Malak is my perfect antagonist. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Haldir

2014-09-29, 02:58 PM

I really love Malak's character. He has the perfect blend of honor, loyalty, misguidance and cunning. His very short appearance but crucial actions are justified completely by both his character and the small part of his history that is known to us. The character almost has a zen about him- a perfect balance of the dichotomy of life, which struggles dependently for it's own good, and death, which much nourish that which seeks to grow and struggle.

The character is friendship, chivalry, terror, and balance all in one. He only graces us for a short time, but Malak is proof of Mr. Burlew's genius.

That is all.

Peelee

2014-09-29, 03:06 PM

Keltest

2014-09-29, 03:22 PM

Peelee

2014-09-29, 03:38 PM

Malack died to me as soon as he revealed he planned to sacrifice a gratuitously large number of people to his death god using the Empire scheme once Tarquin died. I mean sure, he's evil, but give him his own clever plan, like trying to spread the chaos of the western continent to the rest of the world by like, killing most of the plants or something. Mass slaughter is so... clichéd, not to mention unsustainable.

Well, he doesn't really need sustainability, does he? He's not running a company for profit, he's paying homage to his deity. Sacrificing a continent's worth of people is a pretty honkin' big sacrifice, with a high probability to never be matched. I mean, yeah, more people would be a bigger tribute, but that's like a multi-billionaire complaining he's not a double-multi-billionaire.

Keltest

2014-09-29, 03:42 PM

Well, he doesn't really need sustainability, does he? He's not running a company for profit, he's paying homage to his deity. Sacrificing a continent's worth of people is a pretty honkin' big sacrifice, with a high probability to never be matched. I mean, yeah, more people would be a bigger tribute, but that's like a multi-billionaire complaining he's not a double-multi-billionaire.

That's beside the point. If he wants a mass slaughter, be clever about it. Make it so that being a priest of Nergal isn't going to get you executed in every civilized land just for being associated with it.

NerdyKris

2014-09-29, 04:48 PM

The character almost has a zen about him- a perfect balance of the dichotomy of life, which struggles dependently for it's own good, and death, which much nourish that which seeks to grow and struggle..

Did you miss the part where he was actually terrified of dying and begged his god to save him? Malak was a hypocrite. He was a priest of death who advocated everyone accept their fates but himself. He was anything but balanced and zen. His grand scheme, as already said, was cliched and ridiculous. It would have lasted five minutes before the elves took one look and said "Oh hell no.". Or at least the nearest group of heroes. He didn't care about life at all, he only cared about killing as many things as possible so his god would look favorably on him.

Both he and Tarquin talked the talk, but faltered when it came time to walk the walk. And in Malak's case, his talk was a bit shortsighted and self destructive.

Onyavar

2014-09-29, 06:11 PM

Did you miss the part where he was actually terrified of dying and begged his god to save him? Malak was a hypocrite. He was a priest of death who advocated everyone accept their fates but himself. He was anything but balanced and zen. [...]

I have to give it to the OP, there was a Zen like quality to the Malack that was presented to the readership at first. I, as a reader, have also misunderstood that it was but a facade. Rich hid most of Malacks true character, until he revealed the true Malack. Those were several ugly moments of realization, and all the respect that I had for a seemingly "zen-like neutral" Malack was lost.

Of course, Malack could have been revealed as a perfect Zen lizardfolk monk/cleric. Had he been truly enlighted, balanced and wise, he also wouldn't have been an evil megalomaniac hypocrite, and with some luck, the story could have ended at Girard's Gate.

In short, if someone would have been a different person, the stick world could be a better place. Miko comes to mind. She could have been friendly and nice and a person with great insight, and could have made a great difference. Etc.

Like Malack, Miko's character was disappointing us several times, when she was revealed as how she really was. Time and time again, even. And just like Malack, people tried to overlook those clear signs of her true ways. I've seen people trying to argue in favor of Thog, of Nale, of Tsukiko. Unerringly evil and/or deranged persons, who never changed. Malack was one of those. We have to get over them.

There ARE characters who thanks to some more or less subtle character development actually get better, but Malack wasn't one of them. Sure, it's sad.

Keltest

2014-09-29, 06:28 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-09-29, 06:45 PM

I also really liked Malack as a villain, although he's not my absolute favorite. Don't who this "Malak" y'all keep talking about is.

GAAD

2014-09-30, 12:09 AM

I really liked Malack, too. Although he seemed a bit like Miko.

Reasoning: They both were hypocrites, claiming to work for an orderly society, yet considered themselves above the ideals that they themselves claimed to uphold. Miko tried to fall in line with the Detect Evil and Eradicate it policy of the Sapphire Guard, but fell apart when her idol fell from grace, and as a result she Fell, taking her fallen pride with her to the grave at the fall of her blade, in her final moments denouncing everything she originally stood for. Malack hid behind his zen, fatalist attitude, and attempted to hide his true nature. He then hid from the sun, keeping him alive despite claiming to embrace death, and when his eternal reward ceased hiding from him he tried to hide again but could not hide from the fury of Nale, who nailed him, leaving nothing but ashes, gloats, and regret.
Also their names start with the same letter. THEORY CONFIRMED.

Cavenskull

2014-09-30, 12:54 AM

I also really liked Malack as a villain, although he's not my absolute favorite. Don't who this "Malak" y'all keep talking about is.

You accidentally a word. :smallwink:

Murk

2014-09-30, 03:44 AM

To be fair to Malack, he was on fire, or effectively so, at the time he lost his cool. You can genuinely believe in accepting your fate, but still be "MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP!" if someone goes out of their way to inflict agony on you.

Exactly. If your one true personality only shows when you're burning, we luckily won't see the true personalities of most people. And if it's only applicable to such rare situations, is it really your true personality?
Malack was a cool guy. Nergal probably loved him.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-09-30, 05:01 AM

You accidentally a word. :smallwink:

Damn. I think it's an unwritten rule of the universe that when correcting someone's spelling you make a grammatical error of your own.

Timy

2014-09-30, 06:54 AM

Damn. I think it's an unwritten rule of the universe that when correcting someone's spelling you make a grammatical error of your own.

I guess you could say "pun intended" ^^

Peelee

2014-09-30, 10:06 AM

I guess you could say "pun intended" ^^

The pedant in me feels compelled to point out that "pun not intended" basically means "I didn't notice I made a pun, but totally check it out!" while "pun intended" basically means " HEY YOU GUYS CHECK OUT THIS PUN I MADE!" In either case, it's smoother to let it be.

Jasdoif

2014-09-30, 11:08 AM

Damn. I think it's an unwritten rule of the universe that when correcting someone's spelling you make a grammatical error of your own.That rule's been codified as Muphry's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law).

evileeyore

2014-09-30, 11:22 AM

Malak was a selfish, egotistical, overconfident, chump and died a chump's death.

Haldir

2014-09-30, 12:04 PM

Did you miss the part where he was actually terrified of dying and begged his god to save him? Malak was a hypocrite. He was a priest of death who advocated everyone accept their fates but himself. He was anything but balanced and zen. His grand scheme, as already said, was cliched and ridiculous. It would have lasted five minutes before the elves took one look and said "Oh hell no.". Or at least the nearest group of heroes. He didn't care about life at all, he only cared about killing as many things as possible so his god would look favorably on him.

Both he and Tarquin talked the talk, but faltered when it came time to walk the walk. And in Malak's case, his talk was a bit shortsighted and self destructive.

I don't see why fear of death ruins the dichotomy or the zen. The nature of life is to struggle against death. Malak didn't do anything to upset that balance as I described it, in the end he was still a servant to it, and wanted to continue being a servant to it, much in the way he monologues his worldview to Durkon in their battle

As for his "ridiculous" plan to efficiently kill many people in service to his ideals... I think you'll find that history is full of the exact same situation with an alteration on the ideals. Perhaps you might substitute the word "cliche" with "consistent with the nature of sentient beings as we understand them." No...too long, forget I mentioned it at all.

KillianHawkeye

2014-09-30, 02:25 PM

Like Malack, Miko's character was disappointing us several times, when she was revealed as how she really was. Time and time again, even. And just like Malack, people tried to overlook those clear signs of her true ways. I've seen people trying to argue in favor of Thog, of Nale, of Tsukiko. Unerringly evil and/or deranged persons, who never changed. Malack was one of those. We have to get over them.

I would say that it's a testament to Rich's writing skill that he is able to make utterly horrible people still be likeable (arguably more likeable than the story's main characters). Either that, or it's a terrible indictment against modern society that we prefer the depraved and sinister over the just and righteous. For my own sanity, I'll stick with praising The Giant's writing.

evileeyore

2014-09-30, 02:57 PM

Either that, or it's a terrible indictment against modern society that we prefer the depraved and sinister over the just and righteous.
Whom* in this comic has been entirely just and righteous?

That said, aside from a handful of (outspoken) misguided posters** most of the forumites don't root for the bad guys.

* Aside obviously from a handful of Paladins, familiars, and animal companions?

** I am not misguided, my love of Miko is increased by her insanity, I am not overlooking or glossing over it.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-09-30, 04:34 PM

That rule's been codified as Muphry's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law).

Okay, scratch out unwritten then. That's an excellent name for it, though.

Cartographer7

2014-09-30, 09:06 PM

Well, he doesn't really need sustainability, does he? He's not running a company for profit, he's paying homage to his deity. Sacrificing a continent's worth of people is a pretty honkin' big sacrifice, with a high probability to never be matched. I mean, yeah, more people would be a bigger tribute, but that's like a multi-billionaire complaining he's not a double-multi-billionaire.

Malack wasn't planning to just kill people en masse to satisfy his death God, he was going to set up slaughterhouses for humans (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?273945-Triggering-content-in-875/page5&p=14808112#post14808112) to feed a vampire ruling class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?273945-Triggering-content-in-875/page5&p=14808225#post14808225). So he actually does care about sustainability.

brian 333

2014-09-30, 09:37 PM

Timy

2014-10-01, 03:50 AM

The pedant in me feels compelled to point out that "pun not intended" basically means "I didn't notice I made a pun, but totally check it out!" while "pun intended" basically means " HEY YOU GUYS CHECK OUT THIS PUN I MADE!" In either case, it's smoother to let it be.

Of course ! It was just that the missing word seemed so obvious that I couldn't imagine it being unintended. And so I thought calling it "a grammatical error" was a little bit off...

(and for those who would like to point out errors, feel free to point mine by PM, I am not a native speaker and would like to improve.)

Respectfully

Timy D.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-10-01, 04:53 AM

Of course ! It was just that the missing word seemed so obvious that I couldn't imagine it being unintended. And so I thought calling it "a grammatical error" was a little bit off...

(and for those who would like to point out errors, feel free to point mine by PM, I am not a native speaker and would like to improve.)

Respectfully

Timy D.

No, sadly I legitimately screwed up in that post. "Spelling not intended", I guess.

deimos3428

2014-10-01, 07:46 AM

It wasn't death that caused such fear in Malack, it was eternal non-existence.Nothing scarier for a high priest than being forced into an atheist's concept of the afterlife.

Onyavar

2014-10-01, 04:23 PM

[...]

But Malack wasn't dying. [...]
Malack was being destroyed. His body, soul, everything, was being permanently erased from existence. There is no afterlife for an undead who is destroyed in the manner that Malack experienced. It wasn't death that caused such fear in Malack, it was eternal non-existence.

Wow, that never occured to me and if true really puts things into perspective: We humans eventually die, it's up to us how we deal with it.

Totally different concept for DnD characters, however, as Roy pointed out here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) They all know what awaits them, they don't need to believe: Some merge with their continuum, some go to an afterlife... and some are destroyed and out of the game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html) forever, as if touched by the snarl?

I'm not sure about the last one, it would also make sense for me if OotS vampires are outsiders like Celia, and aren't "utterly destroyed" but merely "disassembled, back into the pool".

Are there clues which one it is for vampires, from standard DnD or someplace in the comic?

Mike Havran

2014-10-01, 04:42 PM

Wow, that never occured to me and if true really puts things into perspective: We humans eventually die, it's up to us how we deal with it.

Totally different concept for DnD characters, however, as Roy pointed out here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) They all know what awaits them, they don't need to believe: Some merge with their continuum, some go to an afterlife... and some are destroyed and out of the game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html) forever, as if touched by the snarl?

I'm not sure about the last one, it would also make sense for me if OotS vampires are outsiders like Celia, and aren't "utterly destroyed" but merely "disassembled, back into the pool".

Are there clues which one it is for vampires, from standard DnD or someplace in the comic?I think vampires are similar to outsiders like Celia in this matter. Durkula seems to have emerged from negative energy of Hel's halls when Durkon was vamped, so he will probably dissolve back into it when he's destroyed.

Did you miss the part where he was actually terrified of dying and begged his god to save him? Malak was a hypocrite. He was a priest of death who advocated everyone accept their fates but himself.
Just because he acted and spoke different from his usual way when he was burning to his death (or equivalent of human being dissolved alive in caustic acid) doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Keltest

2014-10-01, 04:45 PM

I think vampires are similar to outsiders like Celia in this matter. Durkula seems to have emerged from negative energy of Hel's halls when Durkon was vamped, so he will probably dissolve back into it when he's destroyed.

it is, quite frankly, a largely semantic difference anyway. Whether you are unmade by the snarl, or your component energy is assimilated and used by something else, you as an entity cease to exist.

Onyavar

2014-10-02, 12:57 AM

it is, quite frankly, a largely semantic difference anyway. Whether you are unmade by the snarl, or your component energy is assimilated and used by something else, you as an entity cease to exist.

As far as I understood "merge back" not only means the body matter, but also the experiences and feelings. Of course, the entity ceases to exist, and the continuum/plane of origin is not a conscious mother entity, but "newborns" might draw from the experiences, in whatever way.

If we had proof something like that would happen with us humans upon death, we wouldn't fear death as much, I wager.

(If we had certain proof that we are "unmade" like by the snarl, we heckuvahell SHOULD fear death.)

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-10-02, 04:52 AM

it is, quite frankly, a largely semantic difference anyway. Whether you are unmade by the snarl, or your component energy is assimilated and used by something else, you as an entity cease to exist.

Well, there is a difference in that when killed by the Snarl, there is no way to bring you back, whereas Outsiders can be restored to life (although vampires can't, most likely).

zinycor

2014-10-02, 05:43 AM

Whom* in this comic has been entirely just and righteous?

That said, aside from a handful of (outspoken) misguided posters** most of the forumites don't root for the bad guys.

* Aside obviously from a handful of Paladins, familiars, and animal companions?

** I am not misguided, my love of Miko is increased by her insanity, I am not overlooking or glossing over it.

WHAT?!! how could you know who the forumites root for?! am pretty sure there are many people plike me rooting for great villains!

evileeyore

2014-10-02, 07:19 AM

WHAT?!! how could you know who the forumites root for?!
By reading posts. Like this one.

am pretty sure there are many people plike me rooting for great villains!
Hmmm. Well you obviously don't root for Grammar Nazi or The Spellinisti. Maybe you favor Typo Gremlin?

Heksefatter

2014-10-02, 08:28 AM

Some folks have made the claim that Malack failed to 'walk the walk' when he died by screaming for Nergal to intervene on his behalf rather than embracing death like a good little nihilist.

But Malack wasn't dying. His soul wasn't being rendered to its eternal reward. He wasn't taking his place at the foot of Nergal's throne.

Malack was being destroyed. His body, soul, everything, was being permanently erased from existence. There is no afterlife for an undead who is destroyed in the manner that Malack experienced. It wasn't death that caused such fear in Malack, it was eternal non-existence.

Hmmmm, I don't think we know that, and I am not sure if the Giant has defined that, even to himself. I believe he said something about not wanting to define the metaphysics of his world unless he had to.

That said, it is highly plausible, and if I had to take the wager, I'd say you are right and that Malack's spirit returning to Nergal somehow is the less likely occurence. I wouldn't rule it out, though.

Psyren

2014-10-02, 09:27 AM

I seem to remember a lot of people swooning for Tarquin prior to "kill the ones in the crater."

(Though I must confess a certain curiosity at what Rob Redblade and Murkon Lightninghammer would have been like :smallbiggrin:)

My personal favorite villain is still Redcloak, though Durkula's constant exasperation with his dayjob (nightjob?) is winning me over quickly.

Peelee

2014-10-02, 10:41 AM

By reading posts. Like this one.

Do you agree there is a fundamental difference between liking a villain and rooting for a villain? If yes, then your quoted answer is incorrect. If no, then we're in for a much longer conversation.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-10-02, 10:47 AM

Hmmm. Well you obviously don't root for Grammar Nazi or The Spellinisti. Maybe you favor Typo Gremlin?

Oh come on, don't misuse "whom" then make fun of someone's grammar :P

Keltest

2014-10-02, 10:48 AM

Do you agree there is a fundamental difference between liking a villain and rooting for a villain? If yes, then your quoted answer is incorrect. If no, then we're in for a much longer conversation.

How is their answer incorrect? Are you suggesting that he cant understand the thought of posters by reading their posts, or are you referring to a different answer?

Peelee

2014-10-02, 11:00 AM

How is their answer incorrect? Are you suggesting that he cant understand the thought of posters by reading their posts, or are you referring to a different answer?

I'm saying he can't infer whether someone roots for a villain solely from someone mentioning they like the villain as an antagonist.

brian 333

2014-10-02, 11:02 AM

I admit that I don't have 'The Word Of The Giant' on this, but I refer to the Monster Manual 3.0, page 222,
Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight disorients it: it can take only partial actions and is destroyed utterly on the next round if it cannot escape.

Contrasted with,
Driving a wooden stake through a vampire's heart instantly slays the monster. However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the body is destroyed.

From this I gather that slaying a vampire, (by reducing his HP to 0 or staking him,) is different from destroying a vampire, (via exposure to sunlight or immersion in running water.) In #907 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) Nale expressly states he destroyed Malack, not that he slew him, killed him, or gave him a wedgie. This to me infers an irrevocable end to Malack, not the minor inconvenience of having to use the revolving door, which theory is confirmed by Laurin in #914 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html)

rodneyAnonymous

2014-10-02, 11:51 AM

Slay kill and destroy are near-synonyms in D&D rules. Malack (or Nale) can't be resurrected because the ashes were scattered and lost.

martianmister

2014-10-02, 01:14 PM

Malak? He's average for me.
http://cdn3.volusion.com/owxfh.rekky/v/vspfiles/photos/80271-5.jpg?1404811753

Heksefatter

2014-10-02, 01:39 PM

I admit that I don't have 'The Word Of The Giant' on this, but I refer to the Monster Manual 3.0, page 222,

Contrasted with,

From this I gather that slaying a vampire, (by reducing his HP to 0 or staking him,) is different from destroying a vampire, (via exposure to sunlight or immersion in running water.) In #907 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) Nale expressly states he destroyed Malack, not that he slew him, killed him, or gave him a wedgie. This to me infers an irrevocable end to Malack, not the minor inconvenience of having to use the revolving door, which theory is confirmed by Laurin in #914 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html)

To me this is not very convincing. The best argument in favour of your theory is that it fits like a glove with the metaphysics of the Stick-verse.

If we look at Monsters Manual, the vampire is destroyed in the circumstances you mention. However, it does not say what happens to the vampire's spirit afterwards. It is entirely possible that the spirit returns to where it came from, but that the link which tied it to the vampiric body is destroyed.

For how would you restore the vampire by normal means? If you try to raise it, you would raise the original being, NOT the vampire. That is destruction of the vampire, even if the dark spirit went somewhere else.

Furthermore, the Monster's Manual or the D&D rules do not bind the Giant to anything. He has stated as much. It is pretty clear that he works with his own metaphysics and departs from D&D whenever he feels it would make a better story.

Also, it is uncertain whether in the core D&D-verse, the vampire's spirit is something different from the original spirit from mortal life. There are some inconsistencies, but I am personally of the opinion that the gist in D&D is that the spirit IS the same, but it is (almost always) corrupted by the negative energy infusing the vampire. But this is a minor matter, with no effect on the Stick-verse.

Psyren

2014-10-02, 02:00 PM

Slay kill and destroy are near-synonyms in D&D rules. Malack (or Nale) can't be resurrected because the ashes were scattered and lost.

More important is the qualifier "utterly" - nothing remains for it to regenerate from,, whether ashes or even a gaseous form.

Jasdoif

2014-10-02, 03:08 PM

I admit that I don't have 'The Word Of The Giant' on this....That, we can help you out with:

He's dead.

That's the main reason why I made sure to show him in gaseous form during the Durkon/Malack fight, because that showed that when a vampire is gaseous, they take their equipment with them. Malack's stuff is still there. Hence, he's ash.
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.
....I assure you that if the D&D rules gave vampires 3 rounds before sun-death, I would have spent one of those rounds on a Word of Recall attempt that was stopped by Z somehow. But when I only had one round, I chose to use it showing that Malack wanted to kill Nale just as much as Nale wanted to kill Malack. Because as I've said before, I care more about the emotional content of the story than I do about plausibility. I would rather have a story that felt right and was riddled with logical errors than a story that was logically flawless but repetitive and dull.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-10-02, 04:49 PM

"Destroy" tends to be used with regards to undead, since they technically can't be killed, being undead. So, saying that Malack is destroyed is around the same as saying he's been killed. Undead are much harder to restore to life than living beings though, and since none of his body remains (and it would pretty much go against Word of Giant) it is extremely unlikely he's returning in any form.

evileeyore

2014-10-02, 08:51 PM

My personal favorite villain is still Redcloak...
Ditto. And due to my personal D&D politics I almost don't consider him a villain.

Having created a Xykon is what tips him from "Freedom Fighting Antagonist" to "Villain".

Do you agree there is a fundamental difference between liking a villain and rooting for a villain?
Yes.

zinycor

2014-10-03, 07:29 AM

By reading posts. Like this one.

Hmmm. Well you obviously don't root for Grammar Nazi or The Spellinisti. Maybe you favor Typo Gremlin?

... :smallconfused:

didn't expect to be criticized for grammar errors on a forum that so far has been very tolerant to those who don't have english as a first language, but i guess there is a first for everything, even stupid things like that.