The real reason Nale destroyed Mallack (and why he died a true hero)

[hroþila]

Does anyone else read Mallard in the title? Just me?

[Squire Doodad]

Does anyone else read Mallard in the title? Just me?

"Here lies Nale, slayer of ducks"

[brian 333]

Nale committed premeditated murder.

Certainly there was no law broken, but the fact remains that from any pov Nale plotted to take a sentient life without just cause. He could not claim self defense, protection of innocents, or even action for the public good. In fact, he was himself as much a danger to the public as Malack, and he was not deputized to dispense justice.

There is no heroic way to commit murder. It is always an act of Evil.

[Emanick]

Nale committed premeditated murder.

Certainly there was no law broken, but the fact remains that from any pov Nale plotted to take a sentient life without just cause. He could not claim self defense, protection of innocents, or even action for the public good. In fact, he was himself as much a danger to the public as Malack, and he was not deputized to dispense justice.

There is no heroic way to commit murder. It is always an act of Evil.

I disagree with almost all of this.

There probably was a law broken - killing the chancellor of the Empire of Blood is probably illegal even in the wastes of the desert (unless it's a Wooden Forest situation where there are "no laws for [him] to have broken" - but Tarquin seems like the type to have a code that makes it a crime against the Empire of Blood to murder any citizen or public official, either at home or abroad). He could certainly claim self-defense, as Malack was plotting to kill him imminently and striking first was his most realistic way to stave off being executed. Eliminating such a powerful evil character would also likely do a great deal to save innocent lives down the road, even if it is impossible to be certain. And it would certainly serve the public good to eliminate a being who plotted to turn the entire Western Continent into one giant factory farm where sentient beings were sacrificed to a death god.

Nale was certainly a danger to the public, but probably not as much of one, as his personal power was not as great. That's less important, though.

It's probably true that there is no heroic way to commit murder, and that murder is always Evil. But since murder is defined, more or less, as "unjustified killing," that's close to a tautology. The really tricky part is defining "murder" properly in a D&D setting, where the multiverse is full of superpowered villains too powerful to be held by jail cells, and where states are frequently dependent upon vigilantes to protect them from said villains.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Nale committed premeditated murder.

Certainly there was no law broken, but the fact remains that from any pov Nale plotted to take a sentient life without just cause. He could not claim self defense, protection of innocents, or even action for the public good. In fact, he was himself as much a danger to the public as Malack, and he was not deputized to dispense justice.

There is no heroic way to commit murder. It is always an act of Evil.

unless those beings are goblins or orcs, or any other being that is racially stereotyped as evil...

the above text is meant to be in blue....

[BasiliskSoldier]

Nale committed premeditated murder.

Certainly there was no law broken, but the fact remains that from any pov Nale plotted to take a sentient life without just cause. He could not claim self defense, protection of innocents, or even action for the public good. In fact, he was himself as much a danger to the public as Malack, and he was not deputized to dispense justice.

There is no heroic way to commit murder. It is always an act of Evil.

Malack was an evil vampire bent on consuming the entire continent into a totalitarian state ruled by an upper class of literal bloodsucking monsters who would commit industrialized mass-sacrifice of sentient beings. The scale he's thinking of is a 1000 sacrifices, daily, though admittedly in practice it'd probably come out to significantly less than that for reasons of both logistics and sustainability. "The Vampire says he's going to sacrifice at a rate of 1000 per day, but in practice he'd only be sacrificing at a rate of 475 per day" is still crazy monstrous.

Nale has never shown that level of monstrous, I do not see a way where he could be as much a danger to the public as Malack, and murdering Malack and his spawn, is both protecting innocents, an action for the public good and self-defense because Malack has, on multiple occasions, either threatened or attempted Nale's murder. Nale is a horrible, awful person, and Malack is so much worse. This is also ignoring the very real possibility that Nale's hatred of Malack isn't his normal petty bull****. For all we know, Malack did something genuinely awful to Nale or someone Nale cared about, in fact I think that's the more likely possibility.

I would argue, strongly, that Malack's death was a good act done with evil/neutral intentions. Nale was acting primarily out of self-interest, but that doesn't mean destroying Malack didn't save the entire western continent from a monster capable, willing, and fully intending to commit evil on a scale Nale could only dream of.

[mjasghar]

As shown by Roy’s interview with the deva intent is vital
Failing to stop a villain - resulting in millions of deaths - isn’t evil if you were in a position to do so and your tried, but failed.
One evil person killing another evil person out of self preservation isn’t an act of good intent. At best it’s neutral.
Take these 2 points
1) Nale survives and becomes a ruler. One with a succubus partner. He shows all the signs of being a megalomaniac. Think Tarquin but no subtle attempts to seem nice. A society that would also likely see many end up corrupted and so suffering in the afterlife as low level demonic cannon fodder
2)in the blood war demons kill devils and vice versa. By your logic these are effectively angelic beings since they are killing such evil beings. But that means both are angelic. Wait that means they are killing angels which makes them evil. Which makes the others angels for killing them. Uhh which ones again?!
Evil killing evil without good intent is still evil
The whole point about belkar is that the group is forcing him to use his murderous ways against a foe bent on mass evil. So with Belkar the good intent is there. And it’s clear that the result has been the beginnings of an alignment shift. He doesn’t go out of his way to be violently nasty to the general public. That’s not excusing his past activities but then we have the issue of d&d and post death atonement and purgatory.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Does anyone else read Mallard in the title? Just me?

Well, I didn’t at the time, but now, I can’t unsee it.

It’s actually substantially improved the thread for me, though, so thank you.

Grey Wolf

[Schroeswald]

Well, I didn’t at the time, but now, I can’t unsee it.

It’s actually substantially improved the thread for me, though, so thank you.

Grey Wolf

It’s also about a comic much closer to what we are actually reading.

[Morgana]

I think the Giant has said this before and I agree, that villains like Malack and Nale are all equally evil. Mallack is just in a better position to commit acts of evil, while also having the motivation of sacrificing for his god. If Nale could pull it off, and it was in any way benefitial to him, I have very little doubt that he would do the same as Malack.

[HorizonWalker]

We don't even have to speculate on whether or not Nale would kill a ton of innocents to serve his own selfish motives.

Because he's already done that before.

We saw him do it.

[Morgana]

I said that cause even his killing spree probably wouldn't match the people Malack would sacrifice in a day if his plan worked out. My point was that the number of victims doesn't necessarily make someone more or less evil

[Squire Doodad]

We don't even have to speculate on whether or not Nale would kill a ton of innocents to serve his own selfish motives.

Because he's already done that before.

We saw him do it.

And another time where we actually see him doing the deed.

Nale could have easily jeered at them or thrown something at the cops to get them to follow him; taking out the chief really didn't fulfill anything aside from a minute tactical advantage and an ego stroke.

I said that cause even his killing spree probably wouldn't match the people Malack would sacrifice in a day if his plan worked out. My point was that the number of victims doesn't necessarily make someone more or less evil

But slaughtering people for no real reason is bad regardless. So it doesn't really matter much.

[Malfarian]

So Nale didn't give us a reason why he hated Mallack, just saying it was a pretty long grudge.

But consider the following:
-Mallack was researching spells that allow a vampire to overcome their weaknesses, at least their dreaded sunlight.
-Mallack was researching spells that allow vampires to multiply multiple orders of magnitude faster than normal, a couple rounds instead of 3 days per spawn.
-Mallack was also researching anti-undead spells with secret backdoors somehow and infiltrating them in the forces of good so that adventurers who thought themselves warded against energy drain and whatnot would suddenly lose their protections.

Really, at this point one starts to realize that Mallack was one of the most dangerous beings in the world, somebody truly threatening all life in the world. And sure Mallack was holding back for now, but then he's an immortal vampire, he can play the long game, he may one day just decide to conquer the world. Meanwhile he would be researching even more hax spells. When you can just add secret backdoors and remove limitations and weakensses, there's no limit to what you can potentially do. And when Nale's father died, Mallack would fully inherit his empire and all its vast resources.

Then when Mallack comes out with a new spawn-disciple in the form of vampire Durkon, Nale realized there was no more waiting. The rest of the order of the Stick would soon follow, all mighty new vampires to support Mallack (besides Belkar, but then vampire Belkar would probably be too risky).

So Nale bravely took Mallack out, even if it mean drawing his father's wrath and revenge. A foolish father who thought it was fine to leave his empire to a vampire that's researching super spells that give the bloodsucking undead a massive edge over the living.

Nale may've been a villain most of his existence, but in the end he bravely sacrificed himself to stop a massive threat to all the living, even at the cost of his own life.

If Nale thought that, he would have CERTAINLY given us some dialogue about it, for that you can be certain.

[Fish]

By this reasoning, Roy intended for Xykon to destroy Azure City when he attacked Xykon with his broken sword. Ergo, Roy killed Shojo and caused Miko’s fall.

Except no. Just because one thing happens after another is not proof of any intent or purpose.

[Ruck]

I tried for so long to resist opening this thread based on the subject line and the fact that OP has been complaining in every single new-strip thread about an imaginary version of the comic only he is privy to.

I finally gave in. It did not disappoint.

[snowblizz]

I finally gave in. It did not disappoint.

Did you remember to grab a cookie from the jar at left side of the entrence?

It's a bit dark, easy to miss.

[Fish]

I tried for so long to resist opening this thread based on the subject line and the fact that OP has been complaining in every single new-strip thread...

I think deuterio has a villain-worship obsession, because most of the complaints are about how villains are misunderstood heroes. Either that, or deuterio has deliberately taken provocative stances in order to start arguments.

[Schroeswald]

I think deuterio has a villain-worship obsession, because most of the complaints are about how villains are misunderstood heroes. Either that, or deuterio has deliberately taken provocative stances in order to start arguments.

I’m reminded of a Star Wars book (mwahaha) where the council adopts this thing called Taras-chi where for the purposes of debate someone debates with an unrepresented point of view, maybe Deuterio is our Taras-Chi.

[Ruck]

I think deuterio has a villain-worship obsession, because most of the complaints are about how villains are misunderstood heroes. Either that, or deuterio has deliberately taken provocative stances in order to start arguments.

I remember a lot of complaints that Durkon and his family were "Mary Sues," and also multiple complaints about things that didn't actually happen the way deuterio described them.

[Squire Doodad]

Did you remember to grab a cookie from the jar at left side of the entrence?

It's a bit dark, easy to miss.

Oh! Cookies!

...this is a stale piece of matzah with some cocoa powder on top of it.

Wait, no, there are the cookies.

[RatElemental]

I’m reminded of a Star Wars book (mwahaha) where the council adopts this thing called Taras-chi where for the purposes of debate someone debates with an unrepresented point of view, maybe Deuterio is our Taras-Chi.

Isn't that more commonly called "playing devil's advocate"?

[Schroeswald]

Isn't that more commonly called "playing devil's advocate"?

Usually you sort of agree with the point when playing devil's advocate, as taras-chi you have no need to think the argument is at all correct, and its your job for any and all debates forever (like deuterio, always the devil's advocate), but yeah I guess.honestly I complete forgot that was like a thing for a minute there, but lets pretend I have reasoning :p

[RatElemental]

Usually you sort of agree with the point when playing devil's advocate

Actually not the case. You usually play devil's advocate in order to understand an argument better and make sure you aren't straw-manning it in your refutations of it. Assuming you're not doing it because you're part of a debate society/club and somebody has to try to defend what everyone thinks is indefensible.

But we all forget things. It happens.

[Schroeswald]

Actually not the case. You usually play devil's advocate in order to understand an argument better and make sure you aren't straw-manning it in your refutations of it. Assuming you're not doing it because you're part of a debate society/club and somebody has to try to defend what everyone thinks is indefensible.

But we all forget things. It happens.

Generally when I hear someone "playing devil's advocate" is when they give some sort of opinion (I support policy x), but then gives a counterpoint to that (say, well policy x costs a lot of money), so that then they or someone else will either explain why this counterpoint isn't true (policy x pays for itself), or that it doesn't outweigh the benefits (Policy x may cost a lot but it helps people too much), which isn't exactly the same as what you said (though it's similar). But yeah, my memory is really weird, I can easily remember some small detail of a Star Wars book but then it goes "who's John McCain? What's a devil's advocate? What's the name of one of my close-isn friends?"

[RatElemental]

Generally when I hear someone "playing devil's advocate" is when they give some sort of opinion (I support policy x), but then gives a counterpoint to that (say, well policy x costs a lot of money), so that then they or someone else will either explain why this counterpoint isn't true (policy x pays for itself), or that it doesn't outweigh the benefits (Policy x may cost a lot but it helps people too much), which isn't exactly the same as what you said (though it's similar).

That's actually just called anticipating counterpoints. Playing devil's advocate would be arguing from the beginning that you think policy x is a bad idea, and making a full case for that position. This would include also anticipating counterpoints in favor of policy x and offering reasoning that those points in favor of the policy are flawed.

[Schroeswald]

That's actually just called anticipating counterpoints. Playing devil's advocate would be arguing from the beginning that you think policy x is a bad idea, and making a full case for that position. This would include also anticipating counterpoints in favor of policy x and offering reasoning that those points in favor of the policy are flawed.

Eh, that's probably true and I didn't explain it well, usually it is every counterpoint all at once before explaining what's wrong, but generally that's what I see when I hear people say that they are playing devil's advocate, even if the actual definition (and the more formal use in debate club), is different.

[Phhase]

Nale is self-styled and unrepentantly evil. Not only that, but he aggressively prevents others from advocating for him (see: moments before death). Doing one thing that can be interpreted loosely as having a positive impact on the world for entirely selfish reasons does not erase a life of deliberate misdeeds.

...is what I would say if I didn't think OP posted bait designed to stir up a forum known for its strong archetype.

[Squire Doodad]

Nale is self-styled and unrepentantly evil. Not only that, but he aggressively prevents others from advocating for him (see: moments before death). Doing one thing that can be interpreted loosely as having a positive impact on the world for entirely selfish reasons does not erase a life of deliberate misdeeds.

I don't think he was preventing Tarquin from advocating for him. He was trying to disregard all of the "weak" rules his father had made for his party, and trying to spite Tarquin for not believing he could hold his own. He is arrogant and he is foolish and most certainly evil, but in that particular situation he didn't actually do it to prevent anyone from advocating for himself.

[HorizonWalker]

I don't think he was preventing Tarquin from advocating for him. He was trying to disregard all of the "weak" rules his father had made for his party, and trying to spite Tarquin for not believing he could hold his own. He is arrogant and he is foolish and most certainly evil, but in that particular situation he didn't actually do it to prevent anyone from advocating for himself.

He kinda did try to keep Tarquin from advocating for him. "I want nothing from you! I am my own man!" and all that.