Did Malack draw his cleric powers from Evil instead of Nergal?

[CaDzilla]

Although Nergal is a death god, he does not have destruction in his portfolio, only Death, Earth, and Evil. Did Malack use Death and Destruction's power and mistake it for Nergal's, or did he get the destruction domain by virtue of being a vampire? Rich also refers to Malack as a cleric of Death and Destruction instead of a cleric of Nergal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61).

[Kish]

Your own link talks about Nergal's unholy will, so...buh?

Whatever D&D source you're getting Nergal's stats from, I'd suggest letting go of the idea that it has anything to do with OotS.

[Keltest]

Rich can make Nergal's domains whatever he wants.

Ignoring that though, I think its likely hes a cleric who doesn't draw his powers from a specific god, like Durkon, and simply is devoted to Nergal.

[KillianHawkeye]

Although Nergal is a death god, he does not have destruction in his portfolio, only Death, Earth, and Evil. Did Malack use Death and Destruction's power and mistake it for Nergal's, or did he get the destruction domain by virtue of being a vampire? Rich also refers to Malack as a cleric of Death and Destruction instead of a cleric of Nergal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61).

You're making the classic mistake of confusing OOTS Nergal with some version of Nergal that might have been printed in some D&D book once. It's the same mistake a lot of people have made concerning Durkon's alignment (before the whole vampire thing) and being a cleric of Thor.

Nergal is the god of death and destruction (as described by Malack here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)), and we have no reason to question his word about it.

[Porthos]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png: NERGAL SAVE ME!!!

is pretty definitive, no?


You're making the classic mistake of confusing OOTS Nergal with some version of Nergal that might have been printed in some D&D book once. It's the same mistake a lot of people have made concerning Durkon's alignment (before the whole vampire thing) and being a cleric of Thor.

Nergal is the god of death and destruction (as described by Malack here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)), and we have no reason to question his word about it.

This is a good point. Where are you getting the idea that Nergal doesn't have Destruction in his portfolio, CaDzilla?

[CaDzilla]

Your own link talks about Nergal's unholy will, so...buh?

Whatever D&D source you're getting Nergal's stats from, I'd suggest letting go of the idea that it has anything to do with OotS.

It was Malack himself that said it was Nergal's unholy will. I'm operating under the assumption that Malack deluded himself into thinking that he was worshiping a higher power instead of just filling up his spell slots with abstract concepts. I need a quote by The Giant that says specifically that Malack is a cleric of Nergal.

[Porthos]

It was Malack himself that said it was Nergal's unholy will. I'm operating under the assumption that Malack deluded himself into thinking that he was worshiping a higher power instead of just filling up his spell slots with abstract concepts. I need a quote by The Giant that says specifically that Malack is a cleric of Nergal.

From the Index. :smalltongue:


Nergal is not against undeath. Malack is against casual creation of undead to use as cannon fodder specifically because he IS undead; that is what he is referring to as "being against" in that panel.

Yes, it was intentionally vague at the time so as not to give away the twist.


Thinking about it more, I would also suggest that being a cleric of Death and Destruction would have played a part in where Malack drew the line at preparedness. I feel like at a certain point, Malack would have said to himself, "If I take all of these many and varied precautions and am still destroyed, then it is Nergal's unholy will."

Of course, he felt somewhat differently when he was actually being destroyed.

[CaDzilla]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png: NERGAL SAVE ME!!!

is pretty definitive, no?



This is a good point. Where are you getting the idea that Nergal doesn't have Destruction in his portfolio, CaDzilla?

That's from Malack's point of view, and Nergal didn't save him at all. Nergal has only appeared in this comic as a statue.
I got the stats for Nergal from the Sandstorm splatbook. It has the Babylonian gods there.

[Sir_Leorik]

It was Malack himself that said it was Nergal's unholy will. I'm operating under the assumption that Malack deluded himself into thinking that he was worshiping a higher power instead of just filling up his spell slots with abstract concepts. I need a quote by The Giant that says specifically that Malack is a cleric of Nergal.

In his first appearance, Malack is performing sacrifices to Nergal and Ereshkagal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html). Later on, while Durkon is visiting Malack, Durkon asks which gods they are, and Malack says "My Master is Nergal, lion-headed god of Death and Destruction." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) I don't see why we need to trouble The Giant to clarify what is already clear.

[Porthos]

That's from Malack's point of view, and Nergal didn't save him at all.

That was showing him to be a hypocrite. :smallwink: Generally speaking gods don't save their followers in divine intervention.

They get chewed out if they do for one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) :smalltongue:


I got the stats for Nergal from the Sandstorm splatbook. It has the Babylonian gods there.

As Rich has said on more than one occasion he does not feel himself beholden to whatever the splatbooks may or may not say about the various gods he uses.

I'll edit in the most noted example of him saying this in a bit...

From the Wayback Machine - Scroll down about halfway down or so. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070220022000/http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7283)

[Kish]

It was Malack himself that said it was Nergal's unholy will. I'm operating under the assumption that Malack deluded himself into thinking that he was worshiping a higher power instead of just filling up his spell slots with abstract concepts. I need a quote by The Giant that says specifically that Malack is a cleric of Nergal.
And judging by your posting after Porthos' quotes (and earlier presenting one of them as a link supporting this Sandstorm stuff), you consider nothing there to count, so...okay, have fun with that.

[KillianHawkeye]

I got the stats for Nergal from the Sandstorm splatbook. It has the Babylonian gods there.

Too bad it doesn't have any of the OOTS gods, even ones that happen to have the same name.

Seriously, outside of Tiamat (who is mainly just good for a joke and for brand recognition), OOTS does not use ANY of the D&D gods and goddesses. Don't confuse one for the other. As I said, doing so is a mistake. OOTS Thor is not D&D Thor. OOTS Nergal is not D&D Nergal. In both cases, OOTS and D&D have based their deities on real life religions and mythology.

[CaDzilla]

In his first appearance, Malack is performing sacrifices to Nergal and Ereshkagal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html). Later on, while Durkon is visiting Malack, Durkon asks which gods they are, and Malack says "My Master is Nergal, lion-headed god of Death and Destruction." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) I don't see why we need to trouble The Giant to clarify what is already clear.

Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction. All those scenes prove is that Malack set something on fire and has a cool statue of two deities. He's so deluded that he actually bought a statue of and burns things for a deity that probably has no clue he exists.

[Deliverance]

Although Nergal is a death god, he does not have destruction in his portfolio, only Death, Earth, and Evil.

Why on earth do you believe this to be the case?

There is nothing in the strip or the Giant's comments to indicate that Nergal is not the lion-headed god of Death and Destruction, which is how Malack introduces his master and god.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, the rational thing is to assume that Malack does know who his deity is, does know his deity's portfolio, and that when the Giant talks about Malack as a priest of Death and Destruction, he is, in fact, referring to Malack being a priest of Nergal - the lion-headed god of Death and Destruction.

OOTS gods have the attributes that Rich assigns to them, not what some sourcebook might say, which is why e.g. the OOTS Thor is, to put it mildly, not exactly what a sourcebook fanatic might expect. :smallbiggrin:


--- I mean, wacky theories are fine in this forum; There are a lot of them around. But most of them start out better than "I disbelieve what I am explicitly told in the comic and which is supported by the Giant's comments in order to believe an alternative explanation, that has no support whatsoever in the comic but could arguably be seen as compatible with the Giant's comments, if one assumes he was trying to deceive the readers."

[Gift Jeraff]

Malack's cleric powers are drawn from Adobe Illustrator.

[KillianHawkeye]

Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction. All those scenes prove is that Malack set something on fire and has a cool statue of two deities. He's so deluded that he actually bought a statue of and burns things for a deity that probably has no clue he exists.

Without your so-called "evidence" from a D&D book to rely on, your "theory" is not a theory at all. It is pure baseless conjecture.

And I am starting to wonder why it even matters if Malack deluded himself or not. He believed himself to be a cleric of Nergal and acted thusly from the moment he appeared until the moment he died. I don't think anything different would have happened in the story if your hypothesis was correct than if Malack had just been exactly what he appeared to be.



EDIT:

--- I mean, wacky theories are fine in this forum; There are a lot of them around. But most of them start out better than "I disbelieve what I am explicitly told in the comic and which is supported by the Giant's comments in order to believe an alternative explanation, that has no support whatsoever in the comic but could arguably be seen as compatible with the Giant's comments, if one assumes he was trying to deceive the readers."

To be fair, that actually pretty well describes a lot of the crazy things I've read on this forum. :smallamused:


Also,

Malack's cleric powers are drawn from Adobe Illustrator.

FTW :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

I am tempted to say something about a kind of reverse Occam's Razor, where the theory that includes a non-core sourcebook and a cleric who doesn't know what he's a cleric of or what the domains of the god he believes himself to worship are, trumps the theory that only has a pretty standard (evil) cleric.

[Porthos]

Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction. All those scenes prove is that Malack set something on fire and has a cool statue of two deities. He's so deluded that he actually bought a statue of and burns things for a deity that probably has no clue he exists.

And what about all of Rich's comments that link Nergal and Malack? As well as the comment where he says that he doesn't care about what a random splatbook says?

For your theory to be true, you have to reject all of the above and put undue weight on sources that Rich has explicitly stated that he has ignored before.

...

They don't exactly seem to me to be equal on a scale, if you ask me. :smallwink:

[Bulldog Psion]

Malack seemed like a fairly competent individual. I kind of figure he knew who he was worshipping.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that Nergal's domains in OotS cannot include Death and Destruction.

There is likewise zero evidence to suggest that Death and Destruction were the actual cleric domains granted, rather than simply descriptive words (see also level and level).

Finally, what the heck difference does it make at this point? He's dead adn gone and not coming back. The point is beyond moot.

[Mando Knight]

Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction.
There is absolutely no basis for this theory.

A similar theory would be one stating that Haley believes she loves Elan, but is actually simply attracted to the concept of a handsome but ditzy bard. All the evidence points to the straightforward answer, but the obtuse answer also fits the data while also interjecting the idea that the characters are also ignorant of their own selves.

[Happy_Tea]

Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction. All those scenes prove is that Malack set something on fire and has a cool statue of two deities. He's so deluded that he actually bought a statue of and burns things for a deity that probably has no clue he exists.

I don't know if we really have much reason to think something that looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks (well, slithers) like a duck isn't one.

Malack worships Nergal (nothing in setting suggests Malack isn't worshiping him), and as a cleric is getting his power from somewhere (which typically, if one worships a deity, and meets the deities requirements, is from that deity).

Plus, despite his long term goals he never came off as deluded.

It seems far more likely that Nergal in the OotS-verse simply has Destruction as part of his portfolio.

[Sir_Leorik]

That was showing him to be a hypocrite. :smallwink: Generally speaking gods don't save their followers in divine intervention.

They get chewed out if they do for one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) :smalltongue:

Technically, Thor was encroaching on the turf of the Southern gods at the time. Plus, I don't think anyone but a diehard D&D fan actually knows how Control Weather is supposed to work. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, Thor saving Durkon, a mid-level cleric, in the middle of Cliffport, by sending a thunderstorm, is perfectly in keeping with how Thor's been portrayed in "Order of the Stick".


Because my theory states that Malack thinks that his power comes from Nergal when it actually comes from the abstract concepts of Death and Destruction. All those scenes prove is that Malack set something on fire and has a cool statue of two deities. He's so deluded that he actually bought a statue of and burns things for a deity that probably has no clue he exists.

You do realize that non-Theistic Vampire Clerics can't choose Death as one of their Domains, right? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) They get Destruction, along with Chaos (which Malack can't take) Evil and Trickery. In order to have the Death Domain, Malack would need to worship a god like Nergal who provides it as a Domain.


Malack's cleric powers are drawn from Adobe Illustrator.

:smallcool:

[Porthos]

You do realize that non-Theistic Vampire Clerics can't choose Death as one of their Domains, right? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) They get Destruction, along with Chaos (which Malack can't take) Evil and Trickery. In order to have the Death Domain, Malack would need to worship a god like Nergal who provides it as a Domain.

Live by the sourcebook, die by the sourcebook. :smallwink:

[ti'esar]

Why would anyone's first assumption be that an OOTS god has the same domains as some random version of that god written up in a second-party sourcebook?

[thereaper]

Malack's cleric powers are drawn from Adobe Illustrator.

I think Gift Jeraff just won another thread.

[b_jonas]

When Malack dies, he cries out "NERRRGHHALLL! SAVE MEEE!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html). That is proof enough for me that he worships Nerghal.

[Keltest]

You do realize that non-Theistic Vampire Clerics can't choose Death as one of their Domains, right? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) They get Destruction, along with Chaos (which Malack can't take) Evil and Trickery. In order to have the Death Domain, Malack would need to worship a god like Nergal who provides it as a Domain.

didn't the Giant specifically mention that Durkon's new domains as a non-theist vampire cleric were Death and Destruction? Or is this just more support for "What the sourcebook says only matters if the Giant explicitly says it matters"?

[Kish]

didn't the Giant specifically mention that Durkon's new domains as a non-theist vampire cleric were Death and Destruction? Or is this just more support for "What the sourcebook says only matters if the Giant explicitly says it matters"?
Neither of the above.

[Keltest]

Neither of the above.

Then im terribly confused.

[Kish]

There's nothing to be confused about; you remember Rich making a post he never did. He hasn't said what Durkon's domains are as a vampire (or when Durkon was alive, for that matter. Or what Malack's domains were).

The closest he came was to cite the SRD's description of vampire clerics, to someone who was saying he'd "gone too far" by having Vampire Durkon immediately able to cast cleric spells.

[Keltest]

There's nothing to be confused about; you remember Rich making a post he never did. He hasn't said what Durkon's domains are as a vampire (or when Durkon was alive, for that matter. Or what Malack's domains were).

The closest he came was to cite the SRD's description of vampire clerics, to someone who was saying he'd "gone too far" by having Vampire Durkon immediately able to cast cleric spells.

Then why does everyone and everyone's cat say that Durkon's new domains are Death and Destruction? is purely because they think its likely because of the prophecy?

[Kish]

I am unfamiliar with the two posters known as Everyone and Everyone's Cat, but that's the only likely explanation for them making that assertion.

(Some people have speculated that the prophecy regarding Durkon will be benignly fulfilled by him simply standing in dwarven lands with Death and Destruction as his domains. I wish I believed that was the way it's going to be; in any case, speculation is not a claim.)

[factotum]

I agree with Kish--the only evidence for Durkon having Death and Destruction domains remains the prophecy that he'll bring "death and destruction" to Dwarven lands when he returns there, at least until he unequivocally casts spells which are only available in those domains.

[KillianHawkeye]

Why would anyone's first assumption be that an OOTS god has the same domains as some random version of that god written up in a second-party sourcebook?

Sandstorm is a 1st party sourcebook. There ARE no second party sourcebooks, unless you have published some yourself.

[Kish]

Second-party means it wasn't written by Rich Burlew.

Yes, I am familiar with the formal meaning of the term.

[Keltest]

Second-party means it wasn't written by Rich Burlew.

Yes, I am familiar with the formal meaning of the term.

Wouldn't second party mean that it was written by us (the fans)?

vs third party being written by someone unassociated with the comic.

[Kish]

Are you suggesting that the writer of Sandstorm is not a fan of OotS?

[Keltest]

Are you suggesting that the writer of Sandstorm is not a fan of OotS?

I am suggesting nothing that is not explicitly stated in my post.

Besides, even im not THAT crazy.

[KillianHawkeye]

1st person is "I", 2nd person is "you", third person is "he/she." Therefore, 1st party is Wizards of the Coast, 2nd party is you the player, 3rd party is any other company that publishes a book.

AFAIK Rich Berlew does not write sourcebooks for OOTS, therefore the only thing we can be discussing is D&D sourcebooks.

[Keltest]

1st person is "I", 2nd person is "you", third person is "he/she." Therefore, 1st party is Wizards of the Coast, 2nd party is you the player, 3rd party is any other company that publishes a book.

AFAIK Rich Berlew does not write sourcebooks for OOTS, therefore the only thing we can be discussing is D&D sourcebooks.

the sourcebooks are a helpful guide, but anything stated by the giant/in place in the comic takes precedence. Rich cannot be "wrong" with regards to factual information, as he is the one who decides what is or is not factual.

[Shale]

At the same time, calling sourcebooks "second-party" is a pretty damn obscure way to get that meaning across.

[Keltest]

At the same time, calling sourcebooks "second-party" is a pretty damn obscure way to get that meaning across.

That is, of course, assuming that the writers are not fans of OOTS. Which is obviously false. In fact, there is no such thing as a 3rd party source in relation to OOTS

[Zherog]

Seriously, outside of Tiamat (who is mainly just good for a joke and for brand recognition), OOTS does not use ANY of the D&D gods and goddesses.

So, while tiamat exists in D&D, she also comes from mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat) originally.

[orrion]

Too bad it doesn't have any of the OOTS gods, even ones that happen to have the same name.

Seriously, outside of Tiamat (who is mainly just good for a joke and for brand recognition), OOTS does not use ANY of the D&D gods and goddesses. Don't confuse one for the other. As I said, doing so is a mistake. OOTS Thor is not D&D Thor. OOTS Nergal is not D&D Nergal. In both cases, OOTS and D&D have based their deities on real life religions and mythology.

Wait, what's your basis for Tiamat being the full D&D version?

[Shale]

Tiamat as a many-headed dragon god is entirely the creation of D&D.

[orrion]

Tiamat as a many-headed dragon god is entirely the creation of D&D.

And? That doesn't mean she's 100% the same in OOTS.

[Shale]

Yeah, but she's at least based on her D&D version, while the others seem much closer to the figures that were actually worshiped in Europe, the Middle East and China, respectively.

[orrion]

Yeah, but she's at least based on her D&D version, while the others seem much closer to the figures that were actually worshiped in Europe, the Middle East and China, respectively.

What would you suggest Tiamat have been depicted as instead? Last time I checked the scholars couldn't even definitively agree that Tiamat was a dragon at all.

[Shale]

Not a dragon, not a five-headed dragon, not a patron deity of evil dragons in particular? All of those are characteristics of the D&D version, and only the first is even arguably a characteristic of the creature from Babylonian myth. I mean, using the D&D version definitely beats trying to figure out how to draw Tiamat using just the Enuma Elish for reference, but Rich very definitely did go with the D&D version. It's not a bad thing, it just is.

(Heck, one of the few things we can say for certain about the Babylonian Tiamat is that she only had one head, since part of the myth involves her being killed by blows to the skull.)

[ti'esar]

In fact, I think it's safe to say that the primary reason the Western Gods are the Babylonian pantheon in the first place is because Tiamat the five-headed Dragon Queen is such an iconic D&D figure.

[137beth]

Well, I would say that's the weirdest OOTS theory I've heard, but seeing as I've been on the forums since 2009 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=46717), that may not even crack the top 10!


Tiamat as a many-headed dragon god is entirely the creation of D&D. Well, technically, we don't actually know that the OOTS Tiamat is a 5-headed dragon. We just know that she is a female, and can be on 5 telephone lines at once, at has some connection to black dragons. Oh, and we know that there is a five-headed dragon with the epithet "great five-headed mistress of dragons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html)." And that OOTS-Tiamat and OOTS-chromatic-dragon-goddess are both western gods. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html) We technically don't know that the 5-headed chromatic-dragon goddess is OOTS-Tiamat are the same entity.

Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that this theory about Malack being deluded as to where his power comes from is at least as crazy as the Durkon=Trigak theory. Or the 'Belkar is CG' theory. Or the "Haley is a half-celestial daughter of Orrin Draketooth" theory.

:smallsigh:

[thereaper]

The fact that any of those are even being called "theories" makes me sad.

Except for Durkon being Trigak, because that's obviously true.

[mikeejimbo]

The fact that any of those are even being called "theories" makes me sad.

Except for Durkon being Trigak, because that's obviously true.

Yeah, it's a theory the way the Theory of Gravity is.

[lunar2]

it's official. Hel, who should know these things, called Malack Nergal's snake, so he actually is a cleric of Nergal.

[Emperordaniel]

Yeah, it's a theory the way the Theory of Gravity is.

But if Durkon is gravity, what does that make Hilgya? :smalleek: