-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
If Malack didn't actually fall and lose all his clerical abilities, then he still has two domains. The question, assuming (not a terribly good assumption) that Rich gives two snaps what domains Malack has, is whether he:
1) Went by the letter of the rules for domains and Malack, regardless of his alignment, has two domains from that list. Malack might have the Chaos domain while being Lawful.
2) House-ruled/interpreted that vampire clerics' normal access to the Chaos and Evil domains is based on their alignment being Always Chaotic Evil, such that a Lawful Evil vampire has access to the Law and Evil domains instead.
3) House-ruled/interpreted that a cleric of a Lawful Evil deity in good standing, upon becoming a vampire but remaining a cleric of a Lawful Evil deity in good standing, still has access to all that deity's domains as per usual.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bling Cat
According to the SRD, vampire clerics can only choose from a pool of four domains, Destruction, Chaos, Evil or Trickery. I may be reading it wrong, but since we know he's almost certainly not chaotic and he's cast spells from the destruction domain,
The spell he's cast so far from the Destruction domain is Harm, which also shows up on the main cleric list; so that doesn't prove he has that domain.
Interestingly, RAW points out that vampires are easy to detect because they cast no shadows... but we also know that there are no shadows in a friggin' stick figure comic, so that would make vampires hard to detct :smallamused:
Aside from that, there's numerous spells or items that Malack could have used. Given that these guys run the empire, it's not all that hard for them to ensure there's no running water in inconvenient locations, particularly considering we're in a desert here.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
I posted this mear hours before Malack's reveal, so this probably was missed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Either has dex 15 or wears light or no armor, to use two-weapon pounce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Techwarrior
Belkar's dex is completely immaterial, unless he spent character feats on Greater Two Weapon Fighting. If we accept that he uses the two weapon fighting style, we can prove that he didn't change out of armor when he full-attacks
here getting six attacks after
using Two Weapon Pounce here.
Now, if he
doesn't have the TWF combat style (I will be confused) at some point he should have done something other than TWF, and he has to have a Dex of 19. However, that's unlikely enough that we should dismiss it. We do have his Two Weapon Fighting feats listed as bonuses, indicating they're from his combat style. Therefore, he doesn't have to use
any dex at all.
Also, I'm pretty sure that proves he normally wears light or no armor.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
The former is proven by a cursory read-thru of the comic, the latter a cursory read-thru of this topic.
You have still not provided evidence of either statement. Where exactly can you find definitive evidence that says Malack is Evil? Where can you find evidence that we are deluding ourselves?
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Techwarrior
You have still not provided evidence of either statement. Where exactly can you find definitive evidence that says Malack is Evil? Where can you find evidence that we are deluding ourselves?
I don't need to approach this with all of the assiduity of a scientific study. Good and evil are clearly defined within the context of this comic. Characters delude themselves from time-to-time, and their motives may be pure, but their actions have always defined them.
Redcloak is evil because, despite wanting to improve the lives of goblins, he goes about it by murdering innocents to further his plans.
Belkar is evil because, despite doing much good in the course of adventuring with the order, when left to his own devices he kills indiscriminately.
Malack is evil because he's the head Cleric of an evil empire, has partnered with a vicious, bloodthirsty dictator for 35 years, and has now demonstrated the propensity to kill out of loyalty to said dictator.
Also there's the whole part where he's converting a living creature into an undead monstrosity, presumably against its will. That kinda defines an evil act as far as I know.
My second hypothesis is proven by taking everything I just said and looking at how so many of you are ignoring it because you don't want to believe you'd root for a bad guy.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
I don't need to approach this with all of the assiduity of a scientific study. Good and evil are clearly defined within the context of this comic. Characters delude themselves from time-to-time, and their motives may be pure, but their actions have always defined them.
This is the geekery thread. If it hasn't been cross-examined by at least 3 certified geeks, set on fire, analyzed molecularly, been subject to specific-gravity tests, and sent to hell to be reviewed by a panel of certified lawyers, it isn't credible.
Jokes aside, yes you do need to study it scientifically here.
Quote:
Redcloak is evil because, despite wanting to improve the lives of goblins, he goes about it by murdering innocents to further his plans.
Belkar is evil because, despite doing much good in the course of adventuring with the order, when left to his own devices he kills indiscriminately.
These characters are not part of the discussion and listed as evil.
Quote:
Malack is evil because he's the head Cleric of an evil empire, has partnered with a vicious, bloodthirsty dictator for 35 years, and has now demonstrated the propensity to kill out of loyalty to said dictator.
For all we know, Malack could be the Roy of the Tarquin plan. This is certainly suggestive of a Lawful alignment, but he could spend his time casting Cure Light Wounds, Mass on the orphans to Atone for his misdeeds. Without connecting the vicious, bloodthirsty dictator as his personal responsibility, Tarquin's actions rest on his own soul.
Quote:
Also there's the whole part where he's converting a living creature into an undead monstrosity, presumably against its will. That kinda defines an evil act as far as I know.
Evil is defined as the lack of care for the rights for innocent creatures. Belkar who
Quote:
is evil because, despite doing much good in the course of adventuring with the order, when left to his own devices he kills indiscriminately.
does not qualify as 'innocent.'
Now, do you have any evidence that, from a rules perspective, defines Malack as Evil?
Quote:
My second hypothesis is proven by taking everything I just said and looking at how so many of you are ignoring it because you don't want to believe you'd root for a bad guy.
I don't want to believe Malack is non-evil. It is much better for certain points (such as Lawful Evil Lizardfolk/Lawful Good Dwarf friendship) if he is evil. I can root for whoever I want because that's my choice. It doesn't make me delusional if I did ignore those things either. However, your assertion that he is Evil is wrong, using that information as evidence.
I ask again, do you have any other evidence?
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
EatAtEmrakuls, the standards in this thread are ridiculously high if you want to put an "Evil" label on the character sheet. You basically have to to catch the character confessing they are evil.
This results in a lot of uncertainty, but it ensures the stats we do have are really solid.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
Also there's the whole part where he's converting a living creature into an undead monstrosity, presumably against its will. That kinda defines an evil act as far as I know.
Although I completely agree with you that Malack is almost certainly Evil with a capital E, bear in mind that indiscriminatingly killing perhaps thousands of sentient creatures apparently wasn't enough to shake V out of Neutral.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rgrekejin
Although I completely agree with you that Malack is almost certainly Evil with a capital E, bear in mind that indiscriminatingly killing perhaps thousands of sentient creatures apparently wasn't enough to shake V out of Neutral.
Yeah that's another one that's completely bunk, and has been for almost 100 strips now.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
Yeah that's another one that's completely bunk, and has been for almost 100 strips now.
My point is that, as a result of that, the standard of evidence here is perhaps unrealistically high now.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rgrekejin
My point is that, as a result of that, the standard of evidence here is perhaps unrealistically high now.
It's not the standard of evidence. Belkar's level was pegged based on number of cartoon swipes in a single fight without a response by Roy. That's shoddy evidence on a great day.
It's the way evidence has been interpreted. Rather than go by the simplest explanation and using that to propel the science of it all forward, every single contingency possible has to be eliminated for anything to be redefined.
You would need an Occam's Mach Fusion Razor to fix the mess of specious arguments and backwards logic that's been taken seriously lately.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
When you have a vampire cleric of a god of death and destruction that is a high-ranking member in a tyrannical dictatorship which has demonstrated little respect for the sanctity of innocent life, your base assumption is EVIL until proven otherwise, NOT Neutral.
Assumptions have no space in a thread devoted to the collection of the known facts about the characters' statistics.
Or anything really.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
It's not the standard of evidence. Belkar's level was pegged based on number of cartoon swipes in a single fight without a response by Roy. That's shoddy evidence on a great day.
I will admit I too thought that particular interpretation to be pretty questionable, since I don't think it's completely obvious that what we're seeing there is really only a single round, and accepting the interpretation that he was making all those attacks in the same round gives him a higher confirmed level than any other member of the party. It seems to me like that's an awfully large claim to make off of a single panel's worth of evidence. But other than that, though, I think the thread's been pretty solid thus far.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EatAtEmrakuls
You respond to one word and ignore the rest.
Just stop.
That was the only part of your post I could respond to. The entire rest of your post was either pointed comments directed at me or the thread, or discussion of other things, during which you said that you didn't care enough to bring actual evidence of your claim.
I've read through the Xykon stuff. It seems to me that that was more of a flame war than actual discussion, which we've since tried to avoid by only including the things we can take as fact. I don't think you've proved that Malack is evil. You've pointed at things done around him and said "I just know, because he's a Vampire, and your delusional for not believing me," but you haven't given any evidence to back up your claims.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2323mike
I'm not sure about this, but if he was a cleric before he became a vampire and had like, Law and Destruction as his domains, does that mean his domains vanished and he needs to pick two out of the four mentioned here, or just that he lost his Law domain and now he has just one?
I'm not sure. It can also be read that he keeps his previous domains and gets to add 2 new ones. I think the correct rules interpretation is that his domains vanished and he needs to pick 2 new ones. If I was DMing a game, that's probably what I'd rules, anyway. But if I was writing the comic, I think I'd be inclined to go with "he keeps his previous domains and gets to add 2 new ones".
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Techwarrior
I don't think you've proved that Malack is evil. You've pointed at things done around him and said "I just know, because he's a Vampire, and your delusional for not believing me," but you haven't given any evidence to back up your claims.
Well, let me take a crack at it. As we all know, in the Vampire statblock, it explicitly says that vampires are always evil. Granted, we know that Rich isn't the biggest fan of the alignments that come included in the statblock, but the one explicit exception he spelled out was "leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural - if it exists at all - and away from the biological creatures". I'm pretty sure the vampires qualify as "overtly supernatural". Undead, at least from what we've seen in the comic, really are always evil. Even when Haley and Belkar are theorizing about Roy coming back as undead, they assume he's going to be evil, even if he is free willed. And why not? They're hollow mockeries of life animated by dark and terrible energies too horrible to imagine. For those reasons, I think we're actually safe taking the statblock's word on this matter, and Malack should be treated as Evil unless proven otherwise, nevermind the fact that virtually all of the circumstantial evidence corroborates the assertion that he's evil.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
I did a bit of googling and found this old link. Apparently someone had the same basic question regarding vampire clerics and domains that this thread does and decided to ask Skip Williams about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip Williams
If you don't know who the vampire's deity is, choose from the listed domains, If you know who the deity is, pick appropriate domains.
No, you do not automatically lose current domains and gain the listed ones (and you still only get two).
Granted, this was old enough to be 3.0, not 3.5, but it doesn't look like the rules have changed on vampires much, so this might at the very least shed a bit of light on Malack's domains. Or I might be totally and completely off-base.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
I'm confused. Ignoring the vampire is always evil thing for now(I accept the idea that a vampire can be non-evil, we have examples in actual books such as Jandar Sunstar), how can Malack be not evil based on his actions? D&D is pretty strict about alignment and killing an unwilling individual, even an evil one, and transforming them into a creature that requires draining life force counts as evil under the D&D alignment system. The books leave no questions at all about this. Creating sentient evil undead=evil act. Hell, creating non-sentient neutral undead is an evil act(Animate Dead has the evil descriptor). He's not out to make Belkar face punishment for his actions or try and redeem Tarquin. He wants another vampire companion and by Nergal he's going to have one, whether or not that person wants to be one. That is an evil act. An indisputably evil one. This is combined with him actively hunting down a party he knows is good aligned. Tarquin himself even admits that the crew is obviously trying to stop some greater evil if they can't even take time to try and stop his evil empire plan. Then we have the more circumstantial evidence. He's been helping Tarquin for decades in establishing their empires. He's not an unknowing patsy. He knows damn well what he's doing. The neutral part of the evil versus neutral went out the door when he knowingly contributed to the deaths of thousands to help Tarquin with his agenda. Malack is cultured and quite likeable. But he's clearly evil under the official rules of D&D and has shown no desire to redeem himself. Which is the big difference between him and V(who while admittedly committing an even greater act of evil, clearly feels remorse and is trying to redeem himself. Which is why he's not evil. He almost crossed that line. Hell for awhile(Kubota arc through Dragon arc) might have actually been Neutral Evil in alignment, but he's walking the long road back even if he's doing it rather messily at times).
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Also, regarding alignment, Rich seems to be willing to consider vampires that are not-quite-so-Evil (as he does with many traditionally-evil races)
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Guys, allow me to cite the oldest question from our FAQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Q: A character undertook this heinous/awesome/dutiful/impulsive/meh action. Does that mean they are now evil/good/lawful/chaotic/neutral?
No. As seen in a thousand forum threads, people have different ideas about alignment, and what defines and changes them. The alignments posted here, wherever possible, are taken from the character's own mouth, someone else in a position to know their alignment, or their use of a spell/feat/whatever which has an alignment restriction. Kindly refrain from speculating from how a character's action changes their alignment, since it's not really something you can reason out with facts and numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Techwarrior
I posted this mear hours before Malack's reveal, so this probably was missed.
Yes, I'm afraid so. But I'm not quite following your point. By my reading of the feat, Belkar either requires dex 15 to to take it normally, or requires light or no armor to take it as a ranger feature. We don't know which of the two he's using. Frankly, it's likely that Belkar has both high dex and no armor, but I don't think we have evidence for either.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
As for whoever mentioned V not being shaken out of neutral by the Familicide, there is nothing to say that V wasn't evil for a time, then shifted back to neutral again. That isn't really an argument against Malack being Evil since we don't know where V stood in between casting Familicide and eventually repenting of it.
Basically everything about Malack points towards Evil. Arguing he isn't Evil is akin to arguing that Hilgya isn't evil, which a lot of people also argue, strangely.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Yes, I'm afraid so. But I'm not quite following your point. By my reading of the feat, Belkar either requires dex 15 to to take it normally, or requires light or no armor to take it as a ranger feature. We don't know which of the two he's using. Frankly, it's likely that Belkar has both high dex and no armor, but I don't think we have evidence for either.
It's not a matter of "taking it" as a ranger feature. He is either an archery specialization ranger or a two-weapon specialization ranger. He has always used two daggers. He has never used a bow. This is ambiguous?
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LuPuWei
I would argue that that comic is showing the opposite of what you say it does. Roy is conflicted about the need to kill sentient beings to keep himself alive, but he's clearly willing to do so. Being "conflicted" about doing evil doesn't make the things you do any less evil. Otherwise, you could make a good argument for Redcloak being neutral. Also, take into account that what we're looking at is "what Haley and Belkar think vampires might act like", rather than "what vampires actually act like".
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rgrekejin
I would argue that that comic is showing the opposite of what you say it does. Roy's conflicted about the need to kill sentient beings to keep himself alive, but he's clearly willing to do so. Being "conflicted" about doing evil doesn't make the things you do any less evil. Otherwise, you could make a good argument for Redcloak being neutral. Also, take into account that what we're looking at is "what Haley and Belkar think vampires might act like", rather than "what vampires actually act like".
OK, so lets go to what the only vampire in the strip has been doing: sitting around being good friends with a good-aligned priest. Helping said priest develop a mass version of a spell that will protect the priest and his (mostly) good-aligned party from undead evil powers. Maintaining control of himself and not resorting to murder when confronted with the killer of his progeny, out of loyalty and friendship. As far as anyone can tell from the comic, staying quite far from the daily running of the Empire of Blood.
All those actions suggest "neutral, with good tendencies, but primarily Legal" to me. The plan to rule the wastelands is not his, he might even find it disgusting, and yet he may have gone along with it because it was a better alternative to the chaos that preceded it, and had a chance of working. The end result is a much better situation for the masses, from a Legal point of view.
Do I think he is actually Legal Neutral? No. I don't know, and I don't really care what arbitrary alignment tag he would have in his non-existent character sheet. But I can see the above argument for what it is, which is Kurald Galain's point: difficult enough to tell one way or the other. Unless Malack comes out and specifies his own alignment, since good arguments can be made for both sides, it doesn't belong in this thread.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
OK, so lets go to what the only vampire in the strip has been doing: sitting around being good friends with a good-aligned priest. Helping said priest develop a mass version of a spell that will protect the priest and his (mostly) good-aligned party from undead evil powers. Maintaining control of himself and not resorting to murder when confronted with the killer of his progeny, out of loyalty and friendship. As far as anyone can tell from the comic, staying quite far from the daily running of the Empire of Blood.
All those actions suggest "neutral, with good tendencies, but primarily Legal" to me. The plan to rule the wastelands is not his, he might even find it disgusting, and yet he may have gone along with it because it was a better alternative to the chaos that preceded it, and had a chance of working. The end result is a much better situation for the masses, from a Legal point of view.
That's a pretty cherry-picked listing of Malack's actions so far, coupled with some unfounded assertions about what role Malack plays in the running of the Empire. But I suppose it does support your point that the data can be interpreted either way. I would note that he did attempt to murder Nale the first time he saw him, he simply failed to do so successfully. The second time, he was restrained by his and Tarquin's longstanding business relationship, which says more about where he sits on the law/chaos axis than the good/evil axis. That Malack is friends with a good-aligned cleric seems to be the only thing about him which doesn't tilt evil. He's a vampire, which are by default evil, he's a high-ranking official in a tyrannical despotism that slaughters subjects for its own amusement, he is a enthusiastic member of an evil adventuring party, he's willing to feed people to a red dragon based solely on the fact that they're inconvenient, and he is willing to turn unconsenting subjects into undead. Seriously, the evidence that he's evil is probably better than the evidence that he's lawful, and no one seems to question that assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
Do I think he is actually Legal Neutral? No. I don't know, and I don't really care what arbitrary alignment tag he would have in his non-existent character sheet. But I can see the above argument for what it is, which is Kurald Galain's point: difficult enough to tell one way or the other. Unless Malack comes out and specifies his own alignment, since good arguments can be made for both sides, it doesn't belong in this thread.
This entire thread is dedicated to using the evidence he have at hand to compile a list of relevant "character sheet" information. That you personally don't care about alignment does not in any way change the fact that it is a valid piece of character sheet data to pursue. I'm reminded of Kish's post upthread: technically speaking, we have no evidence that Belkar isn't an archery ranger who for some reason took all the two-weapon fighting feats, and just doesn't use his archery skills. But even though we can't prove that isn't what happened, we know that doing so is silly. The fact that he's a two-weapon fighting ranger, despite it never being explicitly said, is not really in doubt. Malack seems to be the new Belkar - no matter what he does, people are going to argue that he's not actually evil. Seriously, what's an acceptable level of proof? Do we need Word of God on alignment every time? Do we always take a character's word for it (in which case, Tarquin should probably be "unaligned", based on his unwillingness to place himself in Elan's "limited and unrealistic alignment system")? Or can we make common sense rulings based on a character's actions?
...by the way, I'd still like someone to tell me why we can't take the "always evil" listing in the Vampire statblock at face value, given that Vampires are one of the "overtly supernatural" exceptions that Rich spelled out when talking about inborn alignment.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Didn't the Giant say IF you're going to have inborn alignment, leave it to the overtly supernatural (presumably alluding to Outsiders, Undead, Constructs, and Elementals)? That doesn't mean the Giant himself uses inborn alignments, and even then inborn doesn't mean non-changing.
Mind you, I've always felt Malack was LE, I'm just playing Nergal's Advocate.
-
Re: Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rgrekejin
That you personally don't care about alignment does not in any way change the fact that it is a valid piece of character sheet data to pursue.
Again: I'm not trying to argue that he is or isn't evil, only restating Kurald's point that alignment, unlike feats and levels, is too wishy-washy a subject to nail down. It is in the FAQ for a reason, that reason being that long and painful experience in the forum is that there is never consensus.
rgrekejin, the point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot that can be said about Malack's actions and how a complex character fits in an inflexible reductionist alignment system. I would happily cheer any such discussion in this forum - I'm sure interesting insights can be reached. I just believe that the discussion should be held away from this thread, which is useful only as long as its conclusions are as ironclad as possible.
TL;DR: In theory, we should be able to figure it out alignments. In practice, we can't.
Grey Wolf