Minister Malack

[Mr. Scaly]

I'll bet he's a vampire. Pale complexion, reddened eyes, special diet, delicate health (fancy way of saying he doesn't have a Con score)...all kinds of little things like that.

[hamishspence]

The theory has been raised a few times.

So far though, undead in OoTS have had, for speech bubbles, white text on black background.

This included the hypothesised Vampire Roy (which never came to pass):

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html

Strongly suggesting Malack isn't one- since he doesn't have that kind of bubble.

[Mr. Scaly]

I figured I'd missed the boat on that one.

True that. But if I recall my DnD vampires are good at disguising themselves as normal people.

[Felhammer]

The theory has been raised a few times.

So far though, undead in OoTS have had, for speech bubbles, white text on black background.

This included the hypothesised Vampire Roy (which never came to pass):

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html

Strongly suggesting Malack isn't one- since he doesn't have that kind of bubble.

Unless he has some means of disguising his voice! :smallbiggrin:

[NerfTW]

Except that he was clearly shown outside in #750.


Also, the speech bubbles are more of an style than an exact indication of what someone is. You'll notice Sabine has no colored balloon, despite being either a demon or devil.

[Stumblebee]

The theory has been raised a few times.

So far though, undead in OoTS have had, for speech bubbles, white text on black background.

This included the hypothesised Vampire Roy (which never came to pass):

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html

Strongly suggesting Malack isn't one- since he doesn't have that kind of bubble.

That is true, but it's possible the Giant made an exception since using the special bubble would give away the plot twist.

On the other hand, Malack does have a unique speech bubble. I don't know the technical term for it (or if there is a technical term for it), but the lines that lead from Malack's face to his actual speech bubble are always crooked and scraggly.

Maybe he's masking his undead nature with a spell? :smallconfused:

[Mr. Scaly]

Except that he was clearly shown outside in #750.

Hmm, nuts. I missed that one. Well, maybe a half vampire then. Or maybe his cloak keeps the sun off of him or something.

[suszterpatt]

That is true, but it's possible the Giant made an exception since using the special bubble would give away the plot twist.

On the other hand, Malack does have a unique speech bubble. I don't know the technical term for it (or if there is a technical term for it), but the lines that lead from Malack's face to his actual speech bubble are always crooked and scraggly.

Maybe he's masking his undead nature with a spell? :smallconfused:
Those balloons simply indicate, shall we say, poor physical condition (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html). In this case, it's Malack's "frail health".

edit: speaking of frail health, being high priest to the god of death probably has its effects on your condition all on its own

[TheBlackShadow]

Just to poke my head in for a moment, I still insist that he's a cannibal.

[suszterpatt]

Just to poke my head in for a moment, I still insist that he's a cannibal.Isn't "cannibalism" in D&D eating any sentient creature? Because pretty much everyone at the state dinner is a cannibal in that case, so it wouldn't make his diet that special.

[Mr. Scaly]

I dunno, I think cannibalism would still be eating your own kind. Just about anything can be given intelligence these days and I wouldn't consider eating a sentient gingerbread cookie to be cannibalism.

[rokar4life]

Isn't "cannibalism" in D&D eating any sentient creature? Because pretty much everyone at the state dinner is a cannibal in that case, so it wouldn't make his diet that special.

Where is it said that cannibalism is eating any sentient creature? I'm pretty sure that given the vast number of them D&D, especially those that seem to be mostly animal-like, few people would draw the line at sentience.

[Capt Spanner]

Isn't it somewhere in the strip that he's an albino? IIRC albinism is associated with frail health.

[2-HeadedGiraffe]

Cannibalism is eating members of your own species, sentient or not. If it's defined differently in D&D somewhere, I'm not aware of it.

[Emperor Ing]

Uh, how did this turn into a debate on what Cannibalism is?

And for the record, the lizgreaper is an albino. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html) It's said outright in the second-to-last panel.
And he's clearly not taking damage from the two times he's out in the sunlight here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html)

[hamishspence]

Where is it said that cannibalism is eating any sentient creature? I'm pretty sure that given the vast number of them D&D, especially those that seem to be mostly animal-like, few people would draw the line at sentience.

BoVD- though it does suggest that it becomes especially evil when it's done for pleasure or magical power, rather than for sustenance.

[Dr.Epic]

This strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html): it looks like he's talking to Durkon on a balcony outside. I might be wrong but the color of the background does look like the color of the sky in that part of the world.

[Mr. Snuggles]

Yeah, Malack just has a CON of 4 or something. The jagged voice balloons are "sounds like he's dying". Since Malack is close to dying anyway, he always sounds like that. One of the interesting things about the strip is the way that ability scores are portrayed - high CHA, low WIS, etc. It was pretty cool when I figured out Malack was extreme low CON and how that fits into his character. It's a shining example of not letting a low roll on one of your ability scores stop you. It doesn't mean you can't become a high-level cleric with your own empire.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Yeah, I think it is just low con, although I do think this is written, like so much of Rich's stuff, to allow more than one interpretation.

[ZakRenning]

BoVD- though it does suggest that it becomes especially evil when it's done for pleasure or magical power, rather than for sustenance.

Well cannablism is eating the flesh of your same species. So that's real life. But since DnD tends to dumb down things they changed it to sentience (which is dumbed down as well since it should be sapience)

[dtilque]

Isn't "cannibalism" in D&D eating any sentient creature? Because pretty much everyone at the state dinner is a cannibal in that case, so it wouldn't make his diet that special.

Malack didn't eat anything at the state dinner1, claiming poor health.

I do wonder if he may actually be non-evil, perhaps lawful-neutral. We never see him perform an evil act2, although that may be due to lack of screen time. Or he may be a moderating influence in the EoB. There must be someone to moderate Tarquin's evilness or the empire would probably have fallen apart by now.



1 Neither did the members of OotS, since as Elan says, "dad accidently hired an evil chef"3.

2 Admittedly, this is absence of evidence and not evidence of absence.

3 Elan is so deep in denial, he's about to sprout pyramids.

[hamishspence]

Well cannablism is eating the flesh of your same species. So that's real life. But since DnD tends to dumb down things they changed it to sentience (which is dumbed down as well since it should be sapience)

Sentient rather than sapient is a little irritating- but it's very common in sci-fi for it to be phrased that way (H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy is one of the few exceptions) so it's hardly surprising.

Cannibalism as "eating people, even people not your species" may be a little less accurate, but it makes sense in a world of intelligent people of very different species.

In C. S. Lewis's The Silver Chair, when the protagonists discover that the stag they've been eating, served by the giants, was a Talking Stag, their reactions are pretty much "we've been eating people!" with the strength of the reaction depending on how much experience with Narnia they've had (the native Narnian's reaction being the strongest.)

[Yendor]

I dunno, I think cannibalism would still be eating your own kind. Just about anything can be given intelligence these days and I wouldn't consider eating a sentient gingerbread cookie to be cannibalism.
Mmmm, sentient gingerbread cookie... (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/Cc85LTNvTgOuH1xTRjz.html)

[Secris]

I always thought the shaky speech bubbles were supposed to be all snake-like and whatnot, seeing as he's an evil reptile and all. But I suppose the frail health makes a lot of sense too. Maybe both?

[suszterpatt]

I always thought the shaky speech bubbles were supposed to be all snake-like and whatnot, seeing as he's an evil reptile and all. But I suppose the frail health makes a lot of sense too. Maybe both?
Other lizardfolk don't have the squiggly bubbles (just look at any strip with Gannji), so...

[JSSheridan]

V had the same style of speech balloon when she fought Xykon, comic 656 panel 3. O'Chul too in 657. Since it cleared up in a few rounds, it just means a voice is rough or raspy.

It's probably caused by Malack's poor health in his case, which I view as a constitution penalty.

[dtilque]

Maybe Malack sound like Darth Vader...

I'm not convinced that he's evil, though. Now if he'd rob a bank or something...

[ThirdEmperor]

I would bet Malack isn't evil. Why? Because he looks evil in every possible way, yet there is no evidence that he is.

[werik]

I would bet Malack isn't evil. Why? Because he looks evil in every possible way, yet there is no evidence that he is.

Well, no evidence aside from the fact that he works for the extraordinarily evil Empire of Blood and has been working with Tarquin for years in other regimes that seem equally as ruthless.

[Querzis]

Well, no evidence aside from the fact that he works for the extraordinarily evil Empire of Blood and has been working with Tarquin for years in other regimes that seem equally as ruthless.

Yeah, as a religious leader. We saw lots of evil stuff done in the name of the empire (or just for evulz) but as long as nobody do anything evil in the name of his religion I dont see what you expect Malack to do. Not that I'm arguing that hes not evil here, I really dont know, but what Tarquin does is not his fault.

Anyway, yeah I agree that his speech balloons are because of his poor health. I really dont think Malack, or any of the other clerics of any god of death for that matter, can even be undead. Sure, god of death creates undead sometimes but they do it in their realms with the souls that already belong to them. I'm pretty sure they would see a mortal becoming undead with his own power (or another mortal power) as a personal insult which must be destroyed. You're basically stealing a soul that should belong to them when you die after all.

[Dr.Epic]

Maybe Malack sound like Darth Vader...

That's doubtful: in SoD, the first thing Xykon notices is his voice sounds like James Earl Jones, and considering the two have different speech bubbles, I doubt it.

[Swordpriest]

A rather measly, uneven hiss is what I was imagining. Of course, I imagine Xykon as sounding like a snarky boardroom director despite the James Earl Jones thing, so I'm not sure if I'm a particularly accurate guesser .... :smallwink:

[SadisticFishing]

I dunno, I think cannibalism would still be eating your own kind. Just about anything can be given intelligence these days and I wouldn't consider eating a sentient gingerbread cookie to be cannibalism.

So you'd be morally okay with a giant sapient/sentient gingerbread cookie eating you? I find that... questionable.

The idea of "cannibalism" as "eating people" is a very fair definition, as long as it's consistent in their definition. If we met intelligent aliens, eating them would be... bad.

Also, Nerull is a god of death that LOVES Liches and Vampires - he hates life as a whole, undeath is one of his favorite things. There are more than one kind of Gods of Death - they can be virtually any alignment with entirely different reasons to exist and feelings about undead.

[Burner28]

TBH I'm just basically assume that Malack is Lawful Evil until proven otherwise

[Geordnet]

I agree, but I personally think he's a ghost or something different like that.

Why?
Have you ever seen his FEET???

Every other robed charachter has thier toes sticking out, but not him. Also, look at how Malack moves in strip #739 or #743... As if he didn't have legs.....

And it might just be that he doesn't need to eat at all, he's just saying he eats in his room to avoid suspicion.

There are other factors, like that Nale killed three of his "Children". He didn't look married...

[Nilan8888]

TBH I'm just basically assume that Malack is Lawful Evil until proven otherwise

It's definately a valid possibility. Tarquin is clearly evil, and Miron seems more likely than not to be evil as well.

I tend to be on the side of "innocent until proven evil". We have some circumstantial evidence of Malack being Evil: an implied threat to feed Elan to the Empress (and his quip that Tarquin was 'going soft' when he intervened on Elan's behalf), and the fact that he was in Tarquin's party and went along with his plan.

But that's no smoking gun as yet. We haven't seen Malack react or conduct a complete act of evil. There are possible explanations for what we have seen... maybe he was persuaded that Tarquin's scheme was the best thing for the Continent. Maybe feeding Elan to the Empress was a bluff. Maybe his children, pre or post-murder, have something to do with his motivations.

Malack's still got room for speculation. Tarquin and Miron? Those guys is evil.

[Shale]

Malack follows an evil party leader and has repeatedly helped him become tyrant of a substantially-sized nation, where he enforces slavery, torture and other assorted nastiness. I don't care if he's never so much as stepped on a cat's tail, that's evil.

[Lvl45DM!]

Malack has room to be proven Neutral, but due to the nature of his enterprise and companions should be assumed to be evil since that is slight evidence for, though not damming

[rewinn]

Malack has room to be proven Neutral, but due to the nature of his enterprise and companions should be assumed to be evil since that is slight evidence for, though not damming
Is this not similiar to assuming that V is good because V associates with a party that is mostly Good?

[Batyzero]

Is this not similiar to assuming that V is good because V associates with a party that is mostly Good?

Nope, but if we knew as little about V as we do about Malack, it would be a pretty fair assumption.

[Zmflavius]

Is this not similiar to assuming that V is good because V associates with a party that is mostly Good?

Or that a dagger-wielding psychopath is kept under a leash?

Those are different circumstances, but the Gods of Good make it clear that by adventuring under Roy, Belkar has has his evilness curbed.

Likewise, even if


Malack has room to be proven Neutral, but due to the nature of his enterprise and companions should be assumed to be evil since that is slight evidence for, though not damming

Belkar, while routinely attempting to assert his evilness, helps a LG fighter fufill good acts.

[Kish]

Is this not similiar to assuming that V is good because V associates with a party that is mostly Good?
No, because evil and good are different.

[Nilan8888]

Malack follows an evil party leader and has repeatedly helped him become tyrant of a substantially-sized nation, where he enforces slavery, torture and other assorted nastiness. I don't care if he's never so much as stepped on a cat's tail, that's evil.

I think we need more evidence than that. There are tons of RL examples where that's essentially not true. It's easy to judge from a postion where one is not put to the test as to who is evil and who is not.

If acqueisence to evil acts makes one evil -- that is, not doing evil things but just failing to stop evil things -- then by that argument enormous amounts of human society, populations of entire countries, have become evil as quickly as a flick of the switch. And then later flipped back to good just as swiftly.

[Burner28]

It was just something I assumed though there is definetly a way better argument for Malack or even Tyrinar of all people(though i still think he's Lawful Evil even if his short appearance in 759 seems to suggest he wants to do good) being neutral than Tarquin

[Swordpriest]

I think we need more evidence than that. There are tons of RL examples where that's essentially not true. It's easy to judge from a postion where one is not put to the test as to who is evil and who is not.

If acqueisence to evil acts makes one evil -- that is, not doing evil things but just failing to stop evil things -- then by that argument enormous amounts of human society, populations of entire countries, have become evil as quickly as a flick of the switch. And then later flipped back to good just as swiftly.

Yes, but Malack has a lot of power. It's a bit different from being the baker, who is essentially helpless and will be squashed in a second if he says anything about what's going on, and being the dang Prime Minister and doing nothing. At worst, he has enough resources to flee the country, which most common people don't.

[Deliverance]

Malack follows an evil party leader and has repeatedly helped him become tyrant of a substantially-sized nation, where he enforces slavery, torture and other assorted nastiness. I don't care if he's never so much as stepped on a cat's tail, that's evil.
No, that is not evil. It is not-good. But it is likely to require him to personally commit evil acts and certainly strengthens the suspicion that Malack is evil overall.

Thus Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil is the way to bet lacking further information with Lawful Neutral as a long shot and True Neutral vanishingly unlikely.