Durac/Dorac/Death/what's his name[]
I freely admit that I may have messed up and that this entity has no name other than Death. though I did see the episode in question, I have no copy handy. feel free to change. in the episode though, he does not have the name Grim Reaper (no one calls him that) even he looks similar. --Stardizzy? 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
When i created the article, I called it Grim Reaper because there was an article already using the name Death. I have seen the episode twice, and Durac isn't used. The evil dudeArnie 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought Owen used the name Dorac in the episode but hey whatever. Doomlurker 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Durac" was said in the episode. If I remember correctly, it means "hunger", not "death". ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's spelled Duroc and his name is Hunger. I think it should be renamed Hunger, then possibly Death, if not Duroc and then finally Durac, incorrect spelling. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 06:27, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
I think when Owen said "I know what it wants, it's duroc," he meant that the entity wanted to satisfy its hunger for life, not that "duroc" is its name. Due to that, I also suggest that this page be moved to something like Death (Dead Man Walking). TroopDude ☎ 15:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
Name Source[]
Can I just say, Duroc's words in the episode were something like Melenkurion Abatha Duroc Minas Mil Khabaal, right? They're six of the Seven Words of Power in Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant Chronicles (the only ones known in the first trilogy). So, that's the source of the words and name.
Time Lord[]
Is there any chance this figure was actually a Time Lord, and could be Omega, with the afterlife being the anti-matter universe? (AtlantisUchiha ☎ 17:16, July 10, 2018 (UTC))
Same character?[]
Can someone please explain for clarity's sake on the article (as I myself am in the dark) where it's confirmed that Death in "Dead Man Walking" and Death in Timewyrm are one and the same entity? Because right now, with the lack of clarification on the article or in the revision history's edit summary, it looks to any unaware reader such as myself like it was just a user speculating or jumping to a conclusion. TroopDude ☎ 14:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no speculation — it's common sense. Death is Death. We don't separate every account of Santa Claus or other such public-domain folkloric figures. And it is explicitly pointed out in the VNAs that Death is an immortal concept which incarnates in several different forms over the history of the universe: by definition all Deaths are ultimately the same individual, following the logic given in Human Nature.
- (By analogy with Krampus (mythology) I had been giving some thought to moving this to "Death (mythology)", actually. Ultimately I think this should have been the primary topic, and the concept of "death" should have been dabbed, but it's a bit too late for that.)
- The alternative to the centralised page is to make individual pages for the different 'incarnations'; but that would also mean, for example, a separate page for the 'cat' Death and perhaps even the skeleton-Death of Exodus relative to the beautiful woman of Love and War. But it doesn't make any sense to single out the Dead Man Walking incarnation of Death. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)