Malack: What do you think? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

tcrudisi

2010-12-16, 09:59 PM

Not being bothered by evil doesnt make you evil.

Agreed - but Malack has went further than to "not be bothered by evil". Instead, he furthers it by assisting Tarquin in running the empire.

By that logic the whole order is evil for withstanding Belkar. No, because the OotS has demostrated that it is containing Belkar's evil, while Malack has not demonstrated that he is trying to make the kingdom less evil. Admittedly, he could be doing this, but we have no evidence of it, so for the sake of argument, we must go with what we know: that Malack runs an evil empire. Otherwise it would just degrade into "what if's" where Malack might actually be a half-celestial spy that's leading a good organization attempting to overthrow Tarquin, or something else equally ridiculous.

Malack runs an evil empire. He's evil.

He's also really, really likeable. It's okay to like an evil person. If evil people weren't likable, they would never get anywhere.

And what are your opinions on Malack's intentions and character so far?

Well, this is pure speculation because we really don't have enough to go on, but I suspect that he's just being a nice guy. One of these guests is the son of his friend, another is that sons girlfriend, and the last is a fellow man of the cloth. Why wouldn't he show them respect? They aren't actively working against each other (yet), so why not be friendly until then?

I suspect Malack has good intentions towards Durkon, Haley and Elan.

PirateMonk

2010-12-16, 10:22 PM

Ranzear

2010-12-16, 10:24 PM

Malack's comment about Nergal and other deities associated with death being Neutral solidified him as such with me.

Not to start the whole moral relativism debate again, but I really do see keeping the world turning with controlled warfare as fairly 'neutral', since it prevents needless outright bloodshed (See: Tarquin's comment about how many more would have died if he hadn't arranged the sabotage of the defenses holding off the empire of tears). It's closer to 'Greater good' than 'for the evulz', which is why Malack being LN or TN doesn't go the wrong way with me, or at the very least that is how a real Whatever/Neutral should see the scheme.

Dr.Epic

2010-12-16, 10:49 PM

Obviously one shouldn't be too credulous toward Tarquin's claims, but continuous warfare seems to be the continent's natural state. Is there any reason to think what they are doing is causing more death than if the leading powers had something to gain from fighting each other beyond a smokescreen?

Yeah I know there seems to be constant warfare on the continent, but he is extorting this for his own profit while others die.

Swordpriest

2010-12-16, 10:54 PM

Obviously one shouldn't be too credulous toward Tarquin's claims, but continuous warfare seems to be the continent's natural state. Is there any reason to think what they are doing is causing more death than if the leading powers had something to gain from fighting each other beyond a smokescreen?

That may be true, but there's an ancient saying on this subject -- specifically, "two wrongs don't make a right." :smallwink:

Gift Jeraff

2010-12-16, 11:02 PM

Obviously one shouldn't be too credulous toward Tarquin's claims, but continuous warfare seems to be the continent's natural state. Is there any reason to think what they are doing is causing more death than if the leading powers had something to gain from fighting each other beyond a smokescreen?
Their nations have obviously evil domestic laws and customs, so even if the warfare is beyond their control, they can still simply, say, get rid of the laws that make people fight to the death for petty reasons.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-16, 11:14 PM

Their nations have obviously evil domestic and customs, so even if the warfare is beyond their control, they can still simply, say, get rid of the laws that make people fight to the death for petty reasons.

It's not as simple as you make it sound, getting rid of a custom or a social norm. People see it as normal an generally don't want to change it. Tarquin wants the people to be satisfie an not to incite rebellion. Suddenly changing the laws to a new social norm that the public doesn't like is a goo way to start a coup.

PirateMonk

2010-12-16, 11:16 PM

Yeah I know there seems to be constant warfare on the continent, but he is extorting this for his own profit while others die.

Profiting off a bad situation while not making it worse and perhaps incidentally making it worse doesn't seem particularly evil, particularly when compared to Tarquin's other actions.

That may be true, but there's an ancient saying on this subject -- specifically, "two wrongs don't make a right." :smallwink:

Tarquin is merely making no attempt to repair the singular wrong, not adding his own. Well, there is the slavery, gladiatorial combat, and burning people to death, but that's beyond the scope of the original comment.

Their nations have obviously evil domestic and customs, so even if the warfare is beyond their control, they can still simply, say, get rid of the laws that make people fight to the death for petty reasons.

Again, Tarquin is clearly evil, but it's not clear that his scheme is one of the more evil things he is doing.

Is this getting too close to Morally Justified territory?

Aruius

2010-12-16, 11:30 PM

Agreed - but Malack has went further than to "not be bothered by evil". Instead, he furthers it by assisting Tarquin in running the empire.

We have no evidence to suggest that Malack has any involvement in running the empire. All we have in that regard is an image of Malack fighting Nale's Cronies. For all we know he could just be there for show. Tarquin also refers to Malack as an old travelling companion, which suggests that Malack isn't there for immense power, he's there to help a friend. Thats not exactly an evil characteristic. More neutral in my opinion.

No, because the OotS has demostrated that it is containing Belkar's evil, while Malack has not demonstrated that he is trying to make the kingdom less evil.

Like you said, we have no evidence to show otherwise, but lets look at it through a lawful neutral lens: First off, Tarquin is too strong to try to contain his evil actions. Secondly, Tarquin has some mad Charisma scores, and as a neutral character, I imagine you're more likely to be swayed by a persuasive argument from Tarquin. He does want to end all the fighting after all... Thirdly, Tarquin is a friend. The lawful in him would not betray a friend, and the neutral allows him to look the other way at some of Tarquin's less than honorable actions

He's also really, really likeable. It's okay to like an evil person. If evil people weren't likable, they would never get anywhere.
I agree, he is really really likeable. I also agree that Malack is more than likely evil, however in the spirit of a lively and entertaining discussion, I present and entertain the ideas above as a slightly plausible, though unlikely, theory.

(Edited for Word Choice)

Bulzeeb

2010-12-16, 11:59 PM

We have no evidence to suggest that Malack has any involvement in running the empire. All we have in that regard is an image of Malack fighting Nale's Cronies. For all we know he could just be there for show. Tarquin also refers to Malack as an old travelling companion, which suggests that Malack isn't there for immense power, he's there to help a friend. Thats not exactly an evil characteristic. More neutral in my opinion.
I don't see how you could really argue that Malack is just hanging around the EoB without being involved in it. It's very heavily implied that Malack is one of the six people who are truly in power. He's the Empress of Blood's adviser, placing him in the obvious position for manipulator (which he has demonstrated directly), and has some official administrative power as minister. Tarquin's old adventuring party had six people, all of whom are needed to run the three factions, as each faction has two partners. The only alternative is that Tarquin pulled some other person who has yet to be shown doing any manipulation to be his partner, a secret which has very little dramatic value.

It's pretty clear that Malack has significant pull in the running of the EoB, so the argument still stands. Not that I necessarily believe that allowing cultural customs to run their course is evil, mind you. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty much certain that Malack is one of the manipulators.

Kichiku

2010-12-17, 12:05 AM

Based on the few strips that feature him, I have grown to like Malack as a character. Quite a bit actually, he's one of my favorites. However, though he is supposedly evil, I have seen little evidence to that point in his actual character, beyond the fact the he seems to be an "evil" cleric, wears black, is Albino, is in league with Tarquin, and is on the "Evil" side of the OOTS Character poster.

Well, merely the fact that he's on the "evil" side of the poster doesn't necressarilly give a hint about his true alignament (at least one character on the side of evil have had a good-ish alignmanet and there's probably several there that could be passed off as neutral as well), it merely means that he may at some point have to oppose/thwart the Order (though even then, a few of those ont he side of Evil have helped the order, msot noteably MitD)...

So now I ask, what do you think about Malack? Is he being kind to the Order because he believes them to be evil? Or does he know that they are heroes (Tarquin found out)?

Being nice to people strictly based on sharing the same aligament doesn't quite seem to be it to me - he just have no reasons to be outright hostile to them for now and add to this the fact that he has become friends with Durkon and there's even more reason for his nice behaviour as of now.

If the Order and Tarquin come to blows, do you think he'll betray Durkon?

Hmm, that depends on how the situation develops, I'd say. If this results in a big fight or something and he believes that the Order started it, then maybe. Or if Nale appears and somehow makes it appear as if the Order are in leauge with him, then maybe as well. However., if not, well... It'd depend on, althorugh I believe he mgiht side with Tarquin, choosing their long friendship over a hasty relationship made over the course of a few days.

And what are your opinions on Malack's intentions and character so far?

I'm curious to see what the forums has to say.

My guess so far is that he's Neutral. If not that, then he's (well, duh) another of the Giant's attempts at an Affably Evil character.

Warren Dew

2010-12-17, 12:23 AM

On the original question, I don't think we have enough data yet.

No, because the OotS has demostrated that it is containing Belkar's evil, while Malack has not demonstrated that he is trying to make the kingdom less evil.
The Order of the Stick is on balance not just not evil, though; it's thought to be good rather than neutral. Malack might not have to go as far merely to be neutral.

I do think his acquiescence in the Empire likely rules out a good alignment, barring major surprises.

Hawkfrost000

2010-12-17, 12:39 AM

DeltaEmil

2010-12-17, 01:05 AM

the empire itself, if finished. will drastically reduce the bodycount in the western continent. How long will this empire keep the peace after Tarquin croaks (whever that will be)?

Silverraptor

2010-12-17, 01:06 AM

Drops this here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html) Goes off whistling.

Bulzeeb

2010-12-17, 02:39 AM

i am continually confounded by peoples insistence on the fact that Tarquin's empire is evil.

he himself is evil but that does not mean that any of his associates or the organisation that he runs must also be evil. that is guilt by association.

the empire itself, if finished. will drastically reduce the bodycount in the western continent.

using criminals for labor does not mean you are evil, it means you are Lawful and you uphold the laws of the establishment. :smallannoyed: these laws while draconian are not evil of themselves.

DM
The laws themselves are fine, but the punishment is obviously (and humorously) excessive. I don't see how life imprisonment/death is an appropriate or ethical punishment for not having proper entry papers.

How long will this empire keep the peace after Tarquin croaks (whever that will be)?

A good question. It doesn't seem that Tarquin and co. have a distinct plan for after they all die, similar to how Alexander the Great's plans did not include successors, which subsequently led to the fractionation of his empire, and violence. In both cases, concern for the long-term well being of the organizations is of lower priority than adhering to self-centered desires.

Forum Explorer

2010-12-17, 03:00 AM

I think he is either LN or NE. Why? I have no idea just a gut instinct.

factotum

2010-12-17, 03:08 AM

I don't think there's any doubt he's Evil, personally, but does that mean he's supposed to lock up the Order and cackle maniacally as his summoned undead minions arrive to eat them slowly? That's ridiculous. The D&D alignment system only has nine distinct alignments, and a third of those are evil, so a significant fraction of the world's population must perforce also be evil--they can't all be cackling supervillains!

Velaryon

2010-12-17, 04:15 AM

Not being bothered by evil doesnt make you evil. By that logic the whole order is evil for withstanding Belkar.

There's a difference between "Not being bothered by evil" and "Actively furthering an evil empire," though.

He's also really, really likeable. It's okay to like an evil person. If evil people weren't likable, they would never get anywhere.

Unless they're Xykon. Or even Tsukiko perhaps. Though your definition of "likable" may vary, neither seems to have much in the way of friends or people who think well of them.

i am continually confounded by peoples insistence on the fact that Tarquin's empire is evil.

he himself is evil but that does not mean that any of his associates or the organisation that he runs must also be evil. that is guilt by association.

the empire itself, if finished. will drastically reduce the bodycount in the western continent.

using criminals for labor does not mean you are evil, it means you are Lawful and you uphold the laws of the establishment. :smallannoyed: these laws while draconian are not evil of themselves.

DM

Slavery. Gladiatorial combat. Condemning people to life imprisonment or death simply for entering the city without proper documentation. Killing a newscaster for identifying the (rather obvious) ninja death squad. Nope, nothing evil going on here. :smalltongue:

Kish

2010-12-17, 06:05 AM

the empire itself, if finished. will drastically reduce the bodycount in the western continent.
The one and only bit of evidence for this claim is "the monstrously evil Tarquin said so."

Ranzear

2010-12-17, 07:42 AM

Drops this here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html) Goes off whistling.
Except at the time Malack thought Elan was Nale, whom killed three of his children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html).

I think thats a fairly good reason for Neutral or Evil to feed someone to a dragon.

Dalek-K

2010-12-17, 08:05 AM

Except at the time Malack thought Elan was Nale, whom killed three of his children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html).

I think thats a fairly good reason for Neutral or Evil to feed someone to a dragon.

Or good.

Hey being ate by a dragon seems like a fair death penalty (which I think a good person can back btw). It would be fast and only hurt for the first few seconds... Well unless it was purposely made to last a long time.

If O'Chul had kids and you killed them what do you think he would do to you (lets say the law is he gets to pick any punishment) :smalleek:

IndigoFenix

2010-12-17, 12:44 PM

I'm guessing that he's Lawful Neutral, or at least that he thinks he is - otherwise, why go through all the trouble of arguing that his god isn't evil, rather than simply saying "Yeah, I'm evil, but I like you" the way that Tarquin would? Personally, I think that he's meant to be a subversion of the "obviously Evil" stereotype - he's a reptile with red eyes and pale skin who worships a god of Death. It's so obvious that he's evil based on appearance that I think it's pretty unlikely for him to actually turn out evil.

Then again, Nale was a twin brother who had a goatee, and he turned out evil. Guess we'll have to wait and see whether or not he betrays the Order later, and if so, for what reasons.

Timberboar

2010-12-17, 12:47 PM

There's a difference between "Not being bothered by evil" and "Actively furthering an evil empire," though.

By "evil empire," do you mean the right and lawful governing body?

I take that as evidence of his position on the law/chaos axis, not the good/evil one.

... Though, I personally believe him to be both lawful and evil, so the point may very well be moot.

Occasional Sage

2010-12-17, 12:49 PM

Except at the time Malack thought Elan was Nale, whom killed three of his children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html).

I think thats a fairly good reason for Neutral or Evil to feed someone to a dragon.

You're skipping over the "If you're not Nale then you're useless to us, so let's feed you to the dragon" half of that.

ETA:

My guess so far is that he's Neutral. If not that, then he's (well, duh) another of the Giant's attempts at an Affably Evil character.

Using the word "attempts" suggests that you think he's not successful. Care to elaborate? If it's more than a one-post thing, perhaps a new thread?

cho_j

2010-12-17, 03:03 PM

It is important to remember that he is part of a group whose soul duty is a secret plan to keep the various nations of the Western Continent in a continuous state of war thus sacrificing countless lives pointlessly while then live like kings, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the guy a little.

Two things about this. The first is a silly little grammar nitpick, but you seem to have confused soul and sole. However, I enjoy the idea of a soul duty! Sounds like it would make for a good anime...

Anyway. The real point I wanted to make is that I agree that Malack is, unquestionably, helping Evil along. I think that supporting that Evil unknowingly and/or out of desperation does not necessarily make one Evil. But Malack has options and knowledge.

Additionally, I was quite convinced of Tarquin's evil long before he made it clear to Elan; for me, it was because of the skeletons in the ball pit in #750, and the slaves we saw even earlier, and little things like that. It would be hypocritical of me to not judge Malack on these things, too. He and Tarquin BOTH built this horrific empire. I think that makes him just as Evil as Tarquin is. Sad, because I like Malack, but I also like Redcloak. Shrug. Liking someone hardly changes their alignment.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-17, 03:22 PM

Two things about this. The first is a silly little grammar nitpick, but you seem to have confused soul and sole. However, I enjoy the idea of a soul duty! Sounds like it would make for a good anime...

Anyway. The real point I wanted to make is that I agree that Malack is, unquestionably, helping Evil along. I think that supporting that Evil unknowingly and/or out of desperation does not necessarily make one Evil. But Malack has options and knowledge.

Additionally, I was quite convinced of Tarquin's evil long before he made it clear to Elan; for me, it was because of the skeletons in the ball pit in #750, and the slaves we saw even earlier, and little things like that. It would be hypocritical of me to not judge Malack on these things, too. He and Tarquin BOTH built this horrific empire. I think that makes him just as Evil as Tarquin is. Sad, because I like Malack, but I also like Redcloak. Shrug. Liking someone hardly changes their alignment.

Yes but I don't think Malack is neutral just because I like him. I like Tarquin and redcloak as well while admitting that they are both evil. The thing with Malack is that I haven't seen him perform any evil acts. Ever but people are so ready to assume him guilty by association. Malak argues that his god is one of neutrality and would logically, share his god's views o the world. He has not participated in the slave trade or even the consumption of sentient creatures during the banquet. The only justifibly evil act I've heard pronounced against him is still wanting to feed Elan to the dragon but honestly, I don't think he bought into the twin story seeing as Tarquin never saw fit to tell him and come on, it sounds pretty lame. Even if he did it on purpose it's one act in a moment of stress (if you thought your children's murderer had the opportunity to face justice) that I consider pretty minor and should not have an overly huge bearing on his alignment. The reason I do think Malack stays with Tarquin is both out of loyalty for his party member and Tarquin is considerably Malack's best hope for vengence on Nale. These reasons seem more neutral to me than evil so in the absence of any truly evil actions and a handful of neutral ones, I vote LN.

TreesOfDeath

2010-12-17, 04:37 PM

He might be neutrual. He might be evil. He was willing to kill the order, he helped runt he empire buit what else could he do?

He was on the evil side of the poster, making me wonder if the order will fight him (which is likely if they don't go along with Tarquin.

Its a little too early to judge yet, but I guess their is a good possability that hes evil

pendell

2010-12-17, 05:38 PM

I came to this thread believing he was LN. Having read it, I have changed my mind. I believe , by D&D definition, he is LE.

Evidence. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html)

Malack is willing to feed innocent travelers to a dragon simply because they are not of use to him. This is an actively evil act.

Evidence 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Malack has participated in betrayal and murder of a patsy 'king' at least once.

I don't see how that can be anything but an evil act , by the Book of Vile Darkness.

Neutral means 'does roughly the same good and evil'. What good acts has Malack done that might counterbalance these evil acts?

There is SOME evidence for neutrality, however:

1) He finds displays of force unproductive, "Distasteful at best" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html).

2) He serves a neutral god, which implies he has to be within one step of said deity. Of course, if Nergal is true neutral, that won't help much at all.

3) Malack wouldn't eat at Tarquin's banquet. It is POSSIBLE that this is becuase he will not eat evil food. As seen in SOD, there is actual Evil food and Evil spices. Presumably good creatures cannot eat it. IF this is his reason -- and not because he has physical dietary reasons or because the speculation that he's really Xykon's love child is true -- then this might be evidence for neutrality.

Supporting an evil Empire is not necessarily evidence of evil alignment; it depends what the alternatives are. Thufir Hawat in Dune serves Baron Vladimir Harkonnen after the Atreides are killed off, but he is not himself evil. He just prefers being a functional mentat with a chance to escape or take revenge on the Harkonnens to being brutally tortured to death.

Also -- does ANYONE in the comic really past the 'neutral' test? As I understand it, the only neutral characters we've seen are Vaarsuvius and Therkla.

I believe Therkla was chaotic neutral because the Giant, in 'Don't split the party' comments, stated that her attempt to bring peace between Kubota and Elan was evidence of a neutral alignment. To her, irreconciliable differences could be solved by having one person leave, and both parties could live happily. Neutral. Trying to strike a livable balance between the evil Kubota and the good Elan.

Maybe. But I find the Giant's words unconvincing. She was an assassin. She became her school valedictorian by murdering the previous holder of the title at graduation. She has murdered unknown numbers of people at Kubota's behest. And on the neutral side of the coin ... she let her infatuation with Elan cloud her judgement and compromise her mission?

As for Vaarsuvius ... that argument has already been made many times and I will not restate it. Suffice it to say that , in-comic, the fiends of the IFCC believe there's a 50% chance they'll get his soul when all's said and done. Ergo, there is a non-zero probability that Vaarsuvius has broken hir alignment, and it will take a LOT of good deeds to allow hir to remain neutral -- both those deeds already done, and those deeds that will be done when the fiends collect their time.

Bottom line: By the rules of D&D no character in the comic could be neutral, even those explicitly declared to be neutral by the author. Except the trees, of course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Burner28

2010-12-17, 05:40 PM

What about Julia Greenhilt?

I believe Therkla was chaotic neutral because the Giant, in 'Don't split the party' comments, stated that her attempt to bring peace between Kubota and Elan was evidence of a neutral alignment. To her, irreconciliable differences could be solved by having one person leave, and both parties could live happily. Neutral. Trying to strike a livable balance between the evil Kubota and the good Elan.

Maybe. But I find the Giant's words unconvincing. She was an assassin. She became her school valedictorian by murdering the previous holder of the title at graduation. She has murdered unknown numbers of people at Kubota's behest. And on the neutral side of the coin ... she let her infatuation with Elan cloud her judgement and compromise her mission?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Okay, how the heck is Therkla Chaotic? She is definetly not free spirited, nor rebellious and definetly not resentful of authority figures.:smallannoyed:

Deliverance

2010-12-17, 07:01 PM

Evidence. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html)

Malack is willing to feed innocent travelers to a dragon simply because they are not of use to him. This is an actively evil act.

Objection!

Malack is willing to feed a traveler, who is either Nale or if his far out 'twin-brother' explanation is true of no use whatsoever, and the traveler's sidekick to a dragon.

So he is willing to feed potentially innocent travelers (whom he has no reason to believe innocent - if Malack shaves with Occam's razor he believes that the most likely reason that his prisoner looks exactly like Nale is that he is Nale, disavowals to the contrary) to a dragon in lawful execution.

The prisons would be empty and the gallows go hungry if proclaiming "it was my identical twin brother (who was separated from me at birth so it is very likely that you don't know of my existence even if you know him) who did it" was accepted as innocence.

It may still be an evil act - it is certainly not a good act - but it is the sort of choice that any person in a position of authority might make regardless of alignment unless he was bound by a code to behave in a certain way, and more likely if the person had a personal grudge against the target as Malack has, so making that choice is not indicative of Malacks alignment.

Your example #2 is much better. Malack participated in deliberate betrayal as part of Tarquin's plans, no two ways around it.

Ultimately, we just have too little information about Malack to judge. The few things we have either seen him do or know he has done are consistent with just about all alignments since, as the D&D alignment rules state: "few people are completely consistent" and we don't even have enough information to spot consistency if he was the odd-man-out. :smallconfused:

Still, I guess most of us would put him as (lawful to neutral)(neutal to evil). My personal preference is lawful neutral since I tend to view neutrality in good/evil as a lack of commitment to either good or evil for its own sake and to be the rule rather than the exception .(Strangely enough I tend to regard chaotic/lawful as the rule and neutral as the exception on the law-chaos scale).

In other words, I expect a D&D character to be Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral until I have seen him frequently commit either good or neutral acts that aren't consistent with just following the path of least resistance.

fimzo

2010-12-17, 07:29 PM

Bottom line: By the rules of D&D no character in the comic could be neutral, even those explicitly declared to be neutral by the author. Except the trees, of course.

Durkon begs to differ. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html)

Closer to the main point, I like Malack, as he seems to be evil (or at least neutral with evil tendencies), but kind and otherwise not-evil to people such as Durkon. Also, he provides an opportunity to give more focus to Durkon, which hasn't been done nearly as much for him as for the other PCs.

cho_j

2010-12-17, 08:13 PM

Yes but I don't think Malack is neutral just because I like him. I like Tarquin and redcloak as well while admitting that they are both evil.

Okay, I didn't mean to offend or say the only reason for believing he was neutral was because he was likeable. It was just that Dr. Epic had mentioned liking Malack, even knowing he was a villain, and I was really more throwing my lot in with him than against anyone who has reasoning for his being Neutral. Apologies for the ambiguity, and speaking of your reasoning...

The thing with Malack is that I haven't seen him perform any evil acts. Ever but people are so ready to assume him guilty by association. Malak argues that his god is one of neutrality and would logically, share his god's views o the world. He has not participated in the slave trade or even the consumption of sentient creatures during the banquet. The only justifibly evil act I've heard pronounced against him is still wanting to feed Elan to the dragon but honestly, I don't think he bought into the twin story seeing as Tarquin never saw fit to tell him and come on, it sounds pretty lame. Even if he did it on purpose it's one act in a moment of stress (if you thought your children's murderer had the opportunity to face justice) that I consider pretty minor and should not have an overly huge bearing on his alignment. The reason I do think Malack stays with Tarquin is both out of loyalty for his party member and Tarquin is considerably Malack's best hope for vengence on Nale. These reasons seem more neutral to me than evil so in the absence of any truly evil actions and a handful of neutral ones, I vote LN.

So, that's all very good reasoning. I see no specific evidence in the comic to contradict it, either. However, I happen to have another interpretation of the same data. And that interpretation is basically the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Sure, the only on-screen Evil act has been his wanting to feed Elan to the Empress (and honestly, I think that he probably still thought Elan was Nale at that point— "an evil twin? really?" is pretty much what I would be saying in his position). But you have to accept the fact that he IS part of an evil empire. He IS one of six people ruling through puppet governments and having slaves and so on. Did he send the dragoons to crush the Free City of Doom? No. Did he catch the slaves and light them on fire? No. As a high up member of the Empire, did he probably discuss with Tarquin how best to deal with the Free City of Doom (especially since sending the dragoons was part of a larger scheme)? Yes. Has he been served by slaves and benefitting from slave labor and generally endorsing the system? Yes.

Now, I fully believe he could be working with his party on this rule the continent plot out of loyalty. But he still IS working on it. As a result, I personally find it hard to call him Neutral. Maybe we've read the alignment listings differently; it happens all the time! I'm in a campaign right now where a friend and I are both playing Chaotic Good characters, and those characters each have a very, very different way of being Chaotic Good.

I'm not a thousand percent dedicated to my belief that he's Evil, though. Heck, in the end, I'm just waiting for the Giant to let us know for sure in one way or another. But in the mean time, I like debating things. :smallamused:

Occasional Sage

2010-12-17, 08:29 PM

...the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

For this phrase, you win.

cho_j

2010-12-17, 08:37 PM

For this phrase, you win.

Thank you, Sage! :)

KillItWithFire

2010-12-17, 11:43 PM

So, that's all very good reasoning. I see no specific evidence in the comic to contradict it, either. However, I happen to have another interpretation of the same data. And that interpretation is basically the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Ok I can see where you're comming from here, that the lack of evil deeds doesn't make him non-evil. If we look at it that way then it is difficult to argue on Malack as little evidence has been givin on him and that that has has been givin in pretty tame situations. It's difficult for me to see Malack as evil simply because of his involvement with the EoB. The way I see it, the empire itself is not evil so aiing in running it as an avisor is not evil. Tarquin doesn't have to heed Malacks advice. If Malack had come up with this whole 3 empire's plan I'd be more willing to throw him in evil, but I think a neutral character can certainly be a follower in this plan who restrains from beccomming too heaviliy involved in some of the more.... questionable actions.

Evidence 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Malack has participated in betrayal and murder of a patsy 'king' at least once.

I'm only seeing Tarquin, Miron, and the empress mentioned in this betrayal.

Shale

2010-12-17, 11:51 PM

the empire itself is not evil

Yes, it practices the rare morally-neutral forms of slavery, torture and execution by bloodsport for paperwork violations.

Warren Dew

2010-12-17, 11:57 PM

Evidence 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Malack has participated in betrayal and murder of a patsy 'king' at least once.

Where is Malack in that strip?

cho_j

2010-12-18, 12:10 AM

Yes, it practices the rare morally-neutral forms of slavery, torture and execution by bloodsport for paperwork violations.

Well put, Shale. KillItWithFire, did you that the empire's policies are not evil, or that its citizens aren't? Because I'm sure the latter is true; an entire country will not have the same alignment. But I think it's a bit silly to suggest that the policies of the empire, all the slavery and so on, are not Evil with a capital E.

Kichiku

2010-12-18, 01:17 AM

Using the word "attempts" suggests that you think he's not successful. Care to elaborate? If it's more than a one-post thing, perhaps a new thread?

No, if anything I'm merely refering to that he (The Giant) seems to play around with lots of different molds for the characters he creates (sometimes with unexpected results, as he implied that the case was with Miko). Like, both Tarquin and Malack (if he is indeed evil and Affably such) I see as different attepts - molds, if you so will, at Affably Evil characters, but different ones as such (Tarqui's mold is "suave" overall, whereas Malacks is simply polite/nice). If you get what I mean? :smallfrown: :smallconfused:

Hawkfrost000

2010-12-18, 01:36 AM

The laws themselves are fine, but the punishment is obviously (and humorously) excessive. I don't see how life imprisonment/death is an appropriate or ethical punishment for not having proper entry papers.

so just walking into a country without papers, being heavily armed and willingly disturbing the peace is just fine is it? if these people were in the US today they would probably be charged with espionage, which does carry the death penalty in some cases.

A good question. It doesn't seem that Tarquin and co. have a distinct plan for after they all die, similar to how Alexander the Great's plans did not include successors, which subsequently led to the fractionation of his empire, and violence. In both cases, concern for the long-term well being of the organizations is of lower priority than adhering to self-centered desires.

given that they are all quite high level adventurers they may not even plan on dying at all.

DM

Aruius

2010-12-18, 01:49 AM

Well put, Shale. KillItWithFire, did you that the empire's policies are not evil, or that its citizens aren't? Because I'm sure the latter is true; an entire country will not have the same alignment. But I think it's a bit silly to suggest that the policies of the empire, all the slavery and so on, are not Evil with a capital E.

Let me answer for you. I know KillItWithFire personally, and we have talked about the issues surrounding the EoB. The slavery, arena fighting, and bloodsport are yes, VERY evil to us. But back then, Tarquin would have been a model King. Sure, there are some problems (There was with every king) such as the execution of the announcer. The slaves are prisoners of war, and back then, that's what you would do with them, put them to work. Just look at ancient Rome with their Gladiatorial battles, and to all of Europe and the Americas with the African slave trade. Were the Romans Evil with a capital E for the gladiators? Was the whole world evil with a capital E because it engaged in slavery?

These "Evil" actions are cultural institutions used to impose order and keep people happy. And if you look at the parade strip, the common populace seems quite content with their rule. It is only the slaves and the unfortunate who divulge state secrets that are unhappy with Tarquin at all.

So with this in mind, is The EoB truly as evil as we say it is?

Disclaimer: I DO NOT in ANY WAY support the enslavement, imprisonment, or forced fight-to-the-death policies that Tarquin employs. Yes, I have morals. I'm just saying that historically, these things were common and not evil, they were cultural institutions.

We also have to remember the Order are foreigners to this land, its a new continent entirely, a different culture surely exists, however drastically different it is from what we've seen.

Bulzeeb

2010-12-18, 02:38 AM

given that they are all quite high level adventurers they may not even plan on dying at all.

Tarquin seems to believe his evil empire's defeat at the hands of some sole rebel (peasant or son) is an inevitability. But I believe this tangent is leading off-topic.

so just walking into a country without papers, being heavily armed and willingly disturbing the peace is just fine is it?

First off, they were not charged with "being heavily armed and willingly disturbing the peace", so you can't make that spin. It is obvious that the police were checking the IDs of everyone in the bar, irrespective of their involvement with the brawl, as it should be remembered that Belkar was completely uninvolved with the fight. Hell, they weren't even indicted with "not being registered"; the legal charge they were presented with was, in exact words, "The defendants are accused of failure to produce ID." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html)Somehow, I don't consider being sentenced to death for forgetting my driver's license anywhere near appropriate or ethical.

Secondly, you can't just compare our world and theirs, as last I checked there weren't many ways one could magically waltz into another nation. Arranging for travel with any reputable business would ensure that you were well prepared legally for immigration. Airlines don't even let you on their planes without proper passports or similar documents.

But it doesn't really matter, as the empire is canonically evil. Every judgment made by the characters in-universe explicitly state that the Empire of Blood is absolutely evil. This includes Tarquin, who considers it by his own words a "wicked empire", and would have the most incentive to spin it more favorably, which he could easily do. The personal interpretations of both you and me of the policies of the EoB are irrelevant and do not supersede the morality of the OotS universe.

In fact, this allows me to segue into my overall judgment on the topic. I am in fact in agreement with you that the support of the EoB and other territories is not sufficient to consider Malack evil.

It seems what people consider to be most evil about Malack is his utter blasé attitude towards death and suffering. He doesn't care if Elan is eaten, he doesn't care if hundreds or thousands of people die and suffer. However, it should be noted that in these cases, Malack is not aiding the efforts but merely allowing them to continue. He was willing to allow the Empress to eat Elan, not kill Elan himself, and he is willing to allow the brutal customs of the EoB (AKA the Duchy of Terror, the Barren Baronies, Tyrinania, not likely ever a nice place) to continue taking place. It seems to me that there are exactly three possible actions one could do in response to these situations: a Good action would be to actively work to stop such death/suffering, and an Evil action would be actively perpetuating them. Neutral? Just letting things be, which is exactly what Malack does.

Such a philosophy could be further applied to his overall interaction with the rest of his former party led by Tarquin. The betrayals and topplings would not likely be stopped by anything Malack could do. Had he declined any involvement, it is likely that Tarquin could have found a sixth person to live like gods with him. Had he tried to stop them directly, they could probably have easily overpowered him. A good act would be to try anyway, an evil act would be to implement even eviler ideas, and a neutral act would be to simply go along.

Edit:

Let me answer for you. I know KillItWithFire personally, and we have talked about the issues surrounding the EoB. The slavery, arena fighting, and bloodsport are yes, VERY evil to us. But back then, Tarquin would have been a model King. Sure, there are some problems (There was with every king) such as the execution of the announcer. The slaves are prisoners of war, and back then, that's what you would do with them, put them to work. Just look at ancient Rome with their Gladiatorial battles, and to all of Europe and the Americas with the African slave trade. Were the Romans Evil with a capital E for the gladiators? Was the whole world evil with a capital E because it engaged in slavery?

These "Evil" actions are cultural institutions used to impose order and keep people happy. And if you look at the parade strip, the common populace seems quite content with their rule. It is only the slaves and the unfortunate who divulge state secrets that are unhappy with Tarquin at all.

So with this in mind, is The EoB truly as evil as we say it is?

Disclaimer: I DO NOT in ANY WAY support the enslavement, imprisonment, or forced fight-to-the-death policies that Tarquin employs. Yes, I have morals. I'm just saying that historically, these things were common and not evil, they were cultural institutions.

We also have to remember the Order are foreigners to this land, its a new continent entirely, a different culture surely exists, however drastically different it is from what we've seen.

I only noticed this post after I posted my response to DM, and since in that response I noted that the EoB is canonically evil, I feel I should respond to it. This post I mean. Note once again that I consider whether the policies of the EoB would be evil in ancient societies to be largely irrelevant, not to mention needlessly difficult to debate. So instead I will discuss the attitudes of people in-comic to the policies in greater detail.

There have been no individuals not under the threat of death to judge the EoB to be good. None of the parade attenders made a judgment about the parade, and could not be seen directly, and no other members of the general populace have been shown. They may be distracted by the bloodshed of the arena, but that is not the same as happy.

In contrast, let us look at the people discontent with the policies of the EoB. For the sake of including the cultural factor, I'll exclude the Order of the Stick. The slaves and gladiators are obviously not in favor of the policies, having faced the injustice of them directly. Judy Morningstar, one of the news anchor for the parade, called the regime fascist. Lord Tyrinar "the bloody" would have preferred a democracy. And most incriminating of all, as I mentioned in my response to DM, Tarquin himself believes the empire to be wicked.

Of course, I should remind you at this point that the theoretical evilness of the EoB does not necessarily cause Malack to be evil, for reasons detailed earlier in my post.

Deatheater

2010-12-18, 03:12 AM

Let me answer for you. I know KillItWithFire personally, and we have talked about the issues surrounding the EoB. The slavery, arena fighting, and bloodsport are yes, VERY evil to us. But back then, Tarquin would have been a model King. Sure, there are some problems (There was with every king) such as the execution of the announcer. The slaves are prisoners of war, and back then, that's what you would do with them, put them to work. Just look at ancient Rome with their Gladiatorial battles, and to all of Europe and the Americas with the African slave trade. Were the Romans Evil with a capital E for the gladiators? Was the whole world evil with a capital E because it engaged in slavery?

These "Evil" actions are cultural institutions used to impose order and keep people happy. And if you look at the parade strip, the common populace seems quite content with their rule. It is only the slaves and the unfortunate who divulge state secrets that are unhappy with Tarquin at all.

So with this in mind, is The EoB truly as evil as we say it is?

Disclaimer: I DO NOT in ANY WAY support the enslavement, imprisonment, or forced fight-to-the-death policies that Tarquin employs. Yes, I have morals. I'm just saying that historically, these things were common and not evil, they were cultural institutions.

Not entirely correct--they are artificial ECONOMIC based institutions that primarily benefited the wealthy privileged. The working-class never benefits from institutionalized slavery for obvious reasons.

Modern people often have a rosey tinted view of the ancient civilizations, equating their military and technological accomplishments with "goodness".

More relevant: The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire are two different animals. Both had slaves, but one relied on slave labor INSTEAD of a strong "yeoman" class. That is a development that ONLY benefits the wealthy.
And even people of the time period--much like people in the Antebellum South-- knew slavery was EVIL--as well as the source of CONSTANT paranoia and fear of the ruling class:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml

"At other times, slaves who were unable to tolerate their conditions assaulted their owners. In the mid-first century AD an anonymous slave murdered his master, a high official in the imperial administration, either because the master had reneged on a promise to set the slave free or because the two were rivals in a sexual intrigue.

The aftermath was disastrous. Roman law required a man's slaves to come to his aid if he were attacked, under penalty of death. The law was enforced against those slaves who had not come to the victim's aid in this case, and all the slaves in the household - allegedly 400 of them - were executed, even though most of them could not possibly have known anything about the murder."

"Happy" yet?

If slavery was as universally culturally accepted in these times as people would like to think, slaves wouldn't have revolted/escaped/etc so many times.

Yes, many of the polices and laws of the Roman Empire --like most empires exploiting people--were evil with a capitol E.

Juggling Goth

2010-12-18, 03:44 AM

Every time somebody argues moral/cultural relativity in a self-consciously quasi-medieval setting with objective moral standards created by modern-day humans, an Evil god kills a flumph.

Aldrakan

2010-12-18, 03:47 AM

It is possible that he actually believes that the three-empire system is better than the alternatives, and is trying to bring stability to the region. When Durkon is surprised that he's not a worshiper of Tiamat one of the reasons he gives is her lack of interest in building a strong government. If everyone he's working with are all evil and the culture of the continent overwhelmingly tends towards evil (which it appears to), it's not surprising that making an empire leads to it being an Evil Empire. Neutral people aren't required to work towards good, after all, and he hasn't been seen doing much to encourage evil acts.

Also Malack seems sort of a nice guy. Tarquin can be charming, but even from the start he never really comes across as a nice, while Malack has been helping Durkon despite having no reason to care at all what happens to this random dwarf.
V and Durkon, who between them are both wise and smart, have been talking to him for while and don't seem to have picked up that kind of vibe, while Haley caught onto Tarquin pretty fast even before he started being blatantly evil.
Wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be evil, of course.

Red XIV

2010-12-18, 03:48 AM

Pyrite

2010-12-18, 05:18 AM

I have to agree with the "Malack is probably Lawful Neutral" side. To call him evil, I'd need to see a lot more evidence of his willingness to hurt people for profit or pleasure. He's obviously willing to benefit from people being hurt, and that's obviously not a good thing to be doing, but he's really not trying to be good.

I'm often as shocked to find the high standards people want to hold neutral characters to as the low standards they want to hold good characters to.

Tass

2010-12-18, 05:56 AM

I'm often as shocked to find the high standards people want to hold neutral characters to as the low standards they want to hold good characters to.

I agree. What does it actually take to be neutral? If he was actively opposing the cruelties, trying to change the system from within, then people would call him good.

He is not good. He does not go out of his way to "save the world". Does not mean he can't be neutral.

Shale

2010-12-18, 08:24 AM

Pyrite

2010-12-18, 08:35 AM

The problem is that Malack isn't an uninvolved bystander. He is one of the two people who run the empire. "I just work here" doesn't cut it when you're the freaking president of the company (to Tarquin's CEO and chairman of the board, natch).

So? The concept of having a social responsibility to make the world a better place when you find yourself in the position to do so is a concept for Good people, not Neutral people. The most you can expect of someone Neutral aligned is that they'll have some compunction against hurting people unnecessarily.

Shale

2010-12-18, 08:38 AM

Pyrite

2010-12-18, 08:44 AM

Deliverance

2010-12-18, 09:26 AM

Actively setting up and running an empire where slavery, torture and execution for minor offenses are commonplace is not merely failing to take an opportunity to improve things. It might be neutral to walk by a burning building without trying to help the people inside, but not if you set the fire yourself.

Unfortunately, if setting up and running a state with many evil laws is something done only by the evil and setting up and running one with many good laws is something done only by the good, that pretty much leaves those who are neutral on the good/evil D&D alignment scale out of a job when it comes to setting up and running countries, which is pretty weird given the existence of a lawful neutral alignment.

In fact, a lawful neutral person is (by definition), the person who overwhelmingly acts as law, tradition, or a personal code of conduct directs him. If the region a lawful neutral person was brought up in and lives in has traditionally had slavery, torture, and executions as part of the legal code, the person is likely to be in favour of slavery, torture, and executions and work for them being included in any state he helps set up or runs unless he has personal reasons not to. Likewise, if he was brought up in and lives in a region that has traditionally not had any of those things, he is likely to work against them in setting up and running a new state unless he has personal reasons for them to be.

Lawful neutral isn't nice or I don't participate in act X because it is morally evil (or good) or I try to balance my good and evil acts on the moral scale - it is the judge, and as a general rule the judge does not make or change the law or tradition, he enforces it whatever it may be.

As stated before in this thread, I don't think we have enough information about Malack to determine his alignment, but what we have seen is certainly not something that would be a problem for a lawful neutral alignment and has some things going for it (his talk about death and neutrality and his support for a strong central government, though both or either might be a ruse).

KillItWithFire

2010-12-18, 10:16 AM

Well said deliverence. I believe it was Cho asking for clairification on what I ment went I said the empire is not evil. I was talking about the citizens as a whole there but thinking about it now, Malack is the theological an spiritual advisor to the EoB. Tarquin seems to handle the whole laws and martial enforcment bit. That being said, all we know of Malack's policies is that he doesn't actively stop Tarquin's actions. While this is certainly cause enough not to place him in good, it's no reason to place him in evil. Malack's position has nothing to with the slavery or the torture.

Bulzeeb

2010-12-18, 11:15 AM

KillItWithFire

2010-12-18, 11:40 AM

Don't forget that we have no evidence that Malack actually helped establish the policies of the EoB. We know for a fact that different partners have worked the different areas, and we have no idea how the laws of the area were before Malack worked in the EoB.

In addition, it's not necessarily true that Tarquin and co. even establish policy in their regions. They've only been directly observed influencing military, not legal policies. What place do a clerical minister and a general have in law, anyway?

So once again, Malack may not be not actively establishing policies, but merely allowing previously established policies to continue, at least based on what we've currently seen.

Would just like to add to this that Malack's role is liste when we first meet him as a spiritual advisor. So unless the EoB is performing these evil ruling methods in the name of Nergal or Timat I doubt Malack had a hand in them.

Burner28

2010-12-18, 11:47 AM

Unfortunately, if setting up and running a state with many evil laws is something done only by the evil and setting up and running one with many good laws is something done only by the good, that pretty much leaves those who are neutral on the good/evil D&D alignment scale out of a job when it comes to setting up and running countries, which is pretty weird given the existence of a lawful neutral alignment.

Neutral characters run neutral laws obviously:smalltongue:

n fact, a lawful neutral person is (by definition), the person who overwhelmingly acts as law, tradition, or a personal code of conduct directs him. If the region a lawful neutral person was brought up in and lives in has traditionally had slavery, torture, and executions as part of the legal code, the person is likely to be in favour of slavery, torture, and executions and work for them being included in any state he helps set up or runs unless he has personal reasons not to. Likewise, if he was brought up in and lives in a region that has traditionally not had any of those things, he is likely to work against them in setting up and running a new state unless he has personal reasons for them to be.

But the problem being is that if said "lawful neutral" character is willing to be in favour of evil laws becuase he has been growing up with them, then the difference between Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral is meaningless as there are many LE characters that justifies their atrocities by saying they serve the law. Besides everyone has a reason for doing evil things but few (including animals) have an excuse not to ping as Evil. The Lawful "Neutral" character that you described is actually acting more like an Evil character

Lawful neutral isn't nice or I don't participate in act X because it is morally evil (or good) or I try to balance my good and evil acts on the moral scale - it is the judge, and as a general rule the judge does not make or change the law or tradition, he enforces it whatever it may be.

Maybe but really, they are still responsible for the Evil deeds they do. Lawful Evil is the alignment that cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. And supporting slavery and torture is as far away as caring about freedom, dignity or life as you can get and not compatible with a Neutral alignment at all

Aldrakan

2010-12-18, 12:32 PM

Maybe but really, they are still responsible for the Evil deeds they do. Lawful Evil is the alignment that cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. And supporting slavery and torture is as far away as caring about freedom, dignity or life as you can get and not compatible with a Neutral alignment at all

Supporting and encouraging maybe not, but tolerating and working with existing evil is entirely compatible. Isn't that the whole point of being neutral? From a moral perspective you don't have to act as a force for good or a force for evil, but are a morally neutral force?

If not, shouldn't it have to work the same way for Good, and a neutral alignment wouldn't be compatible with defending the helpless or helping someone escape an unjust law?

Deliverance

2010-12-18, 12:39 PM

I would say, Burner28, the difference between the lawful neutral character who is in favour of evil laws because it is what he has been brought up with or because it is traditional and the lawful evil character desiring those laws is exactly the same as the difference between the lawful neutral character who is in favour of good laws because it is what he has been brought up with or because it is traditional and the lawful good character desiring the same laws: intent.

If, as you claim, the difference is meaningless, then you can as well remove neutral as an option on the good-evil axis, since the only person who could fit there would be somebody not strongly in favour of anything that could be described as either good or evil, i.e. practically everything.

And since alignment in D&D is a representation of a character's moral and personal attitude, intent matters.

(Okay, this is where we run into problems. Different D&D sources define alignment differently - especially obvious when needed to sell a splatbook built around a specific theme. Some sources treats it as a question of underlying personality in which case intent is of high importance, others treat it as a sum of actions regardless of intent for purposes of making it easier to deal with and straitjacketing characters with respect to behaviour).

Kish

2010-12-18, 12:52 PM

I would say, Burner28, the difference between the lawful neutral character who is in favour of evil laws because it is what he has been brought up with or because it is traditional and the lawful evil character desiring those laws is exactly the same as the difference between the lawful neutral character who is in favour of good laws because it is what he has been brought up with or because it is traditional and the lawful good character desiring the same laws: intent.

If, as you claim, the difference is meaningless, then you can as well remove neutral as an option on the good-evil axis, since the only person who could fit there would be somebody not strongly in favour of anything that could be described as either good or evil, i.e. practically everything.
You would appear to have just said, "Intent is the difference. If intent doesn't matter, then all that matters is intent." If intent doesn't matter than what matters is actions, and people who, ahem, commit a more-or-less equal number of Good and Evil acts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4) are Neutral.

Deliverance

2010-12-18, 02:36 PM

You would appear to have just said, "Intent is the difference. If intent doesn't matter, then all that matters is intent."

Hah, good point. Rereading what I wrote I can see how it could be read that way. It really should have been more carefully worded. :smallsmile:

If intent doesn't matter than what matters is actions, and people who, ahem, commit a more-or-less equal number of Good and Evil acts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4) are Neutral.
If actions are all that matter, the Giant's verdict would be the last word on the issue and how alignment works in the OOTS world. The verdict is out on that one.

What you linked is the Giant's post from 2005 in response to the "Belkar isn't evil" threads pointing out that Belkar's actions speak louder than words, that there are no such thing as tendencies in the rules, and that what matters is summing up actions, so would you please stop the idiotic "is Belkar evil?" speculation.

It is also an approach that he does not appear to follow consistently, most obviously seen in Roy's visit to Celestia from 2007: Roy gets brownie points for "trying" to be good, even if he screws up now and then and commits non-good actions. If Roy were to be judged solely by his actions in life, the Deva thinks he would belong in the neutral good afterlife. But actions are not the only thing that matters.

(More specifically: actions are not the only thing that matters to the "lawful" end of the alignment spectrum. It is hypothetically possible for the chaos, good, and evil ends to have different criteria kicking people to the "neutral" bucket of their slider if they don't want 'em making for a truly unique and mostly unworkable alignment system in-game. But I doubt the OOTS world is thatweird[/i]. :smallbiggrin:)

For the Giant's comments to be consistent, either law-chaos is judged by intent and good-evil by actions (a distinction I have never seen in any D&D book), his views have changed over time, or like most of us he just isn't consistent and goes by "what feels right".

Warren Dew

2010-12-18, 03:59 PM

If Roy were to be judged solely by his actions in life, the Deva thinks he would belong in the neutral good afterlife.
I don't think that's at all clear. She says her superiors wouldn't have a problem with it, but that just means it's within her discretion. It means he's on the edge, not that he's be beyond the edge, if only actions are taken into account.

Also:

(More specifically: actions are not the only thing that matters to the "lawful" end of the alignment spectrum. It is hypothetically possible for the chaos, good, and evil ends to have different criteria kicking people to the "neutral" bucket of their slider if they don't want 'em making for a truly unique and mostly unworkable alignment system in-game. But I doubt the OOTS world is thatweird[/i]. :smallbiggrin:)

The discussion with the deva provides some support for that, too, actually. When she's judging where Roy is on the good/evil axis, all she really mentions is lots of good actions, and no real evil ones.

Burner28

2010-12-18, 04:11 PM

If, as you claim, the difference is meaningless, then you can as well remove neutral as an option on the good-evil axis, since the only person who could fit there would be somebody not strongly in favour of anything that could be described as either good or evil, i.e. practically everything.

And since alignment in D&D is a representation of a character's moral and personal attitude, intent matters.

Though only when doing Neutral or Good actions as not every single Evil character does Evil for the sake of doing Evil(see Redcloack, who despite going for goblin equality is Lawful Evil for his actions).

Also on the topic, I personally think Malack is more likely to be LE than LN. Remember that we haven't actually seen him having qualms about hurting innocents, though on the other hand I haven't really seen him do anything to confirm my opinion.

Pyrite

2010-12-18, 06:11 PM

Brightgalrs

2010-12-18, 06:31 PM

Until we any sort of regret directly from Malack, I think we can't say he is Neutral.

Now what I think is that Malack was originally lawful evil but after the death of his children started to regret some of the decisions he made and things he had done, making him neutral. Maybe his children's death also influenced his view that death is 'neutral' and not necessarily evil or good.

ref

2010-12-19, 01:49 AM

Working to support a majorly evil organization founded on torture, murder, death, assassination, brutal warfare, treachery, slavery, and oppression of every kind, when he has the resources to leave and simply live in comfort somewhere else? Definitely deep, deep evil.

Is that like working for a good (albeit small) organization trying to stop the world's destruction, being backed by another good and bigger organization makes you good?

Even if your name is Belkar Bitterleaf?

SPoD

2010-12-19, 02:07 AM

Is that like working for a good (albeit small) organization trying to stop the world's destruction, being backed by another good and bigger organization makes you good?

Even if your name is Belkar Bitterleaf?

Belkar has no power to affect the goals and policies of the Order, much less Hinjo and the Azurites. He tries to steer them in an evil direction and is constantly thwarted. Malack, on the other hand, has immense clout within the Empire (as far as we know). I feel it is safe to say that only direct orders from Tarquin himself would counteract Malack.

Thus, Malack has a great deal of responsibility for what the Empire as a whole does, while Belkar has little to no responsibility for what the Order does. As Elan once said, with no power comes no responsibility.

I'm not saying Malack is evil, just that your analogy isn't valid.

Juggling Goth

2010-12-19, 02:58 AM

KillItWithFire

2010-12-19, 09:07 AM

Though only when doing Neutral or Good actions as not every single Evil character does Evil for the sake of doing Evil(see Redcloack, who despite going for goblin equality is Lawful Evil for his actions).

Also on the topic, I personally think Malack is more likely to be LE than LN. Remember that we haven't actually seen him having qualms about hurting innocents, though on the other hand I haven't really seen him do anything to confirm my opinion.

Ummm, a qualm with hurting innocents would be good, not neutral. Neutral is exactly that. A middle ground.

and on the subject of actions, we haven't seen Malack perform any evil ones, yet so far he has expressed several neutral viewpoints. With no evidence to the former and some to the latter I'll put him in LN. If he starts killing people or torturing slaves I'll be quick to change that though.

Burner28

2010-12-19, 09:47 AM

Ummm, a qualm with hurting innocents would be good, not neutral. Neutral is exactly that. A middle ground.

and on the subject of actions, we haven't seen Malack perform any evil ones, yet so far he has expressed several neutral viewpoints. With no evidence to the former and some to the latter I'll put him in LN. If he starts killing people or torturing slaves I'll be quick to change that though.

refusal to do evil doesn't make you good obviously, just not evil. Willingness to do evil makes you evil and not every evil character does evil for the sake of doing evil. Under your definition of Neutral, Redcloak would be LN not Le as he isn't sadistic.

Kish

2010-12-19, 09:57 AM

Ummm, a qualm with hurting innocents would be good, not neutral.
The Player's Handbook disagrees. Beyond that, I blink at the idea that "has no qualms about hurting innocents" occupies a middle ground rather than being squarely in Viletown.

Deliverance

2010-12-19, 10:50 AM

The Player's Handbook disagrees. Beyond that, I blink at the idea that "has no qualms about hurting innocents" occupies a middle ground rather than being squarely in Viletown.
To support you in your interpretation, the D20 comments on the issue of harming the innocent are here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

A neutral person may well hurt those he consider innocents, and he may not have qualms about it in specific cases since few people are completely consistent and alignment isn't a straightjacket, but as a general rule he will have qualms, compunctions, or scruples about hurting those he consider innocent and will not do so if he can avoid it. It just won't, as a general rule, be enough to make him sacrifice anything to make it not happen.

An evil person, on the other hand, will do so with few if any qualms, scruples, or compunctions and is more likely to do it in the first place.

Pyrite

2010-12-19, 03:30 PM

To support you in your interpretation, the D20 comments on the issue of harming the innocent are here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

A neutral person may well hurt those he consider innocents, and he may not have qualms about it in specific cases since few people are completely consistent and alignment isn't a straightjacket, but as a general rule he will have qualms, compunctions, or scruples about hurting those he consider innocent and will not do so if he can avoid it. It just won't, as a general rule, be enough to make him sacrifice anything to make it not happen.

An evil person, on the other hand, will do so with few if any qualms, scruples, or compunctions and is more likely to do it in the first place.

Exactly. Malack lacks the moral force to push him to change much about the empire. He doesn't like seeing people hurt, but it's not worth the consequences to him to try to change it significantly.

The Pilgrim

2010-12-19, 03:55 PM

While I don't rule out that Malack is LE, right now the evidence seems to indicate he is LN.

While he seems to not refuse to resort to Evil means, he also seems to lack a willing to resort to Evil. Unlike Tarquin, who delights in performing evil deeds and indulges in them at every chance.

Malack doesn't refuse to put his hands on the dirt if he needs to. But doesn't like to bathe and revolve in it, like Tarquin does.

Also, while we have been shown a lot of evil aspects in the institutions of the EoB, we have not been shown the religious institutions to be particulary evil. We have not been shown human sacrifices or such. It's true we haven't been shown a lot about the religious practices of the EoB, but since Malack worships Neutral deities, it's reasonable to think the cult should lean to neutral practices.

cho_j

2010-12-19, 11:34 PM

The argument that Malack's a high priest and therefore not involved in the running of the empire doesn't really work. In 718 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html) the Chancellor's clearly panicked about having interrupted him, and the guards in 719 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html) defer to him immediately, against the Empress' orders. He's clearly got quite a lot of secular power, and people don't want to cross him.

I agree with this completely. Not to mention that whatever his formal title happens to be in this particular empire, he's one of the six people trying to rule the entire continent, which gives him a lot of behind the scenes power no matter how underpowered he might appear to be in the charade of the EoB. But, as Juggling Goth pointed out, he IS powerful even within the charade.

pendell

2010-12-20, 10:48 AM

Where is Malack in that strip?

Been gone for a few days; okay, I don't see Malack in the frame. HOWEVER,

1) He is participating in the EOB as Tarquin's 'partner'.
2) He was there at the original meeting of their adventuring group when Tarquin hatched the current scheme.

It may be that Malack has not, himself, actively betrayed anyone. HOWEVER, given his longstanding association with Tarquin, I have a hard time imagining that he's not fully aware of Tarquin's scheming. He is directly assisting Tarquin in his scheme, and with an intelligence level demonstrably above 3 he must be well aware that this scheme has involved a lot of treachery and murder, and that he is enabling these acts even if he doesn't perform them himself. I have a hard time seeing how he could do that and retain a neutral alignment.

Of course, Malack's answer might be 'You think the puppet kings Tarquin has dug up were King Bunnyflowers and Princess Moonglow? They're in short supply on this continent. They were evil people. Really, nasty people very like Tarquin except not nearly as intelligent. Trust me, the world is a better place with them gone, and they got just what they deserve.'

That's making an assumption of course, but given the history of this continent it might be accurate. Still, I'd want to see hard evidence in-comic before believing that is anything but speculation. 'Tyrinar the responsible' doesn't seem like a particularly bad man, even though he's obviously way out of his depth in the one frame we see him in.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Kish

2010-12-20, 06:56 PM

I would say there is approximately a billion times more reason to believe Tyrinar's alignment was nowhere south of Neutral than there is to believe Malack's alignment is anywhere north of Evil.

pendell

2010-12-20, 08:47 PM

I would say there is approximately a billion times more reason to believe Tyrinar's alignment was [not evil] than there is to believe Malack's alignment is [not evil].

Kish,

I've re-read your post and I think the quoted text is what you are trying to say. Have I read correctly? Or failed reading comprehension? I'm a little slow tonight.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Kish

2010-12-20, 08:57 PM

That's close, but I also meant to imply that Tyrinar, from what we've seen, could very easily be Good and is really hard to see as Evil. Whereas Malack...well, he could still go either way, by which I mean Neutral or Evil. But he's not Good, and Neutral would be really hard to pull out at this point.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-20, 10:25 PM

Occasional Sage

2010-12-21, 11:07 AM

Yeah I've been arguing the same thing. Malack is definitely not good I have but I feel he has demonstarted evidence of being neutral. I won't be surprised if he turns out to be evil but as of right now I put him in the neutral camp.

So that we can put that in broader context, tell me please: did you argue that Belkar's actions are CN?

hamishspence

2010-12-21, 12:02 PM

A neutral person may well hurt those he consider innocents, and he may not have qualms about it in specific cases since few people are completely consistent and alignment isn't a straightjacket, but as a general rule he will have qualms, compunctions, or scruples about hurting those he consider innocent and will not do so if he can avoid it. It just won't, as a general rule, be enough to make him sacrifice anything to make it not happen.

An evil person, on the other hand, will do so with few if any qualms, scruples, or compunctions and is more likely to do it in the first place.

May depend on the type.

Some Good characters are willing to take actions that will lead to harm coming to the innocent, if from their perspective, inaction will lead to worse harm. The Order of Illumination from Complete Adventurer. for example.

Conversely, some Evil characters might have very strong qualms about harming the innocent- and be unwilling to do so- but have zero qualms about doing incredibly evil things to the "not-innocent".

Dexter from the TV series Dexter (based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter), or for that matter any of the more viciously brutal vigilantes of fiction, might qualify as this.

Warren Dew

2010-12-21, 01:21 PM

That's close, but I also meant to imply that Tyrinar, from what we've seen, could very easily be Good and is really hard to see as Evil.
Tyrinar was basically the queen without the gluttony. It's clear that he acquiesced in any major evil things Tarquin proposed for his kingdom - and it seems likely from what we know that there were many such evil things. It seems to me we have evidence for Tyrinar taking a more active - or less inactive - part in the running of an evil empire than we have for Malack.

Some might be tempted to excuse Tyrinar on the basis that he probably didn't know what he was doing. Myself, I'm not of the camp that believes being stupid excuses evil acts and makes one good.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-21, 02:43 PM

So that we can put that in broader context, tell me please: did you argue that Belkar's actions are CN?

No I've felt he's CE. He has repeatedly shown actions that would be classified as such, while I have seen no actions of evil from Malack

Kish

2010-12-21, 05:47 PM

Tyrinar was basically the queen without the gluttony.

I must have missed the Empress of Blood (I presume that's who you mean by "the queen") saying she wants to help anyone.

It's clear that he acquiesced in any major evil things Tarquin proposed for his kingdom - and it seems likely from what we know that there were many such evil things. It seems to me we have evidence for Tyrinar taking a more active - or less inactive - part in the running of an evil empire than we have for Malack.

By which you mean, Tyrinar specifically saying "Why don't I get to make any decisions?"?

derfenrirwolv

2010-12-21, 10:14 PM

Too obviously evil to be evil.

In D&D you can get away with a LOT as Neutral, particularly lawful neutral.

Warren Dew

2010-12-21, 11:08 PM

I must have missed the Empress of Blood (I presume that's who you mean by "the queen") saying she wants to help anyone.
Yes, the empress, sorry.

However, I don't see Tyrinar saying he wants to help anyone either.

By which you mean, Tyrinar specifically saying "Why don't I get to make any decisions?"?
He asks why he doesn't get input into one particular decision. Since it's being presented to him, obviously he is acquiescing in it - even if is because his advisors are presenting it like there's only one realistic course of action. The fact that he's whining about putting his imprimatur on evil acts doesn't make it nonevil.

B. Dandelion

2010-12-21, 11:22 PM

KillItWithFire

2010-12-21, 11:37 PM

I think he's probably Lawful Evil, since none of his actions are totally incompatible with that alignment and his association with Tarquin and his scheme is quite damning. I don't know that he's done anything so severely, irrevocably evil that a Neutral alignment is impossible either though, so I'm going here more on probability rather than attempting to make any definitive ruling.

I admit my hedging of bets might be slightly tainted by bias (yeah, I like him), but I think it's fair enough regardless.

Sounds like the same logic I'm using except I put less weight on his association with the big T and more on his actions so far (most notably worshiping a neutral god) I don't think he'd argue so strongly for his god's neutrality if he were evil. So while we both base our decision, I feel neutral is more probable with it possible that he could be evil.

B. Dandelion

2010-12-21, 11:58 PM

Sounds like the same logic I'm using except I put less weight on his association with the big T and more on his actions so far (most notably worshiping a neutral god) I don't think he'd argue so strongly for his god's neutrality if he were evil. So while we both base our decision, I feel neutral is more probable with it possible that he could be evil.

So his ties to his god should count more than his ties to Tarquin? That's not a bad point, given that most of his activities that we've seen go in that direction rather than emphasizing his position within Tarquin's ranks. It's hard to call when you have two associations, and one is neutral and the other evil, which should count "more", unless there's some clear-cut point at which he draws the line between those loyalties and goes with one over the other. That's the kind of thing we might yet see, which I'd like.

Pyrite

2010-12-22, 12:05 AM

Yes, the empress, sorry.

However, I don't see Tyrinar saying he wants to help anyone either.

He asks why he doesn't get input into one particular decision. Since it's being presented to him, obviously he is acquiescing in it - even if is because his advisors are presenting it like there's only one realistic course of action. The fact that he's whining about putting his imprimatur on evil acts doesn't make it nonevil.

He wanted to explore the possibility of a more democratic form of government, and wanted to be known as "the responsible" rather than "the bloody."

It seems clear to me rather that he basically was given the runaround by Tarquin from day one, had decisions made over his head and didn't really understand what was going on. Likely near the end of his eleven month(!) reign he finally began to figure out what he should do to oppose Tarquin and try to rule Tyrinaria responsibly. Unfortunately, by then Tarquin had already lead a coup against him and fed him to the Empress of Blood.

I'd actually argue for Tyrinar being NG or LG, just not very capable of actually accomplishing anything when faced with an experienced, powerful group of evil conspirators.

Occasional Sage

2010-12-22, 01:03 AM

Warren Dew

2010-12-22, 01:44 AM

He wanted to explore the possibility of a more democratic form of government, and wanted to be known as "the responsible" rather than "the bloody."
Democracies can be just as evil as dictatorships; the clearest evidence for the Empire of Blood being evil, for example, is the existence of slavery and some kind of gladiatorial system, both of which have existed in democracies. Indeed, slavery is uncomfortably common in democracies.

As for his epithet, a name isn't an action. Was Tyrinar less evil than Tarquin? Almost certainly. However, even as a figurehead, he facilitated evil acts, and there's no evidence he contributed to any good acts.

For that matter, it seems like Tarquin runs his puppet kingdoms pretty responsibly. He's certainly a realist, and doesn't seem to do anything without a reason. It's just that he's responsibly evil, not responsibly good.

It seems clear to me rather that he basically was given the runaround by Tarquin from day one, had decisions made over his head and didn't really understand what was going on. Likely near the end of his eleven month(!) reign he finally began to figure out what he should do to oppose Tarquin and try to rule Tyrinaria responsibly. Unfortunately, by then Tarquin had already lead a coup against him and fed him to the Empress of Blood.

None of which would make him good, since none of it accomplished anything good. You might argue that he was neutral on the basis that he never actually made any difference to anything, but neutral is not good.

Pyrite

2010-12-22, 02:12 AM

None of which would make him good, since none of it accomplished anything good. You might argue that he was neutral on the basis that he never actually made any difference to anything, but neutral is not good.

Wait, so now "competence" or "achievement" is a prerequisite of being Good? Frankly, that's ridiculous.

"Sorry, sir Galin, I know you dedicated your life to justice, and you'd just finished your paladin training and gone out on your first quest, and I know that it really wasn't very obvious that the evil necromancer was ten levels above you. I know you vowed to put an end to his evil and save the poor villagers who he terrorized every night, and it really was a shame that it only took him one spell to bring you to... what was it... -34 hit points? Well, I guess now you'll be moving on... Celestia you say? I'm sorry, but since you never actually managed to accomplish any good acts in your life, you aren't actually good at all. You're neutral. Too bad you didn't run into, say, a peasant family you could rescue from a couple goblins on your way to the village that necromancer was terrorizing. Maybe then I'd be able to get you into Arborea or Bytopia... As things stand, I'll just be kicking you over to the outlands. Ta ta!"

B. Dandelion

2010-12-22, 03:28 AM

Given that we only had one panel in which to interpret Tyrinar's entire personality and worldview, his pro-democracy leanings and desire to be "responsible" instead of "bloody" seem like things that are supposed to be taken at face value in the most obvious sense. I don't think the ambiguous "but is democracy really what's best here?" is supposed to be the idea conveyed because there's nothing contradicting what would be the most likely base assumption. Tarquin doesn't call him a hypocrite or anything, he calls him a whiner. He also calls Elan and his mother complainers. That tells me something.

pendell

2010-12-22, 09:07 AM

What about Julia Greenhilt?

Okay, how the heck is Therkla Chaotic? She is definetly not free spirited, nor rebellious and definetly not resentful of authority figures.:smallannoyed:

She's willing to lie and assassinate; assassination is her job. If she doesn't have an evil alignment I don't see how she could avoid a chaotic one.

I also note, again, commentary in Don't split the party where the Giant paired up Elan with an attractive chaotic female with a shady past -- reminds you of anyone ELSE in the strip?

Haley is a rogueish character and is chaotic good-ish, whatever that means. Therkla, by her actions in comic strip, by quotes, and her commentary, must also be chaotic. I would have thought that she might be chaotic evil, but the Giant tells us she's neutral. Ergo, chaotic neutral.

Dang, the alignment system is confusing -- but if it wasn't, think of what a boring place this would be!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence

2010-12-22, 10:11 AM

Haley is a rogueish character and is chaotic good-ish, whatever that means. Therkla, by her actions in comic strip, by quotes, and her commentary, must also be chaotic. I would have thought that she might be chaotic evil, but the Giant tells us she's neutral. Ergo, chaotic neutral.

I thought she was closer to Neutral than Chaotic. Kubota certainly applauds her "Lawful-ish" behaviour when she follows the letter rather than the spirit of her orders.

I don't think The Giant explicitly called her out as Chaotic in DSTP commentary.

Part of it said she was "a kind of spokesperson" for the "Neutral-Balancing" point of view, between Good and Evil, though.

While I've had it pointed out that "being a spokesperson for neutrality doesn't mean you have to be Neutral"- along with her hiding from Lien's Detect Evil being argued as suggesting she's evil-aligned,

one must remember that D&D characters may not always be aware of their own alignments- a person might fear Detect Evil even if they don't know for certain that they themselves are evil.

True Neutral might be a possible starting point- some of her behaviour can be called Lawful-ish, some Chaotic-ish.

Burner28

2010-12-22, 11:32 AM

She's willing to lie and assassinate; assassination is her job. If she doesn't have an evil alignment I don't see how she could avoid a chaotic one.

I also note, again, commentary in Don't split the party where the Giant paired up Elan with an attractive chaotic female with a shady past -- reminds you of anyone ELSE in the strip?

Haley is a rogueish character and is chaotic good-ish, whatever that means. Therkla, by her actions in comic strip, by quotes, and her commentary, must also be chaotic. I would have thought that she might be chaotic evil, but the Giant tells us she's neutral. Ergo, chaotic neutral.

Dang, the alignment system is confusing -- but if it wasn't, think of what a boring place this would be!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Assasination has absolutely nothin to do with the law-chaos axis but rather the good-evil one. Don't forget that the simple fact she isn't at all rebellious towards Kubota implies she cannot be Chaotic at all.

pendell

2010-12-22, 11:35 AM

Burner28

2010-12-22, 11:42 AM

Not rebellious? She disobeyed his orders three times! He has repeatedly ordered her to kill Elan. Twice she disobeyed, but was able to rationalize it after the fact, and the third time she just up and quit her team altogether.

In addition, I note that when she was ranked #2 at her school, she did not accept that ranking -- rather, she captured the #1 rank by going outside the rules, which to me seems chaotic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

No, she was able to rules lawyer her way out of killing someone the first time as Kubota only specifically told her to capture Hinjo, not kill him. Something that she took advantage of. That seems to me to be lawful, though I don't really specifically remember the second and third time.

pendell

2010-12-22, 12:55 PM

No, she was able to rules lawyer her way out of killing someone the first time as Kubota only specifically told her to capture Hinjo, not kill him. Something that she took advantage of. That seems to me to be lawful, though I don't really specifically remember the second and third time.

IIRC that scene, the reason she failed was because she turned on her 'allies' the sea trolls just so she could flank with Elan and live the dream for a moment.

Turning on your own team for the sake of your own personal romantic fantasies seems somewhat chaotic to me.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Aldrakan

2010-12-22, 01:35 PM

Successfully rules lawyering your way out of completely disregarding your instructions doesn't make you actually lawful, it just means you're not an idiot about being chaotic.

Warren Dew

2010-12-22, 02:05 PM

Wait, so now "competence" or "achievement" is a prerequisite of being Good? Frankly, that's ridiculous.
At a minimum, taking some actions is a prerequisite for being good, because you can't do good actions without taking any actions at all. Intent is clearly not sufficient, by the rules.

They may not need to be successful actions. Attacking an evil necromancer could be a good action, even if you're unsuccessful. Wishing that you were gutsy enough to attack the necromancer, but avoiding it out of cowardice or indecision, is not.

Given that we only had one panel in which to interpret Tyrinar's entire personality and worldview, his pro-democracy leanings and desire to be "responsible" instead of "bloody" seem like things that are supposed to be taken at face value in the most obvious sense.

What's obvious to you may be different from what's obvious to me or to others. The superficially obvious meaning of the panel to me is just that his intent - again, insufficient for alignment - is nonevil, and most likely neutral. If it had been meant to illustrate good intent, he would have been proposing something clearly good, like freeing some slaves or objecting to evil food.

pendell

2010-12-22, 02:11 PM

Wishing that you were gutsy enough to attack the necromancer, but avoiding it out of cowardice or indecision, is not.

What if you know darn well that such an attack is futile? Do we assign an LE alignment to every NPC Commoner because they don't throw their lives away in a futile effort? Even if they also don't train up into a PC class and over throw the evil necromancer?

Not everyone has the same calling. Without bakers, experts, commoners, smiths etc. -- not only would the adventurers be unable to function, there would be no world for them to save in the first place.

For such people, being 'good' does not mean overthrowing evil wizards. It means doing their jobs, raising their families, and doing the normal, non-adventure things that make the world go 'round.

It seems to me that LG has to embrace more than simply saving the world from evil; it also has to involve making that world a place worth saving.

It even scales up to adventurers; I assign no blame to the level 1 LG mage who takes one look at the evil necromancer, says "Screw that", and goes off on a quest to fight kobolds or save the local village from a goblin horde, fighting a foe that's actually in her challenge rating. As Durkon would say, you do what you can when you can, or you can't do anything at all.

Respectfully ,

Brian P.

Warren Dew

2010-12-22, 03:38 PM

What if you know darn well that such an attack is futile? Do we assign an LE alignment to every NPC Commoner because they don't throw their lives away in a futile effort?
No; absent other information, we assign them a lawful neutral alignment.

Good and evil are not the only alignments. Neutral is an alignment too. This isn't specifically directed at you, but it seems to me like people fall for the fallacy of the excluded middle way too often in discussing alignments, where they should know better.

It seems to me that LG has to embrace more than simply saving the world from evil; it also has to involve making that world a place worth saving.
I agree with that. There's no indication that Tyrinar is doing any such thing, though.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-22, 03:38 PM

I'll point out that (setting aside his careful dance around actually SAYING his Goddess is Neutral) it is allowed for a cleric to be one step removed from their deity by one step along either axis. So there us no inconsistency in a LE cleric of a LN Power.

I'm aware of that, which is one of the reasons I think it's still possible for Malack to be LE as opposed to LN. The reason I see it as proof of LN is because I don't think someone who is inherantly evil would be rationalizing that his god's actions and domain are not.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-22, 03:42 PM

No; absent other information, we assign them a lawful neutral alignment.

Good and evil are not the only alignments. Neutral is an alignment too. This isn't specifically directed at you, but it seems to me like people fall for the fallacy of the excluded middle way too often in discussing alignments, where they should know better.

Why should they get LN simply because they never had a chance to prove their goodness. What of Roy's brother? I doubt he had the chance to go slay an evil dragon before he died and yet he's in Celestia. LG can also be assigned, in a commoners case for doing the little good deeds in your everyday life. Adventurers are held to a higher standerd because their actions have a lot greater impact on the fate of the world.

Occasional Sage

2010-12-22, 03:45 PM

I'm aware of that, which is one of the reasons I think it's still possible for Malack to be LE as opposed to LN. The reason I see it as proof of LN is because I don't think someone who is inherantly evil would be rationalizing that his god's actions and domain are not.

Except that it makes getting along with a Good character easier. Malak has no interest in a party of PCs focusing on him and his friends and their scheme; misleading them about his nature smooths the way for getting them out of his hair (so to speak).

B. Dandelion

2010-12-22, 04:21 PM

What's obvious to you may be different from what's obvious to me or to others. The superficially obvious meaning of the panel to me is just that his intent - again, insufficient for alignment - is nonevil, and most likely neutral. If it had been meant to illustrate good intent, he would have been proposing something clearly good, like freeing some slaves or objecting to evil food.

I realize you're debating several people here, but what I said was his being pro-democracy is likely meant to reflect well on him, where you were arguing democracies can be just as evil as dictatorships and had said that Tyrinar was taking a more active role in the running of an evil empire than Malack and was the empress without the gluttony and etc. etc. I didn't say it painted him as a paragon of virtue, I just think it's unlikely you're supposed to go "oh but democracy can be just as bad so that says nothing of importance whatsoever."

Although mind you I do disagree with pretty much everything you've said anyway, but democracy > dictatorship for the purposes of determining intent here is all that was said. Or what was meant, at any rate.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-22, 04:40 PM

Except that it makes getting along with a Good character easier. Malak has no interest in a party of PCs focusing on him and his friends and their scheme; misleading them about his nature smooths the way for getting them out of his hair (so to speak).

I don't think that was on his mind at the time. He was conversing with a fellow man of th cloth. No reason to have any sort of alterior motive, no reason to assume he has 5 high level friends waiting to get up into an evil man's buisness. From what I can tell, he didn't have anything to gain from defending his god's neutraility as opposed to being evil and that means a lot in my eyes.

pendell

2010-12-22, 04:46 PM

The Pilgrim

2010-12-22, 06:37 PM

I agree with Dandelion. The Giant is writing primarily for an American and Western European audience, and in our cultural milieu democracy is equated with mom, apple pie, freedom, rah-rah, all that good stuff.

Aristotle and political scientists may debate that proposition; but the Giant isn't writing for them, he's writing for a general audience who believes that democracy is not just good, but Good.

Therefore, I believe that Tyrinar's yearning for a democratic government -- or at least a "more democratic" one -- is meant to show that he has at least one redeeming quality.

At the very least, he demonstrates that a lust for power is not among his vices.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Even for Plato or Aristotle, Democracy was still better than Tyranny.

In our days, debates between different political models revolve mainly around the claim that "my system is [more democratic/grants more freedom/represents the will of the people] better than yours". That's valid all around the Globe, not just for the West. Name any political system (western or otherwise - and do it in your mind, not in this Forum, as it would violate The Rules) and you can safely bet that it's official ideology defends that such political system represents the finest form of democracy possible.*

So, I agree. Readers might have a different concept of what "democracy" really meants, depending on their cultural background and political ideology (if any). But for all (or almost all), a generic reference to the concept "democracy" is automatically identified with "good", and reference to the concept of "tyranny/dictatorship" (which 150 years ago were not synonyms, but today are) automatically smells as "evil".

* Maybe the Giant's naming of several Western Continent nations in the OOTS world (as shown in the map of strip #698), such as "People's Democratic Dictatorship", "The Dark Republic", "Free City of Doom", etc... is a shout-out at that. Or probably I'm reading too much into it.

Warren Dew

2010-12-22, 10:58 PM

I realize you're debating several people here, but what I said was his being pro-democracy is likely meant to reflect well on him, where you were arguing democracies can be just as evil as dictatorships and had said that Tyrinar was taking a more active role in the running of an evil empire than Malack and was the empress without the gluttony and etc. etc. I didn't say it painted him as a paragon of virtue, I just think it's unlikely you're supposed to go "oh but democracy can be just as bad so that says nothing of importance whatsoever."

I took you to be arguing that there was reason to believe that Tyrinar was good aligned, which is what the person who brought up the democracy point seemed to be saying, but on rereading I may have been conflating your position with those of other posters.

I agree that his talking about considering democracy was meant to reflect well on his "personality and worldview", as you put it, if only because he's suggesting a change to a government that we pretty much know to be evil. In my opinion, it suggests that his intentions are nonevil. The point I was trying to make was that, in the context of D&D, nonevil, while clearly better than the evil government we assume Tyrinaria to have, is different from good, because there's a neutral possibility in there. And, of course, intentions are different from actions and D&D alignments.

Although mind you I do disagree with pretty much everything you've said anyway, but democracy > dictatorship for the purposes of determining intent here is all that was said. Or what was meant, at any rate.
I don't think that we can read the comic with the assumption that "democracy > dictatorship". The one good aligned government we've seen, Azure City, was a dictatorship. I think that the most in the way of assumptions we can make with regard to that panel is that we're meant to assume "democracy >= Tyrinaria's existing evil government" - which, as you say, reflects well on Tyrinar's personality and worldview, even if it doesn't demonstrate anything about his alignment.

In our days, debates between different political models revolve mainly around the claim that "my system is [more democratic/grants more freedom/represents the will of the people] better than yours". That's valid all around the Globe, not just for the West. Name any political system (western or otherwise - and do it in your mind, not in this Forum, as it would violate The Rules) and you can safely bet that it's official ideology defends that such political system represents the finest form of democracy possible.*
This is simply not true. There are many nondemocratic governments that recognize or believe that democracy is not the best form of government. Furthermore, although the press in democratic locations tends to play this down, the average citizen in many of those countries agrees with his government and doesn't want democracy.

Maybe the Giant's naming of several Western Continent nations in the OOTS world (as shown in the map of strip #698), such as "People's Democratic Dictatorship", "The Dark Republic", "Free City of Doom", etc... is a shout-out at that. Or probably I'm reading too much into it.
It seems far more likely to me that a "people's democratic dictatorship" in this context is an acknowledgement that democracies can perfectly well be evil.

Pyrite

2010-12-22, 11:35 PM

I think that the most in the way of assumptions we can make with regard to that panel is that we're meant to assume "democracy >= Tyrinaria's existing evil government" - which, as you say, reflects well on Tyrinar's personality and worldview, even if it doesn't demonstrate anything about his alignment.

And again, this is the point we keep coming back to. From whence does a character's alignment emerge, if not from his personality and worldview?

Warren Dew

2010-12-22, 11:43 PM

From whence does a character's alignment emerge, if not from his personality and worldview?
From his actions.

The MunchKING

2010-12-22, 11:43 PM

Not being bothered by evil doesnt make you evil. By that logic the whole order is evil for withstanding Belkar.

To be fair they usually threaten to beat his head in if he does anything evil, and we've never seen Malak try to influance Tarquin that way.

Of course that could be the difference between Good (activly stopping Belkar's Evil) and Neutral (looking the other way about the more "evil" sides of the Plan in order to bring about a extremly desirable out come for the many).

The MunchKING

2010-12-22, 11:57 PM

If O'Chul had kids and you killed them what do you think he would do to you (lets say the law is he gets to pick any punishment) :smalleek:

A clean beheading if he had you at his mercy, gutting you like a trout if he has to chase you down and beat you in honorable combat. With his bare hands if nessisary. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html)

Pyrite

2010-12-22, 11:59 PM

From his actions.

Even if good ends are only accidentally achieved, or achieved as a tertiary goal? Is the mercenary who fights the evil overlord for money just as good as the Paladin who fights him because he must be fought?

I'd argue, rather, that alignment arises from personality and worldview, and that actions are merely a way for alignment to be visible to those of us who aren't paladins.

snikrept

2010-12-23, 01:44 AM

He could be the token non-evil guy in their old crew the same way Belkar is the token evil guy in the OOTS. But one can be social and courteous and friendly and still evil. That trope is as old as Shakespeare: "one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."

He hasn't really made any moral decisions on-camera yet. The big issue is his seeming complicity in the whole regime o' terror. We don't know why he hangs out with Tarquin; heck maybe he thinks Tarquin can be redeemed?

The fact that he made a rather pointed, unprovoked statement about his god not being necessarily evil is strange. Sounds like blasphemy if his god is actually evil, unless Nergal's portfolio includes "God of Lies" or something.

I'm still hoping he ends up joining the party. Malack is a really interesting character IMO.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-23, 08:27 AM

From his actions.

Considering we saw Tyraniar for one panel and saw him perform no actions, evil or otherwise, I'm not even sure why this disscussion on him has lasted as long as it did. His alignment is completely undeterminable.

The Pilgrim

2010-12-23, 09:23 AM

This is simply not true. There are many nondemocratic governments that recognize or believe that democracy is not the best form of government. Furthermore, although the press in democratic locations tends to play this down, the average citizen in many of those countries agrees with his government and doesn't want democracy.

They don't want your concept of democracy. But still their political systems, "democratic" or not from your perspective, still justify themselves as the best way to express the will of their people.

If you take an average citzen from any self-respecting country in the world, and ask them if democracy > dictatorship, all of them will agree, no matter their place of origin. Of course, if you ask further about what they think a democracy is, they all will say that THEIR goverment system is democratic and all others are dictatorships. But that's beyond my point.

Anyway, I don't want to strech this issue any further. I agree with the members that former Lord Tyrinar defending a more democratic form of goverment was a way to point him as a rather nice guy (or at least, not evil) for the readers.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-23, 09:56 AM

Anyway, I don't want to strech this issue any further. I agree with the members that former Lord Tyrinar defending a more democratic form of goverment was a way to point him as a rather nice guy (or at least, not evil) for the readers.

Yeah I think we should put a fork in this debate because I can see the signs of a real-world political debate forming. So let's get back to who this thread is about. (Malack for those of you who forgot) I think he's LN everyone else doesn't, discuss. :smalltongue:

pendell

2010-12-23, 10:43 AM

Yeah I think we should put a fork in this debate because I can see the signs of a real-world political debate forming. So let's get back to who this thread is about. (Malack for those of you who forgot) I think he's LN everyone else doesn't, discuss. :smalltongue:

Taking Warren Dew's presumption of lawful neutral until proven otherwise, it's a plausible viewpoint even if it's one I don't share. He's done some evil acts, but nothing that's obviously Moral Event Horizon like, say, burning captives alive.

We haven't seen him do any unquestionably good acts .. but we've only seen him on screen a fraction of his entire lifespan. Who knows, maybe he runs an orphanage or something off-camera. We don't actually know much about his motives or why he does what he does.

I'll stick with lawful evil because I believe it would be extremely difficult for someone to assist Tarquin in his schemes of betrayal, murder, atrocity, and conquest yet retain a neutral alignment. But I'm not so invested in it that I'm unwilling to change my mind in the event of new evidence which may be forthcoming. Malack's place in this arc isn't over yet.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Warren Dew

2010-12-23, 12:18 PM

If you take an average citzen from any self-respecting country in the world, and ask them if democracy > dictatorship, all of them will agree, no matter their place of origin. Of course, if you ask further about what they think a democracy is, they all will say that THEIR goverment system is democratic and all others are dictatorships. But that's beyond my point.
You are simply wrong. I'm talking about places where they tell me their government is nondemocratic, and think it's better than democracy - by which they mean their concept of democracy, not my concept of democracy. Not everyone thinks that democracy - which is, after all, dictatorship of the majority - is all that great.

Anyway, I don't want to strech this issue any further.
I'm happpy to agree to disagree on this.

Even if good ends are only accidentally achieved, or achieved as a tertiary goal? Is the mercenary who fights the evil overlord for money just as good as the Paladin who fights him because he must be fought?
Selfless actions are generally considered more good than selfish ones, so there would be a difference in those two cases. However, I think the mercenary's actions would still generally be considered good. Alternatively, the paladin's situation could be considered two separate good actions: first, fighting the evil overlord, and second, providing financing and support for his fight.

I'd argue, rather, that alignment arises from personality and worldview, and that actions are merely a way for alignment to be visible to those of us who aren't paladins.
Do you think Roy's personality and worldview are unknown to the Deva? Because the Deva puts her judgement of whether Roy is good in terms of number of actions: basically, lots of selfless good actions and few or no evil ones:

I don't think there's any doubt that you're a good man ... you regularly battle the forces of Evil without expecting compensation.

And I see very few truly Evil acts ... nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter.

I contend that's strong evidence that good and evil is judged based on actions in this particular world.

veti

2010-12-23, 04:53 PM

Do you think Roy's personality and worldview are unknown to the Deva? Because the Deva puts her judgement of whether Roy is good in terms of number of actions: basically, lots of selfless good actions and few or no evil ones:

I contend that's strong evidence that good and evil is judged based on actions in this particular world.

I think the two of you are arguing from opposite ends of the same view.

Alignment is judged, externally, from your actions. But the actions themselves - the choices you make - are determined by your personality and worldview. To argue whether "actions determine alignment" or vice-versa is like arguing over whether fire generates heat or heat starts fires.

Velaryon

2010-12-24, 05:23 AM

Taking Warren Dew's presumption of lawful neutral until proven otherwise, it's a plausible viewpoint even if it's one I don't share. He's done some evil acts, but nothing that's obviously Moral Event Horizon like, say, burning captives alive.

We haven't seen him do any unquestionably good acts .. but we've only seen him on screen a fraction of his entire lifespan. Who knows, maybe he runs an orphanage or something off-camera. We don't actually know much about his motives or why he does what he does.

I'll stick with lawful evil because I believe it would be extremely difficult for someone to assist Tarquin in his schemes of betrayal, murder, atrocity, and conquest yet retain a neutral alignment. But I'm not so invested in it that I'm unwilling to change my mind in the event of new evidence which may be forthcoming. Malack's place in this arc isn't over yet.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This is pretty much how I feel about it. We simply haven't seen enough of Malack to make a good call on whether he's LN or LE, although I think we can fairly confidently narrow it down to those two choices.

Malack's comments about Nergal's not necessarily being evil are not proof either way, assuming Malack is even telling the truth (evil gods might well find more acceptance by claiming not to be evil). Even if Nergal is lawful neutral, Malack is allowed to be within one step of him and can therefore be lawful evil.

I think it would be difficult to assist in Tarquin's plan for any length of time and maintain a non-evil alignment, but I suppose it could still go either way.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-24, 10:59 AM

I think it would be difficult to assist in Tarquin's plan for any length of time and maintain a non-evil alignment, but I suppose it could still go either way.

The plan in itself is not evil. At least the goals aren't. (Cue ends don't justify the means speech) But I haven't seen proof that Malack participates in the less desirable aspects of this plan. His demeanor seems more neutral to me than evil and I feel that turning a blind eyes to Tarquin's evil acts while refusing to participate in such acts yourself is indicitive of being neutral.

Burner28

2010-12-24, 11:29 AM

The plan in itself is not evil. At least the goals aren't. (Cue ends don't justify the means speech)

True but their reasons for their goals are of course selfish

Kish

2010-12-24, 12:29 PM

The goals are "to live like kings for as long as we can." And Tarquin is perfectly capable of spinning a line of bull about how they aren't actually making the continent any worse, but that's what it is, a line of obvious bull.

If their goals aren't evil, then I can't think of any character(s) in the story who have evil goals. Dominating and exploiting one continent is not qualitatively different from dominating and exploiting the world. Wanting to bring an end to the civil wars among your people and destroy their longstanding enemy is downright noble, if you look at the IFCC from a viewpoint that doesn't make Tarquin worthy of condemnation.

Velaryon

2010-12-24, 02:44 PM

The plan in itself is not evil. At least the goals aren't. (Cue ends don't justify the means speech) But I haven't seen proof that Malack participates in the less desirable aspects of this plan. His demeanor seems more neutral to me than evil and I feel that turning a blind eyes to Tarquin's evil acts while refusing to participate in such acts yourself is indicitive of being neutral.

If Malack was simply "turning a blind eye" rather than actively helping, why would Tarquin keep him around. The only character to whom Tarquin has shown any hint of sentimentality is Elan. If Malack was doing nothing more than sitting around pretending that nothing evil was happening, I believe Tarquin would get somebody else to fill the role.

Also, this idea that stability is a goal that justifies slavery, murder, etc. is foolish at best. I see the same argument put forth by people on GameFAQs who try to argue the Empire in Star Wars isn't evil, and frankly it's nonsense. Tarquin's methods are Evil with a capital E, if not in all caps. What state the land would be in without him and his party is irrelevant.

Burner28

2010-12-24, 02:51 PM

Also, this idea that stability is a goal that justifies slavery, murder, etc. is foolish at best. I see the same argument put forth by people on GameFAQs who try to argue the Empire in Star Wars isn't evil, and frankly it's nonsense. Tarquin's methods are Evil with a capital E, if not in all caps. What state the land would be in without him and his party is irrelevant.

I don't think anyone was saying that their goal of uniting the countries justified their means nor trying to say they did it for a noble reason(which is to say, their motivation is most likley selfish) So whilst uniting and decreasing death is itself a noble goal I really doubt Tarquin or his group actually follows that goal for an altruistic reason, rather than simply believeing that it is in their best interest to pusue their goal.

PS I am sure nobody in Tarquin's team has any noble motivations, including Malack

Warren Dew

2010-12-24, 03:31 PM

The goals are "to live like kings for as long as we can." And Tarquin is perfectly capable of spinning a line of bull about how they aren't actually making the continent any worse, but that's what it is, a line of obvious bull.
That's Tarquin's goal, and his take on the rest of his party's goal. Malack, however, doesn't show any signs of trying to live like a king - if anything, he's avoided the more obvious examples of it, like the food at the feast.

If Malack was simply "turning a blind eye" rather than actively helping, why would Tarquin keep him around. The only character to whom Tarquin has shown any hint of sentimentality is Elan. If Malack was doing nothing more than sitting around pretending that nothing evil was happening, I believe Tarquin would get somebody else to fill the role.

Even if sentimentality is not at work, there are four other people in the party. If Tarquin gets rid of any of them, it tells the other four they're dispensable too, and risks their conspiring against him to get him before he can get them. From Tarquin's point of view, the current situation works; why change it?

Aldrakan

2010-12-24, 04:11 PM

That's Tarquin's goal, and his take on the rest of his party's goal. Malack, however, doesn't show any signs of trying to live like a king - if anything, he's avoided the more obvious examples of it, like the food at the feast.

Additionally it appears to now be Tarquin's goal that he eventually be overthrown by his son, a prospect which is unlikely to appeal to any other member of his group who might want to pass down their empire to their children, become immortal and rule forever, or any number of other options available to you when you are not obsessed with genre cliches.

In any case, hasn't the slavery, war, and death been going on without them for a long time already? If the society is full of evil is it actually incompatible with a neutral alignment to work within that society? I've never seen it viewed as difficult for neutral people to operate within primarily Good societies without turning Good by association.

If neutral is actually Neutral rather than "Good-Lite", a Lawful Neutral person should be perfectly capable of working to stabilize a society and enforce its legal code regardless of whether some of those laws are evil. If he were creating evil laws and customs there would be a problem, but I don't see any evidence of that.

Kish

2010-12-24, 04:13 PM

In any case, hasn't the slavery, war, and death been going on without them for a long time already?
Has it? Do you have any evidence for that that isn't dependent on Tarquin's word?

Aldrakan

2010-12-24, 04:21 PM

Has it? Do you have any evidence for that that isn't dependent on Tarquin's word?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html. The map seller claims that the constant warfare and political upheaval has been going on for 500 years. We don't know that the slavery has also been going on so long, but no one's mentioned it being a new addition, and I'm inclined to assume it's also been present since before Tarquin arrived.

Edit: I also doubt Tarquin would lie about this, because looking in any old history book or speaking to anyone over the age of 20 would reveal it to be a lie. It's too fragile a deception for anyone to seriously try to trick someone with.

Burner28

2010-12-24, 04:24 PM

Aldrakan

2010-12-24, 05:55 PM

Associating with evil itself is one thing, but to punish people for breaking an evil law is itself evil As is enforcing evil laws. While an LN character can do an rare evil act, continuing to do them will earn an Evil alignment.

As some people believe that refusal to do evil acts is a sign of a good alignment-no, i's not. Heck it was even stated in at least one source that refusal to harm the innocent is an requirement for non-evil characters and by constantly enforcing unjust laws or otherwise punishing innocents for breaking an evil law, the LN character's claim to nonevilhood is really (and with legitimate reasons) going to be questionable. And by questionable I meant clearly and unambiguously Lawful Evil.:smalltongue:

Ah, I see that is problematic. I thought one of the definitions of neutral was people who don't concern themselves overmuch with the morality of things. I accept that vastly increases the likelihood of Malack being evil given that definition.

I do, however, maintain that it's stupid.
It's not as though a Neutral person employed at a charity has to turn good just because they're committing good acts, and so it does appear that Neutral is being defined as basically "Good, but lazy about it". Furthermore it seems as though the only way to maintain a neutral alignment in a system like the EoB is to opt out of it completely, while I thought one of the benefits of being neutral is the ability to work with reasonable harmony with people of good or evil alignment.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-24, 06:02 PM

I guess I'm not sure why so many people take Tarquin's word as untrustworthy. He's proven himself many things but I have yet to see evidence that he is a liar. Certainly he puts his own spin on his words but misunderstanding seems to occur entirly in the interpretation, not the presentation of the information. Also, Tarquin's motivations are not Malack's, while Tarquin wants to live like a king Malack seems to be in the party simply because it gives him the resources to go against Nale for the murder of his children. I've yet to see Mlack take an active role in this "scheme" and Tarquin may even respect that and give him roles that would fit him accordingly.

Just sort of as a closing thought, there seem to be a lot of actions that can condemn a character to one extreme of the good/evil axis or the other but very few actions that put him in the middle, just find it odd that the extremes seem to be easier to reach than the middle ground.

Burner28

2010-12-24, 06:07 PM

That is because of the fact that Evil cannot and should not be treated the same way as Good. In other words, Good is suppose to be hard as you are meant to not just make personal sacrifices towards doing the Good thing, but also care about doing the Good thing, but also of a general absense of doing Evil.

Evil on the other hand is suppose to be easy to achieve. After all, why should you get a pass just because you are not aiding and supporting injustice, tyrrany andslavery just because you have a more human motivation than "to be evil"?:smallconfused:

Kish

2010-12-24, 06:10 PM

First, I see, the mapmaker did indeed say the humans and reptilian humanoids had been fighting for 500 years.

Ah, I see that is problematic. I thought one of the definitions of neutral was people who don't concern themselves overmuch with the morality of things. I accept that vastly increases the likelihood of Malack being evil given that definition.

I do, however, maintain that it's stupid.
It's not as though a Neutral person employed at a charity has to turn good just because they're committing good acts,

Not as long as they're paid. If someone works at a charity for most of their time and does nothing else morally noteworthy in either direction, that person will get a strange look from me if s/he claims to be Neutral.

and so it does appear that Neutral is being defined as basically "Good, but lazy about it".

I would say, rather, that being either Good or Evil is special. Most real people are Neutral. Most real people (I believe in the face of the arguments some board posters have made for the moral viability of the Empire of Blood) would balk at being actively involved in such a regime.

In any case, I would find a definition of "neutral" which includes a character who commits all the atrocities Xykon and Tarquin have, but never does anything without seeing some personal gain from it, to be horrendous, and that would seem to be the result of defining Neutral as "people who don't concern themselves overmuch with the morality of things." The other result of that definition is that suddenly, Evil characters are by definition cackling caricatures like Xykon who know that they're evil; a smaller problem in OotS than in more serious D&D settings with fourth walls, but either way I don't want it.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-24, 06:18 PM

Evil on the other hand is suppose to be easy to achieve. After all, why should you get a pass just because you are not aiding and supporting injustice, tyrrany andslavery just because you have a more human motivation than "to be evil"?:smallconfused:

This is where I disagree. Niether of the extremes should be "easy" to achieve. For example, you have to get rid of that pesky conscience first in order to commit evil acts. Neutral is the middle ground for a reason, it's not just those that "Want to be good but aren't quite good enough" It's those that are in well, in the middle.Since we have seen no evil acts performed by Malack there is no reason to just default him to that alignment. His motivations in this whole thing seem to be to avenge his children's murder, which seems like a neutral goal to me.

Burner28

2010-12-24, 06:30 PM

It's closer to 'Greater good' than 'for the evulz', which is why Malack being LN or TN doesn't go the wrong way with me, or at the very least that is how a real Whatever/Neutral should see the scheme.

Though to be fair I kinda doubt anyone on Tarquin's team actually cares about the greater good.

Warren Dew

2010-12-24, 06:40 PM

It's not as though a Neutral person employed at a charity has to turn good just because they're committing good acts, and so it does appear that Neutral is being defined as basically "Good, but lazy about it".
Well, the evil acts we're talking about here are on the order of crucifying escaped slaves, and perhaps burning them alive. I don't think the excuse of "it's just my job" is really sufficient to absolve from guilt the guy who is nailing the slave to the cross.

Conversely, if someone working at a charity regularly, say, saved burn victims from otherwise certain death, then I think that person would have to be characterized as good from performing those good acts, even if he just did them as part of his job.

Now, someone who just worked as an accountant at either place? I think such a person could easily stay neutral in either case; to me doing sums to balance the books isn't sufficiently close enough to the "action", so to speak, necessarily to constitute participation in the relevant good or evil acts. And if someone worked both the "nail people to a cross" job and the "save burn victims" job, that person might also end up neutral, as a result of a balancing of the good acts and the evil acts.

Pyrite

2010-12-25, 10:10 PM

Well, the evil acts we're talking about here are on the order of crucifying escaped slaves, and perhaps burning them alive. I don't think the excuse of "it's just my job" is really sufficient to absolve from guilt the guy who is nailing the slave to the cross.

Conversely, if someone working at a charity regularly, say, saved burn victims from otherwise certain death, then I think that person would have to be characterized as good from performing those good acts, even if he just did them as part of his job.

Now, someone who just worked as an accountant at either place? I think such a person could easily stay neutral in either case; to me doing sums to balance the books isn't sufficiently close enough to the "action", so to speak, necessarily to constitute participation in the relevant good or evil acts. And if someone worked both the "nail people to a cross" job and the "save burn victims" job, that person might also end up neutral, as a result of a balancing of the good acts and the evil acts.

Malack's position in the Empire is to run the temple and to serve as the "spiritual adviser" of the Empress of Blood. By your own standards here, I think we'd have to know more about either the actions of his temple, or the nature of his spiritual advice, before passing any kind of judgment on him. For all we know, Malack's temple may be the only source of solace and fairness in the entire empire, and essentially the glue that holds society together.

Corneel

2010-12-25, 10:22 PM

For all we know, Malack's temple may be the only source of solace and fairness in the entire empire, and essentially the glue that holds society together.Highly unlikely for the temple of a god of death and destruction... And whatever Malack says about neutral being more fitting for a god of death, all D&D sources I know of where Nergal (as based on the Babylonian god) appears have him as evil.

hamishspence

2010-12-26, 04:54 AM

This is where I disagree. Niether of the extremes should be "easy" to achieve. For example, you have to get rid of that pesky conscience first in order to commit evil acts.

Evil cats can be done very easily with a conscience- all the person has to have, is a belief that these particular evil acts, aren't in this case evil. The absence of a conscience is not a requirement for committing evil acts- nor is it a requirement for an evil alignment.

Neutral may be the most common alignment for D&D humans- but that doesn't mean that more than 50% of D&D humans are neutral alignment. After all, as the PHB says "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

That said, Malack's a Lizardfolk- which do have a tendency toward Neutral alignment.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-26, 11:01 AM

Evil cats can be done very easily with a conscience- all the person has to have, is a belief that these particular evil acts, aren't in this case evil. The absence of a conscience is not a requirement for committing evil acts- nor is it a requirement for an evil alignment.

Neutral may be the most common alignment for D&D humans- but that doesn't mean that more than 50% of D&D humans are neutral alignment. After all, as the PHB says "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

That said, Malack's a Lizardfolk- which do have a tendency toward Neutral alignment.

What are you trying to say here? I gather from your argument that you feel that Malack is likely neutral and in one breath you say that humans are usually neutral and in the next that they tend towards no alignment. In response to the conscience bit, you're right the absence of one is not required. You do however have to either ignore it and feel guilt pangs or rationalize it with some sort of convoluted logic. Either way you have to deal with it.

Warren Dew

2010-12-26, 01:29 PM

By your own standards here, I think we'd have to know more about either the actions of his temple, or the nature of his spiritual advice, before passing any kind of judgment on him.
I agree. We've seen hardly anything from Malack in terms of actions, so we have no basis to judge. Sometimes I think he just sits around all day doing nothing.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-26, 04:57 PM

I agree. We've seen hardly anything from Malack in terms of actions, so we have no basis to judge. Sometimes I think he just sits around all day doing nothing.

Hey that's what Bruce Wayne does all day. So now we have to find out what he does all night :smallamused: You know what, I'm flipping a coin. Heads he's LE tails LN.

EDIT: It was Heads.

Deliverance

2010-12-26, 06:33 PM

I would say, rather, that being either Good or Evil is special. Most real people are Neutral. Most real people (I believe in the face of the arguments some board posters have made for the moral viability of the Empire of Blood) would balk at being actively involved in such a regime.

Say rather that "most real people would have qualms, but have few problems suppressing those qualms if that would let them get on with their daily life", even if such daily life directly aided the aspect of the regime that they had qualms about. Balking, not so much.

People balking at the status quo, moral or otherwise, are the exception rather than the rule and very different from balking at the introduction of new measures that one has qualms about.

Gift Jeraff

2010-12-27, 02:11 AM

Neutral may be the most common alignment for D&D humans- but that doesn't mean that more than 50% of D&D humans are neutral alignment. After all, as the PHB says "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".
I always figured that meant 11.111...% of humans were Neutral Good, True Neutral, etc.

CletusMusashi

2010-12-28, 01:09 AM

If he were encouraging the crucifixions, etc then I would say he was evil.
If he were primarily there working to lessen Tarkin's evil then I would say he tended toward good rather than neutrality. I can think of ways to muddy that up a bit, but in general, opposing extremes is the job of opposing extremes. Did that make sense? Let me put it this way: opposing (verb form of "opposing") extremes is the job of opposing (adjective/ adverb whatever this time) extremes. Neutrality isn't about opposing extremes, it's about preferring to avoid them.
But Malack hasn't had the option of avoiding overly evil or sanctimonious regimes. Where he comes from, kingdoms rose and fell constantly, swinging the pendulum all over. By picking somebody strong enough to stay in power, and friendly enough toward him that he doesn't have to change his way of life every six months in order to appease some new idiotic conqueror, he gets to live life as he prefers to and to attend to those things that do actually matter to him. He works for a Tarquin because that's what it takes not to have to work for a Nale, or perhaps a Miko.
If he really doesn't much care whether the government is good or bad, as long as it works, then that's lawful neutral.
Tarquin obviously has quite a few lawful evil folks behind him, but I have seen no more evidence that Malack is one of them than I have seen evidence that Roy and V are the same alignment. People seem to be a lot more willing to accept a neutral character getting pulled along by strong forces of good than they are when those forces are evil.
Plus, if Malack were an evil high priest he'd have a goatee. Or... if you want to be more herpetologically accurate, a dewlap.

Aldrakan

2010-12-28, 03:37 AM

Plus, if Malack were an evil high priest he'd have a goatee. Or... dewlap.

I'm not totally sure that the black-cloaked creepy voiced albino reptilian death cleric needs more traditional indications of evil.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-28, 10:22 AM

Plus, if Malack were an evil high priest he'd have a goatee. Or... dewlap.

Can lizardfolk grow facial hair? :smallconfused: But yes I agree with evrything you've said. Not only that but I like thinking that the giant would throw us a character that aesthetically seems so obviously evil but is actually neutral.

LuPuWei

2010-12-29, 03:37 PM

Evil cats can be done very easily with a conscience-

I wish you'd really meant to say 'Evil Cats' here...:smallbiggrin:

hamishspence

2010-12-30, 12:44 PM

What are you trying to say here? I gather from your argument that you feel that Malack is likely neutral and in one breath you say that humans are usually neutral and in the next that they tend towards no alignment. In response to the conscience bit, you're right the absence of one is not required. You do however have to either ignore it and feel guilt pangs or rationalize it with some sort of convoluted logic. Either way you have to deal with it.

I actually feel Malack is probably Evil- the point I've been trying to make, is that you can be Evil- and still have a conscience.

As to humans- there was a block in the PHB showing all 9 alignments, with various creatures for which the alignment was the "typical" one- for True Neutral, humans were in the block.

So there are more True Neutral humans than any other alignment.

However, the PHB also says that "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral".
For both to be true, the amount of True Neutral humans must be only slightly more- not enough for "Humans are Usually True Neutral" or even "Humans are Often True Neutral" to be valid statements.

Maybe, even Often Neutral (any) is not a valid statement
(assuming Neutral (any) refers to CN, N, and LN), just as Evil (any) refers to the three Evil alignments and Good (any) refers to the three Good alignments.

"Often" means that 40%-50% are the listed alignment- according to MM.
So- you'd need 39% or less of the population to be any of CN, N, and LN, for it to be true that:

"humans do not even tend toward the Neutral alignments".

I wish you'd really meant to say 'Evil Cats' here...:smallbiggrin:

Oops. Still "acts" was mentioned later in the paragraph.

I always figured that meant 11.111...% of humans were Neutral Good, True Neutral, etc.

As long as less than 40% are Lawful, less than 40% Chaotic, less than 40% Evil, less than 40% Good, and less than 40% the 3 morally Neutral alignments- we can fairly say that humans as a whole couldn't qualify as "often" anything.

Because "often" starts at 40%.

So humans could be biased slightly toward particular alignments (such as True Neutral, given that PHB suggests it's the "typical" alignment for humans) and yet still not be said to "tend" toward any alignment strongly enough for it to have to be included in their Monster Entry .

(They don't have one- but if they did, and any one alignment or even alignment subset (such as Lawful) was represented by 40% or more, then it would have to be mentioned in their entry- and then it would become fair to say they do have an alignment tendency)

KillItWithFire

2010-12-30, 02:43 PM

I actually feel Malack is probably Evil- the point I've been trying to make, is that you can be Evil- and still have a conscience.

I actually share this opinion that all sentient non-outsider creatures have a conscience. I've always believed that alignment is simply how much you listen to it. The problem here is this proves why it's possible fot Malack to be evil but so far I have seen no proof that he actually is. Given how he veers toward neutraility in his religon (hey, coulda picked Timat) and as you just pointed out lizardfolk tend toward neutraility I am still inclined to say neutral.

hamishspence

2010-12-30, 02:56 PM

I actually share this opinion that all sentient non-outsider creatures have a conscience. I've always believed that alignment is simply how much you listen to it.

What parts might also come into play. Sometimes, a character may believe that certain deeds are morally OK- but their conscience would trouble them enormously if they do other deeds.

"Even Evil has standards" might be a variant of this- the character might feel it is perfectly OK to exact torturous vengeance on those who harm them or those they are close to.

Yet still, be very troubled by the idea of harming "innocents".

A bit like Dexter or The Punisher, or early versions of Batman. Such a character would do certain evil acts with glee and no guilt whatsover- but avoid other evil acts, or feel great guilt about doing them.

ThunderCat

2010-12-30, 05:08 PM

The problem here is this proves why it's possible fot Malack to be evil but so far I have seen no proof that he actually is. Given how he veers toward neutraility in his religon (hey, coulda picked Timat) and as you just pointed out lizardfolk tend toward neutraility I am still inclined to say neutral.He's working for an evil empire. And not just just to survive, he actually helped put the evil empire in place to begin with. His deity's alignment can go both ways (his comment that a neutral alignment is a better fit for death gods can indicate that Nergal is neutral in the OOTS universe, unlike any other D&D world, but the way he avoided directly stating that he was neutral could be similar to Tarquin's promise to send troops to TFCD), but no matter what, it doesn't prevent an evil alignment. And he hasn't made any other actions of moral value.

So for now, I'd say evil as default, for helping to create, and work for, an evil empire. Perhaps he's doing enough good things, or at least prevent some killings and cruelties, within that empire to make up for it, but since we haven't seen him do it, evil is the most plausible alignment.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-30, 05:17 PM

Procyonpi

2010-12-30, 06:24 PM

I suspect he's like Tarquin. Evil, but extremely goal-oriented in his evil, and charismatic.

ThunderCat

2010-12-30, 06:58 PM

What Malack helped to do was establish an empire. Empires are not evil. They way they are run may or may not be evil (the former in the case of the EoB) I have seen absoulutly 0 evidence that Malack has anything to do with running the empire and as far as goals go.Doesn't matter. He knows it'll be an evil empire, run by the evil Tarquin (if not by both of them), because he's done it many times before. He's done it long before Nale was anything but a baby, and by all accounts, he will do it again. You can argue that since the region is in a state of constant warfare, the evilness of EOB (and EOS/EOT, which he also supports by his actions) doesn't make a difference, but two wrongs don't make a right, and if nothing else, he's preventing potential benevolent rulers from coming into power, because he's busy establishing brutal, tyrannical, slave-holding empires with Tarquin and the rest of the party.

Now, it could be that he has some sort of ulterior motivation or logical justification for his actions, but as it is now, evil is the most logical alignment because we haven't seen or heard of any good acts, but we know he's committed evil acts. At least if you count helping an evil genius to make war and establish tyrannies an evil act, and if you don't, then knowingly helping Xykon getting control of the snarl shouldn't necessarily be an evil act either, since it all depends on what Xykon does with it.

KillItWithFire

2010-12-30, 10:48 PM

Doesn't matter. He knows it'll be an evil empire, run by the evil Tarquin (if not by both of them), because he's done it many times before. He's done it long before Nale was anything but a baby, and by all accounts, he will do it again. You can argue that since the region is in a state of constant warfare, the evilness of EOB (and EOS/EOT, which he also supports by his actions) doesn't make a difference, but two wrongs don't make a right, and if nothing else, he's preventing potential benevolent rulers from coming into power, because he's busy establishing brutal, tyrannical, slave-holding empires with Tarquin and the rest of the party.

If it furthers his goals, why does a neutral character care?

Now, it could be that he has some sort of ulterior motivation or logical justification for his actions, but as it is now, evil is the most logical alignment because we haven't seen or heard of any good acts, but we know he's committed evil acts. At least if you count helping an evil genius to make war and establish tyrannies an evil act, and if you don't, then knowingly helping Xykon getting control of the snarl shouldn't necessarily be an evil act either, since it all depends on what Xykon does with it.

ulterior motivation hmmm, he doesn't seem to bask in the luxery that this plan seems ment to provide, abstaining from feasts, refusing to be sociable. I think he's there mainly because Tarquin is and I'm not gonna fault the guy for loyalty. So far it seems the thing he cares about most is his children, either to raise them or claim their vengence. He needs resources for that. Resources are a lot easier to come by when your buddy happens to be a dictator.

I don't consider establishing an empire to be an evil act. If he ran the empire that would be a different story. As I said before, establishing an empire isn't evil, the way Tarquin runs it is. So if you want Malack to just step in and confront his friend and honestly, his best chance at vengence agaisnt Nale to be proven neutral.... because that screams good to me, not neutral. He isn't actively atagonizing anyone, he isn't activly helping anyone: says neutral to me.