So, Malack...

[The Giant]

This thread has seen a real-world political reference, some flaming, and a lot of general snippiness all over. And it's drifting off-topic anyway. Get it back on topic (Malack's alignment) and can the hostility, or it will be locked.

And Kish, you're misreading my statement. The voice change is as a result of his shifting into "feeding mode," rather than a constantly maintained deception being cast off. His voice is a white balloon unless he's about to use his vampire powers. The only reason the word "disguising" was in there was to associate what Tarquin was doing to the larger statement, that is: "Characters' speech balloons can change situationally, whether that is as the result of a transformation (Malack) or conscious trickery (Tarquin)."

[Mike Havran]

Now, what would it take for you people to believe he's evil?

Any of, but not limited to the following:
1. Word of Giant. He did it with other Evil characters: Belkar, Thog, Redcloak...
2. "Mechanical" proof: he pings Detect Evil, for example (on the other hand if he doesn't, that's a proof of non-Evil alignment).
3. He will call himself Evil.
4. He performs some action that is in sharp contrast with LN behaviour: for example, he sneaks behind the remaining members of the Order and without warning, he blasts them with Blasphemy (if anything, LN Malack would use Dictum instead).

[Kish]

And Kish, you're misreading my statement. The voice change is as a result of his shifting into "feeding mode," rather than a constantly maintained deception being cast off.

I stand corrected.

[Paseo H]

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

[Bulldog Psion]

4. He performs some action that is in sharp contrast with LN behaviour: .

Like, say, drinking the blood of sapient "criminals" who were likely executed for something trivial like public urination, forgetting their papers at home, or belching during the national anthem?

[Mike Havran]

Like, say, drinking the blood of sapient "criminals" who were likely executed for something trivial like public urination, forgetting their papers at home, or belching during the national anthem?

Those go to the Arena Correctional Facility. We don't know what crimes are punished by direct execution, as we haven't seen any such verdict.

Say, if you had a condition that would require you to drink blood of sentient beings for your daily nourishment, and you wouldn't want to harm innocent in the process, what would you do?

[Kish]

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

To what extent Durkon is addressing the "evil or Evil" thing, I think he's voting for "evil" by arguing with Malack at all instead of just attacking him.

[Chantelune]

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

That unless Durkon cast any kind of spell allowing him to detect Malack's alignement, he don't know any better than us. He has his own opinion of the case and mostly seem to consider Malack evil because he's a vampire.

You'll notice that before that, he had no qualm with Malack being part of the Empire and even defended Malack when Haley mentioned that he was probably there too. As Malack mentioned, there is only one factor that has changed since Durkon and him were buddies : Durkon now know that Malack is a vampire.

This strip doesn't really advance the debate in any way. It's not proving Malack evil, nor neutral. Malack seems to be arguing himself to be neutral, but we don't know if he really believes what he says or just trying to make it easier for Durkon to accept him as a friend again (and not a fiend ).

Don't forget that we, as reader, know way more about Malack than Durkon, who only know what he witnessed, talked about with Malack and what other might have reported to him (and he seemed to dismiss those until now if that didn't fit his opinion of Malack).

[Paseo H]

Admittedly, from my game...

Spoiler

Show

there's a similar misapprehension, in that an 'evil' emperor is treated as 'Evil' by one of the good guys because her aunt and uncle were killed in a purge, and a surviving aunt brainwashed. She uses the similar logic of that knowingly making use of monsters makes you a monster too.

Granted, I say he's 'evil' because he doesn't relish bloodshed or torture, he just saw purging dissidents and tricking the populace into accepting it (by having a bloodthirsty, borderline complete monster and her cold sociopath son pretend to be 'rogue generals' do all the killing, and then making a big show of 'executing' them...a really sick game of 'good cop bad cop') as necessary to keep the hard won peace from being undone, and he hates this "devil's bargain" he's gotten himself into.

That said, since we're on thin ice now, what's say we call it a draw.

[Incom]

Guys, Malack is undead. He'll ping Detect Evil even if he were CG.

[ChowGuy]

And...Durkon takes the case.

What say ye?

That the LG Durkon has about as much impartiality in making that determination as the LG Miko had in declaring Roy and the rest of the Order as "evil" for associating with Belkar. (i.e., for not conforming to her code of conduct.) And this was, mind you, after pinging "Not Evil."

[pendell]

I have been a great participant in these debates, but given 871 I'm going to reserve judgement. I don't think we're done with reveals of Malak yet.

Leading possibilities:
1) Malak is lawful evil with an emphasis on lawful. So he's on the shallow end of evil tending neutral.
2) Malak is lawful neutral very close to evil. Note that he only drinks from convicted criminals scheduled for execution.
3) Malak is LAWFUL EVIL the exact same way Tarquin is -- a Complete Monster who is nonetheless affable in person.

Maybe we could draw it on a graph: Picture an XY graph. Neutral is at (0,0). Lawful is the x axis and anything above 2 is lawful, while anything below -2 is chaotic.
Good is the y axis and anything above 2 is good, while anything below -2 is evil.

Assume a scale from -10 to +10 for both.

Given this, I would peg Malack at about (9,[-1.9] to [-2.5]) -- extremely lawful, but either just this side of neutral to low-end evil. And if so, credit must be given for overcoming the tendancy of his template, which pushes him much lower on the scale. Tarquin, by contrast, is probably around (6,-8) while Xykon and Belkar are probably both around (-9, -9).

If a person is trying to swim and you drop a lead weight on him, does he get at least some credit for effort if he stays afloat at all? Okay, so he doesn't swim as well as an olympic-class swimmer and from a strictly objective point of view is a terrible swimmer. But it may take more effort for him to swim at all than for an olympian to win a gold medal.

Thinking about this -- is it harder for a vampire to be lawful neutral than it is for a human to be lawful good? If so, does a vampire who has risen above his nature to the extent of achieving a lawful neutral to shallow-lawful-evil conduct deserve greater praise than a normal human who lives a lawful neutral life?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I've said it before, but this thread is the appropriate place to restate it: we don't have any actual proof of Malack being evil beyond "associates to evil". Vampires are free-willed, and Rich is known to dislike "absolute" morality (meaning "every member of the group must belong to the morality written in the rulebook", not the other kind of absolute morality).

Yes, Malack lives and participates in an absolutist empire. That only indicates he is strongly Legal, as per Brian's post. If you follow all the rules, you are probably safe in the Empire of Blood (and you are definitely safer than in the situation that preceded it). By helping Tarquin, Malack has indeed promoted a good cause: stability and safety. Yes, freedom is lacking, but that's a Chaos objective, not a Good one*.

Everything else is circumstantial. "He is evil because he is a vampire" is racist, just as bad as " he is evil because he is a goblin". As long as vampires are free-willed, the fact they were created with dark magic means nothing to their morality. Yes, they must feed on the blood of others, presumably intelligent beings. That's just tough luck of the draw, unless they volunteered to be converted into a vampire. Under those circumstances, drinking from the condemned is a morally Good choice. Feeding the killer of your children to a dragon because you don't buy the ludicrous "it wasn't me, it was my identical twin" defence is perfectly acceptable (if the laws include execution by dragon for children killers, which in the Empire of Blood it likely does), even if a bit rash, but even Good people are allowed to be hot-headed when confronted with the killer of their children.

Really, the only thing that draws Malack towards Evil is the fact that he helped create and support the empires. But we know this wasn't his plan, it was Tarquin's. Under the defence "maybe Malack is the Belkar of Tarquin's group", Malack could easily be a memebr of the group because they accept him, where others would condemn him for being a vampire. Under the circumstances, he goes along with the plan, and in whatever ways he feels are safe, he tries to reduce the evilness of the empire, while upholding the Legal side of it. Strong laws, strictly enforced. Other than that, we have not seen him actually do anything Evil. He doesn't burn prisoners to make presents for his friends, for example.

Grey Wolf

*I am fully aware that personal freedom is a Good desire, not just a Chaotic one, just pointing out that to a Legal Neutral, individual freedom is unlikely to be a priority

[Souhiro]

Malak is EVIL.

But he's also a friendly man (or lizard, or Vampire-Lizard if you want to get technical) a Good creature wouldn't keep running the evil Empire of Blood.

But he's also what you would call "A legal lad", just as Tarkin is.


Malak isn't above drinking the blood of inocents (Empire's executions? they are the kind of men that would hang Robin Hood) but he has given his friendship to Durkon.


This is how Durkon is: killing a friend, a good friend, because he's evil and would kill more inocents.

[Aldrakan]

Leading possibilities:
1) Malak is lawful evil with an emphasis on lawful. So he's on the shallow end of evil tending neutral.
2) Malak is lawful neutral very close to evil. Note that he only drinks from convicted criminals scheduled for execution.
3) Malak is LAWFUL EVIL the exact same way Tarquin is -- a Complete Monster who is nonetheless affable

I personally favor the idea that he's evil but somewhat on denial about it. He tries to justify himself, but his justifications are far from sufficient because the empire's justice system is terrible and similar. For fans of Malack this does introduce he possibility that he's redeemable to the point of being neutral if he recognizes this and changes his behavior.

[Winter]

Assume a scale from -10 to +10 for both.

You mean something like this?

Spoiler

Show

Note: This is just my personal interpretation and some of the alignments are quite hard to judge or we do not have enough data.

[pendell]

Yes, very like. However, if I may make a suggestion to improve your post, I would put the image in [ spoiler ] tags, so that people who don't want to see it don't have to watch it load. :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Scarlet Knight]

Leading possibilities:
1) Malak is lawful evil with an emphasis on lawful. So he's on the shallow end of evil tending neutral.
2) Malak is lawful neutral very close to evil. Note that he only drinks from convicted criminals scheduled for execution.
3) Malak is LAWFUL EVIL the exact same way Tarquin is -- a Complete Monster who is nonetheless affable in person.

Given this, I would peg Malack at about (9,[-1.9] to [-2.5]) -- extremely lawful, but either just this side of neutral to low-end evil. And if so, credit must be given for overcoming the tendancy of his template, which pushes him much lower on the scale. Tarquin, by contrast, is probably around (6,-8) while Xykon and Belkar are probably both around (-9, -9).

Thinking about this -- is it harder for a vampire to be lawful neutral than it is for a human to be lawful good? If so, does a vampire who has risen above his nature to the extent of achieving a lawful neutral to shallow-lawful-evil conduct deserve greater praise than a normal human who lives a lawful neutral life?

If I was trying to play a LN vampire, I might do what Malack does. I need human blood to live, so you go to a place where it's plentiful, legal to obtain, & you don't have to do the killing.

I would enjoy the company of both good & evil friends, be thoughtful but with bursts of emotion.

Yes, I think Malack is well suited for LN especially if the "fighting your nature ( ie Drizzt) hero" is allowed.

[Mike Havran]

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?

[Winter]

Yes, very like. However, if [...]

Good point. And if I ever make another version, then 500*500 px will do just as fine...

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?

Yes, but we do not know how far LG he is/was in the judgement and his position reflects my interpretation based on what I saw of him. He might have been LG, but I am very sure he is not anymore.

[Kish]

I like the graph. But wasn't Eugene already judged as Lawful Good in the afterlife, since Roy didn't want him to seek them out once the Oath is fulfilled?

Eugene is taking for granted that he'll be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled. Roy is taking for granted that Eugene will be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled.

They might both be in for a surprise.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Eugene is taking for granted that he'll be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled. Roy is taking for granted that Eugene will be ushered into Celestia when the Oath is fulfilled.

They might both be in for a surprise.

On the risk of derailing the thread: bitter is not an Evil characteristic. We know that Eugene performed many acts of valor. We know he was capable of love (to his wife). Yes, Eugene's fatal flaw was seldom seeing things to completion, getting bored and moving on. But none of those are Evil characteristics. If his actions were bad enough to warrant punishemnt worse than being forced to wait outside the gates, the angels would surely have sent him to the Chaotic Good bin (or even the chaotic neutral) by now. The fact that he is waiting indicates that the angels are willing to let him in, as long as the blood oath is resolved.

But yes, I admit that Kish might be right on this one. He might be up for a review of his case, and his actions while dead might count against him in that case. We don't know. That said, who was the one that said that Eugene going to hell was an unrealistic expectation at this point? Was it Roy's mom, or Roy's angel?

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

I'm a little unclear on how things work under 3.5 rules, but I was under the impression that subjects were judged on what they did in their lives, not their afterlives. The afterlife is where you're sorted for the eternity that most fits your outlook in life. Once done, you don't get resorted unless you return to life via resurrection .

This may bring up a difference between goblins and vampires -- again, I'm not sure exactly how it works in 3.5, but at least in Anne Rice's 'verse , dead things don't change . You have to be alive to grow, to adapt, to become something different from what you are today. Dead people just keep endlessly repeating the same loop at the point they left life. Which is why nothing you do in afterlife counts for or against you, and why it may be much harder to redeem dead people or outsiders than it is to redeem or cast down living beings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[King of Nowhere]

I think that malack actually BELIEVE himself to be LN.
And as a vampire he still has to feed on blood, so getting it from people tried for execution is the best he can do. And he's not part enough of the crimes of the empire that he can be said to be an accomplice of said crimes. There's plenty of people in their buroucratic system that makes their work just because someone has to do it, or because they need the pay. As long as they are not part of the execution, they cannot be held responsible. even if you disagree with your country's justice, someone still has too oversee the repairing of the sewers, and it may as well be you.

All in all, I am convinced that Malack is LN, unless he will be proven to be lying or he will be shown to commit more evil actions than being loosely associated with an evil empire and being a vampire.

Also the argument about him having to fight his nature is a good one. a slightly evil vampire could very well be very good in vampiric terms, and deseving of praise for keeping a modicum of morality despite the pressure of his nature. In his case, however, I think it's the lawfulness. he appears to have a hard set system of what is right or wrong and won't bulge much with it.

Sidenote on eugene: he was very poor at social relations, and a jerkass, but he's been shown to take the good choice eventually. examples include

Spoiler

Show

talking right eye out of pursuing vengeance, and abandoning his revenge on xykon to take care of his family

[Winter]

I'm a little unclear on how things work under 3.5 rules, but I was under the impression that subjects were judged on what they did in their lives, not their afterlives. The afterlife is where you're sorted for the eternity that most fits your outlook in life. Once done, you don't get resorted unless you return to life via resurrection .

The problem is that Eugene is in a state we have no idea about.

If you are in the afterlife, you are judged. If you are alive, you will get judged based on your deeds.
If you die, get judged, get into the afterlife, are called back and live again for 5 years, it is obvious you will get re-judged based on your new actions. That is a no brainer to me. No matter if you were Lawful Good before, if you slaughter and burn some orphanages for fun you won't get in again. You alignment shifted while you were alive.

But Eugene is not "alive", he is a in a realm between. Even worse, he is in a realm people usually should not be. They get there, get judged, get moved to whatever afterlife the judging resulted in. In the "between" is nothing you can do to affect your alignment. There is no one to kill, to cheat, to help. It's just a moment before you travel on.
Due to his bloodcurse Eugene is stuck in that "between" and due to his ability to still interact with the mortal world (due to his trip to Shojo, his phonecall to Roy, his Ghostform, and his interaction with a died Roy) he has opportunities to be active he should not have.

Eugene is in a position where he should not be able to influence his alignment at all but due to the exceptional circumstances - he can. This is a very exceptional situation and I am curious how "the powers that are" will react to that.
Given they try to be "fair" I highly doubt they ignore all the things Eugene did.

[Chessgeek]

That said, who was the one that said that Eugene going to hell was an unrealistic expectation at this point? Was it Roy's mom, or Roy's angel?

Roy's Archon, although I don't think it would actually know if Eugene's actions while dead could come up in a review. But why would it matter what he did in his afterlife? The devas review people's lives, which obviously end when they stop living.

[Winter]

All in all, I am convinced that Malack is LN, unless he will be proven to be lying or he will be shown to commit more evil actions than being loosely associated with an evil empire and being a vampire.

I think he's in the area between N and E, but I'd not hang the final decision on how he reacts as vampire. His stance is surely commendable and is a strongly good tendency that moves him out of the evil section.

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.
Also Malack must be very much aware that not everyone who is "found guilty" in the Empire of Blood actually "deserves" that sentence. We're looking at clearly Lawful Evil behavior in that regard (the laws are unjust and you know it! You even have the influence to change them but still don't do it).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Roy's Archon, although I don't think it would actually know if Eugene's actions while dead could come up in a review.

Roy's Archon seems very well informed of how the lower sections of the mountain work. It seems to go with the position, and a lot of the knowledge seems to be infused into the creature (for example, the Archon being surprised that Roy's mom can guess his name).

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.

Neutral can mean not much caring about the bigger picture, just staying "good" (by which in this context I mean loyal, supportive, etc.) to those closest to you, and to hell with strangers. In Henlein's Starship Troopers, there is a good point to be made that ethical thought has constantly grown to include ethic rules to deal with more and more diverse groups of people. From family, to tribe, to city, to country, etc. Paladins think that Good is defending humans and slaughtering goblins. We know that is unethical, because goblins should be considered individuals with ethics as well. Well, if Malack is stuck in the "tribe" level of ethical thought, he could easily be Good to the tribe while being Evil to those refusing to follow the strict rules. I.e. Neutral.

Also Malack must be very much aware that not everyone who is "found guilty" in the Empire of Blood actually "deserves" that sentence. We're looking at clearly Lawful Evil behavior in that regard (the laws are unjust and you know it! You even have the influence to change them but still don't do it).

Could you back that up with some evidence? Not being sarcastic, I just can't remember of the top of my head what crimes we have heard being committed and which were punished by death. Seditious talking is the best I can recall.

I may just be misremembering, but we don't know how much Malack knows about the shadier part of the government. Like Roy tricking his party to go on side adventures, I picture Tarquin, knowing Malack is a bit on the neutral side, just hiding the operation of the squads of death-dealing ninjas. He lets Malack think that the courts, while oppressive, are just, and that the crimes that get dealt death are indeed to Malack's sensibilities, while taking care of other annoyances such as seditious talks outside of Malack's knowledge.

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

But what moves him into the red area is that he is friends with an utter monster and supports running a super-evil empire that causes endless deaths. I fail to see how you can be neutral while your friends (not people you tolerate or work with) are doing what Tarquin and his friends do. Malack might not be part of a lot of what is going on but he surely does not reject Tarquin's way.

Then again, he may be as clueless about Tarquin as Durkon was about Malak. Durkon closely associated with Malak for a considerable time and seems to have never figured out that he was a vampire.

If Malak spends all or much of his time in his temple performing religious duties, he may be nearly clueless about the outside world. The cluelessness is strong with both Malak and Durkon.

...

Come to think of it, that seems to be a problem in general with religious types in OOTS. Miko is as blind to the way real people are as Durkon and Malack are, and Redcloak has so bought into the Dark One's way of looking at things he has difficulty dealing with the concerns of ordinary people, as seen in SOD.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Winter]

Then again, he may be as clueless about Tarquin as Durkon was about Malak.

You're really trying to sell me that Malack has adventured with Tarquin for 35 years, then they started that "Let's build a system of empires that we topple once in a while", also switched groups once in a while and still worked for the same goal, lives in one of the most possible "through and through evil empires imaginable" and that he did not notice how evil Tarquin is?

I want to add another question: Are you really serious about this?

There is no way in all nine hells that Malack is not aware of whom he is friends with.