So, Malack...

[Incom]

To paraphrase myself from the 870 thread:

Two questions for everyone here.

1. Which of Malack's actions are inconsistent with a LN character?
2. Which of Malack's actions are inconsistent with a LE character?

I don't think you'll find very many of either. Malack allows a lot of evil to happen around him without interfering -- but that's not really out of character for LN (consider for a second the definition of neutral); Malack made easy friends with a LG cleric -- but that's not impossible for a LE character (see Tarquin and Elan; though they have the advantage of being family, they're also even farther apart on the alignment chart). Malack vamp'd (/is currently attempting to vamp) Belkar without his permission, but would Belkar really turn that sort of thing down if given the choice--especially given he's already Evil? And Malack has shown that he's willing to postpone a grudge for the sake of a greater goal, which is a common good trait--but the goal in this case isn't particularly noble.

As I see it Malack could go either way. I personally find LN Malack more interesting than LE Malack, but my opinion on that isn't wholly relevant.

Really, the only actively evil thing I've seen Malack do is vamping Belkar, and that isn't as much because of the consent thing (though that's still evil) so much as it is because he's making someone CE even stronger.

Thinking it over, I wouldn't be altogether surprised if Malack was LN-with-evil-tendencies before and fell to LE-with-morally-neutral-tendencies in 870. (That's also an option.)

--------------------------------

As for the current discussion about deception: nobody's pointed out that Malack's vampirism being well known would not only make him look like a hypocrite (to people who see undeath as a perversion of death) but would also make him a target? Lying to stay alive is not evil.