So, Malack... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Reathin

2013-02-24, 06:45 AM

The only properly evil things we've seen Mal do so far is allowing the Empire of Blood to exist in its current form, what with the slavery and all that, and not really caring all that much if the Empress eats Elan (which was noted by a cold pragmatism. Either he takes the risk of allowing his children's killer to walk free, or he's not closer to finding Nale). His method of attaining subsistence may or may not affect that (does he need the blood of sapient creatures, for instance, and how does he go about getting it), but his vampirism does not directly warp his free will.

My gut says Malack is evil, but not Evil. He's more passively accepting of bad things than actively malevolent (save where Nale is involved, but I suspect my own reactions would be warped pretty extremely where my family's murders are involved), and certainly not gleefully dedicated to being a villain as Xykon is, but he doesn't seem to object all that much

Kish

2013-02-24, 07:49 AM

Going by Xykon and Redcloak, the distinction seems to be largely in what the character in question won't do. Xykon has no moral limits. Tarquin doesn't seem to have any, although he often implies he does (and then trespasses them later, casually, without comment). Malack...has a lot of moral limits. Years without creating any new vampires because Nale killed three he considered to be his children, being reluctant to create undead in general, insisting mindless mummies be treated with respect when he does make them, not delegating Nale's death...

So, evil, not Evil. Although this thread is reminding me of the "which of Toede's traits show his nobility?" debate at the end of Lord Toede.

King of Nowhere

2013-02-24, 08:14 AM

I think "neutral with evil tendencies" is not out of the table.
he allows evil to exist, but so far I haven't seen much evilness done by him. he consort with tarquin, who is evil, and tolerates the empress eating people, but he hasn't shown any interest in partecipating.

Myself, I am not sure. just because i haven't seen him intersted in evilness, it don't mean he is not.

The_Tentacle

2013-02-24, 09:37 AM

I would lean towards lawful neutral or true neutral. After all, Nergal is the god of death, and so is neutral. I'm sure he isn't good because he tolerates the existence of the Empire of Blood, and he isn't chaotic because he's involved in an Empire. Lawful neutral seems like the best bet to me.

Chantelune

2013-02-24, 10:03 AM

With respect, it seems to me that some people overthink it way too much.

Malack is knowingly involved with this evil arrangement, and was perfectly fine with what was presumably an innocent becoming a meal for a red dragon.

Anyone who thinks that this is not evil on its face is grasping at straws.

Which to me is why the debate is "is he evil or Evil."

Belkar is knowingly involved with this good quest about saving the world and protecting the gates, does this makes him good ? Nope, he's still evil. But we know through several evidences (and word of Giant) that he is. But we still haven't saw anything of the sort for Malack.

I don't say Malack might be good. At best, he might be something/neutral. But as claimed before, we still have no solid evidence that he's evil. Unless the comic stick to the "vampires are automaticaly evils", of course. As for his association with Tarquin & co, he might just share that it's best to manipulate three kingdoms into warring each-other and ruling with an iron fist to create some sort of stability instead of letting unchecked bloodshed all over the place.

Remember that neutral mean being both way or not caring about good or evil. Eck, even V who's true neutral did some really questionable things that lead to endless argument about her being evil or not. And I'm not talking about the Familicide stuff but things like harassing Belkar for fun and even willingly helping him doing evil acts, like using a kobold as a litterbox.

Lesingnon

2013-02-24, 10:40 AM

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 11:07 AM

And creating vampires is pretty bad, let alone being one.

I would refrain from passing moral judgement on someone for being killed by a vampire at some point. That is hardly a sound reason to declare someone as having done something 'bad'. :smallannoyed:

Seeing as how Malack thinks it's a common misconception that gods of death and their clerics are necessarily evil, and believes that neutrality suits them better (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)...I'd put my money on him being neutral.

Well, he could be lying...

Overall, I'm of the opinion that Malack is either Lawful Neutral, verging on Evil, or Lawful Evil, verging on Neutral. More likely the former, because he's clearly less obvious about it than most everyone else with an Evil alignment.

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 01:49 PM

Belkar is knowingly involved with this good quest about saving the world and protecting the gates, does this makes him good ? Nope, he's still evil. But we know through several evidences (and word of Giant) that he is. But we still haven't saw anything of the sort for Malack.

I don't say Malack might be good. At best, he might be something/neutral. But as claimed before, we still have no solid evidence that he's evil. Unless the comic stick to the "vampires are automaticaly evils", of course. As for his association with Tarquin & co, he might just share that it's best to manipulate three kingdoms into warring each-other and ruling with an iron fist to create some sort of stability instead of letting unchecked bloodshed all over the place.

Remember that neutral mean being both way or not caring about good or evil. Eck, even V who's true neutral did some really questionable things that lead to endless argument about her being evil or not. And I'm not talking about the Familicide stuff but things like harassing Belkar for fun and even willingly helping him doing evil acts, like using a kobold as a litterbox.

Nice try, but Belkar can't indulge his cupidity if the world's destroyed. It's in everyones interests, good and evil, to stop it.

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 01:59 PM

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 02:08 PM

That's silly, but whatever.

Malack is absolutely merely evil, though arguably, Malack could have easily saved Elan, and of course the whole trying to turn Belkar thing.

Mike Havran

2013-02-24, 02:16 PM

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

What does "a good chance" mean in your book? Would "Malack is a vampire" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 870? Would "V slaughtered Draketooths" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 841?

Emmit Svenson

2013-02-24, 02:17 PM

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 02:22 PM

What does "a good chance" mean in your book? Would "Malack is a vampire" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 870? Would "V slaughtered Draketooths" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 841?

I think the dissenters are extremely bored, or they believe that they must fight the good fight against someone who is "wrong on the internet."

Of course, got some stuff to do tommorow that I'm pretty stoked about, so I won't spend all day doing the latter myself.

Chantelune

2013-02-24, 02:22 PM

Nice try, but Belkar can't indulge his cupidity if the world's destroyed. It's in everyones interests, good and evil, to stop it.

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

No, I was under the impression that a debate was possible without such feeble ways to deny the other's argument, but guess you're proving me wrong. And hey, look, I can do it too !

If Malacks crimes were listed in a newspaper or anything, then that would be proof that he's evil, but see, that's the thing. So far, we don't know any crimes that Malack has commited that would prove him evil. The only solid evidence would be him being a vampire, but it remains to be confirmed that vampires in ootsverse are inherently evils. And his association in Tarquin's grand scheme could still be in range of him being neutral. I don't doubt he did evil acts, but so has V and she's still neutral. Same way that associating with the OOTS in order to save the world keep her neutral even if the rest of the party minus Belkar is good. As I said, neutrality goes both ways.

Now don't get me wrong, if the next strips and/or the Giant were to state Malack as evil, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. But for now, I'll refrain for asserting his alignement and stay aware that he might be neutral.

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 02:27 PM

King of Nowhere

2013-02-24, 02:33 PM

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

As omniscent (well, not really, we only see what rich decides to show, but anyway) readers, we have much more information that can bring us to formulate a much more accurate opinion on malack's actions than what a newspaper article would report.
So far, I haven't seen any blatantly evil action on his part. he associates with tarquin and he's part of the head of an evil empire, but that is not proof. {SCRUBBED}
malack gives me the impression of just being someone who does his job, whatever that job is. And if tarquin kill some people in the process, it's on his conscience, not malack's. anyway, nergal probably teaches they would have died anyway sooner or later and there's not much point to fight the inevitable. With a verifiable afterlife, they are probably better off anyway than they would be living in such a crappy place as the western continent.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 02:36 PM

Mike Havran

2013-02-24, 02:41 PM

The whole point of the thread is to assert that Malack is absolutely evil. If I engaged such counter arguments evenly, it would be like entertaining the possibility that the base assertion of my thread is wrong.

So the participans of this thread should agree with you that Malack is absolutely evil because...you want it to be that way?

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 02:46 PM

However, if you want a debate in which those are the only too options, you could try rephrasing it. As an example: "Assuming that Malack is evil and not neutral, is he evil or Evil?"

Open-ended questions are the bane of focused discussion everywhere. :smallbiggrin:

JackRackham

2013-02-24, 02:57 PM

I think evil has limits, extremes to which it will not go and relatable reasons for the extremes to which it does go. An evil character can still be horrified by its own and others actions. It has a limited or alternative morality. Evil, on the other hand, has no such limitations and needs no such excuses. Evil is just Evil. It is motivated by malice. It enjoys suffering. Intentions matter. Guilt matters. It's a difference of humanity and capacity for empathy.

My sense is that Malack is evil. There is no clear line, but I think we can all see the distinction between Xykon and every other evil character in this comic.

Chantelune

2013-02-24, 03:13 PM

Please have some respect for the situation I'm in here.

The whole point of the thread is to assert that Malack is absolutely evil. If I engaged such counter arguments evenly, it would be like entertaining the possibility that the base assertion of my thread is wrong.

Which, given that the entire thread exists to deny the straw grasping stubborn types who give a new definition to overthinking, it would be undercutting my own point to humor otherwise.

Oh, so you'll ignore the fact that Malack's evilness is in no way known or proved just because you wanted to state that he's evil ? If you can bring some definite proof that he's evil, then fine, but lacking that, the premise of your thread itself is not valid.

And this is no overthinking. The step before discussing the evilness of a character is to determine if he is, in fact, evil at all. So far, we can only guess, no know for sure.

Then again, you don't seem willing to consider the fact that you might be wrong in stating that "Malack is evil, period". And trying to discredit people who disagree by considering their opinion with little respect. Respect that you ask us to provide. Well, respect is earned, not due. Start by respecting other's people opinion, even if you disagree with them.

SoC175

2013-02-24, 03:16 PM

Malack is knowingly involved with this evil arrangement, and was perfectly fine with what was presumably an innocent becoming a meal for a red dragon.

Anyone who thinks that this is not evil on its face is grasping at straws.
With that logic there can be no neutrals, as they could only associate with good and then would be good themselves.

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 03:26 PM

Oh, so you'll ignore the fact that Malack's evilness is in no way known or proved just because you wanted to state that he's evil ? If you can bring some definite proof that he's evil, then fine, but lacking that, the premise of your thread itself is not valid.

I have brought definite proof. But I'm dealing with a fanbase that argued that Belkar is not CE even after Word of God said else, and argued that Miko was anything less than a tyrant in blue, even to the point of accusing anyone who disagreed with her as being pro-criminal.

So I guess in their world, a guy who's perfectly chill with knowingly having an innocent fed to a dragon because he's not useful can be neutral and not evil.

And this is no overthinking.

Have you seen the main comic topic above?

Then again, you don't seem willing to consider the fact that you might be wrong in stating that "Malack is evil, period".

I will accept The Giant's judgment humbly, if he brings new information or outright says so later on. That doesn't mean I'm going to humor people who deny what's right there in their faces.

And trying to discredit people who disagree by considering their opinion with little respect. Respect that you ask us to provide. Well, respect is earned, not due. Start by respecting other's people opinion, even if you disagree with them.

I'm sorry, is it part of your main worldview that Malack is neutral? Have I trod upon your most cherished beliefs by arguing else?

Chantelune

2013-02-24, 04:39 PM

I'm sorry, is it part of your main worldview that Malack is neutral? Have I trod upon your most cherished beliefs by arguing else?

If you actually read my post, you would have noticed that I consider that Malack MIGHT be neutral. Same as he MIGHT be evil.

Malack was willing to let the Empress of Blood eat innocents, yes, that was rather evil and uncaring, but that does not prove him evil so far, just make it likely. I wouldn't consider this definite proof. V used familicide, forced a kobold to eat cat poop (which could have killed him for all she knew at the time), forced the same kobold to walks up some stairs knowing it was most certainly heavily trapped to "disarm" them, among other things, and she's still neutral. So sorry if I consider that Malack might have more depth than "he did one fairly evil act, so he's evil".

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 04:40 PM

I will accept The Giant's judgment humbly, if he brings new information or outright says so later on. That doesn't mean I'm going to humor people who deny what's right there in their faces.

Are you seriously stating that you're going to completely ignore what anyone has to say if they don't agree with your conclusions? {SCRUBBED}

So I guess in their world, a guy who's perfectly chill with knowingly having an innocent fed to a dragon because he's not useful can be neutral and not evil.

A potential innocent. Who looks like a beardless version of someone Malack absolutely despises. He's rather prejudiced in this situation to start with; maybe if it was V or someone that would hold more weight.

Mike Havran

2013-02-24, 05:00 PM

I have brought definite proof.

Then you are obviously better than the entire squad around Class and Geekery thread, since they don't have any such "definite proof". Or perhaps ... you haven't either.

But I'm dealing with a fanbase that argued that Belkar is not CE even after Word of God said else, and argued that Miko was anything less than a tyrant in blue, even to the point of accusing anyone who disagreed with her as being pro-criminal.

This is simply an invalid statement. The Giant said nothing definite about Malack's alignment (yet). If he says, I'll be amongst the first to say I was wrong and will stop arguing that he may very well be LN.

So I guess in their world, a guy who's perfectly chill with knowingly having an innocent fed to a dragon because he's not useful can be neutral and not evil.
Malack's willingness to feed "an innocent" proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I doubt he considered "Nale" innocent at all. Here comes a guy who looks exactly like his children's murderer and claims he's actually his lost twin brother separated from Nale long ago. Yeah. How probable is that Tarquin, of all people, would be willing to leave his son behind? But OK, let's give him a benefit of doubt and ask whether he can lead us to "Nale." What did he say? Nale buried under rubble? How convenient. Don't you have some bridge to sell to me as well?

Malack phrasing was his way of saying Checkmate into Nale's face. I suppose he believed that the blondie is not Nale about as much as you believe that Malack is Lawful Neutral.

But yeah, let's even admit (for the sake of argument) that Malack believed the nonsense and was willing to sacrifice an innocent to the dragon. An Evil act. And again, does that mean Malack is evil? No. Non-Evil character can occasionally make Evil acts and still be non-Evil. Take Gannji as an example. He orders Enor to fry Roy for lethal damage because he asked him a question. Evil act, and he hasn't done anything Good yet. And guess what: the Word of Giant says he's True Neutral.

So please, accept the fact that what you view as absolute might not seem so for other people, and that they will express it in the discussion whether you like to see it there or not. And by the way, how is the "stuff" going on?

white lancer

2013-02-24, 05:03 PM

Seeing as how Malack thinks it's a common misconception that gods of death and their clerics are necessarily evil, and believes that neutrality suits them better (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)...I'd put my money on him being neutral.

That strip is the main reason I consider it possible that Malack is neutral, and also the reason why it's not really grasping at straws to argue that point. My guess is that the Giant put that strip in to encourage speculation on the parts of the readers. Whether this strip was intended to answer that speculation is up for debate, but I don't think it gave us a truly definitive answer either way.

Personally, I favor the interpretation that Malack indulging in creating a new 'child' in this strip is an indication of him moving from Neutral to full-fledged Evil. It's entirely possible he's just been Evil all along and was just trying to deceive Durkon before, but we haven't seen much of a predilection for deceit from Malack thus far in the comic.

Kish

2013-02-24, 05:20 PM

As I pointed out the last time someone said we haven't seen a predilection for deceit from Malack, every time he speaks he deceives by faking a living creature's speech bubble.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 05:28 PM

As I pointed out the last time someone said we haven't seen a predilection for deceit from Malack, every time he speaks he deceives by faking a living creature's speech bubble.

Are we sure that this is actually faking it and not just the difference between using active vampire abilities and not? :smallconfused:

Kish

2013-02-24, 05:36 PM

Rich talks about him disguising it here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14733452&postcount=190)

Mike Havran

2013-02-24, 05:37 PM

As I pointed out the last time someone said we haven't seen a predilection for deceit from Malack, every time he speaks he deceives by faking a living creature's speech bubble.

That is possible, but I find it hard to believe that he would be able to maintain his weak-voice-deception even when he's white-hot with anger: like when he shouts at Tarquin or goes harmy on Nale. He might talk that way always when he's not drunk with blood, without any intent on his part (or maybe he uses some item or spell to mask the balloons?).

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 05:39 PM

Obviously, it was narratively important to hide that Malack was undead, so therefore I decided he only speaks in black speech bubbles when he "vamps out." After all, vampires in fiction have a long history of having traits that only pop out when they feed: their fangs elongate, their eyes turn read, maybe their face gets all demony-looking if you want to go the Buffy the Vampire Slayer route. Changing voice is not outside of that realm.

Nothing there implies it's a conscious choice.

I mean, one explanation for why he's defaulted to 'breathless undead reverb' could be that, you know, there's a halfling in his mouth. That, I imagine, would get in the way of normal speech. :smallbiggrin:

Kish

2013-02-24, 05:41 PM

Nothing there implies it's a conscious choice.
...Yes, that's true. You quoted all of the post except the part where Rich talks about him disguising his voice balloon. :smallconfused:

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 05:55 PM

Well, it says disguise/change, so I kind of concluded that speaking using air and everything would result in the raspy one, whilst just using spooky undead reverb would get the normal black speech balloon. Why use that when you don't have to? It's not exactly a conversational voice. :smallconfused:

I'm not sure I can understand the whole 'deceit' angle. What it basically seems to amount to is that not saying 'I'm a vampire' in the simplest applicable terms is somehow... wrong. Like everyone you meet has an implicit right to know such things about you.

It's like a combination of expecting someone to present a decades-old criminal charge, medical history, and résumé when you meet them.

Chantelune

2013-02-24, 06:11 PM

That Malack does this consciously or not is rather irrelevant. The thing is that him hiding his vampire status is common sense as he lives among mortals. Most would probably frown if they knew. And in a way that may involve torches and pointy bits of woods. :smallbiggrin:

I don't really think that this show a liking to deceit in Malack or that he will lie whenever he get the chance. He might be a rather "honest" person and just hide his nature because he has to.

Actually, Malack mentioned Durkon's "minor deception" in a way that hint at some disapproval. I'd think that if he had such a fondness for deception, he wouldn't mind Durkon lying about his reason for visit.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 06:16 PM

Minor addition: he did apologise for his willingness to feed Elan to the Empress (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) when Tarquin confirmed that it wasn't Nale. Previous page also seems to suggest he has a major blind spot about this, since he apparently still hadn't completely twigged that it wasn't Nale.

Does high Wisdom ever help these people? :smallbiggrin:

Kish

2013-02-24, 07:33 PM

Then you are obviously better than the entire squad around Class and Geekery thread, since they don't have any such "definite proof".

That's what happens with committees. *ducks*

I'm not sure I can understand the whole 'deceit' angle.
Well, I certainly don't understand how you can argue that speaking in a way that isn't your default so that people don't realize something basic about you is comparable to not "presenting a decades-old criminal charge, medical history, and resume," so there we are.

Whether Malack is justified in being deceptive is a subject change. I only object to arguments that hinge on him showing no sign of deceit. If I have a natural English accent, and I fake an American accent the whole time I'm around Americans because I don't want them to realize I'm English*, I might have a perfectly good reason for not wanting them to realize I'm English* but I'd never try to pretend I wasn't trying to deceive them.

*Disclaimer: I am not actually English.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-24, 07:39 PM

I'm not seeing the evidence that it isn't his default. It isn't the booming undead voice o' doom but what's to say that is the default?

Looking at it this way: if you have two clear, distinct ways to speak, and either of them could be argued to be your 'real' voice (magical vs biological, presumably, in this case), then what possible reasoning could there be for using the method of speech that will automatically cause you no end of trouble? Not advertising a fact isn't the same as hiding it.

Paseo H

2013-02-24, 08:11 PM

Now, what would it take for you people to believe he's evil?

Corneel

2013-02-24, 08:16 PM

I thought that this thread was about arguing whether Malack was evil or Evil? Can the neutralites take their argument to those many threads were the evilness of Malack is not a basic assumption of the thread?

For my part I think that Malack is a good example of what I might call "callous" evil. Malack is not especially cruel or malevolent, he just doesn't care whether his action or inaction causes suffering or not. And if it causes suffering of the innocent well, tant pis, fudge the innocent, they're useless anyway. And everyone has to die anyways, no?

white lancer

2013-02-24, 08:20 PM

I figured someone would say the whole concealing that he's a vampire thing, but I honestly think that's different. Mostly because, as others have said, Malack would be putting himself into danger if he allowed everyone around him to know he was a vampire, whereas he was in no danger from Durkon if he had simply avoided the alignment talk altogether. Besides which, I think Rich's post is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it's a conscious decision on Malack's part to disguise his voice.

Personally, I do think Malack is most likely Lawful Evil. However, I think there's room to doubt, and I would actually prefer it if he did turn out to be Lawful Neutral (or LN making the transition into Evil).

The_Tentacle

2013-02-24, 08:30 PM

Definite Proof. :smalltongue:

And/or Word of God.

Personally, I think he's lawful neutral. I don't have proof and I hardly have evidence beyond the strip already mentioned, but yeah. If he were evil (or Evil), he wouldn't really care about "minor deceptions," would he?

Mentioned somewhere else in the forum, someone said that in the part about feeding him to the Empress of Blood "Malack had the choice of letting Nale walk free (if Elan actually was Nale) versus being no closer to finding Nale (if Elan was telling the truth)."*

*Not completely verbatim.

Kish

2013-02-24, 08:40 PM

If he were evil (or Evil), he wouldn't really care about "minor deceptions," would he?
No part of the evil alignment's description says, "No evil character cares about lies, be they his/hers or someone else's." Nor does that fit the evil characters I can think of in fiction (you would have a better case if you suggested that an evil character should be in a frothing rage that Durkon dared to lie to him). (Still not a good case; "evil" in no way means "obligated to act like a villain in a simplistic cartoon.")

:Gul Dukat: If there's one thing I can't abide, it's betrayal.

Incom

2013-02-24, 10:20 PM

To paraphrase myself from the 870 thread:

Two questions for everyone here.

1. Which of Malack's actions are inconsistent with a LN character?
2. Which of Malack's actions are inconsistent with a LE character?

I don't think you'll find very many of either. Malack allows a lot of evil to happen around him without interfering -- but that's not really out of character for LN (consider for a second the definition of neutral); Malack made easy friends with a LG cleric -- but that's not impossible for a LE character (see Tarquin and Elan; though they have the advantage of being family, they're also even farther apart on the alignment chart). Malack vamp'd (/is currently attempting to vamp) Belkar without his permission, but would Belkar really turn that sort of thing down if given the choice--especially given he's already Evil? And Malack has shown that he's willing to postpone a grudge for the sake of a greater goal, which is a common good trait--but the goal in this case isn't particularly noble.

As I see it Malack could go either way. I personally find LN Malack more interesting than LE Malack, but my opinion on that isn't wholly relevant.

Really, the only actively evil thing I've seen Malack do is vamping Belkar, and that isn't as much because of the consent thing (though that's still evil) so much as it is because he's making someone CE even stronger.

Thinking it over, I wouldn't be altogether surprised if Malack was LN-with-evil-tendencies before and fell to LE-with-morally-neutral-tendencies in 870. (That's also an option.)

--------------------------------

As for the current discussion about deception: nobody's pointed out that Malack's vampirism being well known would not only make him look like a hypocrite (to people who see undeath as a perversion of death) but would also make him a target? Lying to stay alive is not evil.

The Giant

2013-02-24, 11:31 PM

This thread has seen a real-world political reference, some flaming, and a lot of general snippiness all over. And it's drifting off-topic anyway. Get it back on topic (Malack's alignment) and can the hostility, or it will be locked.

And Kish, you're misreading my statement. The voice change is as a result of his shifting into "feeding mode," rather than a constantly maintained deception being cast off. His voice is a white balloon unless he's about to use his vampire powers. The only reason the word "disguising" was in there was to associate what Tarquin was doing to the larger statement, that is: "Characters' speech balloons can change situationally, whether that is as the result of a transformation (Malack) or conscious trickery (Tarquin)."

Mike Havran

2013-02-25, 04:43 AM

Now, what would it take for you people to believe he's evil?

Any of, but not limited to the following:
1. Word of Giant. He did it with other Evil characters: Belkar, Thog, Redcloak...
2. "Mechanical" proof: he pings Detect Evil, for example (on the other hand if he doesn't, that's a proof of non-Evil alignment).
3. He will call himself Evil.
4. He performs some action that is in sharp contrast with LN behaviour: for example, he sneaks behind the remaining members of the Order and without warning, he blasts them with Blasphemy (if anything, LN Malack would use Dictum instead).

Kish

2013-02-25, 07:20 AM

And Kish, you're misreading my statement. The voice change is as a result of his shifting into "feeding mode," rather than a constantly maintained deception being cast off.
I stand corrected.

Paseo H

2013-02-25, 07:21 AM

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

Bulldog Psion

2013-02-25, 07:24 AM

4. He performs some action that is in sharp contrast with LN behaviour: .

Like, say, drinking the blood of sapient "criminals" who were likely executed for something trivial like public urination, forgetting their papers at home, or belching during the national anthem?

Mike Havran

2013-02-25, 07:32 AM

Like, say, drinking the blood of sapient "criminals" who were likely executed for something trivial like public urination, forgetting their papers at home, or belching during the national anthem?

Those go to the Arena Correctional Facility. We don't know what crimes are punished by direct execution, as we haven't seen any such verdict.

Say, if you had a condition that would require you to drink blood of sentient beings for your daily nourishment, and you wouldn't want to harm innocent in the process, what would you do?

Kish

2013-02-25, 07:32 AM

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?
To what extent Durkon is addressing the "evil or Evil" thing, I think he's voting for "evil" by arguing with Malack at all instead of just attacking him.

Chantelune

2013-02-25, 07:55 AM

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

That unless Durkon cast any kind of spell allowing him to detect Malack's alignement, he don't know any better than us. He has his own opinion of the case and mostly seem to consider Malack evil because he's a vampire.

You'll notice that before that, he had no qualm with Malack being part of the Empire and even defended Malack when Haley mentioned that he was probably there too. As Malack mentioned, there is only one factor that has changed since Durkon and him were buddies : Durkon now know that Malack is a vampire.

This strip doesn't really advance the debate in any way. It's not proving Malack evil, nor neutral. Malack seems to be arguing himself to be neutral, but we don't know if he really believes what he says or just trying to make it easier for Durkon to accept him as a friend again (and not a fiend :smalltongue: ).

Don't forget that we, as reader, know way more about Malack than Durkon, who only know what he witnessed, talked about with Malack and what other might have reported to him (and he seemed to dismiss those until now if that didn't fit his opinion of Malack).

Paseo H

2013-02-25, 08:19 AM

Admittedly, from my game...

there's a similar misapprehension, in that an 'evil' emperor is treated as 'Evil' by one of the good guys because her aunt and uncle were killed in a purge, and a surviving aunt brainwashed. She uses the similar logic of that knowingly making use of monsters makes you a monster too.

Granted, I say he's 'evil' because he doesn't relish bloodshed or torture, he just saw purging dissidents and tricking the populace into accepting it (by having a bloodthirsty, borderline complete monster and her cold sociopath son pretend to be 'rogue generals' do all the killing, and then making a big show of 'executing' them...a really sick game of 'good cop bad cop') as necessary to keep the hard won peace from being undone, and he hates this "devil's bargain" he's gotten himself into.

That said, since we're on thin ice now, what's say we call it a draw.

Incom

2013-02-25, 08:52 AM

Guys, Malack is undead. He'll ping Detect Evil even if he were CG.

ChowGuy

2013-02-25, 09:01 AM

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?
That the LG Durkon has about as much impartiality in making that determination as the LG Miko had in declaring Roy and the rest of the Order as "evil" for associating with Belkar. (i.e., for not conforming to her code of conduct.) And this was, mind you, after pinging "Not Evil."

pendell

2013-02-25, 09:25 AM

I have been a great participant in these debates, but given 871 I'm going to reserve judgement. I don't think we're done with reveals of Malak yet.

Leading possibilities:
1) Malak is lawful evil with an emphasis on lawful. So he's on the shallow end of evil tending neutral.
2) Malak is lawful neutral very close to evil. Note that he only drinks from convicted criminals scheduled for execution.
3) Malak is LAWFUL EVIL the exact same way Tarquin is -- a Complete Monster who is nonetheless affable in person.

Maybe we could draw it on a graph: Picture an XY graph. Neutral is at (0,0). Lawful is the x axis and anything above 2 is lawful, while anything below -2 is chaotic.
Good is the y axis and anything above 2 is good, while anything below -2 is evil.

Assume a scale from -10 to +10 for both.

Given this, I would peg Malack at about (9,[-1.9] to [-2.5]) -- extremely lawful, but either just this side of neutral to low-end evil. And if so, credit must be given for overcoming the tendancy of his template, which pushes him much lower on the scale. Tarquin, by contrast, is probably around (6,-8) while Xykon and Belkar are probably both around (-9, -9).

If a person is trying to swim and you drop a lead weight on him, does he get at least some credit for effort if he stays afloat at all? Okay, so he doesn't swim as well as an olympic-class swimmer and from a strictly objective point of view is a terrible swimmer. But it may take more effort for him to swim at all than for an olympian to win a gold medal.

Thinking about this -- is it harder for a vampire to be lawful neutral than it is for a human to be lawful good? If so, does a vampire who has risen above his nature to the extent of achieving a lawful neutral to shallow-lawful-evil conduct deserve greater praise than a normal human who lives a lawful neutral life?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 09:45 AM

I've said it before, but this thread is the appropriate place to restate it: we don't have any actual proof of Malack being evil beyond "associates to evil". Vampires are free-willed, and Rich is known to dislike "absolute" morality (meaning "every member of the group must belong to the morality written in the rulebook", not the other kind of absolute morality).

Yes, Malack lives and participates in an absolutist empire. That only indicates he is strongly Legal, as per Brian's post. If you follow all the rules, you are probably safe in the Empire of Blood (and you are definitely safer than in the situation that preceded it). By helping Tarquin, Malack has indeed promoted a good cause: stability and safety. Yes, freedom is lacking, but that's a Chaos objective, not a Good one*.

Everything else is circumstantial. "He is evil because he is a vampire" is racist, just as bad as " he is evil because he is a goblin". As long as vampires are free-willed, the fact they were created with dark magic means nothing to their morality. Yes, they must feed on the blood of others, presumably intelligent beings. That's just tough luck of the draw, unless they volunteered to be converted into a vampire. Under those circumstances, drinking from the condemned is a morally Good choice. Feeding the killer of your children to a dragon because you don't buy the ludicrous "it wasn't me, it was my identical twin" defence is perfectly acceptable (if the laws include execution by dragon for children killers, which in the Empire of Blood it likely does), even if a bit rash, but even Good people are allowed to be hot-headed when confronted with the killer of their children.

Really, the only thing that draws Malack towards Evil is the fact that he helped create and support the empires. But we know this wasn't his plan, it was Tarquin's. Under the defence "maybe Malack is the Belkar of Tarquin's group", Malack could easily be a memebr of the group because they accept him, where others would condemn him for being a vampire. Under the circumstances, he goes along with the plan, and in whatever ways he feels are safe, he tries to reduce the evilness of the empire, while upholding the Legal side of it. Strong laws, strictly enforced. Other than that, we have not seen him actually do anything Evil. He doesn't burn prisoners to make presents for his friends, for example.

Grey Wolf

*I am fully aware that personal freedom is a Good desire, not just a Chaotic one, just pointing out that to a Legal Neutral, individual freedom is unlikely to be a priority

Souhiro

2013-02-25, 09:49 AM

Malak is EVIL.

But he's also a friendly man (or lizard, or Vampire-Lizard if you want to get technical) a Good creature wouldn't keep running the evil Empire of Blood.

But he's also what you would call "A legal lad", just as Tarkin is.

Malak isn't above drinking the blood of inocents (Empire's executions? they are the kind of men that would hang Robin Hood) but he has given his friendship to Durkon.

This is how Durkon is: killing a friend, a good friend, because he's evil and would kill more inocents.

Aldrakan

2013-02-25, 09:52 AM

Winter

2013-02-25, 10:18 AM

Assume a scale from -10 to +10 for both.

You mean something like this?

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1912/ootsalignments.png

Note: This is just my personal interpretation and some of the alignments are quite hard to judge or we do not have enough data.

pendell

2013-02-25, 10:24 AM

Yes, very like. However, if I may make a suggestion to improve your post, I would put the image in [ spoiler ] tags, so that people who don't want to see it don't have to watch it load. :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Scarlet Knight

2013-02-25, 10:25 AM

Leading possibilities:
1) Malak is lawful evil with an emphasis on lawful. So he's on the shallow end of evil tending neutral.
2) Malak is lawful neutral very close to evil. Note that he only drinks from convicted criminals scheduled for execution.
3) Malak is LAWFUL EVIL the exact same way Tarquin is -- a Complete Monster who is nonetheless affable in person.

Given this, I would peg Malack at about (9,[-1.9] to [-2.5]) -- extremely lawful, but either just this side of neutral to low-end evil. And if so, credit must be given for overcoming the tendancy of his template, which pushes him much lower on the scale. Tarquin, by contrast, is probably around (6,-8) while Xykon and Belkar are probably both around (-9, -9).

Thinking about this -- is it harder for a vampire to be lawful neutral than it is for a human to be lawful good? If so, does a vampire who has risen above his nature to the extent of achieving a lawful neutral to shallow-lawful-evil conduct deserve greater praise than a normal human who lives a lawful neutral life?

If I was trying to play a LN vampire, I might do what Malack does. I need human blood to live, so you go to a place where it's plentiful, legal to obtain, & you don't have to do the killing.

I would enjoy the company of both good & evil friends, be thoughtful but with bursts of emotion.

Yes, I think Malack is well suited for LN especially if the "fighting your nature ( ie Drizzt) hero" is allowed.

Mike Havran

2013-02-25, 10:27 AM

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?

Winter

2013-02-25, 10:28 AM

Yes, very like. However, if [...]

Good point. And if I ever make another version, then 500*500 px will do just as fine...

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?

Yes, but we do not know how far LG he is/was in the judgement and his position reflects my interpretation based on what I saw of him. He might have been LG, but I am very sure he is not anymore.

Kish

2013-02-25, 10:49 AM

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?
Eugene is taking for granted that he'll be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled. Roy is taking for granted that Eugene will be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled.

They might both be in for a surprise.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 11:04 AM

Eugene is taking for granted that he'll be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled. Roy is taking for granted that Eugene will be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled.

They might both be in for a surprise.

On the risk of derailing the thread: bitter is not an Evil characteristic. We know that Eugene performed many acts of valor. We know he was capable of love (to his wife). Yes, Eugene's fatal flaw was seldom seeing things to completion, getting bored and moving on. But none of those are Evil characteristics. If his actions were bad enough to warrant punishemnt worse than being forced to wait outside the gates, the angels would surely have sent him to the Chaotic Good bin (or even the chaotic neutral) by now. The fact that he is waiting indicates that the angels are willing to let him in, as long as the blood oath is resolved.

But yes, I admit that Kish might be right on this one. He might be up for a review of his case, and his actions while dead might count against him in that case. We don't know. That said, who was the one that said that Eugene going to hell was an unrealistic expectation at this point? Was it Roy's mom, or Roy's angel?

Grey Wolf

pendell

2013-02-25, 11:36 AM

King of Nowhere

2013-02-25, 11:44 AM

I think that malack actually BELIEVE himself to be LN.
And as a vampire he still has to feed on blood, so getting it from people tried for execution is the best he can do. And he's not part enough of the crimes of the empire that he can be said to be an accomplice of said crimes. There's plenty of people in their buroucratic system that makes their work just because someone has to do it, or because they need the pay. As long as they are not part of the execution, they cannot be held responsible. even if you disagree with your country's justice, someone still has too oversee the repairing of the sewers, and it may as well be you.

All in all, I am convinced that Malack is LN, unless he will be proven to be lying or he will be shown to commit more evil actions than being loosely associated with an evil empire and being a vampire.

Also the argument about him having to fight his nature is a good one. a slightly evil vampire could very well be very good in vampiric terms, and deseving of praise for keeping a modicum of morality despite the pressure of his nature. In his case, however, I think it's the lawfulness. he appears to have a hard set system of what is right or wrong and won't bulge much with it.

Sidenote on eugene: he was very poor at social relations, and a jerkass, but he's been shown to take the good choice eventually. examples include talking right eye out of pursuing vengeance, and abandoning his revenge on xykon to take care of his family

Winter

2013-02-25, 11:45 AM

I'm a little unclear on how things work under 3.5 rules, but I was under the impression that subjects were judged on what they did in their lives, not their afterlives. The afterlife is where you're sorted for the eternity that most fits your outlook in life. Once done, you don't get resorted unless you return to life via resurrection .

The problem is that Eugene is in a state we have no idea about.

If you are in the afterlife, you are judged. If you are alive, you will get judged based on your deeds.
If you die, get judged, get into the afterlife, are called back and live again for 5 years, it is obvious you will get re-judged based on your new actions. That is a no brainer to me. No matter if you were Lawful Good before, if you slaughter and burn some orphanages for fun you won't get in again. You alignment shifted while you were alive.

But Eugene is not "alive", he is a in a realm between. Even worse, he is in a realm people usually should not be. They get there, get judged, get moved to whatever afterlife the judging resulted in. In the "between" is nothing you can do to affect your alignment. There is no one to kill, to cheat, to help. It's just a moment before you travel on.
Due to his bloodcurse Eugene is stuck in that "between" and due to his ability to still interact with the mortal world (due to his trip to Shojo, his phonecall to Roy, his Ghostform, and his interaction with a died Roy) he has opportunities to be active he should not have.

Eugene is in a position where he should not be able to influence his alignment at all but due to the exceptional circumstances - he can. This is a very exceptional situation and I am curious how "the powers that are" will react to that.
Given they try to be "fair" I highly doubt they ignore all the things Eugene did.

Chessgeek

2013-02-25, 11:45 AM

That said, who was the one that said that Eugene going to hell was an unrealistic expectation at this point? Was it Roy's mom, or Roy's angel?

Roy's Archon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html), although I don't think it would actually know if Eugene's actions while dead could come up in a review. But why would it matter what he did in his afterlife? The devas review people's lives, which obviously end when they stop living.

Winter

2013-02-25, 11:51 AM

All in all, I am convinced that Malack is LN, unless he will be proven to be lying or he will be shown to commit more evil actions than being loosely associated with an evil empire and being a vampire.

I think he's in the area between N and E, but I'd not hang the final decision on how he reacts as vampire. His stance is surely commendable and is a strongly good tendency that moves him out of the evil section.

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.
Also Malack must be very much aware that not everyone who is "found guilty" in the Empire of Blood actually "deserves" that sentence. We're looking at clearly Lawful Evil behavior in that regard (the laws are unjust and you know it! You even have the influence to change them but still don't do it).

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 12:13 PM

Roy's Archon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html), although I don't think it would actually know if Eugene's actions while dead could come up in a review.

Roy's Archon seems very well informed of how the lower sections of the mountain work. It seems to go with the position, and a lot of the knowledge seems to be infused into the creature (for example, the Archon being surprised that Roy's mom can guess his name).

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.

Neutral can mean not much caring about the bigger picture, just staying "good" (by which in this context I mean loyal, supportive, etc.) to those closest to you, and to hell with strangers. In Henlein's Starship Troopers, there is a good point to be made that ethical thought has constantly grown to include ethic rules to deal with more and more diverse groups of people. From family, to tribe, to city, to country, etc. Paladins think that Good is defending humans and slaughtering goblins. We know that is unethical, because goblins should be considered individuals with ethics as well. Well, if Malack is stuck in the "tribe" level of ethical thought, he could easily be Good to the tribe while being Evil to those refusing to follow the strict rules. I.e. Neutral.

Also Malack must be very much aware that not everyone who is "found guilty" in the Empire of Blood actually "deserves" that sentence. We're looking at clearly Lawful Evil behavior in that regard (the laws are unjust and you know it! You even have the influence to change them but still don't do it).

Could you back that up with some evidence? Not being sarcastic, I just can't remember of the top of my head what crimes we have heard being committed and which were punished by death. Seditious talking is the best I can recall.

I may just be misremembering, but we don't know how much Malack knows about the shadier part of the government. Like Roy tricking his party to go on side adventures, I picture Tarquin, knowing Malack is a bit on the neutral side, just hiding the operation of the squads of death-dealing ninjas. He lets Malack think that the courts, while oppressive, are just, and that the crimes that get dealt death are indeed to Malack's sensibilities, while taking care of other annoyances such as seditious talks outside of Malack's knowledge.

Grey Wolf

pendell

2013-02-25, 12:33 PM

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.

Then again, he may be as clueless about Tarquin as Durkon was about Malak. Durkon closely associated with Malak for a considerable time and seems to have never figured out that he was a vampire.

If Malak spends all or much of his time in his temple performing religious duties, he may be nearly clueless about the outside world. The cluelessness is strong with both Malak and Durkon.

...

Come to think of it, that seems to be a problem in general with religious types in OOTS. Miko is as blind to the way real people are as Durkon and Malack are, and Redcloak has so bought into the Dark One's way of looking at things he has difficulty dealing with the concerns of ordinary people, as seen in SOD.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Winter

2013-02-25, 12:47 PM

Then again, he may be as clueless about Tarquin as Durkon was about Malak.

You're really trying to sell me that Malack has adventured with Tarquin for 35 years, then they started that "Let's build a system of empires that we topple once in a while", also switched groups once in a while and still worked for the same goal, lives in one of the most possible "through and through evil empires imaginable" and that he did not notice how evil Tarquin is?

I want to add another question: Are you really serious about this?

There is no way in all nine hells that Malack is not aware of whom he is friends with.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 01:01 PM

pendell

2013-02-25, 01:01 PM

You're really trying to sell me that Malack has adventured with Tarquin for 35 years, then they started that "Let's build a system of empires that we topple once in a while", also switched groups once in a while and still worked for the same goal, lives in one of the most possible "through and through evil empires imaginable" and that he did not notice how evil Tarquin is?

I want to add another question: Are you really serious about this?

I'm considering the possiblity that Malak is clueless. Whether that is willful clueless or not is beside the point at this time. But people in this comic are really good at deceiving themselves about the people they work alongside of, or what they are doing. See: Redcloak's "plan" and his relationship to Xykon.

Of course, the people who cling the most tightly to their delusions are evil beings in-comic. So it may be that part of being evil is the willful decision not to see the truth about themselves, their actions, or about others.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Chantelune

2013-02-25, 01:04 PM

Nah, I really doubt Malack is clueless about Tarquin's true nature and how he rule the Empire. But friendship is not a matter of alignment in my opinion. Most people focus on the "Good" vs "Evil" of the alignment system of D&D, but don't forget the "Law" vs "Chaos" part. In Planescape setting, you can see good and evil people joining forces to fight the forces of law or chaos.

Malack being Lawful Neutral, if he is, wouldn't be an issue toward his friendship and association with Tarquin as they seem to mostly work on the Lawful aspect of things with their empire.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-25, 01:14 PM

A more moral society would also have the downside of wanting at least one of his friend's heads on a platter, and his for... existing. :smallconfused:

Also, this is the person that failed to realise Elan was ludicrously not-Nale like until after the fact. I'm not so certain about what he can pick up on. :smallbiggrin:

pendell

2013-02-25, 01:20 PM

So maybe instead of a 2-dimensonal alignment axis we need a 3d-axis: Lawful/chaotic, Good/evil, Stupid/not stupid.

That would even make a certain amount of sense. Creatures below INT 3 can't have alignment at all, can they?

So the lower the intelligence scale, the more it mitigates their other choices and pushes them towards neutral. That may be why we as a group are willing to forgive Thog for things we find inexcusable in Tarquin.

Of course, if Malack is intelligent enough to do spell research than he should theoretically be intelligent enough to understand the difference between good and evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Chantelune

2013-02-25, 01:43 PM

Also, this is the person that failed to realise Elan was ludicrously not-Nale like until after the fact. I'm not so certain about what he can pick up on. :smallbiggrin:

Well, Nale is well-known for being the scheming type and Malack didn't know that Tarquin had two sons. So when a guy who look exactly like Nale is brought by bounty hunters, he had no reason to doubt him being Nale and every reason to suspect he was trying to play dumb and pretending to be his long lost twin brother who's name was in reverse.

When Tarquin confirmed that it was Elan and not Nale, Malack accepted it as the truth.

I'll agree that he can be clueless at time, the fact that he didn't realize that Durkon knew Elan and the rest of the order goes that way, but I think he's not that clueless. After all, he had the feeling that they all knew each other. I think he mostly looks clueless when confronted with Tarquin's genre savyness.

Blue Ghost

2013-02-25, 01:44 PM

Raineh Daze

2013-02-25, 01:55 PM

High-Wisdom characters tend to be disturbingly bad at common sense. Or maybe it's that they've got a more rarefied common sense that is unfortunately at odds with more useful genre savviness. Or maybe it's just good perception but no bonuses to interpreting what they spot.

That he didn't put 2 and 2 together with Haley, Elan, and then everyone going off together... I'm not so certain he'd spot these things. :smallconfused:

Mike Havran

2013-02-25, 01:56 PM

You're really trying to sell me that Malack has adventured with Tarquin for 35 years, then they started that "Let's build a system of empires that we topple once in a while", also switched groups once in a while and still worked for the same goal, lives in one of the most possible "through and through evil empires imaginable" and that he did not notice how evil Tarquin is?

I want to add another question: Are you really serious about this?

There is no way in all nine hells that Malack is not aware of whom he is friends with.

Well, Tarquin is certainly able to keep his nature low key if needed - how else do you think his wife remained with him, persumably for a few years?

Now, back when they were just adventuring party I doubt they were anything more than your standard dungeon crawling variety. They apparently split up for some reason, but unlike the Scribblers, there was no bad blood.

Then they have their scheme running for about 20 years. They are toppling their kingdoms once in one or two years. Assuming their rotate all possible pairings, Malack was working with Tarquin on about three kingdoms. Which is suddenly not that much.

I guess Malack knows or suspects that Tarquin is a bastard. But he might very well willingly ignore it because from his perspective, making LE empires out of NE/CE environment is an acceptable goal so one might rise above working with unsavory types.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-25, 02:05 PM

I guess Malack knows or suspects that Tarquin is a bastard. But he might very well willingly ignore it because from his perspective, making LE empires out of NE/CE environment is an acceptable goal so one might rise above working with unsavory types.

We also know that Tarquin was working as a high priest when Tarquin unsuccessfully tried to conquer the Western Continent and invited him to be a warlord rather than have no place to go, which was when he came up with the plan.

I'm not sure if this has any moral significance, but it seems kind of relevant to any conversation on their pasts.

Cuthalion

2013-02-25, 02:08 PM

Mike Havran

2013-02-25, 02:14 PM

We also know that Tarquin was working as a high priest when Tarquin unsuccessfully tried to conquer the Western Continent and invited him to be a warlord rather than have no place to go, which was when he came up with the plan.

I'm not sure if this has any moral significance, but it seems kind of relevant to any conversation on their pasts.

Do you mean "Malack was working..."? Even if so, I'm not so sure we could count on that Tarquin's exposition (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html). After all, we know that Malack didn't "find" him, but it was vice versa.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-25, 02:17 PM

Yes, I did mean Malack. :smallredface:

He found me and offered me a job as Chief Warlord to his new master.

Paseo H

2013-02-25, 05:21 PM

Huh.

Looks like the topic got back on track without me. Very well, I retract what I said earlier.

Please excuse my unduly strident behavior earlier, it's just in reaction to the tendency I see for people to use any excuse to either minimize or maximize some aspect of a character unduly, as evidenced by the aforementioned precedents of Belkar and Miko.

So to me, the tone from a rather vocal majority all seems like "Until I see Malack literally chowing down on live, crying Care Bears, I will deem him neutral," which I think is a bit silly.

That's not to say that some of you haven't put forth some reasonable sounding arguments, or at least ones that are polite and civil compared to the discourse earlier on, after which the Giant himself intervened.

And for my part, it's not like I'm saying "Malack poked a puppy, therefore he's a Complete Monster," honestly I'm leaning towards 'evil' instead of 'Evil.'

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 05:31 PM

And for my part, it's not like I'm saying "Malack poked a puppy, therefore he's a Complete Monster," honestly I'm leaning towards 'evil' instead of 'Evil.'

It comes down to: we lack evidence. Malack is too passive, and hasn't been on-screen enough, for us to judge his Good/Evil moral position. Yes, he has helped build Tarquin's plan, but we do not know how many times he has toned down (or up) the laws Tarquin intended to pass to make the place more to his liking. Nor if he has ever tried to talk Tarquin towards greater benevolence.

What little we have seen is that of a guy who is reasonable, friendly and quite moral regarding the creation of undead (no unthinking undead, accept parental responsibility for created vampires, form deep emotional attachment to them). All else being equal, a vampire can do much worse than feed off the condemned, and lets be honest: a vampire isn't likely to be allowed that in a Good city, so what recourse has he got, even if he isn't evil himself, but to clench his fangs and put up with an Evil empire if it is the one place where he and his children don't get attacked on sight (Nale notwithstanding).

Now, much of the above is circular reasoning: I start from the assumption that Malack is LN, and see if he fits. (I believe he does). The exact same exercise can be done starting from LE. I am not trying to argue that Malack must be LN, only that he needn't be LE.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

pendell

2013-02-25, 05:52 PM

Allow me to put forth some context.

The only way we would all agree that Malak is Evil is if he did something that makes him a Complete Monster. Tarquin, for example, setting slaves on fire for his son's birthday present. Xykon forcing people to fight each other in his gladiator games and laughing when hobgoblins die or are tortured for his amusement.

The problem is, both in fiction and the real world, most people aren't at the extremes of good and evil. In fact, the better the fiction the more nuanced both heroes and villains are, because it's more true to life.

Which means that a well-written character should have subtleties, complexities, and not be easily pinned down to a specific alignment. Haley, for example is "chaotic good-ish". Miko started as lawful good but I suspect fell to True Neutral.

Which means that the alignment of any character in this strip is up for debate unless the Giant deliberately sets out to make the character a caricature, a walking, talking billboard a la Pilgrim's Progress, where the characters are literally named after their characteristic (Faith, Hope, Giant Despair, By-Ends) and go no deeper than a two-dimensional portrait.

Malack has not yet had a complete monster moment.

In a way, it would be easy if there was no such alignment as "neutral". If we looked at things only from the prospect of Good or Evil, Malack would unquestionably fall on the Evil end of the street. But since there is neutrality, it introduces an element of ambiguity into all these questions.

And the less extreme a character is, the more ambiguous their alignment. Remember the graph we discussed earlier and Winter helpfully drew up. When you get down close to the 2 value on any axis, the distinctions between the alignments blur. The difference between a lawful good of (2.1, 2.1) and a lawful neutral character of (1.9, 1.9) is fine. Likewise for lawful evil. Or true neutral. Or any other alignment.

Unless the character is an extreme, the character's alignment is debatable.

Most extremes are poor writing. The Giant is NOT a poor author.

And so I am reserving final judgement about Malak's alignment, because the giant is not done revealing information about him. We now know two facts about him as of 871 we did not know in 870 -- he still considers Durkon a friend, and he feeds on convicted criminals sentenced to death. When he says " a great deal of it goes to waste", I suspect this means that he does not drain his target to death, but only takes what he needs to survive.

Up until 870, we didn't even know he was a vampire. Now, as of 871, we know a little more about him.

Given these things, I think I will wait until the giant's done revealing information about him before I make a final decision about his alignment. It's not like waiting a few strips until we have more information is going to cost me anything.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Paseo H

2013-02-25, 06:04 PM

To me, that kinda sounds like you're saying "nobody can truly be proven evil unless they've crossed the Moral Event Horizon" (i.e. the "complete monster moment.")

Which, for all intents and purposes, may as well be "nobody is truly evil unless they've crossed the Moral Event Horizon."

I have to disagree with that. There are degrees of evil, and surely a person can remain within the redeemable degrees and thus be a merely 'evil' villain, without having a moment of essentially being pure evil and thus nearly impossible to come back from being a terrible person.

Think of it this way: some people are further along the road paved to Ba'ator, but some distances are easier to come back from than others.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-25, 06:05 PM

When he says " a great deal of it goes to waste", I suspect this means that he does not drain his target to death, but only takes what he needs to survive..

Brian,

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Grey Wolf

Kish

2013-02-25, 06:20 PM

Brian,

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Grey Wolf
And Malack is seemingly blind to the implications of "the Empire I help to lead executes far more people than I could drink the blood of every day," but Durkon may not be.

pendell

2013-02-25, 06:48 PM

I have to disagree with that. There are degrees of evil, and surely a person can remain within the redeemable degrees and thus be a merely 'evil' villain, without having a moment of essentially being pure evil and thus nearly impossible to come back from being a terrible person.

I agree. But whether a person is objectively evil and whether we can arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence we have is another question entirely.

The background I am from warns against hastily judging people as good/evil/whatever when the question is in any way ambiguous.

As a rule, we humans do not have the ability to look into a person's mind and heart, to view their actions in full context, and from that certainly determine their alignment.

Typically, we can judge fictional characters with more accuracy, because fictional characters are not humans. Depending on the type of fiction, we can have complete access to all their thoughts, their ideas, their history. If you've read Start of Darkness, for example, you know everything about Xykon that Rich Burlew wants us to know about his motivation and background -- we have all the significant information. So we CAN judge Xykon.

Malack is a more subtle character and is nowhere nearly as obviously evil.

He MAY be as evil as Xykon. But I cannot CONCLUDE that based on the information I have. My ethical outlook teaches me that I can't expect to be judged more mercifully than I judge others. So I am willing to extend Malak some benefit of the doubt until the Giant's done revealing information about him. I concede that Lawful Evil is at this point his most probable alignment, but there are enough other factors (won't drink the blood of the innocent, is friends with mortals, helps Durkon) that I cannot at this time believe this is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Thank you, Grey Wolf. Possibility noted.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Aldrakan

2013-02-25, 07:42 PM

I feel the fact that he bothers to feed the way he does implies that he's evil, not Evil. Saying "oh, they would have been killed anyway" is an obviously insufficient justification, especially given that he helps run the empire. Still, that he brings it up at all suggests that he feels the need to salve his conscience, and consequently has got a conscience to salve.

Tragak

2013-02-25, 07:46 PM

Still, that he brings it up at all suggests that he feels the need to salve his conscience, and consequently has got a conscience to salve.

Or Durkon's.

NFB42

2013-02-25, 08:26 PM

I don't particular care about what the rules say about alignment. I've personally always seen it as:

Good: A character who puts the needs and well-being of others above their own.
Neutral: A character who puts their own needs and well-being (and possibly those of their close friends and loved ones) first without regards to those of others.
Evil: A character whose needs and well-being come at the expense of those of others.

By my definition Malack has not done anything that proves him to be of evil alignment rather than neutral. Yes he's been shown to not particularly care about the fate of others not close to him, but he's not been shown to actively (callously) cause harm to others in the furthering of his own goals either (I don't accept Malack fighting the OotS as actively causing harm because imo the widespread acceptance of violence and battle to the death as a proper means of conflict resolution among both good and evil persons is simply one of the idiosyncrasies that come with game settings).

Though I'll be honest, mostly I'd just find it really boring if Malack was yet another lawful evil character. Having a lawful neutral character hanging with an evil adventuring party (Tarquin's) would be an interesting mirror to the more common of having a neutral character hanging with a good party.

Aldrakan

2013-02-25, 08:50 PM

Or Durkon's.

True, but unless he's lying about how he feeds, I think it still implies that he's making an attempt to be less evil about it. He's unlikely to do that because there's an off-chance he'll one day need a very feeble excuse.

Scow2

2013-02-25, 08:52 PM

I don't know about that. I get the impression that a cessation of war on the Western Continent really is a part of why Tarquin put his master plan into action. Not his primary motivation, naturally, but I'd put good money on it being a fairly large deciding factor.

No, it's really not. That's his excuse to keep the Good Guys from outright smashing him to pieces. He showed his true colors during his fight with Elan. He put his "master plan" into action because he wants to rule the Western Kingdoms, and this was the most savvy way to go about it. He's doing it because he wants to be the Evil Overlord (Note the Capital "Evil" there) - The type of Evil Overlord who not only gets overthrown by a dashing hero in an awesome story, but also gets to Live as a GOD all the years up to that point. He revels in his Evil.

Incom

2013-02-25, 10:50 PM

It comes down to: we lack evidence. Malack is too passive, and hasn't been on-screen enough, for us to judge his Good/Evil moral position. Yes, he has helped build Tarquin's plan, but we do not know how many times he has toned down (or up) the laws Tarquin intended to pass to make the place more to his liking. Nor if he has ever tried to talk Tarquin towards greater benevolence.

What little we have seen is that of a guy who is reasonable, friendly and quite moral regarding the creation of undead (no unthinking undead, accept parental responsibility for created vampires, form deep emotional attachment to them). All else being equal, a vampire can do much worse than feed off the condemned, and lets be honest: a vampire isn't likely to be allowed that in a Good city, so what recourse has he got, even if he isn't evil himself, but to clench his fangs and put up with an Evil empire if it is the one place where he and his children don't get attacked on sight (Nale notwithstanding).

Now, much of the above is circular reasoning: I start from the assumption that Malack is LN, and see if he fits. (I believe he does). The exact same exercise can be done starting from LE. I am not trying to argue that Malack must be LN, only that he needn't be LE.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

This is basically the summary of all my posts in this forum for the past week or so. Thank you.

veti

2013-02-25, 11:37 PM

Those go to the Arena Correctional Facility. We don't know what crimes are punished by direct execution, as we haven't seen any such verdict.

Just a guess, but: commit any of the above crimes while being too infirm or weak to make a good gladiatorial spectacle, and you might find yourself on that particular Death Row.

Say, if you had a condition that would require you to drink blood of sentient beings for your daily nourishment, and you wouldn't want to harm innocent in the process, what would you do?

Die.

Seriously. There may be a way to be a good vampire - but not for long.

Everything else is circumstantial. "He is evil because he is a vampire" is racist, just as bad as " he is evil because he is a goblin". As long as vampires are free-willed, the fact they were created with dark magic means nothing to their morality. Yes, they must feed on the blood of others, presumably intelligent beings.

Yeah - nah. A good vampire makes as much sense as a vegetarian piranha or a pacifist terrorist. Good requires 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings': you don't express that by drinking their blood, even if they have been condemned by your only-figuratively-bloodthirsty totalitarian BFF.

Consider Sabine. She appears to be freewilled, yesno? And yet she's a literal embodiment of chaos and evil. Which implies that if she was somehow converted to LG, she would literally cease to exist. Right then and there, she'd vanish like a puff of antimatter.

Basically, as soon as you admit magic into your universe, just about all the logic we know needs - rethinking. Including the idea of free will (assuming you believe such a thing exists in any world, but let's not get into that now). To say that Malack can 'exercise free will' to be not-evil is like saying that I can "exercise free will" to be 9' tall. It's not "will" that's preventing me from being that: it's physiology. Ditto Malack and evil. Doesn't matter what he wants to be, he's stuck with it.

jere7my

2013-02-25, 11:47 PM

Yeah - nah. A good vampire makes as much sense as a vegetarian piranha or a pacifist terrorist. Good requires 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings': you don't express that by drinking their blood, even if they have been condemned by your only-figuratively-bloodthirsty totalitarian BFF.

Y'know, some people in our very own real world voluntarily donate their blood to help people. (I've got the needle scars to prove it!) Is it so impossible that people in a fantasy world might donate blood to support a good vampire?

What about a vampire who dumpster-dives outside the Red Cross, feeding on blood that's past its "use by" date? Or one who "cleans up" battlefields...with a little snack now and then?

The concept of a vampire engaged in a moral struggle with its nature is...not new.

Leliel

2013-02-25, 11:53 PM

-snip-

Ahem.

WRONG!

Not only is a succubus going good possible in D&D, there's actually a canonical example of a succubus paladin.

And-is it really evil to desire to not die a horrible death?

If you say it is, well then I guess that everything should detect as evil, as all life will destroy all other life to not starve.

EDIT: And if you hit me with that old "a truly altruistic person would die"-yeah yeah. Pull the other one.

See how a man's true morality is, give him power, don't deprive him of it and force him into a bad situation. Soldiers, for example, are some of the greatest people in the world, but on the battlefield? Literally one of the first rules is to refer to your enemies as subhuman to avoid the guilt of killing them as long as possible.

Winter

2013-02-26, 01:26 AM

adulus

2013-02-26, 02:40 AM

Well, he tried to make somebody a slave to him, which was definitely against their will. So that quickly answers the whole evil/neutral thing for me. Now, Evil/evil? I'm going by a rough definition of capital E Evil: Evil because they think they can get away with it. Lowercase evil would be evil because they think they must be. So far, Malack's evil actions have been a mix of the two, but what decides it is that he tends towards inaction. He's doesn't actively go do evil, things happen and occasionally force him to act and when that happens he leans evil. So, lowercase lawful evil is my final answer.

Corneel

2013-02-26, 05:40 AM

And so I am reserving final judgement about Malak's alignment, because the giant is not done revealing information about him. We now know two facts about him as of 871 we did not know in 870 -- he still considers Durkon a friend, and he feeds on convicted criminals sentenced to death. When he says " a great deal of it goes to waste", I suspect this means that he does not drain his target to death, but only takes what he needs to survive.

You can also read "a great deal of it goes to waste" in another sense: more than enough people are sentenced to death every day in the EoB for him to get his sustenance from that source.

Bulldog Psion

2013-02-26, 05:50 AM

You can also read "a great deal of it goes to waste" in another sense: more than enough people are sentenced to death every day in the EoB for him to get his sustenance from that source.

That seems to be the only logical way that the statement can be read. He's saying that so many are executed that he can only drink a fraction of the available blood.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 07:48 AM

I consider Malack to be evil and I consider it that much that not even a Word from Rich in regards how he sees Malack would shake me in that interpretation (based on his relationship with Tarquin who's not hiding at all who and what he is once he's out of the public view).

There in a nutshell lies our problem. I disagree with both your definition of Neutral (which you haven't given us, by the way, but whatever it is will not match the one I gave earlier, obviously) and most importantly, with your belief that you can override an author's definition of morality. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss, our positions will remain diametrically opposed no matter what, since we disagree in fundamental subjective metrics, so we would be comparing oranges and apples all the way down.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:53 AM

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 07:56 AM

I really don't think that's absolute. There's plenty of instances where a reader can validly override an author's definition of morality.

Very few of them have the author's definition of morality determining whether certain mechanical effects in the game system would apply. I'm not sure how one could go about overriding that. Disagreeing, maybe, but overriding? :smallamused:

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:59 AM

Very few of them have the author's definition of morality determining whether certain mechanical effects in the game system would apply. I'm not sure how one could go about overriding that. Disagreeing, maybe, but overriding? :smallamused:

Use your imagination as to the situations where this would work. That's about all I can say in the forums about the matter.

Millygoat

2013-02-26, 08:01 AM

I honestly don't think it really matters much. As rich has said, the only real moral absolutes in terms of alignment are the various outsiders. We have a few outliers, like Xykon who are just terrible horrible people, but aside from that the alignment grid is just a loose structure cobbled together to give people rough ideas as to what is generally the norm for various beasties and socieities.

If he is evil, then he is a darn personable and easy to like flavor of evil, and seems to be honorable and value friendship and comraderie. If he is neutral, then he's done some things a lot of people would find questionable (the entire helping the cycle of empires bit) but at the same time we don't really know how he views his motivation for doing so. Maybe he feels it would be better than the alternative, or maybe in the way of some neutrals, he just doesn't care.

All in all, the alignment system has always been a guide aside from when a DM calls BS on a paladin or cleric for doing things his diety wouldn't approve of, at least our all the tables I've been a part of. All I know for certain is that I really like our albino lizard buddy and hope he doesn't end up gutted by pointy daggers anytime soon :-)

Icedaemon

2013-02-26, 08:01 AM

Winter

2013-02-26, 08:29 AM

There in a nutshell lies our problem. I disagree with both your definition of Neutral (which you haven't given us, by the way, but whatever it is will not match the one I gave earlier, obviously) and most importantly, with your belief that you can override an author's definition of morality. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss, our positions will remain diametrically opposed no matter what, since we disagree in fundamental subjective metrics, so we would be comparing oranges and apples all the way down.

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player. He has his opinion what constitutes what alignment and plans and writes his characters accordingly. But in the case of Enor and Gannji I fully disagree. Enor I might see but Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil. This is not a question of morality, this is a question of deeds that go into the evil alignment and therefore I disagree with Rich's estimate Gannji is still neutral. What we saw in the comic simply does not support that, imo.
It does not matter much as it does not change the character ("Your alignment is not your character") but it is a perfect example where I do not have to accept the "Word of Author".

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me. I think I ignore that interjection as I doubt it'll bring us further along (in any way).

We were talking about Malack and I think I have given my reasons why I think he's not in the neutral territory anymore. As you can see on my graph, I put him very close to neutral, but not there.
He's simply working too close with Tarquin to be "not red". I also do not think he's as naive and clueless as Durkon (who is really naive and clueless, I want to point out), he did not come over as that. If he does, I might reconsider my position, though.
What I find odd is that Malack still fed Durkon the Bloodwart-tea. Why? He is very aware of his own condition but there's no way he assumed Durkon would like it as well. He did it because he wanted to see how Durkon reacts or out of spite, the latter would reinforce my belief that Malack was indeed evil.

As I said, I very much think that Malack's treatment of his own condition is a strongly good trait, but this is countered by his full acceptance of the evil empire and his friend who runs it. There's only so much time you can stare into an abyss without the abyss changing you enough. And the Tarquin-Empire-of-Blood-abyss is very deep and very dark, so you are not staring into it for years and live with it and maintain any alignment that does not end with "vil". There's a limit of what "Neutrality" can take, imo.

pendell

2013-02-26, 08:48 AM

Pendell, Grey_wolf, I see the point you want to make why Malack could be neutral and understand it, but I simply do not share it's a realistic interpretation.
I might be wrong, as I am wrong in disagreeing with Rich that Enor and Ganji are still in the neutral territory, but the empire is simply too evil and Malack is simply too involved in the entire scheme to, for me, still being considered neutral.

I was thinking about this last night, and the question I have WRT Malack's support of the Empire of Blood is -- What is the alternative ?

Consider the WH40K universe. The Terran Empire is ruled by a thousands year emperor kept alive by the most reprehensible measures. But the alternative to THE EMPRAH and his inquisitors is not the Republic of Star Wars. No, the alternative to the Emperor are the Tyrannids and the Chaos creatures and who knows what else.

A similar problem can be seen in Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. In that series of books , the central problem is the collapse of the Galactic Empire and its replacement by either a second Galactic Empire or a successor entity, Galaxia, after an interregnum of ONLY a thousand years of war, strife, murder and anarchy. The establishment of a galactic military dictatorship is not something most of us would consider a GOOD thing, but in the context of the novels it is necessary because -- at the beginning , anyway -- the alternative is not a galaxy-wide democracy, but a galaxy-wide war.

Looking at the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), it looks to me as if the western continent has a lot more in common with WH40K than it does with Star Wars. There is no Happyvania. There is a CruelVania, a Dictatoria, and two Despotanias.

In such an environment, I can well see why even lawful good soldiers would fight for the Empire of Blood. Because gladiatorial combats and strict laws are STILL, at least from some points of view, better than a state of constant war which is perilously close to making the entire continent uninhabitable.

You have to live in the society that's available, not the society that is the best of all possible worlds. I'm sure a Lawful Good person would prefer to live under Hinjo and not Tarquin. But even Tarquin can be better than constant war, anarchy, civil war , and death.

ETA: All Hail Caiaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaphas_Cain)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 08:56 AM

Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil.

From The Giant

There is nothing in my statement that implied that trying to kill Roy wasn't an Evil act. Being legal does not makes something not Evil. True Neutral characters can (and often do) commit Evil acts from time to time.

I included the information simply to show that the bounty hunters were not operating wholly outside the ethical framework of the Empire of Blood. While it does not change the nature of their acts, there is a certain degree of "when in Rome" going on with their actions there. Would they have attacked Roy if it weren't legal to do so? Probably not. Therefore, it is not as indicative of their overall alignment as one might initially think. Because the comic contains so few scenes of a person's life, there is a heavy "selection bias" when trying to guess their alignments. My intent when writing them was to shoot for True Neutral, however.

Yes- Gannji commits a few Evil acts against Roy. But Neutral people can commit Evil acts and remain Neutral.

ChristianSt

2013-02-26, 08:59 AM

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player. He has his opinion what constitutes what alignment and plans and writes his characters accordingly. But in the case of Enor and Gannji I fully disagree. Enor I might see but Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil. This is not a question of morality, this is a question of deeds that go into the evil alignment and therefore I disagree with Rich's estimate Gannji is still neutral. What we saw in the comic simply does not support that, imo.
It does not matter much as it does not change the character ("Your alignment is not your character") but it is a perfect example where I do not have to accept the "Word of Author".

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me. I think I ignore that interjection as I doubt it'll bring us further along (in any way).

We were talking about Malack and I think I have given my reasons why I think he's not in the neutral territory anymore. As you can see on my graph, I put him very close to neutral, but not there.
He's simply working too close with Tarquin to be "not red". I also do not think he's as naive and clueless as Durkon (who is really naive and clueless, I want to point out), he did not come over as that. If he does, I might reconsider my position, though.
What I find odd is that Malack still fed Durkon the Bloodwart-tea. Why? He is very aware of his own condition but there's no way he assumed Durkon would like it as well. He did it because he wanted to see how Durkon reacts or out of spite, the latter would reinforce my belief that Malack was indeed evil.

As I said, I very much think that Malack's treatment of his own condition is a strongly good trait, but this is countered by his full acceptance of the evil empire and his friend who runs it. There's only so much time you can stare into an abyss without the abyss changing you enough. And the Tarquin-Empire-of-Blood-abyss is very deep and very dark, so you are not staring into it for years and live with it and maintain any alignment that does not end with "vil". There's a limit of what "Neutrality" can take, imo.

But the problem with that approach, with all those characters is: They don't have enough screentime.

We have seen all these characters only for tiny snippets of their lives. We don't know what they do all the time. Sure maybe they where some evil actions performed by them. But we don't know if they done some good actions to counter that. With so few actions performed, I think it is not really possible to judge those characters (In term of D&D alignment) - especially in regards whether they are Neutral or not (maybe some of them want to achieve neutrality by performing both good & evil deeds - only we haven't seen enough of them to see the good ones). And word of god is a good shortcut in regards to having not enough information.

As others have said, I wouldn't argue that Malack is NOT evil. But I also wouldn't argue he IS evil. I think we can't make a fair assumption with the information we got. So unless some effect proves that he is evil (or Malack admits it), we need to see much more to say anything about that.

And if you think Gannji, Enor and Malack are without a question evil, why do you not have a problem with V being Neutral? I think V did actions much more evil than we have seen from all those (and many other characters). (I have no problem with V being still Neutral - I think we have enough seen of V to maintain a neutrality, but we don't know how Malack thinks about the stuff he does/is happing around him)

Chantelune

2013-02-26, 09:01 AM

I really don't think that's absolute. There's plenty of instances where a reader can validly override an author's definition of morality.

I agree with that, though we are in a setting were morals are defined as a trait more than rough ideas.

d&d provides general definitions of each alignement, but the line beetween them can be a bit blurry at time and then up to each persons opinion. I think this is the case with Malack here. So far, he gives me the impression of walking on the thin line beetween neutral and evil, hence why I still can't decide if he's one or the other and would be fine with both.

My point here would be : if the Giant states that Malack is evil or neutral, then he is, in regard to his alignement. Where people put their own line beetween the two may differ, but it's up to the DM to rule out at his table, to use a gaming analogy. :smallbiggrin:

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 09:02 AM

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player.

No, he isn't. He is both the author and the DM. He is the supreme God Creator of OotS, and what he believes to be Good is Good, what he believes to be Evil is Evil, and so on, for the confines of OotS, which is the only context in which those words even make sense. You seem to want to argue that "if Malack was doing this in the real world..." but that is fallacious. He can't: he is a vampire and can't exist in the real world. Malack can only be said to be Good, Neutral or Evil in the context of OotS, and by every definition of author and DM, Rich's understanding of those words are the only ones that count.

(This goes also for Paseo H's non-argument, btw)

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me.

I gave you my definition of Neutral several posts ago. You are the one that has not reciprocated. But from the graph you use, you seem to believe it is the knife's edge between Good and Evil. As I said, I don't know how you actually define it, but since you obviously believe in guilt by association and the razor edge, I know enough to know it is incompatible with my own definition.

Grey Wolf

Winter

2013-02-26, 09:09 AM

You seem to want to argue that "if Malack was doing this in the real world..." but that is fallacious. He can't:

Good. As I do not do that.

I gave you my definition of Neutral several posts ago. You are the one that has not reciprocated. But from the graph you use, you seem to believe it is the knife's edge between Good and Evil. As I said, I don't know how you actually define it, but since you obviously believe in guilt by association and the razor edge, I know enough to know it is incompatible with my own definition.

I'm not generally believe in "guilt by association". Neutral characters can associate with evil characters while still maintaining their alignment. I believe in it in extreme cases and I find it hard to imagine any case that is more extreme than Tarquin. It's also not that Malack merely "associates" with Tarquin, he actively takes part in the empire. I think there is a difference between having an evil friend and actually being an active part in his empire, that goes way beyond mere "association".

There's no knife's edge between good and evil, there is a very broad greyzone. But if I have to decide if I put Malack into neutral or evil territory, I know where I do draw him based on what I saw in the comic.

pendell

2013-02-26, 09:16 AM

Grey Wolf,

I'm sorry but I've reread the thread and I can't find exactly where you said "my definition of neutral is..." ... Could you please repost it or send me the link in PM or something?

Another thought.

Mr. Burlew has posted in this thread once as his capacity as moderator.

He COULD have taken the opportunity to say "By the way, Malak's alignment is [x]".

He didn't.

Which implies that he believes this discusison is healthy -- Malak's alignment is debatable, given the evidence we have seen in-comic, but may be made more clear by subsequent revelations. I think he wants us to be thinking on what good and evil are in D&D, and what a neutral character is and is not. If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 09:17 AM

Good. As I do not do that.

Then you are arguing "Malack would be Evil if I, and not Rich, got to define what Evil means". Which is the same problem as above. I believe Rich does get to define what Evil and Neutral mean in his world. You can disagree with Rich if you want (and you obviously do), but that is well beyond what this thread is about, not to mention against board rules.

Edit to add: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not in any way saying that I am right and you are wrong to think this way (or the other way round). As I said above, we hold to subjective fundamentals. Continuing to discuss, when I doubt there is likely no chance to change each other's most basic assumptions on the Alignment system, is only going to serve to make us hostile. Agree to disagree and all that jazz.

Edit 2: Brian, sent you that PM. Too many mentions of real-world morality for me to post it.

Grey Wolf

pendell

2013-02-26, 09:26 AM

For some reason, I can just imagine Tarquin giving this speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg) .

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Elan? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the slaves, and you curse the Empire of Blood. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the deaths of innocents in my Empire, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very safety that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a [deleted] what you think you are entitled to.

It takes a certain kind of man to walk a wall and stand a post. We'd all prefer it was Hinjo and not Tarquin. But if Tarquin's what's available ... you can't leave the wall unmanned.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Mike Havran

2013-02-26, 09:37 AM

If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?
I believe it's because it would give away some future plot points. I think there is going to be some surprising action from Malack, and pinpointing his alignment might give it away, or diminish the impact. So, let's guess what it could be :smallsmile:

Edit:

For some reason, I can just imagine Tarquin giving this speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg)
Well, I personally can't but I can very well imagine he might say something similar to Malack in order to persuade him to support the Empire scheme.

Winter

2013-02-26, 09:39 AM

Then you are arguing "Malack would be Evil if I, and not Rich, got to define what Evil means". Which is the same problem as above. I believe Rich does get to define what Evil and Neutral mean in his world. You can disagree with Rich if you want (and you obviously do), but that is well beyond what this thread is about, not to mention against board rules.

First, Rich did not say Malack was neutral. Second, I'm not saying what you put in the quotes. I say that based on what I see in the comic, I'd put Malack in the area "between neutral and evil, but already into the evil area".
That's totally different from all the things you have so far assumed what I say.
Third, we are all free to decide what we consider good, neutral, and evil in D&D and where we put certain characters from fictional work. You, me, the author, we all are entitled to our own opinion and I strongly doubt we all would disagree in this case that Malack is a pretty borderline case. I also doubt it'd make such a big difference if disagreed if he is "barely neutral" or "barely evil". It's very probably making no difference at all for the story and the character in that story.
I fail to see why you open such a big crate about this small disagreement (especially as Rich did not set Malack as neutral so far). So what is this about, then?

Edit to add: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not in any way saying that I am right and you are wrong to think this way (or the other way round). As I said above, we hold to subjective fundamentals. Continuing to discuss, when I doubt there is likely no chance to change each other's most basic assumptions on the Alignment system, is only going to serve to make us hostile. Agree to disagree and all that jazz.

I'm not sure there even is a disagreement about the alignment system in general. Just how it works in this specific case (which real position in the alignment-system is actually still unconfirmed).
But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?

I think he wants us to be thinking on what good and evil are in D&D, and what a neutral character is and is not. If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?

I think he deliberatly wrote Malack into the grey area. Clearing that upvia this thread would destroy what he actually did in the comic.
I find Malack awesome as character, because he is in the grey area he is in. He has evil, neutral AND good tendencies and where that lands in the end is up to the reader to decide.

SaintRidley

2013-02-26, 09:42 AM

But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?

That seems to be a sticking point to a lot of people when it comes to analyzing a work of literature. I don't quite get why, though.

Emmit Svenson

2013-02-26, 09:51 AM

It’s plausible, at this point, that Malack could be LE or LN. I tend to think of him as LE, due to his long association and collaboration with Tarquin.

Then again, Belkar and Roy have a long association, and their alignments are diametrically opposed. Roy justifies it by saying he directs Belkar’s destructive nature for the greater good. I could see a LN Malack doing the same with regards to Tarquin, collaborating with him to found the rotating dynasties of tyranny most recently embodied in the empires of Blood, Sweat and Tears not out of evil, selfish motives, but for the desire for order and stability. The ephemeral nature of these empires presumably doesn’t seem chaotic to a worshipper of a god of destruction, who might see it as a reflection of the great cycle of growth and decay.

Still, I’m thinking evil. He’s a little too smug about technically only drinking the blood of criminals, when we know well that the Empire of Blood is an injust, slaveowning society that hands down death sentences for trivial offenses. Being complicit in its foundation and profiting from the execution of the unjustly condemned stretches the definintion of LN too far, I think.

But I’m willing to accept him as LN for dramatic purposes, if that’s where the Giant is headed. For example, if in his showdown with Durkon, a Dispel Evil or Holy Smite fail against Malack and so dramatically reveal his neutrality, I would see that as an effective twist. LN vampire, so edgy!

I suspect we’ll find out very soon.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 09:54 AM

Second, I'm not saying what you put in the quotes.
See:

I consider Malack to be evil and I consider it that much that not even a Word from Rich in regards how he sees Malack would shake me in that interpretation
That pretty much means "Winter gets to define what Evil means, not Rich". Thus, we cannot have this conversation.

But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?
Yes, and the fact that after three proddings, you have yet to define Neutral.

GW

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 09:55 AM

But I’m willing to accept him as LN for dramatic purposes, if that’s where the Giant is headed. For example, if in his showdown with Durkon, a Dispel Evil or Holy Smite fail against Malack and so dramatically reveal his neutrality, I would see that as an effective twist. LN vampire, so edgy!
Probably wouldn't work, since, for example, Detect Evil, works on undead of any alignment. It's possible that other Evil-affecting spells work the same way.

Winter

2013-02-26, 10:22 AM

That pretty much means "Winter gets to define what Evil means, not Rich". Thus, we cannot have this conversation.

Yes, Winter gets to define if a character is good, evil, or neutral in regard to D&D terms. So is Grey_Wolf_c. So is Rich Burlew.
I find it good we have a character in OotS where it's worth of arguing if he is evil or not. I find that especially interesting as "alignment" is not "morals", where the former is much clearer (and harmless to talk about) than the latter. How many other characters are there we can get into each others hair over alignment?

Yes, and the fact that after three proddings, you have yet to define Neutral.

Actually, I do not. I explained why I think that Malack is to be found in the grey area between neutral and evil and why I think he is a bit too far in one direction to still think him as neutral. But if you want definitions, I gladly take these:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Why is Malack evil, not neutral you ask? As my words do not convince you, I work with direct quotes from the srd.

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.

Malack is that.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Malack is also totally doing that. He accepts that countless people are hurt in the empire he is part in and he surely is accepting people get oppressed. He does have the power to do something about it very easily, but he is not doing anything, he actively accepts the status quo. It is strongly implied he works with Tarquin to ensure the "three empires gamble" stays afloat, which even goes beyond the above.

I also like Emmit Svenson's comment on how Malack is simply too smug about "technically" not hurting anyone, on how everything is "technically" legal, how he "technically" does not make his hands dirty. Accepting all that for your own benefit is more LE than LN.
edit: The difference between Malack and a LN judge who "upholds the evil system because the law is the law" is that the system in this case is as much Malack's own system as it is Tarquin's. He's not working for some nameless state or some king far away, but basically for his own state-fabrication.

edit2: Sorry for the late edit. But I would like to add this:
We are not arguing definitions of alignments but the question "When does association with evil becomes evil". You're saying Malack still only associates and thus stays neutral. I say his association goes so far it is active support, and therefore he is not neutral anymore.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 10:28 AM

Yes, Winter gets to define if a character is good, evil, or neutral in regard to D&D terms. So is Grey_Wolf_c. So is Rich Burlew.
I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do not believe you get to override Rich, and you think you do. This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

Actually, I do not {define Neutral}.
Precisely. I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good". This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

GW

Winter

2013-02-26, 10:32 AM

I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do not believe you get to override Rich, and you think you do. This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

Precisely. I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good". This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

I think the reason it's not going anywhere lies elsewhere. But as you repeated you do not want it to go anywhere but are very eager to shut it down at this stage, I am going to respect that.

I'm still very interested (even if I might not agree!) to learn where Rich thinks where Malack stands in regard to alignment. I hope we'll find out one way or the other (either by comment or due to the course of the comic).

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 10:36 AM

I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good".

There's more than one kind of Neutral. There's "has compunctions against harming the innocent but lacks the commitment to help or protect others" (PHB)

But there's also an element of "Neutral by committing a mix of Good and Evil deeds (with the Evil deeds primarily being toward Good ends)" (Heroes of Horror)

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 10:52 AM

There's more than one kind of Neutral. There's "has compunctions against harming the innocent but lacks the commitment to help or protect others" (PHB)

But there's also an element of "Neutral by committing a mix of Good and Evil deeds (with the Evil deeds primarily being toward Good ends)" (Heroes of Horror)

And each and every one of us probably has one of their own. Which is fine. I am perfectly happy with Winter deciding that the bounty hunters are not whatever Rich said, and more power to him in his belief that Malack is Evil - I just find it a barren discussion (because I define discussion as the pooling of intelligences to refine positions towards a center of reality: Winter and I are obviously not going to do that). I was rather circumspect on my own definition of Neutrality because it relies heavily on, you know, real world religion and morality which we cannot mention in the forum, so I adapted Heinlein's definition in Starship Troopers.

Which is not to say that I believe Rich uses that definition. After all, I don't think Malack is Neutral. I also don't think he is Evil. I think that we don't have the evidence yet to decide, and that depending on what assumptions you make on Malack's backstory, and depending on what definition of Neutral you use (or think Rich is using), he can be LE or LN.

---
Anyway, enough meta-discussion.

This has been on my mind for some time: I think that from Malack's perspective, creating vampires is not a bad thing, not even without consent, since from his perspective being a vampire is better than being a living being. If you don't think vampires are automatically Evil, then creating one is like giving birth. No-one thinks to ask the prospective being if he consents to being brought into this valley of tears, to spend the next 60-odd years in a constant state of worry, fear and dread, with occasional bouts of happiness*. Malack may think that turning around and expecting him to do otherwise, when he will give extended (un)life, strength, etc. is a moral double standard.

Grey Wolf

*Yeah I'm a pessimist, if you can't tell

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 10:56 AM

Neutral can mean not much caring about the bigger picture, just staying "good" (by which in this context I mean loyal, supportive, etc.) to those closest to you, and to hell with strangers. In Henlein's Starship Troopers, there is a good point to be made that ethical thought has constantly grown to include ethic rules to deal with more and more diverse groups of people. From family, to tribe, to city, to country, etc. Paladins think that Good is defending humans and slaughtering goblins. We know that is unethical, because goblins should be considered individuals with ethics as well. Well, if Malack is stuck in the "tribe" level of ethical thought, he could easily be Good to the tribe while being Evil to those refusing to follow the strict rules. I.e. Neutral.

Savage Species takes the approach that Evil can mean "Good to those you care about, Evil to those that fall outside that class"

page 102:

Evil characters are still people. Even bad guys have feelings, emotions and loyalties. This means it is just as possible to play a well-rounded character who happens to be evil as one who happens to be neutral or good. An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way; this merely reflects they way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups, brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

So- if Malack's "peers and loved ones" are his tribe, and "those he considers beneath him" are those who break its rules" - he can qualify as Evil if he is vicious enough to rulebreakers.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 11:04 AM

Savage Species takes the approach that Evil can mean "Good to those you care about, Evil to those that fall outside that class"

page 102:

So- if Malack's "peers and loved ones" are his tribe, and "those he considers beneath him" are those who break its rules" - he can qualify as Evil if he is vicious enough to rulebreakers.

OK, I'm getting lost here. What is your point? That you can find a definition of Evil that matches my definition of Neutral? I'll save you some time and agree. I can find a definition of Good that matches my definition of Evil just by browsing a history book, after all. Which is why I believe that, in the end, for purposes of this discussion, what we would need is Rich's definition of Neutral, or a facsimile thereof. My insistence on knowing what everyone else's definition is is so that I know what hell they mean (pun intended) when they use those malleable words "Neutral" and "Evil".

GW

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 11:52 AM

Which is why I believe that, in the end, for purposes of this discussion, what we would need is Rich's definition of Neutral, or a facsimile thereof. My insistence on knowing what everyone else's definition is is so that I know what hell they mean (pun intended) when they use those malleable words "Neutral" and "Evil".

D&D sources might help shed light on what The Giant's definition is likely to be though.

"All sentients are owed respect- not just those of my own tribe" I'd say is pretty fundamental to Good.

Neutral and Evil might be gauged by varying levels of "disrespect for life"- both in how extreme the disrespect is (what kind of Evil acts one is willing to commit against other beings) and how wide the "disrespected class" is.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 12:02 PM

D&D sources might help shed light on what The Giant's definition is likely to be though.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. D&D definitions, individually, are a little too strict from what we have seen of Rich preferences. You also have already given me three D&D definitions (maybe? Is Savage Species D&D?), which means that is plenty of conflict right there. In fact, I originally thought your point was that D&D doesn't have strict definitions, instead you can pick and choose from the different ones in all the books.

Grey Wolf

Winter

2013-02-26, 12:26 PM

This has been on my mind for some time: I think that from Malack's perspective, creating vampires is not a bad thing, not even without consent, since from his perspective being a vampire is better than being a living being.

Interesting. May I ask why you come to that conclusion?
So far, I did not see many hints he might it see that way. It is very possible and given he considers his offspring "children" and "family" might even make it likely, but I think that ice is still way too thin to put something on it. But he even can call his offspring "children" and "family" without the stance outlined above.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 12:44 PM

Interesting. May I ask why you come to that conclusion?
So far, I did not see many hints he might it see that way. It is very possible and given he considers his offspring "children" and "family" might even make it likely, but I think that ice is still way too thin to put something on it. But he even can call his offspring "children" and "family" without the stance outlined above.

It is circumstantial. There are three points to consider, one of which is his attitude towards children that you have already mentioned.

The second is his attitude to unthinking undead. He clearly draws a line between his kind of undeath and mummies/zombies. I am guessing at this point, but I think the evidence is strong enough that he considers vampires (and liches?) "better" than other undead.

The third point is the conversation he is having with Durkon. "This {me being a vampire} is upsetting to the living". As someone has already pointed out, Malack exudes condescension/smugness. He clearly feels superior to others, and in this case the others happen to be the living.

Mix this to the traditional vampire traits (quite a few do think they have been made "better" by being turned) and the common-to-all-living-beings self-deluding ability to make two groups of people and place yourself in the correct half, and I think it is very likely that Malack thinks as I said. After all, in various rational, measurable ways, being a vampire is indeed better to being alive (stronger, harder to kill, etc.). If you don't think yourself a monster, then it stands to reason that giving others your traits can't be bad.

The question then is "how would that be judged". In this case, Malack judge will be his god, who we know has a much looser definition of undead than Malack himself (Malack objects to mummies, his god doesn't). This means that when he does face his god, he probably won't be penalised for having created other vampires (if he treated them well and so on; we don't really have good knowledge of what his god expects of him vis: treating undead, but there are hints that he expects something).

Now, Malack may have lied and his god may be Evil, but if we take him at his word, his god is actually Neutral, so I'll add a fourth point I did not consider in my previous post: if his Neutral god doesn't object to creating mummies, that means that Malack's god's code of morality, which by definition is Neutral (probably LN at that), creating vampires is also Neutral.

Grey Wolf

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 02:36 PM

In such an environment, I can well see why even lawful good soldiers would fight for the Empire of Blood. Because gladiatorial combats and strict laws are STILL, at least from some points of view, better than a state of constant war which is perilously close to making the entire continent uninhabitable.

Nice argument you got there. :smalltongue:

Still, I think the issue of Malack is about his ways, specifically, even without reference to the larger political climate.

Basically, I think he's evil because of his actions, and his actions are enough for him to still be on the redeemable side of the Moral Event Horizon. That's what I mean by 'evil.'

Incidentally, evil and affable have nothing to do with each other. I consider Eugene to be the most consistently maddening character, in that there is nearly nothing about his approach that isn't grating in every conceivable way. I also consider Haley, even though she's good, to be terrible to Elan. It's like she loves him, but still considers him a moron. That's not fair to Elan. She shouldn't be with him if she thinks like that.

Point being, Malack's a total bro, when there's no evil needing to be done. And so far none of that evil seems to be of the type that makes me open the comic and go :smalleek: like...Tarquin's Lightshow did, for instance.

EDIT: Additionally, one can decide that stability is more important than chaos without being good or neutral. After all, they might need a framework with which to accomplish their dark ambitions.

Incom

2013-02-26, 03:03 PM

Another minor point against Malack: in the same discussion where he calls death Neutral, he calls Tiamat "a fine deity". We, at least, know otherwise.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 03:05 PM

Another minor point against Malack: in the same discussion where he calls death Neutral, he calls Tiamat "a fine deity". We, at least, know otherwise.

Because she flipped at so many of her worshippers being killed in one instant? :smallconfused:

allenw

2013-02-26, 03:27 PM

Because she flipped at so many of her worshippers being killed in one instant? :smallconfused:

No; because we've been on the Dungeons and Dragons ride (http://www.dungeonsdragonscartoon.com/2009/08/tiamat-dragon.html) at the fair. :smalltongue:

Emmit Svenson

2013-02-26, 03:28 PM

Now, Malack may have lied and his god may be Evil, but if we take him at his word, his god is actually Neutral...

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 03:31 PM

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

"Neutral suits them better."

Sounds to me that he thinks Nergal should be Neutral, whatever he is.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 03:33 PM

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

He has also been honest several times. Which is why I hedged. I can perfectly believe Nergal to be Neutral and Malack Evil, and viceversa, as well as both the same.

Grey Wolf

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 03:33 PM

Incidentally...

What is to be lost, if Malack does turn out to be evil?

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 03:40 PM

Incidentally...

What is to be lost, if Malack does turn out to be evil?

A lot of potential. An evil vampire priest serving an evil death god in an evil empire and friends with an evil overlord, no matter how interesting they are in person, is just... bland, as far as I can tell. It just fits far too many stereotypes.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 03:41 PM

A lot of potential. An evil vampire priest serving an evil death god in an evil empire and friends with an evil overlord, no matter how interesting they are in person, is just... bland, as far as I can tell. It just fits far too many stereotypes.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Cliches aren't bad. They can just be used badly.

And for the most part, I'd say The Giant is well up to the task of taking cliches and making them interesting.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 03:44 PM

There is nothing new under the sun.

Cliches aren't bad. They can just be used badly.

That doesn't mean you have to use them at every single opportunity; it's not as if they're always going to be more interesting than the alternative.

And for the most part, I'd say The Giant is well up to the task of taking cliches and making them interesting.

See the previous point. The ability to make a cliché interesting is not sufficient reason to pick it.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 03:47 PM

That doesn't mean you have to use them at every single opportunity; it's not as if they're always going to be more interesting than the alternative.

Subjective, preference.

See the previous point. The ability to make a cliché interesting is not sufficient reason to pick it.

See above.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 03:53 PM

See above.

It's subjective that the ability to write a cliché interestingly isn't sufficient reason to pick it? :smallconfused:

Malack's being LN rather than LE is more interesting from an interactions standpoint. Like seeing how the undead hating cleric would actually take something like that.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 03:57 PM

Honestly, I'd consider it a mark of good writing to take a cliche and actually make it interesting, rather than trying to tread new ground just to be original.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 04:01 PM

That's because it has to be good writing to be interesting in the first place. Writing a cliché well is no better than writing a new take on things well.

As it stands, OotS has no shortage of evil monsters. It'd be nice to see a (literal) monster that isn't evil.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 04:17 PM

I'm fashioning a further counterargument to all that.

But now The Giant has obliged us with more context, and I have to consider this carefully.

Let's return to our corners for the now.

EDIT: Alright then, let's begin with a question, credit to Kish

Which of the compromises should Durkon have accepted?

Incom

2013-02-26, 05:54 PM

I wouldn't say that Durkon should have accepted any of those offers outright; that's not how negotiations work.

What he should have done was made a counteroffer. Or, barring that, should have perhaps called out for Roy, who could probably articulate the point of conflict better than Durkon could have, and who actually has the authority to parley. (Don't forget that the only character who understands how the gate is actually used is Redcloak, who isn't present.)

Malack could also have handled the situation better: by asking "So why haven't you attacked me yet?", or by simply walking away, or by otherwise making actual concessions, or by playing the "I just want to be treated as a person" card, or...

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 05:54 PM

hamishspence

2013-02-26, 05:56 PM

He can't "allow them to seize this place"- because it holds the gate.

Walking away at this point would be a betrayal of the Order's trust.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 05:59 PM

Explaining what is so important about this that he cannot accept these offers would be a good start. Not 'there is no compromise' and 'we can never get along'.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 06:02 PM

Explaining what is so important about this that he cannot accept these offers would be a good start. Not 'there is no compromise' and 'we can never get along'.

As long as any offer acceptable to Malack entails the Order surrendering one inch of ground towards the Rift, then Durkon is well within his rights to not compromise, even if he is being undiplomatic in his tone.

Kish

2013-02-26, 06:03 PM

On the off chance that Malack doesn't already know "the Gate represents a power great enough to destroy the world and the gods as well," telling him would be profoundly stupid.

("You can't steal that! It's worth over five billion dollars!")

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:07 PM

Well, does Nale know it contains the power to destroy the world? :smallconfused:

Kish

2013-02-26, 06:08 PM

If he doesn't, all the more reason not to tell someone who is currently, however reluctantly, an ally of Nale's.

Chantelune

2013-02-26, 06:10 PM

As long as any offer acceptable to Malack entails the Order surrendering one inch of ground towards the Rift, then Durkon is well within his rights to not compromise, even if he is being undiplomatic in his tone.

That's right. The "sad" thing here is that Durkon did not seek to turn Malack's willingness to compromise to his advantage in proposing terms that would have been of more benefit to his team.

They might still ended up fighting if no common ground is found, but at least he would have tried and knowing that Malack hate Nale, Durkon should be able to guess that Malack is not in the ride happily and use that to turn the tables in some way. I would have give this a shot, at least, in Durkon's shoes.

And the first proposal from Malack wasn't all that bad, though you'd need to be a bit more "Haley minded" to see that. The terms were only not to hurt each other. If the rest of the order were to kick Malack's ass, it's fair game. Same to heal them if Malack goes wild on them. :smallbiggrin:

The Pilgrim

2013-02-26, 06:10 PM

To be fair, Malack was being reasonable in offering that each of them retreat from the battlefield. He was being reasonable when suggesting that, should they stay, neither would harm the other. Malack wanted to remain friends with Durkon despite them being on different teams, but Durkon refused his offer because Malack is "a frickin' vampire". Racism, if you ask me.

Since when are vampires a race?

Durkon is being as racist here as Elan was when he refused compromise with his father.

Heroes don't "compromise" with Evil.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:11 PM

It's a bad idea to tell someone there's enough power to destroy the world, when they're capable of being reasonable? That makes no sense at all. :smallannoyed:

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 06:22 PM

Since when are vampires a race?

Durkon is being as racist here as Elan was when he refused compromise with his father.

Heroes don't "compromise" with Evil.

Elan is human. Tarquin is human.
Durkon is a dwarf. Malack is a vampire.

Call it what you will, but to absolutely refuse to associate or compromise with an individual based on preconceived notions of their activities by their race (or type, or affliction, or whatever you want to call it) is still racist. D&D terms are not exactly clear on what specifies a race or species within their rules, so it is open to anyone's interpretation.

You could call it racism, bigotry, or just unwillingness to see the point of view of another.

And to say that Heroes don't compromise with Evil is incredibly narrow minded.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:25 PM

Heroes don't "compromise" with Evil.

Absolutely everyone with Tarquin before he knew of the Gate.

Gift Jeraff

2013-02-26, 06:25 PM

Well, does Nale know it contains the power to destroy the world? :smallconfused:

Yes, he heard Shojo talk about the Gates and the Snarl as not-elan and then told Sabine who told the archfiends.

Kish

2013-02-26, 06:26 PM

Elan is human. Tarquin is human.
Durkon is a dwarf. Malack is a vampire.

Elan is a living human. Tarquin is (...as far as we know anyway) a living human. Durkon is a living dwarf. Malack is a dead lizardfolk. Say "prejudiced against the life impaired," if you want.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:29 PM

Elan is a living human. Tarquin is (...as far as we know anyway) a living human. Durkon is a living dwarf. Malack is a dead lizardfolk. Say "prejudiced against the life impaired," if you want.

Well, it is said that you should never speak ill of the dead. :smalltongue:

The Pilgrim

2013-02-26, 06:38 PM

Absolutely everyone with Tarquin before he knew of the Gate.

Ehm... "he got us grabbed by the balls 'cuz he knows critical info about the man we are looking for" and "unfortunately, we are too busy trying to avoid the end of the world to care about Tarquin - for now" are very different from "I'm gonna stand aside while my friends battle for the Gate over which the destiny of the World is hanging"

Elan is human. Tarquin is human.
Durkon is a dwarf. Malack is a vampire.

No. Malack was a lizarfolk. Durkon has no problem with his former species, just with the fact that Malack is now an evil abomination who needs to feed on the lifeforce of the living.

And, since Durkon just saved Belkar from being sucked up by Malak and turned into a vampire spawn... I guess it's not fair to describe Durkon's actitude as working under "Preconceived notions of their activities".
.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:40 PM

Ehm... "he got us grabbed by the balls 'cuz he knows critical info about the man we are looking for" and "unfortunately, we are too busy trying to avoid the end of the world to care about Tarquin - for now" are very different from "I'm gonna stand aside while my friends battle for the Gate over which the destiny of the World is hanging"

It is, however, a compromise.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 06:51 PM

\And, since Durkon just saved Belkar from being sucked up by Malak and turned into a vampire spawn... I guess it's not fair to describe Durkon's actitude as working under "Preconceived notions of their activities".
.

Really? Because in the strip right before this, Durkon immediately assumes upon learning Malack is a vampire that he goes around drinking the blood of the innocent.

And in case you didn't bother to read my above post...I already said you can call it whatever you want, not specifically racism. Bigotry works, prejudice works, racism works, hatred of the living impaired works. Don't get hung up on the technicalities.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 06:52 PM

That's right. The "sad" thing here is that Durkon did not seek to turn Malack's willingness to compromise to his advantage in proposing terms that would have been of more benefit to his team.

They might still ended up fighting if no common ground is found, but at least he would have tried and knowing that Malack hate Nale, Durkon should be able to guess that Malack is not in the ride happily and use that to turn the tables in some way. I would have give this a shot, at least, in Durkon's shoes.

And the first proposal from Malack wasn't all that bad, though you'd need to be a bit more "Haley minded" to see that. The terms were only not to hurt each other. If the rest of the order were to kick Malack's ass, it's fair game. Same to heal them if Malack goes wild on them. :smallbiggrin:

Well, we can say Durkon was unreasonable to immediately refuse further negotiations, but by the same token you could say that Malack was unreasonable to immediately resort to lethal force in the face of Durkon's refusal to negotiate.

The Pilgrim

2013-02-26, 06:54 PM

It is, however, a compromise.

No, it was not. The OOTS was not yelding in their objectives, neither accepting to advance Tarquin's. Also, Tarquin was not an opponent force back then.

And, despite that, Elan attemped to put Tarquin out of bussines the very moment he found out his Dad was Evil - and would have done so, should he had been capable of out-pun him.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 06:54 PM

Well, we can say Durkon was unreasonable to immediately refuse further negotiations, but by the same token you could say that Malack was unreasonable to immediately resort to lethal force in the face of Durkon's refusal to negotiate.

Eh, he's still 'on business', as it were. That was the inevitable conclusion if a peaceful resolution couldn't be reached.

Kish

2013-02-26, 06:54 PM

Really? Because in the strip right before this, Durkon immediately assumes upon learning Malack is a vampire that he goes around drinking the blood of the innocent.
Correctly. The fact that Malack thinks being convicted in an Empire of Blood court makes someone no longer innocent in some morally meaningful way is not to Malack's credit.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 06:54 PM

Well, we can say Durkon was unreasonable to immediately refuse further negotiations, but by the same token you could say that Malack was unreasonable to immediately resort to lethal force in the face of Durkon's refusal to negotiate.

I would agree to this, but what other choice did Malack have? Durkon has already admitted that there would never be anything more than animosity between them from now on, and so Durkon would remain as a threat to both Malack, Tarquin and the entire Linear Guild. With compromise off of the table, attacking Durkon is the best choice for both his own safety and that of his allies, especially whereas the rest of the OotS is not present.

Correctly. The fact that Malack thinks being convicted in an Empire of Blood court makes someone no longer innocent in some morally meaningful way is not to Malack's credit.

Perhaps. But considering these people are doomed to die by execution anyway, they don't exactly need the blood. The fact is, Malack is not breaking into houses (well, he can't do that as a Vampire anyway) and snatching up people with long lives ahead of them and feasting away.

The Giant

2013-02-26, 06:55 PM

Elan is human. Tarquin is human.
Durkon is a dwarf. Malack is a vampire.

Call it what you will, but to absolutely refuse to associate or compromise with an individual based on preconceived notions of their activities by their race (or type, or affliction, or whatever you want to call it) is still racist.

Yes, it is. Good thing that's not what Durkon is doing.

It is not a "preconception" that Malack was in the middle of draining Belkar's blood by force, or that Malack just admitted to benefiting from the executions that he himself helped put into place. And as I mentioned in the main discussion thread, Durkon is not JUST reacting to Malack's vampirism here; a few strips ago, he was willing to argue with Haley that Malack couldn't possibly team up with Nale to seize the Gate—a belief he has just had disproven.

If Durkon had been sitting in Malack's study drinking tea with him, recognized what was in it, and jumped up and yelled, "Yer a vampire! I must kill ye!" then that would be racism, because there would be no evidence that Malack was at all a threat to anyone, anywhere. That is not what is happening in this scene.

Really? Because in the strip right before this, Durkon immediately assumes upon learning Malack is a vampire that he goes around drinking the blood of the innocent.

Malack does not know Belkar at all. He does not know that Belkar is not innocent, and Durkon knows that Malack does not know.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:02 PM

Eh, he's still 'on business', as it were. That was the inevitable conclusion if a peaceful resolution couldn't be reached.

Or, he could have surrendered to the good and righteous, and relinquished his material and formal cooperation with evil schemes.

That he fails to do so doesn't mean he's not evil, in fact I'd say his going into vamp mode and attacking proves he's a true believer in Tarquin's side.

Just because he's doing what's best for his current interests, does not mean his interests are for the good.

Or for the neutral. :smalltongue:

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 07:02 PM

And as I mentioned in the main discussion thread, Durkon is not JUST reacting to Malack's vampirism here; a few strips ago, he was willing to argue with Haley that Malack couldn't possibly team up with Nale to seize the Gate—a belief he has just had disproven.

My apologies, I find it difficult to keep up with the frequent additions to the main thread.

Malack does not know Belkar at all. He does not know that Belkar is not innocent, and Durkon knows that Malack does not know.
This was not something I had thought of. I digress.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 07:04 PM

Or, he could have surrendered to the good and righteous, and relinquished his material and formal cooperation with evil schemes.

That he fails to do so doesn't mean he's not evil, in fact I'd say his going into vamp mode and attacking proves he's a true believer in Tarquin's side.

Just because he's doing what's best for his current interests, does not mean his interests are for the good.

Or for the neutral. :smalltongue:

To just give up like that would require valuing Durkon's friendship above Tarquin's. That is ridiculously unlikely, regardless of his exact alignment.

Kish

2013-02-26, 07:04 PM

Perhaps. But considering these people are doomed to die by execution anyway, they don't exactly need the blood. The fact is, Malack is not breaking into houses (well, he can't do that as a Vampire anyway) and snatching up people with long lives ahead of them and feasting away.
No. He is--as Durkon pointed out--participating in making rules which bring innocent people's long lives to an abbreviated end. This argument is no more valid than, "He wasn't going to live anyway, because I'd already broken his neck."

Loyalty to something like Tarquin is not a morally neutral quality. Tarquin's favored son realizes that. Why doesn't Malack? I mean, other than "because Malack is nearly as evil as Tarquin himself."

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:05 PM

To just give up like that would require valuing Durkon's friendship above Tarquin's. That is ridiculously unlikely, regardless of his exact alignment.

So? It's the right thing to do, which Malack has now shown his pointed unwillingness to do.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 07:07 PM

No. He is--as Durkon pointed out--participating in making rules which bring innocent people's long lives to an abbreviated end. This argument is no more valid than, "He wasn't going to live anyway, because I'd already broken his neck."

The extent of his participation within the Empire has not been fully explored. If Malack personally designed these laws, I would agree with you. If he spent his time convincing Tarquin to make them less harsh, I would not.

So? It's the right thing to do, which Malack has now shown his pointed unwillingness to do.

To not do the right thing in favour of loyalty is a lawful outlook, and one of either neutral or evil standing.

Raineh Daze

2013-02-26, 07:08 PM

So? It's the right thing to do, which Malack has now shown his pointed unwillingness to do.

I fully disagree with you on its being the right thing to do. In fact, it seems the absolute worst choice.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 07:08 PM

So? It's the right thing to do, which Malack has now shown his pointed unwillingness to do.

No, it would be the right thing to do if he was Good. Betraying a friend that is Evil to an ex-friend that is Good is the wrong thing to do if you are Neutral or, of course, Evil.

That said, Rich has just quite clearly hinted that Malack is Evil in his post. So at this point I'll withdraw my position on "Malack might be Neutral".

Grey Wolf

Kish

2013-02-26, 07:10 PM

No, it would be the right thing to do if he was Good. Betraying a friend that is Evil to an ex-friend that is Good is the wrong thing to do if you are Neutral or, of course, Evil.
Uh? The good thing to do is the right thing to do. Someone who is evil is someone who reliably doesn't do the right thing, not someone who has a different set of Right Things to Do.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 07:11 PM

No, it would be the right thing to do if he was Good. Betraying a friend that is Evil to an ex-friend that is Good is the wrong thing to do if you are Neutral or, of course, Evil.

That said, Rich has just quite clearly hinted that Malack is Evil in his post. So at this point I'll withdraw my position on "Malack might be Neutral".

Grey Wolf

I'm personally hoping Miko returns for 1 panel to cast Detect Evil and put the debate to rest.

Uh? The good thing to do is the right thing to do. Someone who is evil is someone who reliably doesn't do the right thing, not someone who has a different set of Right Things to Do.

...and someone who is neutral will favour their secondary alignment, which is that of Law in this case. Showing loyalty to a friend rather than "Doing the right thing" (the right thing being subjective to point of view) is consistent with a Lawful Neutral alignment.

Kish

2013-02-26, 07:12 PM

No good. Even if Malack was Good-aligned, the negative energy that animates him would trigger Detect Evil, in the same way Xykon's crown made Roy appear strongly evil.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 07:13 PM

No good. Even if Malack was Good-aligned, the negative energy that animates him would trigger Detect Evil, in the same way Xykon's crown made Roy appear strongly evil.

Quite true. I was joking, regardless.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:17 PM

Uh? The good thing to do is the right thing to do.

Oh come on, that's so silly, Malack should just go on and do whatever his heart tells him, don't be such a Durkon. :smalltongue:

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-02-26, 07:23 PM

Uh? The good thing to do is the right thing to do. Someone who is evil is someone who reliably doesn't do the right thing, not someone who has a different set of Right Things to Do.

Semantics. "Right" in my post means "in accordance to his code of ethics". An Evil or Neutral vampire has no reason, ethically (in this case meaning "that which his god would approve of") to hand himself over to Durkon to be destroyed. Both Neutral and Evil characters value self preservation far higher than Good ones do, and to just accept destruction is, to them, the wrong thing to do.

Grey Wolf

Kish

2013-02-26, 07:24 PM

Semantics. "Right" in my post means "in accordance to his code of ethics".
You're not the one who introduced the phrase "right thing to do," and I don't think that's what Paseo H meant. Somehow.

Rakoa

2013-02-26, 07:46 PM

Regardless of the meaning of "right", all this proves is that Malack isn't Lawful Good, not that he is Lawful Evil. It could easily have been the decision of a Neutral character as well.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 07:48 PM

Regardless of the meaning of "right", all this proves is that Malack isn't Lawful Good, not that he is Lawful Evil. It could easily have been the decision of a Neutral character as well.

Had Malack done anything other than attack Durkon outright, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

But not only is he attacking, he's vamping out. He's super serious. If he wanted to be genuinely reasonable, he wouldn't be doing so.

veti

2013-02-26, 09:48 PM

The concept of a vampire engaged in a moral struggle with its nature is...not new.

No, it's not new. I was a big Buffy fan back in the day. But it isn't compatible with D&D logic. Most 'good' vampires end up drinking blood from non-sentient beings (farm animals, generally). The alternative - in less well written stories - is to take it from 'volunteers', but - in most circumstances at least - any human who 'volunteers' for that kind of role is debasing themselves to such an extent that (I would say) accepting their sacrifice is incompatible with 'respecting their dignity'.

And even those stories still have better sense than to offer simple definitions of 'good' and 'evil' that you can measure their characters against. And if there's an exception to that rule, I'm prepared to bet that their definitions are not compatible with D&D's.

Ahem.

WRONG!

Not only is a succubus going good possible in D&D, there's actually a canonical example of a succubus paladin.

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

And-is it really evil to desire to not die a horrible death?

Not at all. But what lengths will you go to to fulfil that desire?

Is it evil to, say, break someone's nose, if it will save your own life? Actually it probably is, but in that case you can reasonably claim that the good is greater than the harm you're doing.

Is it evil to kill someone else, in order to save your own life? Now that claim becomes much harder to sustain. Is your life worth more than theirs? Why? You need some pretty strong mitigating circumstances to justify that. (If they're the one threatening you, for instance.)

Is it evil to kill people on a daily basis in order to avoid a horrible fate for yourself? Abso-frickin-lutely. Your only conceivable line of defence in that case would be to the effect that "they were going to die anyway, and there's nothing I could have done to prevent that". Which simply isn't true for Malack.

Leliel

2013-02-26, 10:15 PM

No, it's not new. I was a big Buffy fan back in the day. But it isn't compatible with D&D logic. Most 'good' vampires end up drinking blood from non-sentient beings (farm animals, generally). The alternative - in less well written stories - is to take it from 'volunteers', but - in most circumstances at least - any human who 'volunteers' for that kind of role is debasing themselves to such an extent that (I would say) accepting their sacrifice is incompatible with 'respecting their dignity'.

And even those stories still have better sense than to offer simple definitions of 'good' and 'evil' that you can measure their characters against. And if there's an exception to that rule, I'm prepared to bet that their definitions are not compatible with D&D's.

Hey, allow me to introduce you to Vampire: the Requiem.

Yes, most of the Kindred are Evil in D&D terms or at least very dark Neutral on the ethical scale, but moral ambiguity is the name of the day-a vampire can do some very good things with his power, even if it's to protect his larder. A true predator is, in a sense, a symbiote. See-wolves and deer.

Of course, neither Requiem nor Masquerade vamps have to kill their prey, and it's pointed out that ghouls (willing donors) have screws loose, but still.

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Canonical D&D rulebook, published by Wizards of the Coast. I don't actually have the corebook with me-I wasn't into D&D until after 3.5 ran it's course-but there was an article on her. Also, Fall-From-Grace, who was created with explicit consent from TSR-okay, Lawful Neutral with strong Good tendencies, but still, she's a succubus who's taken a vow of chasity on her own initiative.

Not at all. But what lengths will you go to to fulfil that desire?

Is it evil to, say, break someone's nose, if it will save your own life? Actually it probably is, but in that case you can reasonably claim that the good is greater than the harm you're doing.

Is it evil to kill someone else, in order to save your own life? Now that claim becomes much harder to sustain. Is your life worth more than theirs? Why? You need some pretty strong mitigating circumstances to justify that. (If they're the one threatening you, for instance.)

Is it evil to kill people on a daily basis in order to avoid a horrible fate for yourself? Abso-frickin-lutely. Your only conceivable line of defence in that case would be to the effect that "they were going to die anyway, and there's nothing I could have done to prevent that". Which simply isn't true for Malack.

Ah. So soldiers are evil then. Good to know.

I'm not claiming Malack is Good-or even Lawful Neutral-I'm saying he's Evil and he's a vampire, not because he's Evil because he's a vampire.

Fates

2013-02-26, 10:21 PM

I consider burning a bunch of escaped slaves alive just to make a welcome home sign for your son on par with loosing a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity on it into a group of paladins.

Okay, I know you posted this days ago, but I just thought I'd point out...the latter isn't necessarily evil, but most definitely chaotic, and probably not good. Still, I've played non-evil characters who would leap at the chance to do exactly that. :smallbiggrin:

slayerx

2013-02-26, 10:27 PM

Had Malack done anything other than attack Durkon outright, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

But not only is he attacking, he's vamping out. He's super serious. If he wanted to be genuinely reasonable, he wouldn't be doing so.

He DID do something other than attack Durkon outright; He opened a civil discussion on how they both might avoid conflict all together and maintain their friendship. He just entertained nearly every peaceful solution before determining that they had no choice but to fight. What do you want exactly? The only solution he did not entertain was giving up and going home himself, but not taking that solution would NOT make him evil... a lawful Neutral character would be well within their alignment to pursue their own goal even if it meant killing a good aligned character; especially if they make an effort to try and find a way around killing said good aligned character, which Malack did attempt

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Well there is this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)... though i'm not sure if that could be considered "canon" as i have not found any info on her appearing in a rule book. However the creature competition she was part of seemed to be made up of monsters that mostly came from rule books, so i might assume the same for her.

Paseo H

2013-02-26, 10:40 PM

He DID do something other than attack Durkon outright; He opened a civil discussion on how they both might avoid conflict all together and maintain their friendship. He just entertained nearly every peaceful solution before determining that they had no choice but to fight. What do you want exactly? The only solution he did not entertain was giving up and going home himself, but not taking that solution would NOT make him evil... a lawful Neutral character would be well within their alignment to pursue their own goal even if it meant killing a good aligned character; especially if they make an effort to try and find a way around killing said good aligned character, which Malack did attempt

I meant he attacked outright after Durkon refused to negotiate, instead of, say, escaping, or perhaps even surrendering. Or even trying to put forth more favorable terms. If Malack was sincere about his friendship, he'd have done one of those things.

Guancyto

2013-02-26, 10:59 PM

Mother of ****, how is this even-

Right, people thought Belkar was Neutral too.

Okay.

Malack is not 'allowing Tarquin's empire to exist,' he's been engaged in the mass conquest and exploitation of an entire continent, complete with brutal repression, slave burnings and other such loveliness. The person leading this is his best friend. He has been actively aiding this for decades, chewing through lives and rulers and countries constantly. Papers, please.

He is one of the six people that run the Big Evil Empire behind the scenes. You do not get into that position by being a passive observer. You get there by actively aiding a decades-spanning regime of constant atrocity from a position of tremendous authority.

Is he a decent guy to the people he finds reason to care about? Absolutely! So is Tarquin. The fact that he's willing to go extreme lengths for his friends is admirable, and I have to admit I very much like the both of them. They're very human, if you'll pardon the speciesist term. So I'll say the same thing of Malack that I will of Tarquin.

****, man, he's not a monster, he's just Evil.

I don't really expect this to be listened to. Goodness knows people were fundamentally unable to grasp the idea that Miko might be Good and a tremendous prick.

SaintRidley

2013-02-26, 11:50 PM

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Eludecia, the succubus paladin, published as supplementary web content by WotC. There's also Fall-from-Grace, a Lawful Neutral succubus denizen of Sigil (she runs a Brothel for the Slaking of Intellectual Lusts) in Planescape: Torment.

Endon the White

2013-02-27, 12:06 AM

Ah. So soldiers are evil then. Good to know.

I'm not claiming Malack is Good-or even Lawful Neutral-I'm saying he's Evil and he's a vampire, not because he's Evil because he's a vampire.

Ok, here's how I see it. Vampires are not Always Evil because they are made of evil-onium, which automatically makes you evil, but has no bearing on your actual actions. They are Always Evil because vampires live on the blood of the innocent and enslave people to act as their unwitting undead pawns.

Now this is standard Vampire behavior, and is almost universally true. It is not a foregone conclusion however. Vampires can choose to snack on animals, or volunteers. Vampires can choose to not create spawn for themselves. Vampires can choose to be a perfectly normal being with an aversion to sunlight and pointy sticks. They can choose to be an exception to the rule.

Malack has not chosen to be an exception. He does drink the blood of the innocent, and does choose to make enslaved servants. He is not evil just because he is a vampire, he is evil because he does all the evil stuff vampires do.

Koo Rehtorb

2013-02-27, 01:31 AM

The way I see it is that the vampire curse (virus, animation, however you see it) just fundamentally alters the mind of whatever creature it invaded.

The mind and personality just becomes a twisted parody of who they were in life, it's not the same person. They're evil not because circumstances force them to be evil, but because vampirism molds them into a different person than they were before that only bears a passing resemblance to the old person.

That doesn't make them an automaton blindly following their programming, they can still vary wildly between bloodthirsty psychotic beast attacking everything in sight to calculating LE villain setting up organized blood farms to service their need.

They might even be a vampire that chooses not to do any active harm, taking blood from willing volunteers to satisfy their needs. But that isn't because they're good people. It's because that's an example of a vampire clever enough to realize that maybe getting your needs that way instead of a different way is far less likely to provoke a stake wielding mob into coming knocking on your door. It's not out of any sort of benevolent love for humanity, it's pragmatic.

Winter

2013-02-27, 03:35 AM

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook?

Planescape: Torment had an awesome non-evil, non-sex succubus.

Story and awesome characters always trump rules and cosmology. In these cases, the rules do not even forbid some demon from turning into a special instance (being good and all demonic). This is especially true if the rules, alignment and cosmologies are fictional in the first place.

Play Planescape: Torment and tell me Fall-from-grace isn't an awesome character (Huh... What would a "Fallen Succubus" be like)

Felyndiira

2013-02-27, 04:03 AM

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin, as an official article on the official WotC website. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

Chantelune

2013-02-27, 04:52 AM

I meant he attacked outright after Durkon refused to negotiate, instead of, say, escaping, or perhaps even surrendering. Or even trying to put forth more favorable terms. If Malack was sincere about his friendship, he'd have done one of those things.

Well, he's working with Tarquin, a friend of more than 35 years. And he's lawful. Considering those two points, he was more than reasonable toward Durkon.

Tarquin wants the gate. We still don't know if he intends to work with Nale to the end or plans to betray him at some point. Regardless, their current objective is quite clear : reach and secure the gate. Malack was supposed to kill Durkon from the start, though he remained vague about it, stating he would "handle" him which can mean killing him, turning him or letting him go.

He offered compromises to Durkon, who not only refuses them, but stated clearly that he wanted no compromise and no discussion at all. At this point, offering more favorable terms wouldn't do anything more. And offering to retreat would mean jeopardizing his friendship with Tarquin for a dwarf who just made clear that he would no longer sees him as a friend given he's a vampire.

And after all that, Malack still didn't attack outright, he stated that there could be only conflict beetween Durkon and him if the former keep that stance, which Durkon confirmed, then took a few seconds before actually atttacking.

Considering this, walking away now meant both would meet again with their respective parties and fight anyway. If he has to kill Durkon, it's best doing it now that he's alone.

Paseo H

2013-02-27, 05:41 AM

Well, he's working with Tarquin, a friend of more than 35 years. And he's lawful. Considering those two points, he was more than reasonable toward Durkon.

Tarquin wants the gate. We still don't know if he intends to work with Nale to the end or plans to betray him at some point. Regardless, their current objective is quite clear : reach and secure the gate. Malack was supposed to kill Durkon from the start, though he remained vague about it, stating he would "handle" him which can mean killing him, turning him or letting him go.

He offered compromises to Durkon, who not only refuses them, but stated clearly that he wanted no compromise and no discussion at all. At this point, offering more favorable terms wouldn't do anything more. And offering to retreat would mean jeopardizing his friendship with Tarquin for a dwarf who just made clear that he would no longer sees him as a friend given he's a vampire.

And after all that, Malack still didn't attack outright, he stated that there could be only conflict beetween Durkon and him if the former keep that stance, which Durkon confirmed, then took a few seconds before actually atttacking.

Considering this, walking away now meant both would meet again with their respective parties and fight anyway. If he has to kill Durkon, it's best doing it now that he's alone.

As annoying as it is that you seem to enjoy playing Malack's defense lawyer, I would be willing to consider all of those things, except...

The last panel is more key than you're giving credit for.

All hesitation is gone there. He's vamped out, he's super serious, he means to kill (at the least). If he was that serious about being friends, even in the face of Durkon's rejection, he wouldn't be that eager to stomp him, even if he presumably hesitated first, which isn't exactly clear. He could have just been readying himself.

Kish

2013-02-27, 06:10 AM

Okay, I know you posted this days ago, but I just thought I'd point out...the latter isn't necessarily evil, but most definitely chaotic, and probably not good. Still, I've played non-evil characters who would leap at the chance to do exactly that. :smallbiggrin:
Why do people think the characters they play are authoritative in these debates?

To be clear, it is your opinion that the characters you've played who would throw a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity into a group of paladins are nonevil. If there was any prospect of you playing in a game I run, this would be your advance warning: Such characters would not keep a non-evil alignment written on their character sheets for long.

(Presuming, of course, that you noticed the members of the Sapphire Guard slaughtering each other and/or realize that the insanity caused by a Symbol of Insanity is permanent, rather than thinking it would be a harmless practical joke.)

Feddlefew

2013-02-27, 06:24 AM

As annoying as it is that you seem to enjoy playing Malack's defense lawyer, I would be willing to consider all of those things, except...

The last panel is more key than you're giving credit for.

All hesitation is gone there. He's vamped out, he's super serious, he means to kill (at the least). If he was that serious about being friends, even in the face of Durkon's rejection, he wouldn't be that eager to stomp him, even if he presumably hesitated first, which isn't exactly clear. He could have just been readying himself.

Malack seems to value friendship with Tarquin more than his intense hatred of Nale, and he's willing to go along with Tarquin's schemes (including the current attempt to capture the gate) because of it. I think one of Malack's defining character traits might be how much he values having friends. Which makes sense, because he's probably lonely, being a reptilian vampire out in the middle of a sun-scorched desert. That doesn't excuse any of his past actions, but it does give Malack a realistic motivation.

I think the pause was Malack deciding between turning Durkon (Highly disrespectful to Durkon, but Malack can then force Durkon to maintain a positive relationship) or killing him (respecting Durkon's beliefs but ending their friendship forever). Right now we can't know which one Malack has chosen.

If Malack actually turns Durkon I will change my opinion on Malack's alignment from Ln(e) to LE.

Paseo H

2013-02-27, 06:28 AM

Malack seems to value friendship with Tarquin more than his intense hatred of Nale, and he's willing to go along with Tarquin's schemes (including the current attempt to capture the gate) because of it. I think one of Malack's defining character traits might be how much he values having friends. Which makes sense, because he's probably lonely, being a reptilian vampire out in the middle of a sun-scorched desert. That doesn't excuse any of his past actions, but it does give Malack a realistic motivation.

I think the pause was Malack deciding between turning Durkon (Highly disrespectful to Durkon, but Malack can then force Durkon to maintain a positive relationship) or killing him (respecting Durkon's beliefs but ending their friendship forever). Right now we can't know which one Malack has chosen.

If Malack actually turns Durkon I will change my opinion on Malack's alignment from Ln(e) to LE.

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

Mike Havran

2013-02-27, 06:36 AM

sam79

2013-02-27, 06:40 AM

How do you know that Malack knows about those slaves and wives?

Do you assume he doesn't know? Possible, I suppose, but it misses the wider point. Do you seriously think Malack is under any delusions about the character of Tarquin and the nature of their combined rule? Even if it is impossible to prove that he knows about Individual Incident X, Y or Z?

Feddlefew

2013-02-27, 06:41 AM

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

I'm a misanthrope that firmly believes that the vast majority people are willing to overlook the horrible, unforgivable things their friends (and lovers) do to maintain those relationships, especially if they have few friends (or it's a lover). As I stated earlier, Malack has demonstrated a willingness to put aside his own feelings for a friendship (Ex: not killing Nale). I'm also assuming that Tarquin gradually grew into the level and scale of evil he does now while Malack knew him, which also goes for the wife thing, since I remember that Nale and Elan's mom was his first wife.

I also think Malack's alignment is hovering in the fuzzy zone between neutral and evil, which is why I put Ln(e) instead of LN.

Mike Havran

2013-02-27, 06:47 AM

Do you assume he doesn't know? Possible, I suppose, but it misses the wider point. Do you seriously think Malack is under any delusions about the character of Tarquin and the nature of their combined rule? Even if it is impossible to prove that he knows about Individual Incident X, Y or Z?

In fact, he might be. He was certainly desilusional enough to believe he can be friends with priest of Thor even though he is a vampire. And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc. And he seems thoroughly gullible during the EoB subplot.

Paseo H

2013-02-27, 06:53 AM

Kish

2013-02-27, 06:56 AM

And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.
...Come again? Being horribly evil is not the opposite of being a fool.

Winter

2013-02-27, 06:59 AM

How do you know that Malack knows about those slaves and wives?

Tarquin is very, very open with what he does and who he is to those close to him. Just read the comic from his first appearence in the Empire until now. I strongly doubt you can maintain the position "but Malack does not know". Tarquin drops casual remarks of his brutality all over the place. Constantly.

sam79

2013-02-27, 06:59 AM

In fact, he might be. He was certainly desilusional enough to believe he can be friends with priest of Thor even though he is a vampire. And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc. And he seems thoroughly gullible during the EoB subplot.

I must admit I haven't re-read the EoB strips (I tend to wait until the book comes out), but I must say that Malack never struck me as particularly gullible. Nor did I see him as anything less than a willing accomplice in the Empire-running scheme.

As for addressing Tarquin as a "fool": yes, I can see him doing that, assuming he is indifferent to Tarquin's Evil actions relating to his wives. It is not that the fact that Tarquin tortures people that makes him, in Malack's eyes, a fool; it is his Elanesque tendancy to showboat and be goofy. It is more a difference of personality than alignment, and certainly not an indication that Malaack doesn't know how many beans make five.

As for his friendship with a cleric of Thor; perhaps he was over-optimistic. Though I don't imagine that all clerics of Thor would be as uncomprinisingly principled as Durkon, and some might fall for his (Malack's) silver-tongued charm. And he did serve his 'friend' blood-tea, which may suggest a certain lack of genuineness about this relationship.

Feddlefew

2013-02-27, 07:01 AM

What really bothers me throughout all of this, more than anything...

...is just how vain everyone seems to be.

The logic from quite a few of you seems to be "Durkon is ugly and coarse, he hurt Malack's feelings, everything is justified." Okay, maybe I exaggerate for effect, but it does show something quite a few of you overlook:

Would Durkon attack a non-evil person so readily? Are you really going to judge Durkon as a fool and horrible judge of character just because he's uncouth and unstylish? Not one of you can say he's wrong to stand in the way of the villains on their way to the Rift.

Stop letting style affect your judgment and consider substance, for once. I don't know about you, but Durkon believes he's evil, that should be good enough for everyone.

Wait, are you trying to counter an argument by telling people that they should just go with a character's view point?

Why should I let a character who has less information to act on (we, as readers, get more information to consider than any single character in this comic besides the Oracle) and literally just walked into the scene? Durkon hasn't had the villain scenes we've had, so he may very well think that Malack was only pretending to hate Nale and had set the Order up for the Linear Guild.

Edit:

As for his friendship with a cleric of Thor; perhaps he was over-optimistic. Though I don't imagine that all clerics of Thor would be as uncomprinisingly principled as Durkon, and some might fall for his silver-tongued charm. And he did serve his 'friend' blood-tea, which may suggest a certain lack of genuineness about this relationship.

Personally, I think Malack is a bit clueless about mammals (and or non vampires), in the same way Celestia is. Having high Charisma and Wisdom scores doesn't necessarily mean he's well socialized. He could have been attempting to use the sharing of food as a gesture of goodwill, but just didn't think it through.

Paseo H

2013-02-27, 07:06 AM

sam79

2013-02-27, 07:11 AM

Wait, are you trying to counter an argument by telling people that they should just go with a character's view point?

Why should I let a character who has less information to act on (we, as readers, get more information to consider than any single character in this comic besides the Oracle) and literally just walked into the scene? Durkon hasn't had the villain scenes we've had, so he may very well think that Malack was only pretending to hate Nale and had set the Order up for the Linear Guild.

I guess the argument would be that Durkon's narrative role is as the conscience of the OOTS; if he thinks something is wrong/right, that is signal to the audience that we should think that too. Obviously, I have no idea if Durkon is written with this kind of intention in mind.

(As an aside, I've heard Joss Whedon describe characters in his shows (Willow in Buffy and Kaylee in Firefly) as the 'heart of the piece', and if they care about something, then that is intended as a cue for the audience.)

EDIT

Personally, I think Malack is a bit clueless about mammals (and or non vampires), in the same way Celestia is. Having high Charisma and Wisdom scores doesn't necessarily mean he's well socialized. He could have been attempting to use the sharing of food as a gesture of goodwill, but just didn't think it through.

Well he's been a member of mostly-mammel adventuring party for decades, in the role as their healer. He cannot be THAT ignorant and unobservant, surely?

I truth, we probaably shouldn't put too much weight on the tea incident; it is likely to be included just for a gross-out laugh. But if we DO take it into account as an indicator od Malack's attitude, it doesn't look good for him.

Paseo H

2013-02-27, 07:12 AM

Mike Havran

2013-02-27, 07:17 AM

...Come again? Being horribly evil is not the opposite of being a fool.

Sure, it is not. But still, it is not a word that springs to mind with "horribly evil." Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?

Tarquin is very, very open with what he does and who he is to those close to him. Just read the comic from his first appearence in the Empire until now. I strongly doubt you can maintain the position "but Malack does not know". Tarquin drops casual remarks of his brutality all over the place. Constantly.

Tarquin has his plans with Elan, and I think dropping the hints is a part of it. On the other hand, when his actions don't involve Elan (and especially when Elan is not around), he seems to be keeping it low-key.

Feddlefew

2013-02-27, 07:17 AM

I guess the argument would be that Durkon's narrative role is as the conscience of the OOTS; if he thinks something is wrong/right, that is signal to the audience that we should think that too. Obviously, I have no idea if Durkon is written with this kind of intention in mind.

(As an aside, I've heard Joss Whedon describe characters in his shows (Willow in Buffy and Kaylee in Firefly) as the 'heart of the piece', and if they care about something, then that is intended as a cue for the audience.)

Durkon has extremely strong convictions and has in the past shown to not be the best judge of character. However, I think his reaction to stumbling on Malack snacking on Belkar was completely reasonable, and he hasn't had very long to digest this information.

The only unreasonable thing I think Durkon did was telling Malack that he couldn't let him walk out of there alive. Double meaning completely intentional.

sam79

2013-02-27, 07:18 AM

Why are you still arguing and quibbling over meaningless details, when the preponderance of evidence is on Malack being an undead monstrosity who is in it just as deep as Tarquin, only difference perhaps being that "light shows" aren't his bailiwick.

Preponderance of evidence understates the case. Malack is the Lawful Evil poster-boy. If Rich ever wanted to make a Lawful Evil T-shirt, he could do worse than have Malack's Vamp-face, and a quote: "technically, I only feed on criminals".

EDIT

Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?
.

I think he has done, hasn't he? Perhaps not exaclty a 'fool', but words to that effect. Not to his face of course, but to Jirix? I may be mis-remembering though.

Winter

2013-02-27, 07:23 AM

Tarquin has his plans with Elan, and I think dropping the hints is a part of it. On the other hand, when his actions don't involve Elan (and especially when Elan is not around), he seems to be keeping it low-key.

Malack works with him since over three decades. He is part of the switchgame. He is part of the Empire. I find the idea he could not know what is going on too ridiculous to further comment on it.

Feddlefew

2013-02-27, 07:26 AM

Well he's been a member of mostly-mammel adventuring party for decades, in the role as their healer. He cannot be THAT ignorant and unobservant, surely?

I truth, we probaably shouldn't put too much weight on the tea incident; it is likely to be included just for a gross-out laugh. But if we DO take it into account as an indicator od Malack's attitude, it doesn't look good for him.

I was thinking clueless as in "oh right I forgot you can't eat gluten" not "I see no reason why you shouldn't eat this cake with your allergies".

Malack works with him since over three decades. He is part of the switchgame. He is part of the Empire. I find the idea he could not know what is going on too ridiculous to further comment on it.

Oh, Malack definitely knows what's going on. I won't argue with that. I will argue the main thing he gets out of it is companionship.

Mike Havran

2013-02-27, 07:27 AM

Preponderance of evidence understates the case. Malack is the Lawful Evil poster-boy. If Rich ever wanted to make a Lawful Evil T-shirt, he could do worse than have Malack's Vamp-face, and a quote: "technically, I only feed on criminals".

EDIT

I think he has done, hasn't he? Perhaps not exaclty a 'fool', but words to that effect. Not to his face of course, but to Jirix? I may be mis-remembering though.

Do you think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)? Yes, I think you misremember.

On the other hand, such Malack's T-shirt would be funny :smallsmile: But really, these discussions start to be rather annoying and I wonder why, if it was really that simple, the Giant won't simply say there is no point in discussing Malack's alignment (and getting snippy and strawmany in the process), since he's clearly Evil.

Kish

2013-02-27, 07:31 AM

Sure, it is not. But still, it is not a word that springs to mind with "horribly evil." Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?
No, for the same reason Redcloak would never scream "Stop flapping your flat-toothed mouth for a minute!" at the real Xykon. Tarquin is Malack's friend, peer, equal and party leader. Xykon is Redcloak's slavemaster and sadistic torturer. There is no comparison here.

sam79

2013-02-27, 07:32 AM

Do you think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)? Yes, I think you misremember.

On the other hand, such Malack's T-shirt would be funny :smallsmile: But really, these discussions start to be rather annoying and I wonder why, if it was really that simple, the Giant won't simply say there is no point in discussing Malack's alignment (and getting snippy and strawmany in the process), since he's clearly Evil.

I think it was that scene, so yes, I mis-remember.

And I guess the Giant has better things to do than comment every time someone is Wrong on the Internet about his comic. Dude'd be here all day if that was his policy!

EDIT

I was thinking clueless as in "oh right I forgot you can't eat gluten" not "I see no reason why you shouldn't eat this cake with your allergies".

Mmm...Possible, I suppose, but a bit of a stretch, I think. And if it was a genuine mistake, wouldn't he have said "sorry my bad" in strip 871? Anyway, as I said previously, this tea business may just be overanalysing something that was included simply under Rule of Funny.