So, Malack...

[adulus]

Well, he tried to make somebody a slave to him, which was definitely against their will. So that quickly answers the whole evil/neutral thing for me. Now, Evil/evil? I'm going by a rough definition of capital E Evil: Evil because they think they can get away with it. Lowercase evil would be evil because they think they must be. So far, Malack's evil actions have been a mix of the two, but what decides it is that he tends towards inaction. He's doesn't actively go do evil, things happen and occasionally force him to act and when that happens he leans evil. So, lowercase lawful evil is my final answer.

[Corneel]

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.

You can also read "a great deal of it goes to waste" in another sense: more than enough people are sentenced to death every day in the EoB for him to get his sustenance from that source.

[Bulldog Psion]

You can also read "a great deal of it goes to waste" in another sense: more than enough people are sentenced to death every day in the EoB for him to get his sustenance from that source.

That seems to be the only logical way that the statement can be read. He's saying that so many are executed that he can only drink a fraction of the available blood.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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).

There in a nutshell lies our problem. I disagree with both your definition of Neutral (which you haven't given us, by the way, but whatever it is will not match the one I gave earlier, obviously) and most importantly, with your belief that you can override an author's definition of morality. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss, our positions will remain diametrically opposed no matter what, since we disagree in fundamental subjective metrics, so we would be comparing oranges and apples all the way down.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[Paseo H]

There in a nutshell lies our problem. I disagree with both your definition of Neutral (which you haven't given us, by the way, but whatever it is will not match the one I gave earlier, obviously) and most importantly, with your belief that you can override an author's definition of morality. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss, our positions will remain diametrically opposed no matter what, since we disagree in fundamental subjective metrics, so we would be comparing oranges and apples all the way down.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

I really don't think that's absolute. There's plenty of instances where a reader can validly override an author's definition of morality.

[Raineh Daze]

I really don't think that's absolute. There's plenty of instances where a reader can validly override an author's definition of morality.

Very few of them have the author's definition of morality determining whether certain mechanical effects in the game system would apply. I'm not sure how one could go about overriding that. Disagreeing, maybe, but overriding?

[Paseo H]

Very few of them have the author's definition of morality determining whether certain mechanical effects in the game system would apply. I'm not sure how one could go about overriding that. Disagreeing, maybe, but overriding?

Use your imagination as to the situations where this would work. That's about all I can say in the forums about the matter.

[Millygoat]

I honestly don't think it really matters much. As rich has said, the only real moral absolutes in terms of alignment are the various outsiders. We have a few outliers, like Xykon who are just terrible horrible people, but aside from that the alignment grid is just a loose structure cobbled together to give people rough ideas as to what is generally the norm for various beasties and socieities.

If he is evil, then he is a darn personable and easy to like flavor of evil, and seems to be honorable and value friendship and comraderie. If he is neutral, then he's done some things a lot of people would find questionable (the entire helping the cycle of empires bit) but at the same time we don't really know how he views his motivation for doing so. Maybe he feels it would be better than the alternative, or maybe in the way of some neutrals, he just doesn't care.

All in all, the alignment system has always been a guide aside from when a DM calls BS on a paladin or cleric for doing things his diety wouldn't approve of, at least our all the tables I've been a part of. All I know for certain is that I really like our albino lizard buddy and hope he doesn't end up gutted by pointy daggers anytime soon :-)

[Icedaemon]

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.

Such an end to war is less of an end goal and more of a useful thing to achieve as that removes or at least reduces the chance of Tarquin losing his empire in a large-scale battle.

[Winter]

There in a nutshell lies our problem. I disagree with both your definition of Neutral (which you haven't given us, by the way, but whatever it is will not match the one I gave earlier, obviously) and most importantly, with your belief that you can override an author's definition of morality. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss, our positions will remain diametrically opposed no matter what, since we disagree in fundamental subjective metrics, so we would be comparing oranges and apples all the way down.

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player. He has his opinion what constitutes what alignment and plans and writes his characters accordingly. But in the case of Enor and Gannji I fully disagree. Enor I might see but Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil. This is not a question of morality, this is a question of deeds that go into the evil alignment and therefore I disagree with Rich's estimate Gannji is still neutral. What we saw in the comic simply does not support that, imo.
It does not matter much as it does not change the character ("Your alignment is not your character") but it is a perfect example where I do not have to accept the "Word of Author".

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me. I think I ignore that interjection as I doubt it'll bring us further along (in any way).

We were talking about Malack and I think I have given my reasons why I think he's not in the neutral territory anymore. As you can see on my graph, I put him very close to neutral, but not there.
He's simply working too close with Tarquin to be "not red". I also do not think he's as naive and clueless as Durkon (who is really naive and clueless, I want to point out), he did not come over as that. If he does, I might reconsider my position, though.
What I find odd is that Malack still fed Durkon the Bloodwart-tea. Why? He is very aware of his own condition but there's no way he assumed Durkon would like it as well. He did it because he wanted to see how Durkon reacts or out of spite, the latter would reinforce my belief that Malack was indeed evil.

As I said, I very much think that Malack's treatment of his own condition is a strongly good trait, but this is countered by his full acceptance of the evil empire and his friend who runs it. There's only so much time you can stare into an abyss without the abyss changing you enough. And the Tarquin-Empire-of-Blood-abyss is very deep and very dark, so you are not staring into it for years and live with it and maintain any alignment that does not end with "vil". There's a limit of what "Neutrality" can take, imo.

[pendell]

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.

I was thinking about this last night, and the question I have WRT Malack's support of the Empire of Blood is -- What is the alternative ?

Consider the WH40K universe. The Terran Empire is ruled by a thousands year emperor kept alive by the most reprehensible measures. But the alternative to THE EMPRAH and his inquisitors is not the Republic of Star Wars. No, the alternative to the Emperor are the Tyrannids and the Chaos creatures and who knows what else.

A similar problem can be seen in Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. In that series of books , the central problem is the collapse of the Galactic Empire and its replacement by either a second Galactic Empire or a successor entity, Galaxia, after an interregnum of ONLY a thousand years of war, strife, murder and anarchy. The establishment of a galactic military dictatorship is not something most of us would consider a GOOD thing, but in the context of the novels it is necessary because -- at the beginning , anyway -- the alternative is not a galaxy-wide democracy, but a galaxy-wide war.

Looking at the map , it looks to me as if the western continent has a lot more in common with WH40K than it does with Star Wars. There is no Happyvania. There is a CruelVania, a Dictatoria, and two Despotanias.

In such an environment, I can well see why even lawful good soldiers would fight for the Empire of Blood. Because gladiatorial combats and strict laws are STILL, at least from some points of view, better than a state of constant war which is perilously close to making the entire continent uninhabitable.

You have to live in the society that's available, not the society that is the best of all possible worlds. I'm sure a Lawful Good person would prefer to live under Hinjo and not Tarquin. But even Tarquin can be better than constant war, anarchy, civil war , and death.


ETA: All Hail Caiaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil.

From The Giant

There is nothing in my statement that implied that trying to kill Roy wasn't an Evil act. Being legal does not makes something not Evil. True Neutral characters can (and often do) commit Evil acts from time to time.

I included the information simply to show that the bounty hunters were not operating wholly outside the ethical framework of the Empire of Blood. While it does not change the nature of their acts, there is a certain degree of "when in Rome" going on with their actions there. Would they have attacked Roy if it weren't legal to do so? Probably not. Therefore, it is not as indicative of their overall alignment as one might initially think. Because the comic contains so few scenes of a person's life, there is a heavy "selection bias" when trying to guess their alignments. My intent when writing them was to shoot for True Neutral, however.

Yes- Gannji commits a few Evil acts against Roy. But Neutral people can commit Evil acts and remain Neutral.

[ChristianSt]

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player. He has his opinion what constitutes what alignment and plans and writes his characters accordingly. But in the case of Enor and Gannji I fully disagree. Enor I might see but Gannji has shown many instances of "malice". He is not just a bounty hunter, but he tries to murder Roy, he pushes Roy into Belkar, he refuse to work with Roy out of spite. Those are evil traits and therefore, I do not think Gannji is neutral anymore. Beyond "not caring for others" he's actively trying to make Roy's life worse (up to the point where it ends) for no reason but he wants to. That's evil. This is not a question of morality, this is a question of deeds that go into the evil alignment and therefore I disagree with Rich's estimate Gannji is still neutral. What we saw in the comic simply does not support that, imo.
It does not matter much as it does not change the character ("Your alignment is not your character") but it is a perfect example where I do not have to accept the "Word of Author".

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me. I think I ignore that interjection as I doubt it'll bring us further along (in any way).

We were talking about Malack and I think I have given my reasons why I think he's not in the neutral territory anymore. As you can see on my graph, I put him very close to neutral, but not there.
He's simply working too close with Tarquin to be "not red". I also do not think he's as naive and clueless as Durkon (who is really naive and clueless, I want to point out), he did not come over as that. If he does, I might reconsider my position, though.
What I find odd is that Malack still fed Durkon the Bloodwart-tea. Why? He is very aware of his own condition but there's no way he assumed Durkon would like it as well. He did it because he wanted to see how Durkon reacts or out of spite, the latter would reinforce my belief that Malack was indeed evil.

As I said, I very much think that Malack's treatment of his own condition is a strongly good trait, but this is countered by his full acceptance of the evil empire and his friend who runs it. There's only so much time you can stare into an abyss without the abyss changing you enough. And the Tarquin-Empire-of-Blood-abyss is very deep and very dark, so you are not staring into it for years and live with it and maintain any alignment that does not end with "vil". There's a limit of what "Neutrality" can take, imo.

But the problem with that approach, with all those characters is: They don't have enough screentime.

We have seen all these characters only for tiny snippets of their lives. We don't know what they do all the time. Sure maybe they where some evil actions performed by them. But we don't know if they done some good actions to counter that. With so few actions performed, I think it is not really possible to judge those characters (In term of D&D alignment) - especially in regards whether they are Neutral or not (maybe some of them want to achieve neutrality by performing both good & evil deeds - only we haven't seen enough of them to see the good ones). And word of god is a good shortcut in regards to having not enough information.

As others have said, I wouldn't argue that Malack is NOT evil. But I also wouldn't argue he IS evil. I think we can't make a fair assumption with the information we got. So unless some effect proves that he is evil (or Malack admits it), we need to see much more to say anything about that.

And if you think Gannji, Enor and Malack are without a question evil, why do you not have a problem with V being Neutral? I think V did actions much more evil than we have seen from all those (and many other characters). (I have no problem with V being still Neutral - I think we have enough seen of V to maintain a neutrality, but we don't know how Malack thinks about the stuff he does/is happing around him)

[Chantelune]

I really don't think that's absolute. There's plenty of instances where a reader can validly override an author's definition of morality.

I agree with that, though we are in a setting were morals are defined as a trait more than rough ideas.

d&d provides general definitions of each alignement, but the line beetween them can be a bit blurry at time and then up to each persons opinion. I think this is the case with Malack here. So far, he gives me the impression of walking on the thin line beetween neutral and evil, hence why I still can't decide if he's one or the other and would be fine with both.

My point here would be : if the Giant states that Malack is evil or neutral, then he is, in regard to his alignement. Where people put their own line beetween the two may differ, but it's up to the DM to rule out at his table, to use a gaming analogy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

When it comes to alignment, Rich is just some other D&D-player.

No, he isn't. He is both the author and the DM. He is the supreme God Creator of OotS, and what he believes to be Good is Good, what he believes to be Evil is Evil, and so on, for the confines of OotS, which is the only context in which those words even make sense. You seem to want to argue that "if Malack was doing this in the real world..." but that is fallacious. He can't: he is a vampire and can't exist in the real world. Malack can only be said to be Good, Neutral or Evil in the context of OotS, and by every definition of author and DM, Rich's understanding of those words are the only ones that count.

(This goes also for Paseo H's non-argument, btw)

How you can claim you do not agree to my definition of neutral when you just in the next part point out we have not talked about it feels a bit fuzzy to me.

I gave you my definition of Neutral several posts ago. You are the one that has not reciprocated. But from the graph you use, you seem to believe it is the knife's edge between Good and Evil. As I said, I don't know how you actually define it, but since you obviously believe in guilt by association and the razor edge, I know enough to know it is incompatible with my own definition.

Grey Wolf

[Winter]

You seem to want to argue that "if Malack was doing this in the real world..." but that is fallacious. He can't:

Good. As I do not do that.

I gave you my definition of Neutral several posts ago. You are the one that has not reciprocated. But from the graph you use, you seem to believe it is the knife's edge between Good and Evil. As I said, I don't know how you actually define it, but since you obviously believe in guilt by association and the razor edge, I know enough to know it is incompatible with my own definition.

I'm not generally believe in "guilt by association". Neutral characters can associate with evil characters while still maintaining their alignment. I believe in it in extreme cases and I find it hard to imagine any case that is more extreme than Tarquin. It's also not that Malack merely "associates" with Tarquin, he actively takes part in the empire. I think there is a difference between having an evil friend and actually being an active part in his empire, that goes way beyond mere "association".

There's no knife's edge between good and evil, there is a very broad greyzone. But if I have to decide if I put Malack into neutral or evil territory, I know where I do draw him based on what I saw in the comic.

[pendell]

Grey Wolf,

I'm sorry but I've reread the thread and I can't find exactly where you said "my definition of neutral is..." ... Could you please repost it or send me the link in PM or something?

Another thought.

Mr. Burlew has posted in this thread once as his capacity as moderator.

He COULD have taken the opportunity to say "By the way, Malak's alignment is [x]".

He didn't.

Which implies that he believes this discusison is healthy -- Malak's alignment is debatable, given the evidence we have seen in-comic, but may be made more clear by subsequent revelations. I think he wants us to be thinking on what good and evil are in D&D, and what a neutral character is and is not. If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Good. As I do not do that.

Then you are arguing "Malack would be Evil if I, and not Rich, got to define what Evil means". Which is the same problem as above. I believe Rich does get to define what Evil and Neutral mean in his world. You can disagree with Rich if you want (and you obviously do), but that is well beyond what this thread is about, not to mention against board rules.

Edit to add: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not in any way saying that I am right and you are wrong to think this way (or the other way round). As I said above, we hold to subjective fundamentals. Continuing to discuss, when I doubt there is likely no chance to change each other's most basic assumptions on the Alignment system, is only going to serve to make us hostile. Agree to disagree and all that jazz.

Edit 2: Brian, sent you that PM. Too many mentions of real-world morality for me to post it.

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

For some reason, I can just imagine Tarquin giving this speech .

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Elan? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the slaves, and you curse the Empire of Blood. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the deaths of innocents in my Empire, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very safety that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a [deleted] what you think you are entitled to.

It takes a certain kind of man to walk a wall and stand a post. We'd all prefer it was Hinjo and not Tarquin. But if Tarquin's what's available ... you can't leave the wall unmanned.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mike Havran]

If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?

I believe it's because it would give away some future plot points. I think there is going to be some surprising action from Malack, and pinpointing his alignment might give it away, or diminish the impact. So, let's guess what it could be


Edit:

For some reason, I can just imagine Tarquin giving this speech

Well, I personally can't but I can very well imagine he might say something similar to Malack in order to persuade him to support the Empire scheme.

[Winter]

Then you are arguing "Malack would be Evil if I, and not Rich, got to define what Evil means". Which is the same problem as above. I believe Rich does get to define what Evil and Neutral mean in his world. You can disagree with Rich if you want (and you obviously do), but that is well beyond what this thread is about, not to mention against board rules.

First, Rich did not say Malack was neutral. Second, I'm not saying what you put in the quotes. I say that based on what I see in the comic, I'd put Malack in the area "between neutral and evil, but already into the evil area".
That's totally different from all the things you have so far assumed what I say.
Third, we are all free to decide what we consider good, neutral, and evil in D&D and where we put certain characters from fictional work. You, me, the author, we all are entitled to our own opinion and I strongly doubt we all would disagree in this case that Malack is a pretty borderline case. I also doubt it'd make such a big difference if disagreed if he is "barely neutral" or "barely evil". It's very probably making no difference at all for the story and the character in that story.
I fail to see why you open such a big crate about this small disagreement (especially as Rich did not set Malack as neutral so far). So what is this about, then?

Edit to add: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not in any way saying that I am right and you are wrong to think this way (or the other way round). As I said above, we hold to subjective fundamentals. Continuing to discuss, when I doubt there is likely no chance to change each other's most basic assumptions on the Alignment system, is only going to serve to make us hostile. Agree to disagree and all that jazz.

I'm not sure there even is a disagreement about the alignment system in general. Just how it works in this specific case (which real position in the alignment-system is actually still unconfirmed).
But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?

I think he wants us to be thinking on what good and evil are in D&D, and what a neutral character is and is not. If this is not so, why didn't he just come out and tell us what Malack's alignment is?

I think he deliberatly wrote Malack into the grey area. Clearing that upvia this thread would destroy what he actually did in the comic.
I find Malack awesome as character, because he is in the grey area he is in. He has evil, neutral AND good tendencies and where that lands in the end is up to the reader to decide.

[SaintRidley]

But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?

That seems to be a sticking point to a lot of people when it comes to analyzing a work of literature. I don't quite get why, though.

[Emmit Svenson]

It’s plausible, at this point, that Malack could be LE or LN. I tend to think of him as LE, due to his long association and collaboration with Tarquin.

Then again, Belkar and Roy have a long association, and their alignments are diametrically opposed. Roy justifies it by saying he directs Belkar’s destructive nature for the greater good. I could see a LN Malack doing the same with regards to Tarquin, collaborating with him to found the rotating dynasties of tyranny most recently embodied in the empires of Blood, Sweat and Tears not out of evil, selfish motives, but for the desire for order and stability. The ephemeral nature of these empires presumably doesn’t seem chaotic to a worshipper of a god of destruction, who might see it as a reflection of the great cycle of growth and decay.

Still, I’m thinking evil. He’s a little too smug about technically only drinking the blood of criminals, when we know well that the Empire of Blood is an injust, slaveowning society that hands down death sentences for trivial offenses. Being complicit in its foundation and profiting from the execution of the unjustly condemned stretches the definintion of LN too far, I think.

But I’m willing to accept him as LN for dramatic purposes, if that’s where the Giant is headed. For example, if in his showdown with Durkon, a Dispel Evil or Holy Smite fail against Malack and so dramatically reveal his neutrality, I would see that as an effective twist. LN vampire, so edgy!

I suspect we’ll find out very soon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Second, I'm not saying what you put in the quotes.

See:

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

That pretty much means "Winter gets to define what Evil means, not Rich". Thus, we cannot have this conversation.

But that aside, I am not even sure where your strong disagreement comes from. Is it because I dared to claim that even the author of a work does not have final authority in regard to grey-area cases, but only a "good opinion"?

Yes, and the fact that after three proddings, you have yet to define Neutral.

GW

[hamishspence]

But I’m willing to accept him as LN for dramatic purposes, if that’s where the Giant is headed. For example, if in his showdown with Durkon, a Dispel Evil or Holy Smite fail against Malack and so dramatically reveal his neutrality, I would see that as an effective twist. LN vampire, so edgy!

Probably wouldn't work, since, for example, Detect Evil, works on undead of any alignment. It's possible that other Evil-affecting spells work the same way.

[Winter]

That pretty much means "Winter gets to define what Evil means, not Rich". Thus, we cannot have this conversation.

Yes, Winter gets to define if a character is good, evil, or neutral in regard to D&D terms. So is Grey_Wolf_c. So is Rich Burlew.
I find it good we have a character in OotS where it's worth of arguing if he is evil or not. I find that especially interesting as "alignment" is not "morals", where the former is much clearer (and harmless to talk about) than the latter. How many other characters are there we can get into each others hair over alignment?

Yes, and the fact that after three proddings, you have yet to define Neutral.

Actually, I do not. I explained why I think that Malack is to be found in the grey area between neutral and evil and why I think he is a bit too far in one direction to still think him as neutral. But if you want definitions, I gladly take these:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Why is Malack evil, not neutral you ask? As my words do not convince you, I work with direct quotes from the srd.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Malack is that.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Malack is also totally doing that. He accepts that countless people are hurt in the empire he is part in and he surely is accepting people get oppressed. He does have the power to do something about it very easily, but he is not doing anything, he actively accepts the status quo. It is strongly implied he works with Tarquin to ensure the "three empires gamble" stays afloat, which even goes beyond the above.

I also like Emmit Svenson's comment on how Malack is simply too smug about "technically" not hurting anyone, on how everything is "technically" legal, how he "technically" does not make his hands dirty. Accepting all that for your own benefit is more LE than LN.
edit: The difference between Malack and a LN judge who "upholds the evil system because the law is the law" is that the system in this case is as much Malack's own system as it is Tarquin's. He's not working for some nameless state or some king far away, but basically for his own state-fabrication.

edit2: Sorry for the late edit. But I would like to add this:
We are not arguing definitions of alignments but the question "When does association with evil becomes evil". You're saying Malack still only associates and thus stays neutral. I say his association goes so far it is active support, and therefore he is not neutral anymore.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, Winter gets to define if a character is good, evil, or neutral in regard to D&D terms. So is Grey_Wolf_c. So is Rich Burlew.

I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do not believe you get to override Rich, and you think you do. This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

Actually, I do not {define Neutral}.

Precisely. I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good". This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

GW

[Winter]

I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do not believe you get to override Rich, and you think you do. This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

Precisely. I disagree with this. Thus, any conversation we try to have is not going to get anywhere. I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good". This is a subjective fundamental, and you are not going to change my mind about it anymore than I am going to change yours.

I think the reason it's not going anywhere lies elsewhere. But as you repeated you do not want it to go anywhere but are very eager to shut it down at this stage, I am going to respect that.

I'm still very interested (even if I might not agree!) to learn where Rich thinks where Malack stands in regard to alignment. I hope we'll find out one way or the other (either by comment or due to the course of the comic).

[hamishspence]

I do believe that Neutral is something more than "between Evil and Good".

There's more than one kind of Neutral. There's "has compunctions against harming the innocent but lacks the commitment to help or protect others" (PHB)

But there's also an element of "Neutral by committing a mix of Good and Evil deeds (with the Evil deeds primarily being toward Good ends)" (Heroes of Horror)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's more than one kind of Neutral. There's "has compunctions against harming the innocent but lacks the commitment to help or protect others" (PHB)

But there's also an element of "Neutral by committing a mix of Good and Evil deeds (with the Evil deeds primarily being toward Good ends)" (Heroes of Horror)

And each and every one of us probably has one of their own. Which is fine. I am perfectly happy with Winter deciding that the bounty hunters are not whatever Rich said, and more power to him in his belief that Malack is Evil - I just find it a barren discussion (because I define discussion as the pooling of intelligences to refine positions towards a center of reality: Winter and I are obviously not going to do that). I was rather circumspect on my own definition of Neutrality because it relies heavily on, you know, real world religion and morality which we cannot mention in the forum, so I adapted Heinlein's definition in Starship Troopers.

Which is not to say that I believe Rich uses that definition. After all, I don't think Malack is Neutral. I also don't think he is Evil. I think that we don't have the evidence yet to decide, and that depending on what assumptions you make on Malack's backstory, and depending on what definition of Neutral you use (or think Rich is using), he can be LE or LN.

---
Anyway, enough meta-discussion.

This has been on my mind for some time: I think that from Malack's perspective, creating vampires is not a bad thing, not even without consent, since from his perspective being a vampire is better than being a living being. If you don't think vampires are automatically Evil, then creating one is like giving birth. No-one thinks to ask the prospective being if he consents to being brought into this valley of tears, to spend the next 60-odd years in a constant state of worry, fear and dread, with occasional bouts of happiness*. Malack may think that turning around and expecting him to do otherwise, when he will give extended (un)life, strength, etc. is a moral double standard.

Grey Wolf

*Yeah I'm a pessimist, if you can't tell