGS to protect/keep them around. Evil isn't always psychotic and psychopathic. Sometimes it just means only caring about one thing.Durkon's alignment has switched to evil. The strip bases it's facts on D&D game knowledge, and in every book alignment change is part of the vampire transformation. How long Durkon can control his urges is the issue. Evil doesn't mean he's going to kill everyone. It just means that he he's not afraid to hurt other people to get what he wants. We just may not know how the plays out for a while.
An evil character can work very hard to save the world. They'll just be saving it because they don't want to die. Or because they want to impress a romantic interest. Or because they're madly obsessed with a piece of art and don't want that sculpture to be destroyed when the world goes under.Too be fair, Belkar is evil as well and he (usually) doesn't fuck things up for everyone else... mostly because he has an outlet for his tendencies. In Durkon's case, he could just value his friends enough that he'd be willing to do TERRIBLE THINGS to protect/keep them around. Evil isn't always psychotic and psychopathic. Sometimes it just means only caring about one thing.
But he's still Lawful, so controlling his urges shouldn't be a problem as long as there's other way for them to be met when they're unavoidable (as long as he gets the blood he needs, he's fine).Durkon's alignment has switched to evil. The strip bases it's facts on D&D game knowledge, and in every book alignment change is part of the vampire transformation. How long Durkon can control his urges is the issue. Evil doesn't mean he's going to kill everyone. It just means that he he's not afraid to hurt other people to get what he wants. We just may not know how the plays out for a while.
This sounds an awful lot like "people with <insert addiction/need here> aren't evil as long as they just have a steady supply of it!" No, the vampire is STILL evil in this fantasy context. If we want to get into some other Vampire mythos and debate that, fine, but not in this one. In this one, he's evil by definition. That will still have consequences, regardless of lawfulness.But he's still Lawful, so controlling his urges shouldn't be a problem as long as there's other way for them to be met when they're unavoidable (as long as he gets the blood he needs, he's fine).
Durkon/Durkon-like is a null point we really can't decide now - I know the consensus on the OOTS forums is different, but we don't. BELKAR said so, that's not exactly word of God. D&D 3.5 supports either way.This sounds an awful lot like "people with <insert addiction/need here> aren't evil as long as they just have a steady supply of it!" No, the vampire is STILL evil in this fantasy context. If we want to get into some other Vampire mythos and debate that, fine, but not in this one. In this one, he's evil by definition. That will still have consequences, regardless of lawfulness.
And remember my post above: it's NOT Durkon. It's Durkon-like only.