So, Malack...

[Kish]

Bloodshed yes, chaos, no. This was written before 875, so yea. Without the EoB there would be a power vacuum and other warlords would be fighting for control, causing as much destruction if not more.

Proven by: Tarquin said so.

Meanwhile, what we've seen is that Tarquin's party causes, not stops, wars in the region.

[Zmeoaice]

Proven by: Tarquin said so.

The cartographer

[Warren Dew]

Probably not as evil as Tarquin. Tarquin's kills are slow and painful (burning people to death, making them fight as gladiators) while Malack views killing people as merely sending to another plane of existence.

I think I'd count a thousand "orderly" deaths a day as quite a bit more evil than a few slow, painful deaths.

[Math_Mage]

The cartographer

Who hasn't noticed any decrease in the violence since Tarquin started his scheme. Tarquin's gang isn't getting rid of the violence, they're just benefiting from it.

[Kish]

The cartographer

...said that the wars are constant. Are. With Tarquin enacting his scheme. Source of stability? Noticeably absent.

That's supposed to support your claim how, exactly?

[Zmeoaice]

...said that the wars are constant. Are. With Tarquin enacting his scheme. Source of stability? Noticeably absent.

That's supposed to support your claim how, exactly?

It's been a while since I read those strips.

[Chantelune]

Yeah, that last strip sure strikes me as lawful evil on Malack's part. ^^

[Zmeoaice]

Now that it's been settled, the real question is if Malack knows he's evil or not.

[Leliel]

Yeah, that last strip sure strikes me as lawful evil on Malack's part. ^^

Actually, there's still debate here.

Is Malack merely the average Lawful Evil mastermind or is he more Lawful Evil than the average freaking baatezu?

Seriously, somewhere, Asmodeus is grumbling about normal gods getting all the good clerics...

[King of Nowhere]

I wish to retract my previous statement on malack as

EVIL

Well, before 875 came out neutral was still on the table, but the "sacrifice 1000 people every day" provides the ultimate answer to the question.
even if doing it all just in service of his god takes a bit of edge out of it. only a bit.

[Feddlefew]

Tin mad dog. I was hoping Malack would wait until *after* he'd made someone into a vampire before revealing his evil plans.

[SaintRidley]

I wish to retract my previous statement on malack as

EVIL

Well, before 875 came out neutral was still on the table, but the "sacrifice 1000 people every day" provides the ultimate answer to the question.
even if doing it all just in service of his god takes a bit of edge out of it. only a bit.

Umm, Neutral completely ceased to be an option as of 872. There was a tiny, tiny sliver of a chance of Neutral before that.

The difference from 872 to 875 is the difference between "That guy's killing that dog" and "And now he's killing the town by making them choke on bits of the dog."

Evil. Gratuitous evil. All 875 did was give us the gratuitous part.

[Rakoa]

Tin mad dog. I was hoping Malack would wait until *after* he'd made someone into a vampire before revealing his evil plans.

Well, you see, that just might mean he won't get the chance to make anyone into a vampire.

[Feddlefew]

Well, you see, that just might mean he won't get the chance to make anyone into a vampire.

Durkon has just walked into melee range of an angry (or at least annoyed) vampire, without backup or the majority of his spell slots. This is not going to end well without intervention, and fast.

[Inst]

I'm still wondering how Rich is going to murder Tarquin's ethical system now that he's screwed over poor Malack.

I really take Tarquin at his word when he says that he ultimately contributes to stability in the Western Continent; simply because the incidence of intra-state violence in other systems is so high that peace by itself is humanitarian. The means might not be savory, the men involved might be bastards, but the end effect is ultimately more attractive than the alternative.

[hamishspence]

As has been pointed out, the last 20 years on the Western continent have been one war after another. No "peace" at all.

The only "stability" has been that Tarquin's gang have stayed as "the powers behind the thrones" for the whole time.

[Inst]

I disagree and I think that Tarquin's polities are in the process of consolidation. Take for example the Free City of Doom; that state was formerly sovereign until it was annexed by the Empire of Tears. It is in Tarquin's interests to maximize the territory under his control, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, but he's admitted to not having all territories on his continent under his thumb.

[hamishspence]

Twenty years of war, just as bad (although not necessarily worse) as it was before Tarquin's scheme, does not scream "Tarquin is reducing the amount of suffering on the Western continent" to me.

[Inst]

With regards to direct evidence:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html

"Plus, I have the rest of the continent to absorb"

Which indicates Tarquin is still in the process of absorbing states that fall outside his imperial system.

==

I think the important thing is to consider how much direct violence occurs between Tarquin's respective states. If his three powers fight each other less than individual states would, then perhaps Tarquin deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for reducing the quantity of warfare.

The absorption of states into Tarquin's imperial system, of course, is going to be a violent affair, but I'm assuming such things happen only once.

[hamishspence]

I think the important thing is to consider how much direct violence occurs between Tarquin's respective states. If his three powers fight each other less than individual states would, then perhaps Tarquin deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for reducing the quantity of warfare.

We know each of them is toppled every few years by a "patsy":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

[Warren Dew]

Well, before 875 came out neutral was still on the table, but the "sacrifice 1000 people every day" provides the ultimate answer to the question.

Ironically, merely planning to sacrifice 1000 people every day in the distant future, without having actually sacrificed any of them, may not be evil. It causes me to conclude that Malack is evil for a different reason: it makes much more certain the idea that Malack has committed many evil acts in the past in helping to set up Tarquin's regime, even though those acts occurred off screen.

[Mutant Sheep]

We know each of them is toppled every few years by a "patsy":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

Expanding on this, every few years there is a new war, then a new kingdom/state with a new ruler. It would take some time for Tarquin and Co. to get in good with the new regime, unless they blatantly betray the old "ruler" for the new guy, which probably doesn't help the new guy trust them as good loyal advisors. So, during this time, I think it is logical to assume that Free City of Doom and other cities like it are conquered by a new warlord or declare independence, maybe being loyalists to the old regime or something. The new puppet state has to reconquer that territory. Unless the Free City of Doom had decades of independence, I think it split off from Tyrania or some other Tarquin-state between rulers. So there is probably a large amount of violence every few years as a direct result of Tarquin making a new kingdom, then the proceeding wars of conquest just to reconquer territories that split away.

Now, there is a fairly good chance that the other two states, run by Tarquin's friends, would assimilate those smaller cities trying to be a new empire. But I don't think that Tarquin's method is distinguishably less bloody than the warfare before him. He still has the constant warfare, and he is consolidating the other countries at slow increments. If his goal was for a longstanding peace and goodwill for the peoples of the Western Continent, he could lean MUCH heavier into philosopher king, and less bloodthirsty narcissist.

Edit: going by comic 698's map, the three empires are all on the eastern side of the continent, with the empire of blood reaching north of the desert and below the Goaway mountains towards the western coast. The other two empires are centered around an isthmus, with the Free City of Doom being the only territory not belonging to the Tarquin plot stuck right between them, right on the mouth of where the major river feeds into the ocean. The nation of Reptilia is small and on the eastern coast, directly south of the edge of the go away mountains and seemingly is blocking access to the Elven Lands by way of the non-mountained coastline. Elves probably send low to mid levels there to fight off Reptilian incursions, or something similarly low level.

Going by that map, Tarquin is actually much closer to the goal than I thought. Getting the other two areas of the continent would take a lot of work, with one being on the other side of the Empire of Blood (the lack of settlements marked in the western part of the EoB indicates it not being very hospitable) and roughly the same size as the EoB, though split among many small fueding states. The area near Sandsedge is the other area of inhabited desert, and is a bunch of Republics of Dictatorial Madness. Marching armies across the entire span of the empire of blood, or a similar distance to the southern land (and through Sandsedge!) to begin conquest of a large area as big as the Empire would be a difficult sell. So I assume there is not a real plan to take them, as it would require new plotting (the three empire patsy plan doesn't work due to someone having to mantain the other two empires as one empire goes to claim those two areas. It would begin to stretch Tarquin's group and needs some more imagination than I can spare right now.)

[Carry2]

Now, there is a fairly good chance that the other two states, run by Tarquin's friends, would assimilate those smaller cities trying to be a new empire. But I don't think that Tarquin's method is distinguishably less bloody than the warfare before him.

This is difficult to establish in the comic without some kind of hard statistics on mortality rates before and after conquest. But in the real world, going by skeletal evidence, the transition from squabbling tribal anarchy to central urban government- even, by our standards, remarkably brutal, repressive and belligerent central urban government- tended to result in lower average rates of violent death. (Also higher rates of malnutrition and disease, but that's another story.)

[slayerx]

As has been pointed out, the last 20 years on the Western continent have been one war after another. No "peace" at all.

The only "stability" has been that Tarquin's gang have stayed as "the powers behind the thrones" for the whole time.

Except that the continent has ALWAYS been like this. Tarquin didn't create the current instability, he's just another piece of it. However, If Tarquin were successful, he could bring an end to the wars once he brings the number of countries down to 3 which he controls. Though ofcourse, while the countries might be stable, they will run by his brand of dicatorship

[Hawk7915]

Ironically, merely planning to sacrifice 1000 people every day in the distant future, without having actually sacrificed any of them, may not be evil. It causes me to conclude that Malack is evil for a different reason: it makes much more certain the idea that Malack has committed many evil acts in the past in helping to set up Tarquin's regime, even though those acts occurred off screen.

I'd argue that it is evil, for the reasons you say afterwards. This isn't an angry kid screaming "I'll kill ALL the people!!!" in a fit of rage. This is a methodical, intelligent, immortal creature divulging that wiping out 1000 souls a day (not just lives, but SOULS, preventing any hope of the afterlife we know exists in this world) has been his gameplan for decades. He's been thinking it, discussing it, researching it, and almost certainly conducting all manner of atrocious off-screen acts to bring it about.

[Mutant Sheep]

Except that the continent has ALWAYS been like this. Tarquin didn't create the current instability, he's just another piece of it. However, If Tarquin were successful, he could bring an end to the wars once he brings the number of countries down to 3 which he controls. Though ofcourse, while the countries might be stable, they will run by his brand of dicatorship

I doubt he could, because if three empires are right next to each other and there isn't any bloodshed, the ruse is rather obvious. If they continue the patsy replacement, a similar problem arises in convincing the puppet ruler to not attempt to take advantage of the situation and send an army in. Now, a deadlock of two nations over some territory, instead of a multitude of smaller nations in constant warfare, would probably have less death, and allows a pair of the group to try conquest in other areas of the continent. Or they split it 3 people an empire and get lazy. Either way, this is getting off topic for a Malack thread.

[ti'esar]

I'm still wondering how Rich is going to murder Tarquin's ethical system now that he's screwed over poor Malack.

I really take Tarquin at his word when he says that he ultimately contributes to stability in the Western Continent; simply because the incidence of intra-state violence in other systems is so high that peace by itself is humanitarian. The means might not be savory, the men involved might be bastards, but the end effect is ultimately more attractive than the alternative.

I believe that Tarquin means it when he says that he's bringing stability to the Western Continent - his argument with Ian on the subject is probably the most genuinely angry we've ever seen him. I doubt very much that it's an excuse.

I don't believe that the actual facts of the situation support his view in the slightest.

This is a methodical, intelligent, immortal creature divulging that wiping out 1000 souls a day (not just lives, but SOULS, preventing any hope of the afterlife we know exists in this world) has been his gameplan for decades.

Where does he say anything about sacrificing souls?

[SaintRidley]

I'm still wondering how Rich is going to murder Tarquin's ethical system now that he's screwed over poor Malack.

Tarquin's ethical system murders itself.

[hamishspence]

Where does he say anything about sacrificing souls?

He mentions that "Nergal will devour your soul" to Nale, when he's about to try and kill him.

[Mutant Sheep]

I believe that Tarquin means it when he says that he's bringing stability to the Western Continent - his argument with Ian on the subject is probably the most genuinely angry we've ever seen him. I doubt very much that it's an excuse.

I don't believe that the actual facts of the situation support his view in the slightest.



Where does he say anything about sacrificing souls?

I believe that he believes it, and I think it does reduce the violence, but it is not by an amount that is worth being proud of, especially when he is enabling the violence and renewing it instead of trying to stop it.


I think that sacrificing people ritualistically does not usually take away their soul. Nale pretended to, for example, but there was no mention of destroyed souls. However, Malack (still don't know why some people call him Malak) has stated to Nale that "Nergal will eat your soul". This implies he knows some way of giving souls to his god for food. It isn't much of a leap to think that the sacrifices are soul sacrifices, but it is a leap. "Nergal will eat your soul "is a very very angry lizardfolk threat, not necessarily a legitimate threat that can be carried out.