So, Malack...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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?

How about, instead, he proposed it in a way that Malack would swallow it? Something like: "No single empire can last very long here, and every time someone tries, all it does is get thousands slaughtered, just to barely make it a year before starting over. How about we create three empires instead, controlled by us, that pretend to fight each other while in fact slowly taking over and establishing the rule of Law? I get to rule, Malack gets peace and quiet, [list other carrots for the rest of the party here]. Doesn't that sound like a better deal than what they have right now?"

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

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?

I'm considering the possiblity that Malak is clueless. Whether that is willful clueless or not is beside the point at this time. But people in this comic are really good at deceiving themselves about the people they work alongside of, or what they are doing. See: Redcloak's "plan" and his relationship to Xykon.

Of course, the people who cling the most tightly to their delusions are evil beings in-comic. So it may be that part of being evil is the willful decision not to see the truth about themselves, their actions, or about others.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chantelune]

Nah, I really doubt Malack is clueless about Tarquin's true nature and how he rule the Empire. But friendship is not a matter of alignment in my opinion. Most people focus on the "Good" vs "Evil" of the alignment system of D&D, but don't forget the "Law" vs "Chaos" part. In Planescape setting, you can see good and evil people joining forces to fight the forces of law or chaos.

Malack being Lawful Neutral, if he is, wouldn't be an issue toward his friendship and association with Tarquin as they seem to mostly work on the Lawful aspect of things with their empire.

[Raineh Daze]

A more moral society would also have the downside of wanting at least one of his friend's heads on a platter, and his for... existing.

Also, this is the person that failed to realise Elan was ludicrously not-Nale like until after the fact. I'm not so certain about what he can pick up on.

[pendell]

So maybe instead of a 2-dimensonal alignment axis we need a 3d-axis: Lawful/chaotic, Good/evil, Stupid/not stupid.

That would even make a certain amount of sense. Creatures below INT 3 can't have alignment at all, can they?

So the lower the intelligence scale, the more it mitigates their other choices and pushes them towards neutral. That may be why we as a group are willing to forgive Thog for things we find inexcusable in Tarquin.

Of course, if Malack is intelligent enough to do spell research than he should theoretically be intelligent enough to understand the difference between good and evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chantelune]

Also, this is the person that failed to realise Elan was ludicrously not-Nale like until after the fact. I'm not so certain about what he can pick up on.

Well, Nale is well-known for being the scheming type and Malack didn't know that Tarquin had two sons. So when a guy who look exactly like Nale is brought by bounty hunters, he had no reason to doubt him being Nale and every reason to suspect he was trying to play dumb and pretending to be his long lost twin brother who's name was in reverse.

When Tarquin confirmed that it was Elan and not Nale, Malack accepted it as the truth.

I'll agree that he can be clueless at time, the fact that he didn't realize that Durkon knew Elan and the rest of the order goes that way, but I think he's not that clueless. After all, he had the feeling that they all knew each other. I think he mostly looks clueless when confronted with Tarquin's genre savyness.

[Blue Ghost]

So maybe instead of a 2-dimensonal alignment axis we need a 3d-axis: Lawful/chaotic, Good/evil, Stupid/not stupid.

That would even make a certain amount of sense. Creatures below INT 3 can't have alignment at all, can they?

So the lower the intelligence scale, the more it mitigates their other choices and pushes them towards neutral. That may be why we as a group are willing to forgive Thog for things we find inexcusable in Tarquin.

Of course, if Malack is intelligent enough to do spell research than he should theoretically be intelligent enough to understand the difference between good and evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

There is more than one facet of intelligence. Academic capacity for spell research and moral discernment don't have much to do with one another. The latter would probably fall under Wisdom, though in the OOTSverse several high-Wisdom characters fail in this regard.

[Raineh Daze]

High-Wisdom characters tend to be disturbingly bad at common sense. Or maybe it's that they've got a more rarefied common sense that is unfortunately at odds with more useful genre savviness. Or maybe it's just good perception but no bonuses to interpreting what they spot.

That he didn't put 2 and 2 together with Haley, Elan, and then everyone going off together... I'm not so certain he'd spot these things.

[Mike Havran]

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.

Well, Tarquin is certainly able to keep his nature low key if needed - how else do you think his wife remained with him, persumably for a few years?

Now, back when they were just adventuring party I doubt they were anything more than your standard dungeon crawling variety. They apparently split up for some reason, but unlike the Scribblers, there was no bad blood.

Then they have their scheme running for about 20 years. They are toppling their kingdoms once in one or two years. Assuming their rotate all possible pairings, Malack was working with Tarquin on about three kingdoms. Which is suddenly not that much.

I guess Malack knows or suspects that Tarquin is a bastard. But he might very well willingly ignore it because from his perspective, making LE empires out of NE/CE environment is an acceptable goal so one might rise above working with unsavory types.

[Raineh Daze]

I guess Malack knows or suspects that Tarquin is a bastard. But he might very well willingly ignore it because from his perspective, making LE empires out of NE/CE environment is an acceptable goal so one might rise above working with unsavory types.

We also know that Tarquin was working as a high priest when Tarquin unsuccessfully tried to conquer the Western Continent and invited him to be a warlord rather than have no place to go, which was when he came up with the plan.

I'm not sure if this has any moral significance, but it seems kind of relevant to any conversation on their pasts.

[Cuthalion]

So maybe instead of a 2-dimensonal alignment axis we need a 3d-axis: Lawful/chaotic, Good/evil, Stupid/not stupid.

That would even make a certain amount of sense. Creatures below INT 3 can't have alignment at all, can they?

So the lower the intelligence scale, the more it mitigates their other choices and pushes them towards neutral. That may be why we as a group are willing to forgive Thog for things we find inexcusable in Tarquin.

Well, there are plenty of movie characters that are either True Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. I've thought about it before. It would make sense.

[Mike Havran]

We also know that Tarquin was working as a high priest when Tarquin unsuccessfully tried to conquer the Western Continent and invited him to be a warlord rather than have no place to go, which was when he came up with the plan.

I'm not sure if this has any moral significance, but it seems kind of relevant to any conversation on their pasts.

Do you mean "Malack was working..."? Even if so, I'm not so sure we could count on that Tarquin's exposition. After all, we know that Malack didn't "find" him, but it was vice versa.

[Raineh Daze]

Yes, I did mean Malack.

He found me and offered me a job as Chief Warlord to his new master.

[Paseo H]

Huh.

Looks like the topic got back on track without me. Very well, I retract what I said earlier.

Please excuse my unduly strident behavior earlier, it's just in reaction to the tendency I see for people to use any excuse to either minimize or maximize some aspect of a character unduly, as evidenced by the aforementioned precedents of Belkar and Miko.

So to me, the tone from a rather vocal majority all seems like "Until I see Malack literally chowing down on live, crying Care Bears, I will deem him neutral," which I think is a bit silly.

That's not to say that some of you haven't put forth some reasonable sounding arguments, or at least ones that are polite and civil compared to the discourse earlier on, after which the Giant himself intervened.

And for my part, it's not like I'm saying "Malack poked a puppy, therefore he's a Complete Monster," honestly I'm leaning towards 'evil' instead of 'Evil.'

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And for my part, it's not like I'm saying "Malack poked a puppy, therefore he's a Complete Monster," honestly I'm leaning towards 'evil' instead of 'Evil.'

It comes down to: we lack evidence. Malack is too passive, and hasn't been on-screen enough, for us to judge his Good/Evil moral position. Yes, he has helped build Tarquin's plan, but we do not know how many times he has toned down (or up) the laws Tarquin intended to pass to make the place more to his liking. Nor if he has ever tried to talk Tarquin towards greater benevolence.

What little we have seen is that of a guy who is reasonable, friendly and quite moral regarding the creation of undead (no unthinking undead, accept parental responsibility for created vampires, form deep emotional attachment to them). All else being equal, a vampire can do much worse than feed off the condemned, and lets be honest: a vampire isn't likely to be allowed that in a Good city, so what recourse has he got, even if he isn't evil himself, but to clench his fangs and put up with an Evil empire if it is the one place where he and his children don't get attacked on sight (Nale notwithstanding).

Now, much of the above is circular reasoning: I start from the assumption that Malack is LN, and see if he fits. (I believe he does). The exact same exercise can be done starting from LE. I am not trying to argue that Malack must be LN, only that he needn't be LE.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

Allow me to put forth some context.

The only way we would all agree that Malak is Evil is if he did something that makes him a Complete Monster. Tarquin, for example, setting slaves on fire for his son's birthday present. Xykon forcing people to fight each other in his gladiator games and laughing when hobgoblins die or are tortured for his amusement.

The problem is, both in fiction and the real world, most people aren't at the extremes of good and evil. In fact, the better the fiction the more nuanced both heroes and villains are, because it's more true to life.

Which means that a well-written character should have subtleties, complexities, and not be easily pinned down to a specific alignment. Haley, for example is "chaotic good-ish". Miko started as lawful good but I suspect fell to True Neutral.

Which means that the alignment of any character in this strip is up for debate unless the Giant deliberately sets out to make the character a caricature, a walking, talking billboard a la Pilgrim's Progress, where the characters are literally named after their characteristic (Faith, Hope, Giant Despair, By-Ends) and go no deeper than a two-dimensional portrait.

Malack has not yet had a complete monster moment.

In a way, it would be easy if there was no such alignment as "neutral". If we looked at things only from the prospect of Good or Evil, Malack would unquestionably fall on the Evil end of the street. But since there is neutrality, it introduces an element of ambiguity into all these questions.

And the less extreme a character is, the more ambiguous their alignment. Remember the graph we discussed earlier and Winter helpfully drew up. When you get down close to the 2 value on any axis, the distinctions between the alignments blur. The difference between a lawful good of (2.1, 2.1) and a lawful neutral character of (1.9, 1.9) is fine. Likewise for lawful evil. Or true neutral. Or any other alignment.

Unless the character is an extreme, the character's alignment is debatable.

Most extremes are poor writing. The Giant is NOT a poor author.

And so I am reserving final judgement about Malak's alignment, because the giant is not done revealing information about him. We now know two facts about him as of 871 we did not know in 870 -- he still considers Durkon a friend, and he feeds on convicted criminals sentenced to death. When he says " a great deal of it goes to waste", I suspect this means that he does not drain his target to death, but only takes what he needs to survive.

Up until 870, we didn't even know he was a vampire. Now, as of 871, we know a little more about him.

Given these things, I think I will wait until the giant's done revealing information about him before I make a final decision about his alignment. It's not like waiting a few strips until we have more information is going to cost me anything.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Paseo H]

To me, that kinda sounds like you're saying "nobody can truly be proven evil unless they've crossed the Moral Event Horizon" (i.e. the "complete monster moment.")

Which, for all intents and purposes, may as well be "nobody is truly evil unless they've crossed the Moral Event Horizon."

I have to disagree with that. There are degrees of evil, and surely a person can remain within the redeemable degrees and thus be a merely 'evil' villain, without having a moment of essentially being pure evil and thus nearly impossible to come back from being a terrible person.

Think of it this way: some people are further along the road paved to Ba'ator, but some distances are easier to come back from than others.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

When he says " a great deal of it goes to waste", I suspect this means that he does not drain his target to death, but only takes what he needs to survive..

Brian,

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Brian,

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Grey Wolf

And Malack is seemingly blind to the implications of "the Empire I help to lead executes far more people than I could drink the blood of every day," but Durkon may not be.

[pendell]

I have to disagree with that. There are degrees of evil, and surely a person can remain within the redeemable degrees and thus be a merely 'evil' villain, without having a moment of essentially being pure evil and thus nearly impossible to come back from being a terrible person.

I agree. But whether a person is objectively evil and whether we can arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence we have is another question entirely.

The background I am from warns against hastily judging people as good/evil/whatever when the question is in any way ambiguous.

As a rule, we humans do not have the ability to look into a person's mind and heart, to view their actions in full context, and from that certainly determine their alignment.

Typically, we can judge fictional characters with more accuracy, because fictional characters are not humans. Depending on the type of fiction, we can have complete access to all their thoughts, their ideas, their history. If you've read Start of Darkness, for example, you know everything about Xykon that Rich Burlew wants us to know about his motivation and background -- we have all the significant information. So we CAN judge Xykon.

Malack is a more subtle character and is nowhere nearly as obviously evil.

He MAY be as evil as Xykon. But I cannot CONCLUDE that based on the information I have. My ethical outlook teaches me that I can't expect to be judged more mercifully than I judge others. So I am willing to extend Malak some benefit of the doubt until the Giant's done revealing information about him. I concede that Lawful Evil is at this point his most probable alignment, but there are enough other factors (won't drink the blood of the innocent, is friends with mortals, helps Durkon) that I cannot at this time believe this is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

As you probably know, I agree with you pretty much all the way through, so this is just a note: I think you are misreading that phrase. I take it to mean that far more people are executed in the Empire of BLood than Malack could possibly drink - thus much of that blood of the guilty is wasted (i.e. sent down the drain, undrank)

Thank you, Grey Wolf. Possibility noted.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aldrakan]

I feel the fact that he bothers to feed the way he does implies that he's evil, not Evil. Saying "oh, they would have been killed anyway" is an obviously insufficient justification, especially given that he helps run the empire. Still, that he brings it up at all suggests that he feels the need to salve his conscience, and consequently has got a conscience to salve.

[Tragak]

Still, that he brings it up at all suggests that he feels the need to salve his conscience, and consequently has got a conscience to salve.

Or Durkon's.

[NFB42]

I don't particular care about what the rules say about alignment. I've personally always seen it as:

Good: A character who puts the needs and well-being of others above their own.
Neutral: A character who puts their own needs and well-being (and possibly those of their close friends and loved ones) first without regards to those of others.
Evil: A character whose needs and well-being come at the expense of those of others.

By my definition Malack has not done anything that proves him to be of evil alignment rather than neutral. Yes he's been shown to not particularly care about the fate of others not close to him, but he's not been shown to actively (callously) cause harm to others in the furthering of his own goals either (I don't accept Malack fighting the OotS as actively causing harm because imo the widespread acceptance of violence and battle to the death as a proper means of conflict resolution among both good and evil persons is simply one of the idiosyncrasies that come with game settings).

Though I'll be honest, mostly I'd just find it really boring if Malack was yet another lawful evil character. Having a lawful neutral character hanging with an evil adventuring party (Tarquin's) would be an interesting mirror to the more common of having a neutral character hanging with a good party.

[Aldrakan]

Or Durkon's.

True, but unless he's lying about how he feeds, I think it still implies that he's making an attempt to be less evil about it. He's unlikely to do that because there's an off-chance he'll one day need a very feeble excuse.

[Scow2]

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.

No, it's really not. That's his excuse to keep the Good Guys from outright smashing him to pieces. He showed his true colors during his fight with Elan. He put his "master plan" into action because he wants to rule the Western Kingdoms, and this was the most savvy way to go about it. He's doing it because he wants to be the Evil Overlord (Note the Capital "Evil" there) - The type of Evil Overlord who not only gets overthrown by a dashing hero in an awesome story, but also gets to Live as a GOD all the years up to that point. He revels in his Evil.

[Incom]

It comes down to: we lack evidence. Malack is too passive, and hasn't been on-screen enough, for us to judge his Good/Evil moral position. Yes, he has helped build Tarquin's plan, but we do not know how many times he has toned down (or up) the laws Tarquin intended to pass to make the place more to his liking. Nor if he has ever tried to talk Tarquin towards greater benevolence.

What little we have seen is that of a guy who is reasonable, friendly and quite moral regarding the creation of undead (no unthinking undead, accept parental responsibility for created vampires, form deep emotional attachment to them). All else being equal, a vampire can do much worse than feed off the condemned, and lets be honest: a vampire isn't likely to be allowed that in a Good city, so what recourse has he got, even if he isn't evil himself, but to clench his fangs and put up with an Evil empire if it is the one place where he and his children don't get attacked on sight (Nale notwithstanding).

Now, much of the above is circular reasoning: I start from the assumption that Malack is LN, and see if he fits. (I believe he does). The exact same exercise can be done starting from LE. I am not trying to argue that Malack must be LN, only that he needn't be LE.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

This is basically the summary of all my posts in this forum for the past week or so. Thank you.

[veti]

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.

Just a guess, but: commit any of the above crimes while being too infirm or weak to make a good gladiatorial spectacle, and you might find yourself on that particular Death Row.

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?

Die.

Seriously. There may be a way to be a good vampire - but not for long.

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.

Yeah - nah. A good vampire makes as much sense as a vegetarian piranha or a pacifist terrorist. Good requires 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings': you don't express that by drinking their blood, even if they have been condemned by your only-figuratively-bloodthirsty totalitarian BFF.

Consider Sabine. She appears to be freewilled, yesno? And yet she's a literal embodiment of chaos and evil. Which implies that if she was somehow converted to LG, she would literally cease to exist. Right then and there, she'd vanish like a puff of antimatter.

Basically, as soon as you admit magic into your universe, just about all the logic we know needs - rethinking. Including the idea of free will (assuming you believe such a thing exists in any world, but let's not get into that now). To say that Malack can 'exercise free will' to be not-evil is like saying that I can "exercise free will" to be 9' tall. It's not "will" that's preventing me from being that: it's physiology. Ditto Malack and evil. Doesn't matter what he wants to be, he's stuck with it.

[jere7my]

Yeah - nah. A good vampire makes as much sense as a vegetarian piranha or a pacifist terrorist. Good requires 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings': you don't express that by drinking their blood, even if they have been condemned by your only-figuratively-bloodthirsty totalitarian BFF.

Y'know, some people in our very own real world voluntarily donate their blood to help people. (I've got the needle scars to prove it!) Is it so impossible that people in a fantasy world might donate blood to support a good vampire?

What about a vampire who dumpster-dives outside the Red Cross, feeding on blood that's past its "use by" date? Or one who "cleans up" battlefields...with a little snack now and then?

The concept of a vampire engaged in a moral struggle with its nature is...not new.

[Leliel]

-snip-

Ahem.

WRONG!

Not only is a succubus going good possible in D&D, there's actually a canonical example of a succubus paladin.

And-is it really evil to desire to not die a horrible death?

If you say it is, well then I guess that everything should detect as evil, as all life will destroy all other life to not starve.

EDIT: And if you hit me with that old "a truly altruistic person would die"-yeah yeah. Pull the other one.

See how a man's true morality is, give him power, don't deprive him of it and force him into a bad situation. Soldiers, for example, are some of the greatest people in the world, but on the battlefield? Literally one of the first rules is to refer to your enemies as subhuman to avoid the guilt of killing them as long as possible.

[Winter]

Pendell, Grey_wolf, I see the point you want to make why Malack could be neutral and understand it, but I simply do not share it's a realistic interpretation.
I might be wrong, as I am wrong in disagreeing with Rich that Enor and Ganji are still in the neutral territory, but the empire is simply too evil and Malack is simply too involved in the entire scheme to, for me, still being considered neutral.

You are either part of that scheme and are friends with the people who are "behind it" (Malack might not be "behind it" just like Tarquin, we do not know) or you are not. With things this thoroughly evil you're not sitting there year after years and watch it (and take part of it) if you don't agree.
No matter what lies Tarquin told him, the Empire of Blood is too obvious in what it does for those who are in it.

I consider Malack to be evil and I consider it that much that not even a Word from Rich in regards how he sees Malack would shake me in that interpretation (based on his relationship with Tarquin who's not hiding at all who and what he is once he's out of the public view).