So, Malack...

[hamishspence]

I think that sacrificing people ritualistically does not usually take away their soul.

BoVD is a little grey on the subject:

"Sacrifice is the offering of the life of a sentient being to an evil deity or powerful fiend. The victim is trussed, tied, or otherwise immobilized so that the ceremony may be conducted that culminates with the murder. When that blood spills during the ritual murder of an innocent creature, the blood (and sometimes even the soul of the creature) is dedicated to a nether power of malevolence. Bloodless forms of killing, such as strangulation and drowning, are possible during sacrifices, but usually those that are despicable enough to practice this profane art prefer bloodier deeds."

[Feddlefew]

BoVD is a little grey on the subject:

"Sacrifice is the offering of the life of a sentient being to an evil deity or powerful fiend. The victim is trussed, tied, or otherwise immobilized so that the ceremony may be conducted that culminates with the murder. When that blood spills during the ritual murder of an innocent creature, the blood (and sometimes even the soul of the creature) is dedicated to a nether power of malevolence. Bloodless forms of killing, such as strangulation and drowning, are possible during sacrifices, but usually those that are despicable enough to practice this profane art prefer bloodier deeds."

My anatomy and physiology knowlage is making me raise an eyebrow here. I'm not going to argue the ethics of ritual human sacrifice, because its unforgivable, obviously. Is BoVD implying suffocation is less bad than bleeding out? Because suffocating is a horrible, horrible way to die.

[Rakoa]

Suffocation is just lack of oxygen to the brain. All suffocation will cause, from the point of view of he being suffocated, is some discomfort in the chest and head, not pain per se, until the brain begins to cause hallucinations from the lack of oxygen. From there, it's just an easy ride into Death's sweet embrace...

[Feddlefew]

Suffocation is just lack of oxygen to the brain. All suffocation will cause, from the point of view of he being suffocated, is some discomfort in the chest and head, not pain per se, until the brain begins to cause hallucinations from the lack of oxygen. From there, it's just an easy ride into Death's sweet embrace...

Obviously you have never had someone try to strangle you.

(Ah, the joys of taking a self defense class where the instructor jumps everyone in class at least once....)

It takes at least 4 min for the average human to suffer permanent damage from a lack of oxygen, less to pass out. IT IS REALLY NOT PLEASANT. Drowning is supposed to be worse because of disorientation and pain from having fluid enter your lungs.

Bleeding to death can be extremely fast, assuming a major artery has been breached. A properly applied sleeper hold will knock someone out in a mater of seconds because it disrupts bloodflow to the brain, but it takes much longer for the oxygen levels in your blood to deplete enough to knock you out.

[SaintRidley]

My anatomy and physiology knowlage is making me raise an eyebrow here. I'm not going to argue the ethics of ritual human sacrifice, because its unforgivable, obviously. Is BoVD implying suffocation is less bad than bleeding out? Because suffocating is a horrible, horrible way to die.

Seems less like that and more that the BoVD is hinting that suffocation is just not that interesting to watch, from a sacrificial standpoint. Nor does it afford much opportunity to hear the cries of the sacrificed, what with the lack of oxygen part, while more bloody sacrifices don't lose that aural acknowledgement of agony.

[Lvl45DM!]

The point is that its stereotypically more enjoyable for an evil person to cut a throat than strangle. Think from the perspective of the killer not the killed.

EDIT: Durkon'd

[Feddlefew]

Eh, maybe I'm just hung up on this because it's a hell of a lot easier to unintentionally kill someone by blood lose than by smothering or strangulation.

Anyway, do we actually know Nurgal eats souls? What if his afterlife is like a crazy cat lady's house, only with souls instead of cats? I'd still bet on Nurgal being NE.

[Dark Matter]

So... Tarquin's end plan, his actual, serious plan, is to die and leave Malack in charge. He has even giving artistic tips on what the death arena should look like.

Somehow I think "reducing suffering" isn't actually on Tarquin's "to do" list.

[SaintRidley]

Eh, maybe I'm just hung up on this because it's a hell of a lot easier to unintentionally kill someone by blood lose than by smothering or strangulation.

Anyway, do we actually know Nurgal eats souls? What if his afterlife is like a crazy cat lady's house, only with souls instead of cats? I'd still bet on Nurgal being NE.

Only think we have on Nergal vis soul eating is Malack's telling Nale that Nergal will eat his soul.

Not exactly the best or most reliable evidence, I'd say.

[Inst]

I don't disagree that Tarquin is an evil despot, or that Tarquin has been verified by Rich to be a lawful evil character. You cannot deny that Tarquin is effectively a rapist and a sadistic despot who engages in unnecessary cruelty for his own entertainment. On the other hand, I do think that Tarquin's little political plot has real and useful side benefits.

As others have mentioned, the transition, even an extremely bloody one, from internecine war to a "peaceful" hegemony is often a good one as deaths and instability from interstate warfare drop off. The benefits of living in Tarquinland or Malackville, where at least you can expect the state to kill you only for predictable reasons, outweigh that of the anarchy this replaced.

Interestingly enough, according to economists there are two types of corruption; progressive and not-progressive, because the latter type is short-term oriented and is more akin to looting the state than the former, which exists more as the illegal collusion of business and government at the expense of other parties.

While Tarquin and Malack and evil and corrupt, they are more likely to be exponents of progressive corruption, as they are both rather intelligent and rather capable of perceiving their own rational self-interest. Corruption is Tarquinland or Malackville is more likely to involve capital accumulation at the expense of the workers, ultimately leaving their empires with a high level of infrastructure while weakening their human capital. It is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, since financial repression in certain real-life exporters does lead to rapid capital accumulation by suppressing the ability of individuals to consume.

[SaintRidley]

As others have mentioned, the transition, even an extremely bloody one, from internecine war to a "peaceful" hegemony is often a good one as deaths and instability from interstate warfare drop off. The benefits of living in Tarquinland or Malackville, where at least you can expect the state to kill you only for predictable reasons, outweigh that of the anarchy this replaced.

Just to point out, predictable reasons in Tarquinland are pretty much anything. If he wants you dead, he'll find a way. It's anarchy under the guise of a state.

[Inst]

That's Tarquin's corruption; he's not lawful neutral. However, Tarquin isn't nuts. He's not bipolar and he doesn't have manic episodes where he decides he wants so and so dead, unlike say, Malack, who actually wants to kill 1,000 people a day; but in both cases, their homicide is at least premeditated and predictable.

Staying out of Tarquin's way in Tarquin's state is a reasonable way to avoid ending up dead, and staying away from Malack's human sacrifice organs in Malack's state is also yet another reasonable way to avoid ending up dead.

[ti'esar]

I think that post is veering a little too close to real-world discussion.

[SaintRidley]

Of course, in Malack's continent, it's best to not be on the continent if you wish to avoid being sacrificed. Vampires have to eat, after all, and there's no indication that the killing will be limited to those found guilty in a court of law then.

[Mutant Sheep]

Of course, in Malack's continent, it's best to not be on the continent if you wish to avoid being sacrificed. Vampires have to eat, after all, and there's no indication that the killing will be limited to those found guilty in a court of law then.

Or, as someone previously stated (Sorry, too lazy to find the quote) "guilty of not volunteering to be sacrificed". If Malack makes the laws and has a death squad of sunproof vampires, there isn't much to do.

[SaintRidley]

Or, as someone previously stated (Sorry, too lazy to find the quote) "guilty of not volunteering to be sacrificed". If Malack makes the laws and has a death squad of sunproof vampires, there isn't much to do.

Yeah, pretty much the moment you have a vampire who has researched a spell to get around the sunlight problem, you need to stake, wafer, disintegrate, and immerse that thing in running water, then burn its library to the ground as soon as possible.

[Zmeoaice]

Or, as someone previously stated (Sorry, too lazy to find the quote) "guilty of not volunteering to be sacrificed". If Malack makes the laws and has a death squad of sunproof vampires, there isn't much to do.

I don't think Malack will be that petty.

[Math_Mage]

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.

1. Why do you pretend there are only two alternatives, Tarquin's plan or constant lawless warfare?
2. 'Contributes', no; Tarquin's plan hasn't reduced violence in any way, shape, or form. 'Will contribute' is a possibility.
3. Malack's ethical system was never palatable. You injected sympathetic interpretations into the gaps Rich left, that's all.

I don't think Malack will be that petty.

No, he'll be straightforward.

[Inst]

With regards to your first point, we're really debating one state versus another. Both these states have existences, any other hypothetical situation is merely a hypothetical situation and there are no detected actors who could make that a reality.

For example, the Elves, for all their Good alignments, have never seen fit to impose order into the southern parts of the Western continent. The only two choices we've really been presented with is the yearly-coup thing where the average Western Continent empire builds up and is destroyed in 12 months and Tarquin's plan, where, while any beneficial side effects are unintended, you have some form of peace and stability through state consolidation.

===

As far as your second point goes, ignoring your moral indignation, why yes, Tarquin has reduced violence on the continent simply by stomping out rival states and removing the ability of independent actors to make their own decisions. It's not as though any of the Western continent empires can be said to be "good-aligned". We have the "Free City of Doom", which sounds reasonably ominous and we have the "People's Republic of Dictatorship", which sounds as though it should win a Nobel Peace Prize. Left to their own devices they would quite likely go to war with the other states.

And as far as "plugging in the gaps" to Malack's portrayal goes; I think that after Malack was revealed to be a vampire, and his children were vampire spawn, I think it's difficult to work with the text and still portray Malack in any positive light. Before then, though, Malack was certainly congenial and polite and caring about his friends. I think in real life, most people are involved, even indirectly, in some kind of political indiscretion or another, and I think if Malack is able to extend courtesy or more importantly extend benevolence on a personal level, in my book, not the DnD alignment book, that would place Malack as a decent lizard cleric.

It is a lot harder now that Malack's portrayal has become a lot darker and a lot more deluded, however, but I will tell you that he is right, although rather un-Western, in his notion of Nergal as potentially a neutral god (death is a normal part of life and shunning the inevitable or being overly attached to life is a vice, {SCRUBBED}), or on the potential desirability of mass murder or feeding souls to Nergal ({SCRUBBED}).

[Math_Mage]

With regards to your first point, we're really debating one state versus another. Both these states have existences, any other hypothetical situation is merely a hypothetical situation and there are no detected actors who could make that a reality.

For example, the Elves, for all their Good alignments, have never seen fit to impose order into the southern parts of the Western continent. The only two choices we've really been presented with is the yearly-coup thing where the average Western Continent empire builds up and is destroyed in 12 months and Tarquin's plan, where, while any beneficial side effects are unintended, you have some form of peace and stability through state consolidation.

Okay, let's play a game of hypotheticals for a minute here.

What if...let me stretch waaaaaaaaaaaaay out into speculation here...Tarquin came up with a different plan? Would that not be a third alternative to "Tarquin executes his present plan" and "The status quo persists"?

Just because only two choices have been presented does not mean only those two choices should be considered.

As far as your second point goes, ignoring your moral indignation, why yes, Tarquin has reduced violence on the continent simply by stomping out rival states and removing the ability of independent actors to make their own decisions.

[citation needed]

I am aware that you are capable of making unsupported speculation. You don't need to remind me.

And as far as "plugging in the gaps" to Malack's portrayal goes; I think that after Malack was revealed to be a vampire, and his children were vampire spawn, I think it's difficult to work with the text and still portray Malack in any positive light. Before then, though, Malack was certainly congenial and polite and caring about his friends. I think in real life, most people are involved, even indirectly, in some kind of political indiscretion or another, and I think if Malack is able to extend courtesy or more importantly extend benevolence on a personal level, in my book, not the DnD alignment book, that would place Malack as a decent lizard cleric.

What puzzles me is why you find that characterization necessarily better, such that subsequent strips have ruined 'poor Malack'. In particular, I question your later assertion that Malack is now 'more deluded' than he would have been as a purported-LN character playing patsy to Tarquin's scheme. Current Malack may be unrepentantly and obviously Evil, but he's also very straightforward about what he wants. But because you don't like the change, you say he's deluded. That's not rational.

[The Giant]

I am going to remind this thread again to avoid real-world religious or political topics.

[Inst]

If you're speculating on hypothetical alternatives to an Empire of Tarquin, you are still speculating on hypothetical alternatives. These alternatives have never been mentioned and no pathway for implementing these alternatives have been mentioned.

If you mean that Tarquin should have come up with something better, I think the important thing for Tarquin is that he represents a marginal improvement on the pre-existing order. His system is based on certain desires and certain wants in his adventuring team, and his intent is evil, but it presents improvements on alternatives, and simply because it exists and is already in process, it has the benefit of being good enough. Screwing with Tarquin's political system threatens the risk of political transition and may result in unintended outcomes.

===

As far as unsupported allegations go, you should read about the background of the Western continent. Most states in the Western continent are evil in some form or another; the average ruler is a warlord of some kind. It is fraught with incessant fighting, and given the character of the empire, I'm not sure if the average Western continent state would be far better than Tarquin when it comes to human rights abuses.

By reducing the number of agents on the continent, Tarquin reduces the number of opportunities for independent states to fight and thus reduces inter-state conflict. As to whether or not living under his regime, wars ignored, is much of an improvement over the alternatives is a different issue.

===

Finally, I'm generally utilitarian in ethics. I seldom, although not never, believe in absolute principles and I think that a preponderance of belief in absolute principles is a large contributor to human unhappiness. In Malack's case, I think if you only consider his fealty to an evil-adventuring team that commits human rights abuses while simultaneously contributing to stability on the continent, he is not categorically evil. Through the same logic, a charity that cooperates with the authorities in an authoritarian regime is necessarily evil, even though people are benefiting from improved dispersal of services when the charity operates as a legitimate service. A butler for an evil man is not necessarily an evil man himself, although I will admit that he becomes morally suspect as a result.

===

I think our difference here is that I'm not opposed to Tarquin as a unifying conqueror, there are examples in history of the benefits of such unification. I agree that he's evil, but I think in his case the ends justify the means and side effects and I think as a historical figure Tarquin would be seen as a flawed, but necessary figure. Hence, from this point of view, I don't see Malack as a monster simply for working with Tarquin; he's a monster because he wants to sacrifice 1,000 people a day to his death god, but he's not a monster for the company he keeps.

[SaintRidley]

Just pointing out, Malack's role is much less butler to Dr. Doom than founding member of the Legion of Supervillains, of which Tarquin is leader.

[hamishspence]

If you mean that Tarquin should have come up with something better, I think the important thing for Tarquin is that he represents a marginal improvement on the pre-existing order.

We don't know that.

Finally, I'm generally utilitarian in ethics. I seldom, although not never, believe in absolute principles and I think that a preponderance of belief in absolute principles is a large contributor to human unhappiness.

That explains a lot.

I agree that he's evil, but I think in his case the ends justify the means and side effects and I think as a historical figure Tarquin would be seen as a flawed, but necessary figure.

Really? Might depend on the era. And even then, a case could be made that his behaviour pattern is more "will go down in infamy" than "necessary".

[Feddlefew]

Inst, the moment organized mass killings come into play blue and orange morality stops mattering. BaO morality only works if the other entity is also attempting to be ethical, and its values are sufficiently different from another entity (or ours) that an attempt at benevolence is viewed by one side as malicious.

Ex: You are about to fight the leader of a clan* in a 1 on 1 duel determine the fate of a settlement built on the border of their territory. They are known for eating those they slay in battle.

Blue and Orange: The clan leader asks that if he looses you eat his flesh so he may join the honored dead, as he will be doing to you should you loose.

Not Blue and Orange: The clan leader tells you they're going to eat you when you die.


*For the sake of the argument they're technologically and culturally advanced humans.

[veti]

[Tarquin's] system is based on certain desires and certain wants in his adventuring team, and his intent is evil, but it presents improvements on alternatives

You keep saying that as if it were established, agreed fact. It's nothing of the sort.

Screwing with Tarquin's political system threatens the risk of political transition and may result in unintended outcomes.

Well, yes. Killing an efficient, ruthless dictator will indeed raise "the risk" - interesting choice of word, there - of political transition. You can reasonably argue, with Lord Vetinari: "They think they want good government and justice for all, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today."

But Vetinari isn't arguing against killing an evil dictator (come to think of it, that's exactly how he got his job). He's describing how a good government should work. Tarquin's government doesn't do that, and we simply don't have any evidence to support a defence on the grounds of 'stability'.

As far as unsupported allegations go, you should read about the background of the Western continent. Most states in the Western continent are evil in some form or another; the average ruler is a warlord of some kind. It is fraught with incessant fighting, and given the character of the empire, I'm not sure if the average Western continent state would be far better than Tarquin when it comes to human rights abuses.

All the information we have about the Western Continent comes from a handful of sources, most notably Tarquin himself (and if you trust him, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you), and the cartographer.

But the interesting thing about the cartographer: she's not particularly old. Let's say she's a bit older than she looks, she's been in business maybe 20 years. That, coincidentally, is about how long Tarquin has been running the place.

In other words: that blood-soaked, unstable "normality" that she describes? That IS Tarquin's plan. That's what it actually looks like, in practice. We have literally zero reliable information on what the continent was like before he appeared on the scene.

[pendell]

I personally will no longer defend the EOBs system as lesser evil compared to chaos because organized mass murder is now on the table. I could defend Lord Vetinari (who may be LE or LN) running Ankh-Morpork and even serve him, as Sam Vimes does. As however ruthless his means his ends really are peace and prosperity for everyone in ankh-morpork regardless of species or vital status.

But Tarquin and Malack , IMO, aren't Lord Vetinari. They're Lord Snapcase. The guy who was worse than the arbitrary Lord Winter (seen in night watch) with his secret police and his torture and his widespread arrests out of paranoia. The dude whom the populace arose against en masse and hung by his figgin*

Were I in OOTSworld, I would NOT be a loyal servant of the Empire of Blood but, with Ian Starshine , would either be actively working to stop it or at leasst get as far away from it as possible.

Respectfully,


Brian P.

*Still not sure what a figgin is. Some kind of pastry?

[Dark Matter]

I think the important thing for Tarquin is that he represents a marginal improvement on the pre-existing order.

Other than Tarquin we've got NO ONE in-comic who says the current arraignment is better. Haley's dad and his crew certainly don't believe it, and are working to go back to the old ways. One assumes the slaves don't believe this either, considering how V freed a random group and they instantly fled.

That's "Tarquin's world as it is", and that's without the 1000/day death cult aspect to Tarquin's long term plans.

I'm pretty comfortable saying Tarquin is indeed worse (i.e. more evil) than what came before. He's -THAT- good at his job.

[Warren Dew]

But the interesting thing about the cartographer: she's not particularly old. Let's say she's a bit older than she looks, she's been in business maybe 20 years. That, coincidentally, is about how long Tarquin has been running the place.

How do you figure out how old someone looks in a stick comic? All we know is that she's not a child and she doesn't have grey hair.

She does specifically talk about the political system for "500 years", and there's no reason to believe she doesn't know her history. Even if she's only been in business for 20 years, she had 20 years of childhood and youth before that; she's old enough to know if things had been peaceful before Tarquin arrived and she says they weren't.

In other words: that blood-soaked, unstable "normality" that she describes? That IS Tarquin's plan. That's what it actually looks like, in practice. We have literally zero reliable information on what the continent was like before he appeared on the scene.

Unstable? Yes. Blood soaked? She doesn't say that. If we compare the military action that we've seen under Tarquin - one battle quickly resolved by treachery - to the other military action we've seen - the siege of Azure City - both were equally bad for the existing rulers, but Azure City was far worse for the average person on the street.

Does Tarquin run an oppressive evil empire? Yes. Is it so bad it couldn't be worse? No. Malack's empire might be so bad it would be difficult to be worse, but Malack is not in charge yet.

Other than Tarquin we've got NO ONE in-comic who says the current arraignment is better. Haley's dad and his crew certainly don't believe it, and are working to go back to the old ways.

Can you reference a comic which shows that Haley's dad was even here before Tarquin? My impression is that he got here before the latest empire was set up, but not before Tarquin's arrangement was set up.

[Dark Matter]

Azure City was far worse for the average person on the street.

Nonsense. Azure City didn't have beauty contests where it's assumed the winners win by killing their rivals. Nor did it have high school marching bands doing the same. Things are seriously nasty for the average person.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html

Does Tarquin run an oppressive evil empire? Yes. Is it so bad it couldn't be worse? No. Malack's empire might be so bad it would be difficult to be worse, but Malack is not in charge yet.

Malack is Tarquin's heir. He's who Tarquin is grooming to be next.

Can you reference a comic which shows that Haley's dad was even here before Tarquin? My impression is that he got here before the latest empire was set up, but not before Tarquin's arrangement was set up.

He's been watching Tarquin's work for years. There's NO mention in there that Tarquin is making a bad situation better.