So, Malack...

[jere7my]

And, again, people who make that claim always seem to be arguing for a definition of "Neutral" which is more like "Uncaring Evil," and a definition of "Evil" which is restricted to "Sadistic Evil"

...but you apparently own that position openly, so I don't know what more there is to say.

D&D's Law/Chaos axis is cribbed from Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, in which the Lords of Law and the Lords of Chaos endlessly struggle for control. A lot of brutal and monstrous things are done in their names, in service of Law and Chaos, as are a lot of good and wondrous things. The moral axis doesn't enter into the equation — the struggle is between Law and Chaos, which (in this cosmology) is orthogonal to morality. Law and Chaos are real things, with real avatars and embodiments; we can't judge them like we can in the real world, in which laws can be evaluated on their justness.

Since D&D's alignment is fundamentally Moorcockian, you can have characters who are devoted to Law to such a degree that moral considerations don't have room to take root, who do both good and evil in the service of Law. In the real world, yes, we would judge them differently, but in D&D terms they are paragons of Lawful Neutrality, like Javert and Judge Dredd and the Vorlons.

This is one of many ways the D&D alignment system doesn't mesh well with the real world.

[hamishspence]

Inevitables probably qualify as something that can get away with that.

However, books like Fiendish Codex 2 do seem to emphasise that LN guys can't keep doing evil, without atoning for it, and escape being destined for the Nine Hells after death. No matter how much Good they do as a "balance"- that doesn't count as actually atoning- which is different.

[pendell]

Maybe these two excerpts from Robin Hood : Defender of the Crown will spell out my thesis a bit better.

Excerpt 1 (just the first cinematic cut scene)

Excerpt 2
(5:50-7:00 encounter Sheriff scene,)
(7:00-8:00 Dialog between Sheriff and Guy of Gisborne, 13:22-on, duel with Sheriff of Nottingham).

Prince John: Lawful evil. He takes the throne against his brother's will and attempts to murder the royal council under the color of law, declaring them "traitors".

Sheriff of Nottingham: Lawful Neutral. He doesn't care who sits on the throne, he just wants to bust outlaws. He detests the King's assassin, will not resort to secret murder, and, when pushed to it, goes alone to Robin's hideout with the intent of arresting him for trial and execution (not seen, but his dialog if he wins is "Finally I have captured the elusive Robin Hood").

Guy of Gisborne: Chaotic evil. He is a killer who kills whomever the king points him at without any compunction. "All men are mortal and my blade is death".

Robin hood: Chaotic neutral. Traditionally chaotic good, but as you see in the first few sections of this iteration of the tale he was robbing merchants under King Richard just as much as he was under King John. His ultimate goal is to be left alone in the forest, and he gave the Sheriff just as much grief when he was the servant of Lawful Good Richard. I'd mark him as chaotic evil if we didn't need that slot for men of Gisborne's stripe.

Wilfred of Ivanhoe (seen in the first cutscene as the knight wearing Green): Lawful Good. Obedient to the king, forced into company of outlaws by Prince John, leaves their company and kneels before the king (not seen in this let's play because the player didn't bother to rescue the king). Robin Hood, by contrast, leaves a note for the king telling him "Stay out of my forest."

===
So, now that I've talked through that I can well see Malack as filling the Sheriff of Nottingham role to Tarquin. At this point, I agree with Kish that it is more likely that he is Darth Vader to Tarquin's Palpatine, but I don't think it is yet beyond dispute.

However, books like Fiendish Codex 2 do seem to emphasise that LN guys can't keep doing evil, without atoning for it, and escape being destined for the Nine Hells after death. No matter how much Good they do as a "balance"- that doesn't count as actually atoning- which is different.

Fiendex Codex 2 or not, the real question is where Nergal lives, because that is where Malack is going after Death. He will join Nergal just as Redcloak will join the Dark One, because Malack is Nergal's faithful servant.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

D&D's Law/Chaos axis is cribbed from Moorcock's Eternal Champion books,

D&D's Law/Chaos axis has gone through a lot of changes. In old D&D-no-A, Chaos meant Evil. In 1ed, the alignments were deranged. Perennially, the alignment descriptions and examples have suffered from Chaos being "less good" than Law.

If you're using the Eternal Champion books as a source for 3.5ed D&D alignments, you're not getting anywhere valid, and I am not interested in debating the alignment system in those books any more than I am in debating what alignment Malack would be in 1ed; they're even less on-topic here. "D&D's alignment is fundamentally Moorcockian" demonstrates...a lack of acknowledgement that anything about D&D has changed since the very first D&D book was published. No wonder your descriptions keep clashing with the 3.5ed books.

[jere7my]

If you're using the Eternal Champion books as a source for 3.5ed D&D alignments, you're not getting anywhere valid, and I am not interested in debating the alignment system in those books any more than I am in debating what alignment Malack would be in 1ed; they're even less on-topic here. "D&D's alignment is fundamentally Moorcockian" demonstrates...a lack of acknowledgement that anything about D&D has changed since the very first D&D book was published. No wonder your descriptions keep clashing with the 3.5ed books.

3.5 alignment isn't as different from AD&D alignment as you seem to think. The way people have played the game has changed, but the implications of the nine quadrants still stand. There are still paragons of neutrality who do things that cannot be considered "good". Looking at alignment in the context of its historical origins is a useful path to understanding it. In its bones, alignment is still Moorcockian.

Nothing I've said in this thread clashes with the SRD alignment descriptions...though it may clash with your personal interpretation of them.

[pendell]

873 is up. Gotta admit, every time I get to hatin' Durkon he has a Crowning Moment of Awesome. BE-AUTIFUL.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Incom]

I notice Malack keeps referring to his vampirism as a "condition". Like does he really think it's some kind of disorder (albeit with positive side effects)? Or am I just looking into it too much?

[martianmister]

According to Giant; Gannji, Enor and Therkla are, apparently, paragons of Neutral alignments, despite their obviously evil acts. Malack could be LN or LE for all we know.

[Barsoom]

Listening to Malak's justifications ("I only drink the blood of those found guilty!") makes me wonder if Rich read the Night Watch series. It also had a vampire who made a big deal out of not drinking the blood of the innocent with similar justifications.

And yes, he was evil too.

[The Pilgrim]

Robin hood: Chaotic neutral. Traditionally chaotic good, but as you see in the first few sections of this iteration of the tale he was robbing merchants under King Richard just as much as he was under King John.

So? I suppose that, according to you, Haley is CN leaning towards CE, then?

I played that game and I don't remember Robin being any other thing than the traditional CG. He redistributes wealth (like he does in almost all the interpretations of the legend), yeah, so? according to D&D alignment, Good is related to respect for life (and I recall Robin there sparing the Sheriff of Nottingham, contrary to Will Scarlet's opinion), not for private property - that's more a thing for Lawful.

[hamishspence]

Stealing is pretty dubious though (BoVD)

so you'd need a reason, to prevent it being evil. When you're robbing, not for your own benefit, but to help those who are being victimized, and you're robbing only the victimizers- then I can see it being CG.

[Guancyto]

According to Giant; Gannji, Enor and Therkla are, apparently, paragons of Neutral alignments, despite their obviously evil acts. Malack could be LN or LE for all we know.

Gannji and Enor are bounty hunters. They bring in Elan because he's Enemy of the State #1. Could they live somewhere else? Well, maybe. We don't know their reasons for working in the Empire of Blood, but although they do bad things, they don't do them unnecessarily. They're not good people, but they aren't bad ones either. I wouldn't call them paragons of neutral alignments, they are working for the Empire, but they don't really get a say in how terrible it is and they have absolutely no idea what the deal with it is. To them, that's probably how it's always been.

Malack, by contrast, is his party's spiritual advisor. He's been at this thirty years, has chewed his way through dozens of countries, and only some of the time has it been the Malack/Tarquin duo we see here. He's had to pull his weight in the Grand Scheme, and even if all he did was profit from the arrangement without taking part (a laughable idea at best), he does have a say in how brutal the Evil Empire is.

"Hey guys, I know you all love oppressing the masses, but I think it's going to come back to bite us. We should tone it down, like, a lot."
"Huh. Well, he is the one with the gigantic Wisdom score."

He has not done this, and has subsequently been engaged in more murder, betrayal, oppression, injustice and usury than anyone on the continent except the five people who are his closest allies. He's a bad guy.

That's just his backstory, but given that and given that he has no regrets about it at all, there is zero justification for putting "Neutral" on his sheet. At all. Ever. Anybody who makes a character like that and puts "Neutral" on his sheet is twinking so Smite Evil doesn't hurt him.

Now, Therkla is an interesting case. I think she started as Evil; she was certainly unrepentant about killing lots and lots of people for extremely dubious reasons. But I think over the course of the story, thanks to Elan's influence and her own revelations (and Kubota's betrayal), she became Neutral.

Maybe she could've become Good in time if she'd lived.

[pendell]

So? I suppose that, according to you, Haley is CN leaning towards CE, then?

I played that game and I don't remember Robin being any other thing than the traditional CG. He redistributes wealth (like he does in almost all the interpretations of the legend), yeah, so? according to D&D alignment, Good is related to respect for life (and I recall Robin there sparing the Sheriff of Nottingham, contrary to Will Scarlet's opinion), not for private property - that's more a thing for Lawful.

Maybe it's a game mechanic, but the game requires robin to shoot to kill the rich man's guards for no other reason than they are rich man's guards. And he did this under king richard as well as king john.

If he was robbing the rich without resorting to murder , I'd go along with chaotic good. But you can't murder people in the course of a crime and expect to hold a "good" alignment. Well, okay. Maybe in self-defense once or twice. But if your standard operating procedure involves killing people whose only crime is to take a lawful job protecting a man's property , that's at minimum chaotic neutral.

Of course, that could just be a concession to game mechanics. If we're supposed to just handwave at that as being gameplay and believe Robin didn't actually kill anyone , then I'd be willing to concede chaotic good -- maybe.

It's still questionable. We're not talking bloodless con artistry, we're talking robbery with threat of violence. And you can't possibly live that kind of lifestyle and bluff all the time -- sooner or later someone's going to call your bluff, especially if they have armed guards. If you don't go into the business fully prepared to kill those who resist, you shouldn't be in it in the first place.

Which means if you're going to commit armed robbery, there had better be some serious mitigating circumstances (we're taking the ring of power from a band of orcs who would otherwise deliver it to Mordor, it's lawful privateering authorized by the king as part of a commerce raiding strategy) or it's chaotic neutral at minimum.

If Robin Hood was only robbing Prince John's supporters during his war against Prince John and was otherwise at peace, i'd go with chaotic good without question. But Robin Hood in the game isn't doing that. He's robbing the rich with threat of violence during peacetime or wartime, regardless of whether there are good kings or bad kings on the throne. That to me is chaotic neutral. Regardless of whether the rich deserve to be robbed or not (a question that isn't really forum appropriate) the means to accomplish the ends are too ruthless to be consistent with a chaotic good alignment.

To me, true 'chaotic good' is much closer to Tom Bombadil. He lives outside the laws of any society , but he still upholds the universal ideals of charity within his own framework. To be blunt, he doesn't rob and threaten murder to those who pass through his land. He guides them, protects them, and the only harm that comes to anyone within his land is if he brings it there himself.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, this is HIS forest we are talking about, and those were armed men entering into his "propierty", so... ok, this comes dangerously near a "morally justified" argument, so I'd better skip the issue.

Well, game mechanics of the "robbery" mission standing aside (I must admit that I skipped that mission in the Game, partly because my GPU was too slow back in the day, partly because FPS doesn't appeal to me), in the cutscenes, dialogue and other boring stuff he's consistenly CG (sparing the Sheriff, getting to pacify the land, etc...)

Respectifuly

[pendell]

Well, this is HIS forest we are talking about, and those were armed men entering into his "propierty", so... ok, this comes dangerously near a "morally justified" argument, so I'd better skip the issue.

It's NOT his forest. It's a Royal Forest , both in real life and in legend. He's a squatter claiming territory he has no right to. Anyways, back to the strip (next post).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

We've discussed killing and resurrecting Malak. Durkon offered that.

Malack's reply:

"I had a different name when I was alive -- 200 years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

Bringing me back to life is a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."

===

I'm not sure what to think of that response. What do you, fellow readers, think of his response to the desire, expressed by many here and by Durkon, to return him to the world of the living?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Stormlock]

Well, I'm inclined to agree with Malack on this. You can't just erase 200 years worth of experiences and expect a thank you. Malack has been a vampire longer than he's been alive. I'm sure he's long since let go of any regrets about his affliction.

[Mike Havran]

We've discussed killing and resurrecting Malak. Durkon offered that.

Malack's reply:

"I had a different name when I was alive -- 200 years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

Bringing me back to life is a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."

===

I'm not sure what to think of that response. What do you, fellow readers, think of his response to the desire, expressed by many here and by Durkon, to return him to the world of the living?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, I can't help but mind the technical issues first:
- Ressurection requires target not to be dead longer than 10 years per caster level, so Durkon couldn't rez him anyway.
- God of Death would probably not approve that. Dead is dead. Unless of course, when it's undead.

But well, he was sort of a tribal leader and his tribe is gone. He had vampire children and they are also gone. Only thing that remains are his old friends - Tarquin and his party - those that do not shake with repulsion when they see him even though they know he's a vampire. After he came back alive, how could he tell them that he let himself get destroyed so that he could get raised so he could start to oppose them alongside a guy whom he met a week ago?

Yes, being ressurected would be a very complicated way of destroying everything he ever was.

[Incom]

I suspect that tribe of 200 years ago is going to come up again later. Why do they no longer exist? And since when?

[hamishspence]

Alternatively, the soul is a different soul- a "malign intelligence" that has controlled the body for 200 years, which will be destroyed if the vampire is slain.

Thus, what would be "resurrected" wouldn't be Malack at all- it would be the original "ignorant lizardfolk shaman".

[Raineh Daze]

It involves sacrificing 4 Charisma, 2 Intelligence, and 2 Wisdom. Losing all that mental stuff after having it for two centuries would probably destroy a large amount of your personality.

[Barsoom]

I suspect that tribe of 200 years ago is going to come up again later. Why do they no longer exist?

A natural responce would be to imagine a demotivational poster, depicting Malak standing in the middle of a deserted village, eyes bloodshot. The caption would read: I HAD A TRIBE, BUT I EATED IT.

[pendell]

Alternatively, the soul is a different soul- a "malign intelligence" that has controlled the body for 200 years, which will be destroyed if the vampire is slain.

Thus, what would be "resurrected" wouldn't be Malack at all- it would be the original "ignorant lizardfolk shaman".

That would be a very pertinent fact if it is true. However, I just consulted the D20 entry for Vampire. The SRD does not require that a vampire be an Outsider possessing the shell of a former living creature. Nor does it require that a vampire subsist only on sapient creatures. Nor does it require that a vampire drain its prey to death to properly feed on it. All of these things are possible options, but I don't see any reason to believe they are true in OOTSworld unless the Giant confirms them , either in-comic or in comments.

The SRD DOES mandate "always evil" alignment. However, as has been discussed at length with respect to D&D, "always evil" in D&D permits individual exceptions. Giant's comments in this thread that Durkon could not attack a vampire high priest of a human city in his chambers simply because he was a vampire, but had to first establish he was a threat of some kind, implies that a vampire exception is as conceivable as a black dragon exception.

Doesn't mean Malack is one. But it is possible.

A natural responce would be to imagine a demotivational poster, depicting Malak standing in the middle of a deserted village, eyes bloodshot. The caption would read: I HAD A TRIBE, BUT I EATED IT.

+1

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Cyllan]

A natural responce would be to imagine a demotivational poster, depicting Malak standing in the middle of a deserted village, eyes bloodshot. The caption would read: I HAD A TRIBE, BUT I EATED IT.

Oh man. This made me laugh. Now I feel terrible. Hahaha.

[Feddlefew]

Alternatively, the soul is a different soul- a "malign intelligence" that has controlled the body for 200 years, which will be destroyed if the vampire is slain.

Thus, what would be "resurrected" wouldn't be Malack at all- it would be the original "ignorant lizardfolk shaman".

I was under the impression that the two alignment focused books were propaganda. And "maligned intelligence" leaves a lot open to interpretation.

[The Pilgrim]

It's NOT his forest. It's a Royal Forest , both in real life and in legend. He's a squatter claiming territory he has no right to.

That's the problem with Chaotic types. They don't understand why some remote King is supposed to be legitimated to claim the forest he lives in, while the people who actually live in the forest are not.

[Kish]

I was under the impression that the two alignment focused books were propaganda.

...Come again?

And "maligned intelligence" leaves a lot open to interpretation.

"Malign intelligence" might leave a little less, but I really don't think Rich is going with the "you die and a demon sets up shop in your old house" concept of vampirism.

[ti'esar]

Well, I'm inclined to agree with Malack on this. You can't just erase 200 years worth of experiences and expect a thank you. Malack has been a vampire longer than he's been alive. I'm sure he's long since let go of any regrets about his affliction.

Are those experiences actually being erased, though? Neither the SRD nor the "resurrecting a vampire" thread has come down firmly on one side or the other.

[martianmister]

We don't know their reasons for working in the Empire of Blood, but although they do bad things, they don't do them unnecessarily.

Sabotaging Roy's chances to survive looks pretty "unnecessary evil" to me.

I wouldn't call them paragons of neutral alignments,

Well, they are poster-childs of neutrality...

[Math_Mage]

Sabotaging Roy's chances to survive looks pretty "unnecessary evil" to me.



Well, they are poster-childs of neutrality...

Trying to arrange personal revenge for getting stuck in the arena might be vindictive, but it's well within the scope of what a pissed-off Neutral character would do. And you can't tell me that the very next comic doesn't show Gannji in a better light.

Also, for the record? Number of people Gannji and Enor have killed in the comic: Zero. Number of laws Gannji and Enor have broken: Zero. And unlike, say, Malack, we can plausibly claim that the environment is shaping their behavior to some extent (in part because, y'know, Word of God said so). From the evidence, do you really want to claim they're Evil? Because that's a poor reading of the evidence.