So, Malack...

[Paseo H]

is he evil or Evil?

Not that I have a firm definition of the difference, it's just one of those things where you know it when you see it.

[Dr.Epic]

is he evil or Evil?

Not that I have a firm definition of the difference, it's just one of those things where you know it when you see it.

How are we supposed to answer if you don't even know the difference?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yes he is.

[Temotei]

Must a vampire be evil? Rich's world often runs on different rules than standard 3.5 D&D.

[Koo Rehtorb]

He generally seems to be sticking pretty closely to the prescribed alignments, in my opinion.

The hobgoblins that we've seen have certainly been "usually lawful evil", for example. What he does is spend some time exploring reasons why exactly those hobgoblins happen to be "usually evil".

The black dragon parent had pretty justified reasons for being furious with V, but, at the same time, did chose the evil path by planning to torture and murder some children over it. He gave us a look at its point of view, while still maintaining its evil alignment.

I fully expect Malack to follow the pattern of "Sometimes has some sympathetic traits, but is horribly evil at the same time."

[rodneyAnonymous]

Tarquin is (according to Elan) EVIL with all capital letters. Malack has been a close friend and co-conspirator of his for many years. That isn't an ironclad argument, but I think "Malack is also an extremely Bad Guy" is probable.

Not sure what the difference is, either, though. Is lowercase "evil" just a generally bad guy whereas uppercase "Evil" is a card-carrying villain? If so, yeah, Malack strikes me as a solid capital E.

[Paseo H]

Well the reason I can't come up with a solid definition is because there will always be exceptions or oversights, but we have the example of extreme Evil/EVIL villains like Xykon and Tarquin.

When I say "you know it when you see it," I was specifically thinking of this.

[Gift Jeraff]

Going by Xykon's distinction between Evil and evil in SoD, I wouldn't even consider Tarquin Evil, to be honest. And Malack seems far less worse than T.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Well, he hasn't been shown burning people alive. I think he would, but that is pure speculation. He did consider letting a red dragon eat Elan because he's either Nale or useless. And creating vampires is pretty bad, let alone being one. Anything else overtly wicked?

[Paseo H]

Going by Xykon's distinction between Evil and evil in SoD, I wouldn't even consider Tarquin Evil, to be honest.

I consider burning a bunch of escaped slaves alive just to make a welcome home sign for your son on par with loosing a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity on it into a group of paladins.

[Gift Jeraff]

I consider burning a bunch of escaped slaves alive just to make a welcome home sign for your son on par with loosing a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity on it into a group of paladins.

It's not his actions so much as it is his words and ideaology. All his talk about his methods being for the good of the people, moving into a world where no one has any reason to fight one another, forging stability, etc. would be more in line with "evil, but for a good cause."

[rodneyAnonymous]

Being a well-intentioned extremist is not inconsistent with also being a monstrous tyrant that burns people alive.

[Paseo H]

It's not his actions so much as it is his words and ideaology. All his talk about his methods being for the good of the people, moving into a world where no one has any reason to fight one another, forging stability, etc. would be more in line with "evil, but for a good cause."

I'd consider Redcloak closer to being a Well Intentioned Extremist, but there's plenty of room to argue otherwise in his case.

I consider Tarquin more someone who wants to grind the world into pieces and remake it in his own image. Nothing "well intentioned" about that at all.

[Terrador]

I'd consider Redcloak closer to being a Well Intentioned Extremist, but there's plenty of room to argue otherwise in his case.

I consider Tarquin more someone who wants to grind the world into pieces and remake it in his own image. Nothing "well intentioned" about that at all.

I don't know about that. I get the impression that a cessation of war on the Western Continent really is a part of why Tarquin put his master plan into action. Not his primary motivation, naturally, but I'd put good money on it being a fairly large deciding factor.

[Mike Havran]

So far, there hasn't been any ironclad or "mechanical" proof that Malack is Evil by the letter of alignment, but Lawful Evil is certainly the safest bet. As for whether he is evil, I personally think he isn't. There are a lot of arguments to be made, but since the Giant said more is to come about him, I think it's a bit premature discuss it now, because in the next strip Malack may pet Mr. Scruffy, or trip over a rock, and these same debates will flare up again.

So yeah, let's wait.

[Paseo H]

With respect, it seems to me that some people overthink it way too much.

Malack is knowingly involved with this evil arrangement, and was perfectly fine with what was presumably an innocent becoming a meal for a red dragon.

Anyone who thinks that this is not evil on its face is grasping at straws.

Which to me is why the debate is "is he evil or Evil."

[Reathin]

The only properly evil things we've seen Mal do so far is allowing the Empire of Blood to exist in its current form, what with the slavery and all that, and not really caring all that much if the Empress eats Elan (which was noted by a cold pragmatism. Either he takes the risk of allowing his children's killer to walk free, or he's not closer to finding Nale). His method of attaining subsistence may or may not affect that (does he need the blood of sapient creatures, for instance, and how does he go about getting it), but his vampirism does not directly warp his free will.

My gut says Malack is evil, but not Evil. He's more passively accepting of bad things than actively malevolent (save where Nale is involved, but I suspect my own reactions would be warped pretty extremely where my family's murders are involved), and certainly not gleefully dedicated to being a villain as Xykon is, but he doesn't seem to object all that much

[Kish]

Going by Xykon and Redcloak, the distinction seems to be largely in what the character in question won't do. Xykon has no moral limits. Tarquin doesn't seem to have any, although he often implies he does (and then trespasses them later, casually, without comment). Malack...has a lot of moral limits. Years without creating any new vampires because Nale killed three he considered to be his children, being reluctant to create undead in general, insisting mindless mummies be treated with respect when he does make them, not delegating Nale's death...

So, evil, not Evil. Although this thread is reminding me of the "which of Toede's traits show his nobility?" debate at the end of Lord Toede.

[King of Nowhere]

I think "neutral with evil tendencies" is not out of the table.
he allows evil to exist, but so far I haven't seen much evilness done by him. he consort with tarquin, who is evil, and tolerates the empress eating people, but he hasn't shown any interest in partecipating.

Myself, I am not sure. just because i haven't seen him intersted in evilness, it don't mean he is not.

[The_Tentacle]

I would lean towards lawful neutral or true neutral. After all, Nergal is the god of death, and so is neutral. I'm sure he isn't good because he tolerates the existence of the Empire of Blood, and he isn't chaotic because he's involved in an Empire. Lawful neutral seems like the best bet to me.

[Chantelune]

With respect, it seems to me that some people overthink it way too much.

Malack is knowingly involved with this evil arrangement, and was perfectly fine with what was presumably an innocent becoming a meal for a red dragon.

Anyone who thinks that this is not evil on its face is grasping at straws.

Which to me is why the debate is "is he evil or Evil."

Belkar is knowingly involved with this good quest about saving the world and protecting the gates, does this makes him good ? Nope, he's still evil. But we know through several evidences (and word of Giant) that he is. But we still haven't saw anything of the sort for Malack.

I don't say Malack might be good. At best, he might be something/neutral. But as claimed before, we still have no solid evidence that he's evil. Unless the comic stick to the "vampires are automaticaly evils", of course. As for his association with Tarquin & co, he might just share that it's best to manipulate three kingdoms into warring each-other and ruling with an iron fist to create some sort of stability instead of letting unchecked bloodshed all over the place.

Remember that neutral mean being both way or not caring about good or evil. Eck, even V who's true neutral did some really questionable things that lead to endless argument about her being evil or not. And I'm not talking about the Familicide stuff but things like harassing Belkar for fun and even willingly helping him doing evil acts, like using a kobold as a litterbox.

[Lesingnon]

Seeing as how Malack thinks it's a common misconception that gods of death and their clerics are necessarily evil, and believes that neutrality suits them better...I'd put my money on him being neutral.

[Raineh Daze]

And creating vampires is pretty bad, let alone being one.

I would refrain from passing moral judgement on someone for being killed by a vampire at some point. That is hardly a sound reason to declare someone as having done something 'bad'.

Seeing as how Malack thinks it's a common misconception that gods of death and their clerics are necessarily evil, and believes that neutrality suits them better...I'd put my money on him being neutral.

Well, he could be lying...

Overall, I'm of the opinion that Malack is either Lawful Neutral, verging on Evil, or Lawful Evil, verging on Neutral. More likely the former, because he's clearly less obvious about it than most everyone else with an Evil alignment.

[Paseo H]

Belkar is knowingly involved with this good quest about saving the world and protecting the gates, does this makes him good ? Nope, he's still evil. But we know through several evidences (and word of Giant) that he is. But we still haven't saw anything of the sort for Malack.

I don't say Malack might be good. At best, he might be something/neutral. But as claimed before, we still have no solid evidence that he's evil. Unless the comic stick to the "vampires are automaticaly evils", of course. As for his association with Tarquin & co, he might just share that it's best to manipulate three kingdoms into warring each-other and ruling with an iron fist to create some sort of stability instead of letting unchecked bloodshed all over the place.

Remember that neutral mean being both way or not caring about good or evil. Eck, even V who's true neutral did some really questionable things that lead to endless argument about her being evil or not. And I'm not talking about the Familicide stuff but things like harassing Belkar for fun and even willingly helping him doing evil acts, like using a kobold as a litterbox.

Nice try, but Belkar can't indulge his cupidity if the world's destroyed. It's in everyones interests, good and evil, to stop it.

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

[Raineh Daze]

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

Given the inherent sensationalism in newspapers, I would be more inclined to think that.

[Paseo H]

That's silly, but whatever.

Malack is absolutely merely evil, though arguably, Malack could have easily saved Elan, and of course the whole trying to turn Belkar thing.

[Mike Havran]

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

What does "a good chance" mean in your book? Would "Malack is a vampire" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 870? Would "V slaughtered Draketooths" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 841?

[Emmit Svenson]

Seeing as how Malack thinks it's a common misconception that gods of death and their clerics are necessarily evil, and believes that neutrality suits them better...I'd put my money on him being neutral.

Ah, but put that quote in context.

"If the power of death were truly evil, it would take only the good and heroic, wouldn't it?"

That sounds suspiciously like a alignment-flipped version of "only the good die young" and similar mournful sentiments.

I suspect this is Malack reflecting on the death of his vampire children, evil as he, taken too soon. A faithful servant of death, he can still regret that it separates him from those he cared for.

[Paseo H]

What does "a good chance" mean in your book? Would "Malack is a vampire" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 870? Would "V slaughtered Draketooths" statement had a good chance of being true prior strip 841?

I think the dissenters are extremely bored, or they believe that they must fight the good fight against someone who is "wrong on the internet."

Of course, got some stuff to do tommorow that I'm pretty stoked about, so I won't spend all day doing the latter myself.

[Chantelune]

Nice try, but Belkar can't indulge his cupidity if the world's destroyed. It's in everyones interests, good and evil, to stop it.

Are you under the impression that just because a thing can be argued, means that any nice sounding argument has a good chance of being true?

If Malack's crimes were, say, listed in a newspaper as an article rather than having the benefit of our omniscient reader perspective, would you say "eh, he probably has his reasons?"

No, I was under the impression that a debate was possible without such feeble ways to deny the other's argument, but guess you're proving me wrong. And hey, look, I can do it too !

If Malacks crimes were listed in a newspaper or anything, then that would be proof that he's evil, but see, that's the thing. So far, we don't know any crimes that Malack has commited that would prove him evil. The only solid evidence would be him being a vampire, but it remains to be confirmed that vampires in ootsverse are inherently evils. And his association in Tarquin's grand scheme could still be in range of him being neutral. I don't doubt he did evil acts, but so has V and she's still neutral. Same way that associating with the OOTS in order to save the world keep her neutral even if the rest of the party minus Belkar is good. As I said, neutrality goes both ways.

Now don't get me wrong, if the next strips and/or the Giant were to state Malack as evil, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. But for now, I'll refrain for asserting his alignement and stay aware that he might be neutral.