Similarities Between Malack and Tsukiko

[nonamearisto]

Both of them treat the undead as their children, both of them seem to regard the undead as something other than what Redcloak claims they are (just bodies animated by evil magic), and both are evil on some level (not getting into an alignment war here as to whether lawful, neutral, or chaotic apply to either of them.)

Now, a vampire and a wight are two different kinds of undead, to be sure, and the newest vampire just happens to be "Count Durkula"... which leads us to wonder if it is really Durkon, or if that just happens to be a new being entirely, using Durkon's corpse as raw material, not entirely unlike how Roy's skeleton was used as raw material for a bone golem (even if that is a construct and not undead).

One big difference seems to be that Malack only regards vampires he created as his "children", while Tsukiko seemingly regarded all undead she created as her children.

[CletusMusashi]

Also, Tsukiko had better legs. Maybe.

[martianmister]

They're both like black colour.
They're both sexy.
They're both dead.

[Gnoman]

There is a very significant distinction between the two. Tsukiko romanticized the undead due to a disenfranchisement with the living and necrophilia. For all that, she was still living, and projected her own world onto them. Malack *IS* undead, of the exact same sort as his "children". There's no romanticization there, because he knows exactly what it's like from the point of view of a vampire.

[Shred-Bot]

They're both like black colour.
They're both sexy.
They're both dead.

Not sure about sexy... the whole "trampy-goth-necrophiliac" thing doesn't really do it for me.

(Malack being sexy I totally get... meee-yow! He did not waste that +6 template increase to cha.)

[Longest Skies]

There is a very significant distinction between the two. Tsukiko romanticized the undead due to a disenfranchisement with the living and necrophilia. For all that, she was still living, and projected her own world onto them. Malack *IS* undead, of the exact same sort as his "children". There's no romanticization there, because he knows exactly what it's like from the point of view of a vampire.

On that note Malack is referring to Vampires as "children."

Tsukiko was referring to wrights/ghouls what evers.

I do not know D&D but Vampires are sentiment while Ghouls are less independent.

[nonamearisto]

There is a very significant distinction between the two. Tsukiko romanticized the undead due to a disenfranchisement with the living and necrophilia. For all that, she was still living, and projected her own world onto them. Malack *IS* undead, of the exact same sort as his "children". There's no romanticization there, because he knows exactly what it's like from the point of view of a vampire.

That is true. He would know what being undead is like, having been in that state for a long, long time. However, there is also the possibility of him being deranged by the whole, centuries-long experience. As in, even if he knows what being undead is like, he could still be a warped, twisted, legless lizard thing that still manages to have misplaced love for a corpse that has been reanimated by magic and is essentially a very dangerous and complex animated puppet. Xykon's been undead for a long time, and he's totally twisted, as he was in life if not worse. Although in Xykon's case, he was a depraved killer that one would lose sympathy for on the very first page he appeared in if one ever had any for him to begin with, while Malack was apparently a very different kind of being centuries ago when he lived.

[Zmeoaice]

Also, Tsukiko had better legs. Maybe.

Well, Malack has a better tail. Maybe.

Although both are evil, they don't seem to realize it. Malack wants to serve his God, and Tsukiko thinks the undead are more worthy of well, life, than the living. They have been blinded by their ideologies and are convinced that what they are doing is "right"

[nonamearisto]

"From the lowliest zombie to Xykon imself, the undead are just complex weapons that we make and aim at other people" :redcloak:

If this statement is true, it means that Durkon probably isn't in there anymore, and that Malack is deluded as to his vampire thralls being his "children." So sad.

[Lvl45DM!]

"From the lowliest zombie to Xykon imself, the undead are just complex weapons that we make and aim at other people" :redcloak:

If this statement is true, it means that Durkon probably isn't in there anymore, and that Malack is deluded as to his vampire thralls being his "children." So sad.

Redcloak is flat out wrong. Tsukiko was also an idiot for thinking that Undead were Good and that her wights cared about her. But many undead are spontaneously generated and free willed.

[nonamearisto]

Redcloak is flat out wrong. Tsukiko was also an idiot for thinking that Undead were Good and that her wights cared about her. But many undead are spontaneously generated and free willed.

He might have been wrong, but that scene really made it look like he knew what he was talking about, coming in there are taking control of those wights like that from under Tsukiko's nose, then demonstrating his point about the undead being tools. They even obeyed his order to devour each other and for the last one to set himself on fire, and that's after showing a degree of free will and desires, such as the wight that wanted shoes.

[TRH]

He might have been wrong, but that scene really made it look like he knew what he was talking about, coming in there are taking control of those wights like that from under Tsukiko's nose, then demonstrating his point about the undead being tools. They even obeyed his order to devour each other and for the last one to set himself on fire, and that's after showing a degree of free will and desires, such as the wight that wanted shoes.

That's the thing though; he was using magic to compel their obedience; would it have been any different if they were human minions and he controlled them with some variant of Dominate Person? Not really, so the argument doesn't hold water. Hell, you weaken your own case even more by noting that they have personal desires when not under magical control.

[theinsulabot]

now that I think about it and you bring up the point, isnt it a little strange for malack to refer to people he has turned into vampires as children? if they all stayed thralls like durkula is now it would be one thing, but since I gather the general consensus is durkula will actually be durkon, just a forcibly evil version, calling the process siring a child as malack does in the most recent update, feels a bit off.


conversion seems the more apt description.

[Raineh Daze]

now that I think about it and you bring up the point, isnt it a little strange for malack to refer to people he has turned into vampires as children? if they all stayed thralls like durkula is now it would be one thing, but since I gather the general consensus is durkula will actually be durkon, just a forcibly evil version, calling the process siring a child as malack does in the most recent update, feels a bit off.


conversion seems the more apt description.

That is a strange convention that isn't exactly specific to this webcomic, though.

[nonamearisto]

That's the thing though; he was using magic to compel their obedience; would it have been any different if they were human minions and he controlled them with some variant of Dominate Person? Not really, so the argument doesn't hold water. Hell, you weaken your own case even more by noting that they have personal desires when not under magical control.

Even dominate person isn't so powerful as to make someone do something that would clearly kill them: "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out" (from the SRD).

Redcloak's ability to order all those wights to casually destroy themselves lends more credence to the "intelligent weapon" idea of the undead rather than the "truly sentient" theory.

[Feddlefew]

Even dominate person isn't so powerful as to make someone do something that would clearly kill them: "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out" (from the SRD).

Redcloak's ability to order all those wights to casually destroy themselves lends more credence to the "intelligent weapon" idea of the undead rather than the "truly sentient" theory.

An illithid's thralls will do the same thing, and they are capable of "waking up" again under certain circumstances.

I think that dominate person and suggestion are not equivalent to thralling effects.

[Guy Incognito]

That's the thing though; he was using magic to compel their obedience; would it have been any different if they were human minions and he controlled them with some variant of Dominate Person? Not really, so the argument doesn't hold water. Hell, you weaken your own case even more by noting that they have personal desires when not under magical control.

That's the other thing, though; Tsukiko's wights ARE under magical control. Hers, to be precise. Redcloak is just switching the reins. We've seen Dominated people in Order of the Stick: they're totally silent. When they do talk, as Thanh did, they're monosyllabic and trying to justify themselves. Tsukiko's wights don't even change gears; they act just the same as they did under her control. This is more or less in line with D&D rules, even: wights are a byproduct of killing people with energy drain, and you have to manually take control of one, even if you were technically its creator.

What, did you honestly think they were following her of their own will? They're wights. Their entire existence is based on killing people so they can make more wights. They'd have poked her to death the moment she stepped within reach. That's what Redcloak was talking about when he claimed that the undead were tools, and why Tsukiko's last moments of begging didn't have any effect: because Tsukiko's undead were tools. It's just that she was using her tools to play dollhouse.

[Mantine]

Redcloak is flat out wrong. Tsukiko was also an idiot for thinking that Undead were Good and that her wights cared about her. But many undead are spontaneously generated and free willed.

This, really. I'm so tired of seeing people generalize that Redcloak's talk of the undead to the entirety of the subtype.
Just because there are a certain number of mindless "empty husk magic controlled undead minions" like ghouls and wights doesn't mean that sentient "once alive turned" undeads like vampires and liches aren't entirely their own persona.

[Lvl45DM!]

Also Malack seems to be a great deal less delusional than Tsukiko would be. He has a paternal instinct to the thrall but he's also pissy about the fact that he had to kill him and he's aware that it was a bad thing for Durkon. He just doesn't care that much.

[veti]

They're wights. Their entire existence is based on killing people so they can make more wights. They'd have poked her to death the moment she stepped within reach. That's what Redcloak was talking about when he claimed that the undead were tools, and why Tsukiko's last moments of begging didn't have any effect: because Tsukiko's undead were tools. It's just that she was using her tools to play dollhouse.

Tools don't apologise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html). Or banter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0514.html), or make suggestions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html). I don't pretend to know what goes on in the head of a wight, but it looks to me as if there is something there that is more than just a control circuit.

[Mastikator]

(even if that is a construct and not undead).
Though, constructs and undeads have more in common with each other than they do with the living.

[Cavenskull]

Tools don't apologise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html). Or banter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0514.html), or make suggestions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html)...
You've obviously never used Windows then. :smallwink:

[nonamearisto]

Tools don't apologise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html). Or banter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0514.html), or make suggestions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html). I don't pretend to know what goes on in the head of a wight, but it looks to me as if there is something there that is more than just a control circuit.

If a tool's purpose is served by talking, apologizing, or making suggestions, then why not give it those abilities? Modern software can do those things, as was already said. Even an answering machine can apologize for not being able to take your call.

That's right: the undead are very lethal answering machines. :smallbiggrin:

[skaddix]

He might have been wrong, but that scene really made it look like he knew what he was talking about, coming in there are taking control of those wights like that from under Tsukiko's nose, then demonstrating his point about the undead being tools. They even obeyed his order to devour each other and for the last one to set himself on fire, and that's after showing a degree of free will and desires, such as the wight that wanted shoes.

Redcloak is an idiot. U can dominate a person just as easily as the undead in DnD which makes Redcloak a fool.

[Lvl45DM!]

Redcloak is an idiot. U can dominate a person just as easily as the undead in DnD which makes Redcloak a fool.

Well...not JUST as easily. You can't dominate people into setting themselves on fire.

[skaddix]

Well...not JUST as easily. You can't dominate people into setting themselves on fire.

Well u might have to toss him into the fire but you can certainly order him to kill his buddies and if they are all approximately the same level, they should all die anyway.

[nonamearisto]

Well u might have to toss him into the fire but you can certainly order him to kill his buddies and if they are all approximately the same level, they should all die anyway.

Only if doing so would not be absolutely repugnant to that person. Remember how Tsukiko's dominate person spell was broken.

[dps]

Well...not JUST as easily. You can't dominate people into setting themselves on fire.

Shouldn't be a problem if the dominated person is a pyromaniac with a death wish. :smallbiggrin:

[F.Harr]

Both of them treat the undead as their children, both of them seem to regard the undead as something other than what Redcloak claims they are (just bodies animated by evil magic), and both are evil on some level (not getting into an alignment war here as to whether lawful, neutral, or chaotic apply to either of them.)

Now, a vampire and a wight are two different kinds of undead, to be sure, and the newest vampire just happens to be "Count Durkula"... which leads us to wonder if it is really Durkon, or if that just happens to be a new being entirely, using Durkon's corpse as raw material, not entirely unlike how Roy's skeleton was used as raw material for a bone golem (even if that is a construct and not undead).

One big difference seems to be that Malack only regards vampires he created as his "children", while Tsukiko seemingly regarded all undead she created as her children.

Interesting. Also, Tsukiko had a tragic desire to be loved but wanted it from the undead.

[Copperdragon]

Both of them treat ...

You're only looking at what happens, but leave out motivation and... character. If you include them, the two characters are vastly different. There are similarities, but that would be like saying the black hair of an evil sorcerer who kills for lust and a paladin was some noteworthy similarity (no, the hair does not indicate they are actually brothers or somesuch).

Tsukiko and Malack are vastly different and the undead they have in common are mere chance (Malack was turned, Tsukiko picked a fetish).

[CletusMusashi]

Redcloak's speech was kind of a "take that!" both to Xykon's attitude (goblins and... everyone else... are simply tools to be used and thrown away,) and to Tsukiko's undeadluv as well. I think when it's all said and done Redcloak knows perfectly well that Xykon is sentient, but he said otherwise because it felt good to vent about Xykon while insulting Tsukiko.

[Mastikator]

^
Also, it's a good commentary about his attitude to using people as pawns, using goblins as pawns is something he's been doing for the vast majority of his life, this whole "goblins are not expendable" is a relatively new thing. Non-goblins, he has zero sympathy for, so they're still expendable.

[zimmerwald1915]

Also, it's a good commentary about his attitude to using people as pawns, using goblins as pawns is something he's been doing for the vast majority of his life, this whole "goblins are not expendable" is a relatively new thing. Non-goblins, he has zero sympathy for, so they're still expendable.
So are goblins. They might, sometimes, not be expendable in the service of Redcloak's personal amusement, but they're still expendable. He killed two of them just before killing Tsukiko, and showed only token remorse.

[137beth]

So are goblins. They might, sometimes, not be expendable in the service of Redcloak's personal amusement, but they're still expendable. He killed two of them just before killing Tsukiko, and showed only token remorse.

Where did he kill two goblins? He chose not to raise two goblins, both of whom were already dead, because they knew sensitive/secret information.

[B. Dandelion]

Redcloak wasn't treating all goblins as pawns for the entirety of his career only to reverse his course after 451. It's the other way around. He started off more responsible about their deaths, being more personally connected to them, and as time went on got more and more distanced and more willing to sacrifice them in order to maintain his self-delusion. He still tried to stop their deaths within the warped parameters he wound up boxing himself into, but ultimately a huge number of them have died because he's not willing to own up to having led so many of them to their deaths in the first place.

Hobgoblins he treated differently from regular goblins until 451. He didn't put up any effort to try and reduce their deaths, but in fact enjoyed them. After his turnaround he started treating them like he treats regular goblins, which is better than he treats most people but still in a way subservient to his own self-image.

[Porthos]

Where did he kill two goblins? He chose not to raise two goblins, both of whom were already dead, because they knew sensitive/secret information.

He expressed thanks that he wasn't forced to kill a goblinoid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) (we don't know if it was a hobgoblin or not). Which says to me that he was planning on cutting any loose ends away.

[dps]

He expressed thanks that he wasn't forced to kill a goblinoid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) (we don't know if it was a hobgoblin or not). Which says to me that he was planning on cutting any loose ends away.

Yes, he was clearly planning on not leaving any witnesses on this plane. But he did say that he was sorry that he couldn't raise the polymorphed spy. You can choose to believe either that he was sincere about that or just deluding himself.

[137beth]

He expressed thanks that he wasn't forced to kill a goblinoid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) (we don't know if it was a hobgoblin or not). Which says to me that he was planning on cutting any loose ends away.

Well yea, he was planning on it, but if you look back at the post I quoted, it said
He killed two of them just before killing Tsukiko Not "he was planning on killing two of them." One of them he planned on keeping dead was the spy, killed by Thahn, the other one was the blacksmith who Tsukiko killed. RC did not kill any goblins right before Tsukikio.

[Snails]

Many a simpleton of a first level cleric can accomplish the effect Redcloak did, on level appropriate undead beings, without the expenditure of a spell slot or even the Wis to cast spells at all. A mighty Wizard cannot do the same with the Dominate Person (or Dominate Monster).

At some level Redcloak is clearly correct, even if he does not tell the whole story. RC fudging the truth with respect to liches and vampires, but he is doing so to make a rhetorical point.

As for Tsukiko, she could have chosen to attempt to build a relationship with an undead being. Instead, she stuck with fake relationships. A fangirl of X. And she coos over dumb pets. In the end, she is like a demented cat woman who squawks to everyone how she loves felines more than people. Whatever, lady. Good riddance.