Malack and his undead...

[Bit Fiend]

In Strip #856 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) Tarquin mentions Malack is normally against creating undead (follower of a death god, likely to follow a dogma which trats the reversal of death as a sin). However Malack is a Cleric, which means he must have prepared the spell beforehand. But why on earth would he have done this? There is no way he would have known about the abundance of corpses in the Draketooths' hideout...

[theNater]

Undead creation spells are domain spells for the death domain, so clearly they're something that death gods want their followers to be able to do. It wouldn't surprise me if Malack regularly memorizes it in a normal slot, so he'll be ready in the unlikely event that he needs it. As a cleric, he can always turn it into a cure or inflict if he doesn't.

[supermonkeyjoe]

True, but create undead has a costly material component so he must have been carting around a fair amount of black onyx gems to cast it, fairly well prepared for someone who seems to be against raising the dead.

[Kish]

In Strip #856 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) Tarquin mentions Malack is normally against creating undead (follower of a death god, likely to follow a dogma which trats the reversal of death as a sin). However Malack is a Cleric, which means he must have prepared the spell beforehand. But why on earth would he have done this? There is no way he would have known about the abundance of corpses in the Draketooths' hideout...
Very good question.

Theories about exactly how it benefits Malack that there are mummified corpses here aside, it's still a very good question.

[NerfTW]

True, but create undead has a costly material component so he must have been carting around a fair amount of black onyx gems to cast it, fairly well prepared for someone who seems to be against raising the dead.

We haven't seen anyone in the strip using the material components when creating undead, and given Xykon and Tsukiko's tendency to do it many times in a row, I think it's not used here.

As for why he prepared the spell, well, he either keeps it prepared just in case, since he's high level, it's not like he can't spare a few slots, or he prepared it on purpose because they were heading into the desert, which would have a high rate of mummified corpses as opposed to rotting ones.

In short, he planned ahead. Nothing really odd about it. Not everyone is as dense as Durkon. (hee hee, windy canyon :smallbiggrin:)

[Forikroder]

In Strip #856 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) Tarquin mentions Malack is normally against creating undead (follower of a death god, likely to follow a dogma which trats the reversal of death as a sin). However Malack is a Cleric, which means he must have prepared the spell beforehand. But why on earth would he have done this? There is no way he would have known about the abundance of corpses in the Draketooths' hideout...

have you considered he jsut doesnt like the undead and its not because of his faith?

he seemed to think that his god specifically prepared the bodies jsut for him to ressurect so obviously its not that he thinks his god is against it he probably jsut personally doesnt like the undead that much

also creating undead is not reversing death its turning a corpse into a puppet animated by the blackest of magics, the draketooth's dont even realise there corpse is being used like that just like they didnt know about the speak with dead (but did know about the ressurection)

[Dark Matter]

Or he had a scroll. Competent adventurers often carry scrolls for unusual but useful when it happens type occasions.

Further his domains could well be "Death" and "Destruction". If so his choices for his 3rd level domain spell are "Animate Dead" or "Contagion". They're both "Evil" and of the two Animate Dead is far more useful.

(The Geekery thread goes into why this might have been "Animate Dead" rather than "Create Undead").

[SoC175]

Undead creation spells are domain spells for the death domain, so clearly they're something that death gods want their followers to be able to do.Well, in D&D most death deities are evil and actually more concerned with raising undead than keeping the dead dead.

For death deities that actually want to do their job, rare as they are in D&D, they have the respose domain which is basicall the death domain minus undead

[King of Nowhere]

in oots many casters just have the convenient spell ready.
Why did V prepare passwall?
Why did durkon waste a high level slot for a mass resist acid when he was already preparing several true seeing?

Some of the most ludicrous choices are justified (like durkon having waterwalk when living in the boat) but there are plenty of unlikely spells prepared. malack having some creating undead is not particularly strange on that matter. this universe run heavily on narrativium after all.

[Dark Matter]

Why did V prepare passwall?
Why did durkon waste a high level slot for a mass resist acid...Those are not bad choices for someone expecting a dungeon crawl &/or maze with lots of traps.

[Jay R]

"Only when it's funny."

[Concept]

I really don't trust anything Malack or Tarquin says which would "give insight into their character" if anyone else is around to hear it.

[blackspeeker]

As much as I like Tarquin and Malack, I have to agree with Concept. Malack saying he detests creating undead seems like a ploy.

Besides its been said before, evil can be congenial.

[Forikroder]

As much as I like Tarquin and Malack, I have to agree with Concept. Malack saying he detests creating undead seems like a ploy.

Besides its been said before, evil can be congenial.

Malack never said he detests creating the undead, only that he was agaisnt it

im against vegans doesnt mean that i hate them and cant be civil with them

[Bit Fiend]

Malack never said he detests creating the undead, only that he was agaisnt it

im against vegans doesnt mean that i hate them and cant be civil with them

But it does mean you won't promote veganism, much less create new vegans.

[Jay R]

But it does mean you won't promote veganism, much less create new vegans.

But it doesn't mean I won't eat vegetables. In this case, he thinks his god left him mummified flesh. OK, he will use it.

Similarly, if I sit down to a vegetarian dinner, I will eat it. And continue to prefer meat.

[Kish]

What does "I'm against vegans" even mean?

Maybe it means just "I have no interest in being a vegan." Or maybe it means, "I don't think vegans should exist." In neither case does it make the point Forikroder seems to think it does. Jay R, if you seriously think "I'm against undead" conveys "I prefer other spells to undead-creation spells though I have nothing against undead-creation," I don't know what to say.

[ThePhantasm]

im against vegans doesnt mean that i hate them and cant be civil with them

Your analogies blow my mind, man.

[Jay R]

Jay R, if you seriously think "I'm against undead" conveys "I prefer other spells to undead-creation spells though I have nothing against undead-creation," I don't know what to say.

Please don't put quotation marks around something that you ascribe to me, unless you are actually quoting my words. I think "I'm against undead" means "I'm against undead", but does not convey an utter unwillingness to ever respond unusually to a unusual situation.

I have interpreted all of Malack's words and actions together, while you have interpreted his earlier words in a way that is inconsistent with his later words and actions.

Tarquin expressed surprise, similar to yours, based on "I always thought you were against this sort of thing."

Malack replied, "I am. But Lord Nergal has blessed us with an abundance of a relatively rare resource. If I were not to make full use of it, it would just be rude. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html)"

Any attempt at interpreting Malack's position should include this as well.

As Tarquin has shown us, your reaction is quite reasonable, based on earlier data. But we need to modify our views based on the new data.

[Kish]

Please don't put quotation marks around something that you ascribe to me, unless you are actually quoting my words. I think "I'm against undead" means "I'm against undead", but does not convey an utter unwillingness to ever respond unusually to a unusual situation.

I have interpreted all of Malack's words and actions together,
Either you are against non-meat food in the same way you consider Malack to be against undead. Or, as far as I can tell, you've posted a non-sequitur in support of an invalid analogy.

=============================================

Unrelated to really bad analogies about vegans, at this point the most likely explanation I can think of is that Malack was able to use Animate Dead rather than needing Create Undead to create mummies from mummified bodies, and he left enough third-level-and-higher slots empty to prepare casting(s) of Animate Dead and create the six mummies we saw him create. This doesn't work without the first part, because "This morning Malack left six of his spell slots, level six and above, empty" would be a boggling idea, not so impossible that I wouldn't swallow it if Rich said it, but so bizarre that I'd definitely blink at being asked to do so. And it doesn't work without the second part because Malack cannot have, this morning, planned for mummified corpses which he did not yet know were there.

[Tathum]

After glancing through this thread...

I'm gonna have to side with the vegans and their philosophy on this one. All of that healthy eating coupled with a steady diet of whole grains and low sodium meals makes them very tender and delicious!

I have at least one vegan tenderloin wrapped in bacon and grilled every week!

[King of Nowhere]

But it does mean you won't promote veganism, much less create new vegans.

Mass create vegans: creates 2d6 hp of vegans who start pestering the monster about not eating you

[Bit Fiend]

Mass create vegans: creates 2d6 hp of vegans who start pestering the monster about not eating you

Hm, if the monsters start eating the vegans instead this one might actually be useful...

Alternatively you could have something way more terrifying... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqqGZBRBLcM)

[Anarion]

Unrelated to really bad analogies about vegans, at this point the most likely explanation I can think of is that Malack was able to use Animate Dead rather than needing Create Undead to create mummies from mummified bodies, and he left enough third-level-and-higher slots empty to prepare casting(s) of Animate Dead and create the six mummies we saw him create. This doesn't work without the first part, because "This morning Malack left six of his spell slots, level six and above, empty" would be a boggling idea, not so impossible that I wouldn't swallow it if Rich said it, but so bizarre that I'd definitely blink at being asked to do so. And it doesn't work without the second part because Malack cannot have, this morning, planned for mummified corpses which he did not yet know were there.

Hmm, my best guess is that his staff has several spells in it, including either animate or create undead. He might have acquired it not as an item of Nergle, but as a general "do evil things" piece of magical equipment from a tomb or dungeon. This would be one of the rare times when the undead creation part of the staff came in handy, whereas other, presently unknown, spells might have received more frequent use in Malack's past.

[Forikroder]

Hmm, my best guess is that his staff has several spells in it, including either animate or create undead. He might have acquired it not as an item of Nergle, but as a general "do evil things" piece of magical equipment from a tomb or dungeon. This would be one of the rare times when the undead creation part of the staff came in handy, whereas other, presently unknown, spells might have received more frequent use in Malack's past.

or he had scrolls to create the undead since we know he had to return to his study to get some scrolls http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0812.html could be he keeps some spells on scroll that he normally doesnt use but knows are useful, or planned to reanimate Nales dead corpse to use for some menail and insulting job as a constant insult to him

[Emperordaniel]

Mass create vegans: creates 2d6 hp of vegans who start pestering the monster about not eating you

Do you mind if my character starts researching that spell for a game I'm currently participating in? Sounds like it could be useful. :smalltongue:

[Jay R]

Either you are against non-meat food in the same way you consider Malack to be against undead. Or, as far as I can tell, you've posted a non-sequitur in support of an invalid analogy.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example, to prove that the statement "I'm against X" doesn't automatically have a single implacable meaning. I never stated that it was an analogy. The closest to an analogy iot can be deformed into would be the following: Just as Malack's statement doesn't mean he'd never use undead, a statement that "I'm against Vegans" does not mean I would never eat a vegetarian meal. I certainly never said or implied that undead and vegetarians could be thought of or treated the same.

You changed my words into something I never said. and put it in quotes as if I had said it.

My next post was primarily denying that the words you put in quotes and ascribed to me were a quotation of anything I said. Then iot was followed by another attempt to communicate my position.

[Kish]

It wasn't an analogy.

That claim boggled me enough that I had to rewrite my reply to this three times.

Look at Bit Fiend's initial post, and tell me what part of it is supposed to be addressed by even your extremely charitable (...to Forikroder, if correspondingly uncharitable to Bit Fiend) editing of Forikroder's post.

[Forikroder]

That claim boggled me enough that I had to rewrite my reply to this three times.

Look at Bit Fiend's initial post, and tell me what part of it is supposed to be addressed by even your extremely charitable (...to Forikroder, if correspondingly uncharitable to Bit Fiend) editing of Forikroder's post.

i (and possibly others) are trying to point out that being against soemthing something doesnt neccesarily mean you have a blood oath against it

you can be against something and still have no problem doing it in special circumstances (like you could be against dancing but still dance with your new wife, or be against cruises but still take her on a cruise for your honeymoon because you know shes always dreamt of taking a cruise)

being against something can mean you just dont particularly care for it

[Anarion]

The closest to an analogy iot can be deformed into would be the following: Just as Malack's statement doesn't mean he'd never use undead, a statement that "I'm against Vegans" does not mean I would never eat a vegetarian meal.

This still doesn't make sense. Undead are the same thing as what Malack's spell makes. Your statement, to have any kind of parallel, would have to be "I'm against vegans does not mean I would never associate with a vegan" or something to that effect.

Also, the OP doesn't say that Malack would never prepare spells related to undead. So, let's say we concede the point and admit that being against something doesn't mean you'll never do anything related to it. It still turned out that Malack had a large number of spells prepared to do something that he's against. That's sort of hard to believe, which is why I personally think he has the staff doing it, since the staff could have other spells he likes and the undead creation would be a random perk that rarely comes up.

It would be like having a staff that could cast fireball and sepia snake sigil. One of those you'll use a lot, but if you happen to need the other one, it's pretty handy.

[skaddix]

True, but create undead has a costly material component so he must have been carting around a fair amount of black onyx gems to cast it, fairly well prepared for someone who seems to be against raising the dead.

Tarquin seems like a guy who would make sure everyone in his party was equipped with every material competent they need. Besides they are in control of three Empires they have more then enough gold to buy and keep stocked any material components they could possibly need so no reason not to is essentially laziness.

[Dorsidwarf]

Do you mind if my character starts researching that spell for a game I'm currently participating in? Sounds like it could be useful. :smalltongue:

Don't confuse it with Mass Create Virgin!

[HerbieRAI]

It's not really part of the debate currently, but I feel it could add some to the conversation, since the Create Undead line could be domain spells.

Malack says about being against undead:

"I am. But Lord Nergal has blessed us with an abundance of a relatively rare resource. If I were not to make full use of it, it would just be rude."

This implies that in Malack's mind Nergal has no problem raising dead, since it would be rude to not use resources Nergal left for them. He is the high priest and should know his own god's views, I think it is a good assumption that the "against Undead" phrase and whatever that means is Malack's feeling, not Nergal's.

[Themrys]

Just as Malack's statement doesn't mean he'd never use undead, a statement that "I'm against Vegans" does not mean I would never eat a vegetarian meal. I certainly never said or implied that undead and vegetarians could be thought of or treated the same.


That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to be "against vegans", as they don't eat anything you wouldn't eat, nor do anything you could consider immoral. You can be against veganism because you consider it unhealthy, but not against vegans.
And being "against veganism" wouldn't suggest to anyone that you don't eat vegetables, while being against undead sure suggests that Malack won't use undead without a very good reason.

[Forikroder]

That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to be "against vegans", as they don't eat anything you wouldn't eat, nor do anything you could consider immoral. You can be against veganism because you consider it unhealthy, but not against vegans.
And being "against veganism" wouldn't suggest to anyone that you don't eat vegetables, while being against undead sure suggests that Malack won't use undead without a very good reason.

veganism isnt a word normally used, its pretty rare to hear soemone say "ive decided to adopt veganism" normally they jsut say "ive gone vegan"

while it may not be the best comparison ever, i think it should have been enough to at least get the point across

(Also Malack was given an extremely good reason to raise dead, a (from his perspective) direct sign from his Deity kinda like how Durkon surrendered to Miko cause of a thunderstorm)

[Bit Fiend]

(Also Malack was given an extremely good reason to raise dead, a (from his perspective) direct sign from his Deity kinda like how Durkon surrendered to Miko cause of a thunderstorm)

Sort of true, but I don't think it's really comparable situations. Even if we consider the signs being equally valid, Durkon didn't have to plan ahead to follow the sign given. All he had to do was to stay away from attacking. Malack on the other hand would've had to prepare undead creation spells before he recieved the sign from his deity, which is not likely what he did if he is against creating undead. He would not prepare such spells unless he speciffically knew they were needed or was given a sign by his deity that he should. Both could be explained of course: Tarquin, genre savvy as he is, could have told him to prepare some just in case (which I find unlikely given his surprised reaction) or Nergal could have told him via vision/divination. Still I'd go with the staff theory, as it circumvents the need to prepare the spells in the first place....