Yet another thread about Malack's alignment.. [Archive]

coineineagh

2012-09-04, 08:34 PM

Malack the cleric of Nergal, the lion-headed god of death and destruction.
"You know, neither gods of death nor their clerics are necessarily evil. That's a common misconception. If anything, Neutrality suits them better." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

It seems that Malack would consider himself (and his deity) as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. But is that necessarily true? He might be outright lying, but it's also possible that he's slightly delusional, and actually believes this of himself.

I'm reminded of Miko, who had convinced herself that her actions had to be Good, despite the gods themselves intervening to signal otherwise.

Malack blatantly overlooks that Nergal has destruction in his portfolio as well, which would be an even harder thing to rationalize as Neutral.

I noticed this little detail on the DnD site: "A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm)
The first part I knew, the second part is probably added to the latest edition of D&D. So, it might not bear any relevance to the comic, since the story is only loosely based on 3.5 edition. The rule isn't really clear about whether the Neutral aspect can be disregarded completely if a deity has either 1 of the 2 forms of Neutrality. For example: If Nergal were in fact Neutral Evil, would Malack be allowed to be True Neutral as a result?

Anyway, this isn't just about rules nitpicking. What I'm wondering is: Could Malack be deluding himself as to the Evil nature of his actions over all these years? Tarquin was his party leader, and a very charismatic diplomat. T almost had me convinced the actions he took in his dictatorship-swindle-scheme actually saves lives and amounts to a greater good. Can you imagine if that person talks to you on a daily basis? It's quite possible that Malack has a conscience which objects to a great many things (like creating undead despite being cleric for a god of death), but that he is convinced of the [Goodness? Neutrality? Lawfulness?]... let's say 'morality' of his actions.

I can picture this scene where after his death, Nergal tells Malack: "You weren't trying hard enough. You are not fit to serve at my side."
It would be a very bad end, because without serving his deity, a regular Evil afterlife would await him instead...:smalleek:

Sorator

2012-09-04, 09:16 PM

I do believe that line means that a cleric cannot be True Neutral unless they worship a TN deity. You can still be NG if you're worshipping a LG or CG god, for example.

I'm guessing that Nergal is LN or LE, and Malack is LN.

Red.Tide

2012-09-04, 10:03 PM

I agree that, compared to Tarquin, Malack doesn't seem all that evil. But you have to remember that he is one of the high-ups in an evil empire, and privy to (and part of) Tarquin's self-serving, evil plans.

IIRC, somewhere in the rules it talks about Lawful Evil characters having codes of things they won't do; i.e. they might not go out of the way to slaughter innocents, but will do it if that's what's necessary to further their goals. To me, Malack fits this description.

Kish

2012-09-04, 10:35 PM

I doubt very much that Malack does not know his own alignment. He is part of a group dedicated to the brutal subjugation of the continent, and therefore he is probably Lawful Evil; his lines to Durkon remind me a great deal of Tarquin's lines to Amun-Zora. Malack strongly implied that he and his god are Something Neutral; Tarquin strongly implied that he was sending troops to help the Free City of Doom.

ti'esar

2012-09-04, 10:41 PM

I'm guessing that Nergal is LN or LE, and Malack is LN.

I'd guess the opposite - leaning strongly towards LE for Malack, with only the fact that he hasn't done anything actively evil arguing against it.

RiOrius

2012-09-04, 10:44 PM

Remember that he was about to feed Elan to a dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html). Plus, his "very special diet" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html) has always felt incredibly sketchy.

I mean, "clerics of Death gods are not necessarily evil?" Methinks the priest doth protest too much.

Kish

2012-09-04, 10:50 PM

I agree with Malack's argument that the Neutral alignment suits death gods better than the Evil alignment. Death is a part of life, better accepted than feared.

I just note that while he makes it, he avoids stating outright what alignment his specific death god is, or what alignment he is.

jidasfire

2012-09-04, 11:34 PM

Despite his association with Tarquin and the Empire of Blood, I still think it's at least possible Malack is Lawful Neutral. The fact that we don't yet know, and he's portrayed as at least much less given to violence or ruthlessness (except where his murdered kids are concerned, and that hardly makes him evil), is probably to keep up from guessing how he's going to react to Durkon in their impending duel. Will he let Durkon go out of a sense of friendship? Will his loyalty to Tarquin win out? Will he take some third path? Since we don't know if he's evil or neutral, it's hard to say. I do think if he is evil, it's an evil of passivity, that is, for tolerating Tarquin's misdeeds, rather than anything he does in particular. Wherever he falls, I suspect he agrees with Tarquin that order is preferable to chaos, and moral concerns are trivial in the face of that.

Morquard

2012-09-05, 01:24 AM

That line Malack gives about his and his god's alignment is a typical politician answer. It says nothing at all, but makes everyone think he said exactly what they always wanted to hear.

coineineagh

2012-09-05, 01:54 AM

his lines to Durkon remind me a great deal of Tarquin's lines to Amun-Zora. Malack strongly implied that he and his god are Something Neutral; Tarquin strongly implied that he was sending troops to help the Free City of Doom.
I never thought of that.
that would mean he meant Neutrality in the Lawful-Chaotic axis, while the sentence before that deliberately misleads us to think he was talking about the Good-Evil axis. Very shrewd indeed.

Mike Havran

2012-09-05, 02:50 AM

Personally, I am very convinced that Malack is Lawful Neutral. My reasons:

1. He only displays anger, hatred and desire to harm when Nale (or somebody who looks exactly like Nale, not knowing about twins) is concerned. Which is completely justified in my book, because Nale murdered/killed three his children. That alone would make anybody upset and wanting revenge.

2. He seems to be a pretty naive person. He didn't figure that the Order is working together (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0818.html), he took seriously Haley's Minnesota anecdote (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0744.html). Heck, even Durkon bluffed him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html). Of course, that all could be just a very cunning facade - but then we shouldn't trust anything any antagonist ever says.

3. Tarquin has two layers of cover story to his real motivations. One is explained here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html), the other here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html).
Malack may be well working under the impression that the second one is valid. Remember, he doesn't participate on those displays of power like the parade or gladitorial games. And such displays are token of LE characters, like Tarquin. If Malack stays most of the time in his chapel, burning offerings, drinking tea and minding his own business, he probably doesn't even know about Tarquin's other deeds, like burning slaves. To LN, building a strong government that would prevent warfare is something worthy to support, even if the advisors have to rule through puppet emperors for the sake of safety.

4. I wonder what other countries in the desert, those not ruled by Tarquin, look like. From their names I don't get the feeling they are much (if any) better that the Empires. So slavery, gladiators and bounty hunting is likely common on the entire continent. That well explains why Malack doesn't object them - it has always been a part of the environment.

5. Death and Destruction are both pretty much Neutral things from Nature's point of view - both harm that which exists to make place for something new to come.

6. And finally, one meta-argument. The Giant implied Malack's allignment is going to be a plot point in the future. So it makes only sense if he doesn't state his alligment directly - that's why his speech and dinner habits are ambiguous. It's not because he is a veteran liar and wants to mislead the characters (and the readers).

Scowling Dragon

2012-09-05, 09:39 AM

Mabe the destruction is more of a "change" thing?

Like the necessity of destruction to facilitate change? The god could be completely neutral. And probably chaotic. If anything The god could be CN. And So could Malack.

But I still see Malack as evil as he isn't DOING anything. He sees so much suffering around him, and he doesn't lift a finger with all his power to convince Taquin to make life better for these peasants, instead of just stabilizing the area.

Kornaki

2012-09-05, 10:21 AM

Lawful Neutral is not Lawful Good, which seems to be giving people fits. It is entirely within Lawful Neutral to not care whether other people are starving. Lawful Neutral cares about social order, not whether people's lives could be improved, so I think it is entirely fitting within his alignment to try to be a stabilizing government force even through deceptive and what some might consider evil means

Kish

2012-09-05, 10:24 AM

It is entirely within Lawful Neutral to not care whether other people are starving.
That's not what the Player's Handbook says.
"cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life...plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion," does describe one of the Lawful alignments there. It's not Lawful Neutral.

Kornaki

2012-09-05, 10:40 AM

That's not what the Player's Handbook says.
"cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life...plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion," does describe one of the Lawful alignments there. It's not Lawful Neutral.

OK but Lawful Neutral:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Read literally, if the law says that 20% of the population must starve to death every year, the lawful neutral character may support that because it's the law (they may also fight to change the law, but they don't become evil for failing to break it). Nowhere in the description does it say lawful neutral characters have any compassion for others outside the bounds of whatever code they are following.

All we know is that Malack considers a strong long lasting government more important than starving peasants (who would be starving anyway) which is entirely keeping with the alignment from what I can tell

If you consider how a lawful neutral outsider acts, they certainly don't (typically) act with compassion

Kish

2012-09-05, 10:46 AM

Nowhere in the description does it say lawful neutral characters have any compassion for others outside the bounds of whatever code they are following.

If your description of Lawful Neutral is functionally identical to "a Lawful Evil character who doesn't act like a cackling cartoon villain," you've gone wrong somewhere.

All we know is that Malack considers a strong long lasting government

You mean, constant wars leading to his adventuring group having more power over the continent?

If you consider how a lawful neutral outsider acts, they certainly don't (typically) act with compassion
If you consider how any outsider acts, they typically don't act sane by mortal standards. What's your point? The Player's Handbook says that "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior"; should that be used as an argument that a human who practices random murder and cannibalism is True Neutral, not Chaotic Evil? No. Humanoids are humanoids, not animals, and not Inevitables either.

veti

2012-09-05, 03:27 PM

Malack's words to Durkon are couched as a generalisation. As Kish points out, he never actually says what his or his deity's alignments are. So even if you think he's being truthful, that still doesn't tell us squat about his alignment.

I think there's a reason why he only hints, and doesn't actually state his alignment: because, like Tarquin, he would consider "outright lying" to be chaotic.

The question that leaves open is: why does he care about Durkon's opinion? Why go to the trouble of misleading some random dwarf cleric of a distant pantheon?

I think the answer to that is: again like Tarquin, he's a politician, and he knows a potentially useful connection when he sees one.

rgrekejin

2012-09-05, 04:51 PM

That's not what the Player's Handbook says.
"cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life...plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion," does describe one of the Lawful alignments there. It's not Lawful Neutral.

Keep reading that description -

Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.

I'm with Kornaki here - it is entirely within the purview of the Lawful Neutral alignment (or any alignment Neutral on the Good-Evil axis, really) to be cognizant of suffering and simply not care about it. A LN character certainly can care if people are starving, but they by no means have to, at least not all the time. If they themselves directly caused people to starve, then they'd be Evil, no question. But simple indifference to the suffering of others? Neutral can do that.

To the point of the thread, though, I suspect that if Malack isn't Evil already, he's trending strongly in that direction.

snikrept

2012-09-05, 06:06 PM

I think his alignment is Menacing Gracious

Incom

2012-09-05, 07:19 PM

Malack always struck me as LN. He doesn't actively go out of his way to hurt anyone (other than Nale who is LE and killed his kids--how justified that is is another matter--and the one time he mistakes Elan for Nale) and while he doesn't pay much attention to the suffering around him, that seems to be more the result of not wanting to hurt his friendship with Tarquin than anything else (indeed, does he have any real friends other than his old party before the OOTS comes? He doesn't seem to be too social). And I'd point out his surroundings: if he's the cleric of a god of death, it would make sense that the gladiator stuff and war stuff isn't as big a deal as it would be to others.

And I totally agree with his argument that an ideal "god of death" would be LN, though that doesn't require Nergal or Malack to be LN.

I do think he doesn't think of himself as evil (based on the way he talks about Nale), but then again, neither does Tarq.

I don't think we can really be sure though.

coineineagh

2012-09-05, 07:57 PM

Now I'm all confused.
Malack is likely Lawful Neutral, supporting Tarquin's leadership because it brings order.
Nergal is a god of death and destruction. Even if that's not Evil, the concept of change through destruction is still anything but Lawful. If Tarquin's larger scheme results in more order and stability, Malack may in fact be hurting his own god's cause. There are less deaths now, and less chaos.

This is all based on the claim Tarquin made that their leadership reduces needless deaths from wars. If it isn't true, then there's no problem.

Alignment wise, Nergal seems increasingly likely to be a Chaotic deity, while his cleric Malack displays textbook Lawful behaviour. I can't help but notice the similarity between Malack(Lawful)+Nergal(Chaotic) and Durkon(Lawful)+Thor(Chaotic). It's two steps on the alignment axis, which doesn't go by DnD rules. That's probably why they both get along well; they might both be struggling with similar morality issues inside their faith. Perhaps this is an artefact of the traditional personality stereotyping of clerics as Lawful characters.

theNater

2012-09-05, 08:27 PM

Nergal is a god of death and destruction. Even if that's not Evil, the concept of change through destruction is still anything but Lawful.
A deity can specialize in precisely targeted and/or systematic destruction, and be a lawful deity of destruction. The only domains that have an inherent alignment are the alignment domains; for everything else, it's all in how you use it.

Sorator

2012-09-06, 08:53 PM

A deity can specialize in precisely targeted and/or systematic destruction, and be a lawful deity of destruction. The only domains that have an inherent alignment are the alignment domains; for everything else, it's all in how you use it.

Exactly. A god of death that is not inherently evil definitely strikes me as LN. And Malack really acts like V does, but more Lawful-y.

ti'esar

2012-09-06, 09:05 PM

Plus, his "very special diet" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html) has always felt incredibly sketchy.

Now that I look at this again, it confuses me. The most likely explanation for Malack's "special diet" is that it has to do with his health, exactly as he says. But if there's some other reason, considering just what everyone ate at the state dinner would seem to point to it as evidence for Malack not being evil.

theNater

2012-09-06, 09:20 PM

Now that I look at this again, it confuses me. The most likely explanation for Malack's "special diet" is that it has to do with his health, exactly as he says. But if there's some other reason, considering just what everyone ate at the state dinner would seem to point to it as evidence for Malack not being evil.
Not dining in company is a classic vampiric tell. If Malack isn't eating because he's a vampire, that would tend to point towards him being evil. We really can't conclude anything from the dinner, as there are perfectly valid good, neutral, and evil reasons for Malack to skip it.

ti'esar

2012-09-06, 09:23 PM

Oh, right, the "Malack is a vampire" thing. I'd rather hoped we were past that by now.

theNater

2012-09-07, 12:59 AM

Oh, right, the "Malack is a vampire" thing. I'd rather hoped we were past that by now.
I'm not saying Malack is a vampire, simply that skipping the meal -by itself- just as easily indicates evil as it does good, and so should probably not be used as an indicator of Malack's alignment until we have confirmation on the reasons behind it.

On the whole vampire issue, skipping meals combined with albinism is such a classic pair of tells I figure it's going to amount to something, even if it just ends up as a slightly more sophisticated version of the Lizgreaper joke.

Crusher

2012-09-07, 09:52 AM

Call me a sap, but I think Malack was intentionally vague about his and his deity's alignment because he *likes* Durkon (I mean, as a friend. Not romantically). There probably aren't a lot of lawful clerics of around Malack's level in that part of the world. The few who are there are likely political powers of one sort or another, high priests of another religion, counselors to other kings, etc. Meaning that Malack has to be careful around them because, given the way Tarquin does business, he's probably butted heads with them already or there's an excellent chance he'll butt head with them in the future.

The list of lawful, high level clerics with whom Malack can relax, have some tea and discuss comparative theology with is likely vanishingly small. Durkon fits that bill perfectly. He's lawful and the right power level (roughly speaking), Durkon is blowing through town and they both know there's a good chance he'll never be back (making the possibility of conflict down the road slim) and he's the adviser to the son of Tarquin's whom everyone doesn't hate, making it extra-unlikely they'd end up in conflict (they do, of course, which Elan could have told them was inevitable. But rationally, it seemed like a safe bet).

So, long story short, I think Malack is delighted to have Durkon around and figures why spoil a potentially nice friendly relationship if he doesn't even have to lie to do it?

Snails

2012-09-07, 07:07 PM

So, long story short, I think Malack is delighted to have Durkon around and figures why spoil a potentially nice friendly relationship if he doesn't even have to lie to do it?

Exactly.

The fact that Malack feels no need to be wear viciousness on his sleeve for a random polite stranger wandering through town is not meaningful evidence of non-Evilness. If I had to bet, I would definitely put my money on LE, but, yes, it is quite possible Malack is LN.

The fact that politeness and some flavor of honesty confuses so many readers is surely one of the big reasons the Giant is playing with us here.

Edit: I would add to your list of why Malack might take a liking to Durkon: as a non-human to non-human who have both spent so much time being the outsider in human dominated lands. They are perennial outsiders who find they have a surprising number of things in common, in spite of many obvious differences.

coineineagh

2012-09-07, 07:55 PM

Edit: I would add to your list of why Malack might take a liking to Durkon: as a non-human to non-human who have both spent so much time being the outsider in human dominated lands. They are perennial outsiders who find they have a surprising number of things in common, in spite of many obvious differences.

We saw a lot of lizardfolk in Bleedingham, as well as that desert port town where the OotS started their search. I think Tarquin also spoke of consolidating "human and lizardfolk territory" as opposed to the elven lands in the north.

ti'esar

2012-09-07, 08:25 PM

We saw a lot of lizardfolk in Bleedingham, as well as that desert port town where the OotS started their search. I think Tarquin also spoke of consolidating "human and lizardfolk territory" as opposed to the elven lands in the north.

In fact, I think it's been specifically mentioned that humans and lizardfolk are pretty well-integrated throughout the Western Continent.

Turgon9357

2012-09-08, 06:25 PM

Dewey decimal system strictly enforced.

snikrept

2012-09-08, 11:42 PM

Still of the opinion that Malack doesn't choose to dine at Tarquin's state dinners because he's aware that Tarquin serves some pretty repulsive foods. And is too polite to say that.

brilliantlight

2012-09-17, 11:02 AM

My GUESS is Malack is LE just like Tarquin and like him doesn't wear his villainy on his sleeve. However I do think he is more lawful than evil so he is either LE leaning LN or straight up LN.

Water_Bear

2012-09-17, 11:55 AM

It's kind of funny, because this debate seems like the inverted counterpart to the discredited "Thog is Chaotic Neutral" idea.

Being stupid and behaving in a childlike manner does not absolve Thog of his many on-screen Evil actions. Being wise and behaving in a sophisticated manner does not absolve Malack of the vast off-screen atrocities which he has directly supported through his participation in Tarquin's scheming.

As for the Nergal thing, I am 100% ready to believe that Malack worships a LN deity. After all, how many Evil Clerics of Wee Jas are running around in the standard cosmology; there's no mechanical or story reason why his alignment would have to match that of his god exactly.

LadyEowyn

2012-09-17, 02:39 PM

Being stupid and behaving in a childlike manner does not absolve Thog of his many on-screen Evil actions. Being wise and behaving in a sophisticated manner does not absolve Malack of the vast off-screen atrocities which he has directly supported through his participation in Tarquin's scheming.

The difference is that we saw Thog do plenty of evil stuff. We haven't seen Malack take any specific actions that are actually we evil. We don't even have hearsay of him, specifically, doing things that are definitely evil.

We only know that he's associated with Tarquin and that Tarquin is evil. However, the Order is also associated with Belkar and Belkar is evil. Since Tarquin's running the Empire of Blood and Belkar's clearly not running the Order, it's not equivalent, but association alone isn't enough to peg him for certain as evil. My guess would be Lawful Neutral.

However, a couple of questions for people more versed in D&D:

We've seen Malack raise mummies. Is a certain alignment required to use necromancy (i.e.: do you have to be evil to do so, or at least have to be non-good)? Also, same question regarding Harm.

EDIT: Correction: Malack being willing to feed Elan to a dragon when he thought Elan was Nale may qualify as an Evil act. However, it wouldn't have looked that way if he had just be trying to feed Nale to a dragon, and he didn't have particularly strong evidence that Elan wasn't Nale, so it's probably only sufficient to say Malack isn't Good.

hamishspence

2012-09-17, 02:50 PM

"Create Undead" has the [Evil] tag- but Neutral clerics can cast [Evil] spells and still be Neutral. Good aligned clerics are simply unable to cast such spells- Good-aligned wizards can though.

So we know he's "non-good".

LadyEowyn

2012-09-17, 02:53 PM

Thanks! So the fact that he'll use necromancy but generally doesn't like to do so and will only use it in particular circumstances (like stumbling across a bunch of mummies) also seems to suggest Lawful Neutral.

hamishspence

2012-09-17, 02:54 PM

That said- he was using a staff to do so- might get around the normal rules.

Still doubt very much that he's Good.

Water_Bear

2012-09-17, 03:01 PM

The difference is that we saw Thog do plenty of evil stuff. We haven't seen Malack take any specific actions that are actually we evil. We don't even have hearsay of him, specifically, doing things that are definitely evil.

We only know that he's associated with Tarquin and that Tarquin is evil. However, the Order is also associated with Belkar and Belkar is evil. Since Tarquin's running the Empire of Blood and Belkar's clearly not running the Order, it's not equivalent, but association alone isn't enough to peg him for certain as evil. My guess would be Lawful Neutral.

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.

Mike Havran

2012-09-17, 03:39 PM

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.

I would like to point that judging from the names like Cruelvania etc., pretty much the whole part of the western continent (wc) looks similar to Tarquin's empires. The conquest scheme itself maybe isn't anything extraordinarily Evil, by wc's standards and environment. Tarquin's deeds probably are Evil even then; but it is not certain Malack knows about them.

theNater

2012-09-17, 06:49 PM

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.
Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.

zimmerwald1915

2012-09-18, 03:57 AM

I would like to point that judging from the names like Cruelvania etc., pretty much the whole part of the western continent (wc) looks similar to Tarquin's empires. The conquest scheme itself maybe isn't anything extraordinarily Evil, by wc's standards and environment. Tarquin's deeds probably are Evil even then; but it is not certain Malack knows about them.
"Looks" is a very telling verb. About the only thing we know about Cruelvania and all the countries of the Western Continent is that they probably weren't around as recently as two years ago, and were most certainly not around when Tarquin first set foot on the continent. Even then, country names aren't necessarily to be taken at face value. Tyrinar the Bloody may have been a milquetoast who made up for his utter lack of political power and savvy with terrible fashion sense, but he didn't seem on board with the total Tarquin package - he certainly lasted less long than the Empress, and we are made to understand that this is because Tarquin just got tired of putting up with him.

Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.
Elan saw through Tarquin's rationalizations eventually, and he had known Tarquin for three days or so at that point. This from a man with intelligence and wisdom scores so low as to be unable to cast cantrips as a wizard or orisions as a cleric. Malack is no fool - his being able to cast Harm proves that much - and he's known Tarquin for more than twenty years. To suggest that he's ignorant of what Tarquin is and what he's doing is absurd. Now, he might not care, and he might, if he really is neutral, rationalize to himself that his sequestration from Palace life and the non-ecclesiastical business of Empire-management absolves him of responsibility, but he cannot possibly be ignorant of what's really going on.

weeping eagle

2012-09-18, 04:29 AM

So, long story short, I think Malack is delighted to have Durkon around and figures why spoil a potentially nice friendly relationship if he doesn't even have to lie to do it?My thoughts as well. I would also add that perhaps the LE/LG tension is fascinating to both parties and even a learning opportunity.

Joe the Rat

2012-09-18, 08:51 AM

My thoughts as well. I would also add that perhaps the LE/LG tension is fascinating to both parties and even a learning opportunity.

I wouldn't go so far as saying both parties - Durkon feels like he comes down more on the smite side than the smile at side in regards to Evil, but Malack has a more philosophical bent.

That said, I'm on the fence about Evil, but my impression is that he's Lawful, and on the balance somewhere south of the equator. Though if he does ultimately come down to evil, a Durkon-Malack team-up could be interesting. More intelligent, less hijinks-prove, and not as wacky as the Elan-Thog version...

Okay, maybe not that interesting.

Winter

2012-09-19, 06:05 AM

Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.

Now you're kidding yourself.

Malack has been adventuring with Tarquin for decades and has been orchestrating Evil Empires that rule through oppression in changing setups for years.
I very much doubt it is even remotely possible he doesn't have his part in this (and it's even more impossible he does not know all this, as you claimed).

Belkar = Evil.
Thog = Evil.
Redcloak = Evil.
Malack = Evil.

All four are utterly evil and about all four we have to endure all the same debates over and over again.

To address what all those four have common: Just because you like a character it does not mean he's not evil.

theNater

2012-09-19, 07:50 AM

Now you're kidding yourself.
I said Malack "could squeak through as neutral". I am not insisting that he must be neutral, only leaving it as a possibility until we have confirmation of his alignment.

Malack has been adventuring with Tarquin for decades and has been orchestrating Evil Empires that rule through oppression in changing setups for years.
I very much doubt it is even remotely possible he doesn't have his part in this (and it's even more impossible he does not know all this, as you claimed).
Yes, Malack almost certainly knows that Tarquin's rule is brutal and oppressive. However, Malack may believe, rightly or wrongly, that the brutality and oppression of living under Tarquin is less terrible than the brutality of incessant warfare. If he does believe that(and we don't know whether he does or not), then supporting Tarquin would be reasonable for a neutral character.

Belkar = Evil.
Thog = Evil.
Redcloak = Evil.
Malack = Evil.

All four are utterly evil and about all four we have to endure all the same debates over and over again.

To address what all those four have common: Just because you like a character it does not mean he's not evil.
Of the characters on your list, Malack is the only one we have not seen perform an evil act. This leaves room for questioning not present in the other cases.

Winter

2012-09-19, 09:54 AM

Yes, Malack almost certainly knows that Tarquin's rule is brutal and oppressive. However, Malack may believe, rightly or wrongly, that the brutality and oppression of living under Tarquin is less terrible than the brutality of incessant warfare. If he does believe that(and we don't know whether he does or not), then supporting Tarquin would be reasonable for a neutral character.

Tarquin is not hiding his evilness to those close to him.
He's torturing women to marry him (which is also some kind of rape), he murders people just he finds it convenient (the husband of someone who could become the next Mr. Tarquin), he also does lots of evilness for fun (dipping people in acid, having anyone murdered who even comes close to show dissent (in the arena or by some Ninja-agent), he burns slaves to give Elan a show, he has a Dinosaur eatING people for amusement of the masses.
Malack knows all that and still is not only tolerating Tarquin "as the end is what matters", but he is close friends.
We are not speaking of "the choice between two small evils" but the choice between "Fully flegded evil empire" and "Fully fledged evil chaos". Supporting any of them for decades is hardly going with a neutral alignment.

If "the means do not justify the end" and we consider Redcloak evil (he is), then Malack also has to be, even if his support of the Empire is merely a "choice of lesser evils" (which it very probably is not Malack's core motivation).

Yes, we do not know. But the option of neutrality is unlikely enough for not mattering to me.

theNater

2012-09-19, 10:18 AM

We are not speaking of "the choice between two small evils" but the choice between "Fully flegded evil empire" and "Fully fledged evil chaos". Supporting any of them for decades is hardly going with a neutral alignment.

If "the means do not justify the end" and we consider Redcloak evil (he is), then Malack also has to be, even if his support of the Empire is merely a "choice of lesser evils" (which it very probably is not Malack's core motivation).
The rules are ambiguous on whether supporting an evil organization without personally performing any evil acts makes a character evil. This ambiguity does not matter in the case of Redcloak, as he has personally committed evil acts in furtherance of his goals. However, as far as we know, it does matter in the case of Malack.

denthor

2012-09-19, 12:46 PM

How Malack can be Nuetral with a destruction domain.

Earthquakes fires(from lighting strikes(Cough(Thor) cough) and Floods are Nuetral. They all cause destruction. Loss of life on all sides of the alignment spectrum.

Concept

2012-09-19, 04:06 PM

Mike Havran

2012-09-19, 04:36 PM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13601749&postcount=434), the Giant implies that Malack's alignment is one of the things he wants to be ambiguous - at least for the time being.

That's basically why, if Malack is LN, he couldn't state it clearly during his conversation with Durkon. Of course, it doesn't mean Malack is not LE, but in that case his cunning deception would be in sharp contrast with his usual behaviour.

This also makes a huge difference between Malack and Belkar, Redcloak or Thog. For those three, the Giant openly stated they are Evil (presumably in order to finish the debates about their alignment).

Kish

2012-09-19, 05:00 PM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13601749&postcount=434), the Giant implies that Malack's alignment is one of the things he wants to be ambiguous - at least for the time being.

That's basically why, if Malack is LN, he couldn't state it clearly during his conversation with Durkon.
The question is, what is Malack's in-character reason for phrasing what he said that way?

"There is none" is a fairly huge assumption, and not exactly one complimentary to Rich's writing ability. If he just wanted to withhold information and couldn't think of a logical, in-character way to have Malack not spill that information, he would just not have the subject come up on-panel at all.

denthor

2012-09-19, 05:49 PM

How about htis Malack wants to draw worshipers to his deity so he stress the less scary thought until they are ready to delve deep unto the wisdom like he has.

Malack the used car sales man.:smalleek:

Qoute AL Bundy
run, run like water through a first time tourist in Mexico. Run baby Run

Mike Havran

2012-09-19, 05:56 PM

The question is, what is Malack's in-character reason for phrasing what he said that way?

"There is none" is a fairly huge assumption, and not exactly one complimentary to Rich's writing ability. If he just wanted to withhold information and couldn't think of a logical, in-character way to have Malack not spill that information, he would just not have the subject come up on-panel at all.

I can not think of any especially convincing reason, but I'll try. I'll just copy Malack's Death-is-Neutral speech:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png:You know, neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil. That's a common misconception. || If anything, Neutrality suits them better || If the power of Death were truly Evil, it would take only the pure and heroic, wouldn't it?

Now, the crux here seems to be why he didn't use "us" instead of "them". The only suitable reason I see is that he was too polite to put himself on the same level as his God by his speech. He wanted to avoid sounding like this bodyguard: "Our mighty king Roy doesn't wear golden armor, neither do his bodyguards. We like to look modest."

Or much more simple: the Giant wanted to put some ambiguity about Malack, and made him phrase it so that it could go either way. And did not bother about in-character motives. I think it happened before; that he made something to happen without thinking about the exact in-universe process. (Like, Xykon getting out of Lirian's cave)

Now, I only thought about this because I consider the alternative, that Malack is LE and this is a deliberate and cunning ploy on his part, less likely since it contradicts Malack's ordinary behaviour.

coineineagh

2012-09-19, 08:35 PM

Elan saw through Tarquin's rationalizations eventually, and he had known Tarquin for three days or so at that point. This from a man with intelligence and wisdom scores so low as to be unable to cast cantrips as a wizard or orisions as a cleric. Malack is no fool - his being able to cast Harm proves that much - and he's known Tarquin for more than twenty years. To suggest that he's ignorant of what Tarquin is and what he's doing is absurd. Now, he might not care, and he might, if he really is neutral, rationalize to himself that his sequestration from Palace life and the non-ecclesiastical business of Empire-management absolves him of responsibility, but he cannot possibly be ignorant of what's really going on.

Elan has bard savvy. It's hard to put into words, but in charisma-based issues he would be an expert, not a fool. Perhaps Elan has the ability to see through strongly persuasive arguments because of his storytelling/narrative abilities. It would not be out of the question to think that Elan might see through a story that Malack might believe.

On the other hand, Malack has proven smart enough to call out Tarquin for goofing around in battle out of sentimentality to his son. Perhaps Tarquin thought he could pull the wool over Malack's eyes, because he has done so successfully in the past.

I think it's still up in the air whether Malack might be deceived by Tarquin in some fashion or other.
As for Tarquin's actions automatically making Malack evil: We only have to look at Belkar to see that it's the underlying intent that matters, not the resulting actions. As the angel told Roy: "You were trying."

ti'esar

2012-09-19, 10:23 PM

Malack knows all that and still is not only tolerating Tarquin "as the end is what matters", but he is close friends.

This is, to me, really the crucial point. They may bicker constantly, and we still don't know whether Tarquin will side with Malack in the "Nale problem", but it's been clearly shown that they are friends. And not only is the assumption that Malack has been unaware of some of Tarquin's more senselessly Evil actions for 20+ years implausible in its own right, Tarquin has never particularly tried to hide the fact that he is a Very Bad Man.

ChristianSt

2012-09-20, 09:49 AM

We know:

1) Tarquin is evil
2) Malack and Tarquin are friends

But I don't think that alone tells us much about Malacks alignment (it makes good questionably, but that's it - I think there are stronger reasons to discard good)

Reasoning:

We know that neutral and good alignend peoples can have friendship (best example V and the good parts of the Order).
If there are neutral alignend characters that have friendship with good fellows, why couldn't there be some with evil friends? (and from the Law/Chaos axis we even have friends inside the Order from the complete axis)

brilliantlight

2012-09-22, 12:41 AM

Sorator

2012-09-22, 02:20 AM

We know that neutral and good alignend peoples can have friendship (best example V and the good parts of the Order).
If there are neutral alignend characters that have friendship with good fellows, why couldn't there be some with evil friends? (and from the Law/Chaos axis we even have friends inside the Order from the complete axis)

That's a very good point - V is Neutral on each axis, and yet spends most his/her time doing rather Good things. Granted, we've seen V do some unmistakably evil things too, so we see that they're balanced - but we haven't actually seen Malack do much either way yet. For all we know, he runs an orphanage as part of his services to Nergal (granted, it'd probably be pretty different from what we think of as an "orphanage", but still).

Put that together with the idea that your deeds aren't all that determine alignment, what you're aiming for has an impact as well, and I don't think we can really tell where Malack stands till we see more of him. (Apart from "probably not Good and definitely not Chaotic," that is.)

skaddix

2012-09-22, 02:54 AM

so far he seems LN but sure he could LE

skaddix

2012-09-22, 02:56 AM

so far he seems LN but sure he could LE

ReaderAt2046

2012-10-19, 09:46 PM

We are not speaking of "the choice between two small evils" but the choice between "Fully flegded evil empire" and "Fully fledged evil chaos". Supporting any of them for decades is hardly going with a neutral alignment.

Actually, it seems to me that supporting Lawful Evil as an alternative to Chaotic Evil is perfectly in keeping with Lawful Neutral, just as the reverse would be in keeping with Chaotic Neutral.

hamishspence

2012-10-20, 06:09 AM

Although I think Malack is probably evil I will play Devil's Advocate here. By official definition what LN cares about is order NOT good and evil. Whatever his faults Tarquin does bring order. An LN cleric does not care about HOW order comes about just that it comes about.

Neutral characters normally care a little bit:

"Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbours and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."

PHB page 105.

Now that's for True Neutral. However, add a certain attachment to order, and we get Lawful Neutral.

Winter

2012-10-21, 06:10 AM

But I don't think that alone tells us much about Malacks alignment (it makes good questionably, but that's it - I think there are stronger reasons to discard good)

You have it right with statement, but are still wrong in this specific case.
We are not basing Malack's probable evilness solely on the fact that he is close friends with Tarquin but that he also takes a large part in the Empire in specific and the entire setup in general himself.

Malack not only lives close to Horribly Evil Tarquin and is his probably closest friend but he also rules the Horribly Evil Empire himself and furthermore is part of a scheme that connects several similar evilly schemed nations together and mixes them whenever the need arises.

The second alone might not be a proof of evilness but it very surely is VERY borderline neutral at best. Joined with the fact he does not seem to have any issue with being friend with Tarquin is another VERY borderline neutral at best.

"very borderline neutral but possibly evil" + "very borderline neutral but possibly evil" does not, in my book, add up to "very borderline neutral" but to "possibly evil".

ChristianSt

2012-10-21, 09:32 AM

We know:

1) Tarquin is evil
2) Malack and Tarquin are friends

But I don't think that alone tells us much about Malacks alignment (it makes good questionably, but that's it - I think there are stronger reasons to discard good)
You have it right with statement, but are still wrong in this specific case.
We are not basing Malack's probable evilness solely on the fact that he is close friends with Tarquin but that he also takes a large part in the Empire in specific and the entire setup in general himself.

Malack not only lives close to Horribly Evil Tarquin and is his probably closest friend but he also rules the Horribly Evil Empire himself and furthermore is part of a scheme that connects several similar evilly schemed nations together and mixes them whenever the need arises.

The second alone might not be a proof of evilness but it very surely is VERY borderline neutral at best. Joined with the fact he does not seem to have any issue with being friend with Tarquin is another VERY borderline neutral at best.

"very borderline neutral but possibly evil" + "very borderline neutral but possibly evil" does not, in my book, add up to "very borderline neutral" but to "possibly evil".

Please point out where I am wrong. I never said anything about whether he is LE or LN, I pointed only out that the friendship with Tarqin is no indicator for LE. (For the recording: If I had to choose, at the moment I would choose LN, because of the relationship towards Durkon [especially 847: "Tarquin, we agreed that Brother Thundershield was not to be harmed!"], but I wouldn't be surprised if he is LE, and by my books it wouldn't be a contradiction.)

And perhaps his role in this (=the empire and all that stuff) is because he thinks he has the choice between helping the LE empire or to let the regions there be more or less chaotic (and probably also evil). And between these choices a LN character would choice the first (even more so if it also helps a good friend).

Overall I think Malacks alignment situation is pretty close to Vs. Only V has enough screentime to tell the difference.

TreesOfDeath

2012-10-21, 10:41 AM

At the risk of being a party pooper, I honestly don't think we have enough information yet, and thus this debate cannot reach a satisfactory point. Theirs simply too much that's ambiguous at the moment.

Winter

2012-10-21, 12:33 PM

Please point out where I am wrong. [...]

The focus is on your alone. Yes, you are correct if we'd base something on that alone. But it is one factor among others and as such is a valid clue in the puzzle.

So yes, in general you are correct, in this specific case I think you are wrong as there is no "alone".

At the risk of being a party pooper, I honestly don't think we have enough information yet, and thus this debate cannot reach a satisfactory point. Theirs simply too much that's ambiguous at the moment.

You are not. You merely state the obvious that I think everyone here is aware of. The debate is not about finding ultimate truth but about outlining the personal interpretation and the giving of reasons for it, while also pointing out where we think someone else's interpretation falls short (or hits a mark).

If it was not vague and unclear at the moment, discussing this would be even more pointless than now (e.g. we do not have to discuss Belkar's alignment anymore (yess!!), doing that would really be pointless).
Discussing those things during a run through the story only make sense when they are unclear and the data does not (yet) allow a clear conclusion.

Once the story has progressed to the point where we see when and how Redcloak betrays Xykon, what the MitD does then, what Haley's Secret is, if Hinjo is gay or what the Snarl is (now)... discussing all those things becomes pointless after that.