So, Malack...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Uh? The good thing to do is the right thing to do. Someone who is evil is someone who reliably doesn't do the right thing, not someone who has a different set of Right Things to Do.

Semantics. "Right" in my post means "in accordance to his code of ethics". An Evil or Neutral vampire has no reason, ethically (in this case meaning "that which his god would approve of") to hand himself over to Durkon to be destroyed. Both Neutral and Evil characters value self preservation far higher than Good ones do, and to just accept destruction is, to them, the wrong thing to do.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Semantics. "Right" in my post means "in accordance to his code of ethics".

You're not the one who introduced the phrase "right thing to do," and I don't think that's what Paseo H meant. Somehow.

[Rakoa]

Regardless of the meaning of "right", all this proves is that Malack isn't Lawful Good, not that he is Lawful Evil. It could easily have been the decision of a Neutral character as well.

[Paseo H]

Regardless of the meaning of "right", all this proves is that Malack isn't Lawful Good, not that he is Lawful Evil. It could easily have been the decision of a Neutral character as well.

Had Malack done anything other than attack Durkon outright, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

But not only is he attacking, he's vamping out. He's super serious. If he wanted to be genuinely reasonable, he wouldn't be doing so.

[veti]

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

No, it's not new. I was a big Buffy fan back in the day. But it isn't compatible with D&D logic. Most 'good' vampires end up drinking blood from non-sentient beings (farm animals, generally). The alternative - in less well written stories - is to take it from 'volunteers', but - in most circumstances at least - any human who 'volunteers' for that kind of role is debasing themselves to such an extent that (I would say) accepting their sacrifice is incompatible with 'respecting their dignity'.

And even those stories still have better sense than to offer simple definitions of 'good' and 'evil' that you can measure their characters against. And if there's an exception to that rule, I'm prepared to bet that their definitions are not compatible with D&D's.

Ahem.

WRONG!

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

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

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

Not at all. But what lengths will you go to to fulfil that desire?

Is it evil to, say, break someone's nose, if it will save your own life? Actually it probably is, but in that case you can reasonably claim that the good is greater than the harm you're doing.

Is it evil to kill someone else, in order to save your own life? Now that claim becomes much harder to sustain. Is your life worth more than theirs? Why? You need some pretty strong mitigating circumstances to justify that. (If they're the one threatening you, for instance.)

Is it evil to kill people on a daily basis in order to avoid a horrible fate for yourself? Abso-frickin-lutely. Your only conceivable line of defence in that case would be to the effect that "they were going to die anyway, and there's nothing I could have done to prevent that". Which simply isn't true for Malack.

[Leliel]

No, it's not new. I was a big Buffy fan back in the day. But it isn't compatible with D&D logic. Most 'good' vampires end up drinking blood from non-sentient beings (farm animals, generally). The alternative - in less well written stories - is to take it from 'volunteers', but - in most circumstances at least - any human who 'volunteers' for that kind of role is debasing themselves to such an extent that (I would say) accepting their sacrifice is incompatible with 'respecting their dignity'.

And even those stories still have better sense than to offer simple definitions of 'good' and 'evil' that you can measure their characters against. And if there's an exception to that rule, I'm prepared to bet that their definitions are not compatible with D&D's.

Hey, allow me to introduce you to Vampire: the Requiem.

Yes, most of the Kindred are Evil in D&D terms or at least very dark Neutral on the ethical scale, but moral ambiguity is the name of the day-a vampire can do some very good things with his power, even if it's to protect his larder. A true predator is, in a sense, a symbiote. See-wolves and deer.

Of course, neither Requiem nor Masquerade vamps have to kill their prey, and it's pointed out that ghouls (willing donors) have screws loose, but still.

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Canonical D&D rulebook, published by Wizards of the Coast. I don't actually have the corebook with me-I wasn't into D&D until after 3.5 ran it's course-but there was an article on her. Also, Fall-From-Grace, who was created with explicit consent from TSR-okay, Lawful Neutral with strong Good tendencies, but still, she's a succubus who's taken a vow of chasity on her own initiative.


Not at all. But what lengths will you go to to fulfil that desire?

Is it evil to, say, break someone's nose, if it will save your own life? Actually it probably is, but in that case you can reasonably claim that the good is greater than the harm you're doing.

Is it evil to kill someone else, in order to save your own life? Now that claim becomes much harder to sustain. Is your life worth more than theirs? Why? You need some pretty strong mitigating circumstances to justify that. (If they're the one threatening you, for instance.)

Is it evil to kill people on a daily basis in order to avoid a horrible fate for yourself? Abso-frickin-lutely. Your only conceivable line of defence in that case would be to the effect that "they were going to die anyway, and there's nothing I could have done to prevent that". Which simply isn't true for Malack.

Ah. So soldiers are evil then. Good to know.

I'm not claiming Malack is Good-or even Lawful Neutral-I'm saying he's Evil and he's a vampire, not because he's Evil because he's a vampire.

[Fates]

I consider burning a bunch of escaped slaves alive just to make a welcome home sign for your son on par with loosing a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity on it into a group of paladins.

Okay, I know you posted this days ago, but I just thought I'd point out...the latter isn't necessarily evil, but most definitely chaotic, and probably not good. Still, I've played non-evil characters who would leap at the chance to do exactly that.

[slayerx]

Had Malack done anything other than attack Durkon outright, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

But not only is he attacking, he's vamping out. He's super serious. If he wanted to be genuinely reasonable, he wouldn't be doing so.

He DID do something other than attack Durkon outright; He opened a civil discussion on how they both might avoid conflict all together and maintain their friendship. He just entertained nearly every peaceful solution before determining that they had no choice but to fight. What do you want exactly? The only solution he did not entertain was giving up and going home himself, but not taking that solution would NOT make him evil... a lawful Neutral character would be well within their alignment to pursue their own goal even if it meant killing a good aligned character; especially if they make an effort to try and find a way around killing said good aligned character, which Malack did attempt

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Well there is this... though i'm not sure if that could be considered "canon" as i have not found any info on her appearing in a rule book. However the creature competition she was part of seemed to be made up of monsters that mostly came from rule books, so i might assume the same for her.

[Paseo H]

He DID do something other than attack Durkon outright; He opened a civil discussion on how they both might avoid conflict all together and maintain their friendship. He just entertained nearly every peaceful solution before determining that they had no choice but to fight. What do you want exactly? The only solution he did not entertain was giving up and going home himself, but not taking that solution would NOT make him evil... a lawful Neutral character would be well within their alignment to pursue their own goal even if it meant killing a good aligned character; especially if they make an effort to try and find a way around killing said good aligned character, which Malack did attempt

I meant he attacked outright after Durkon refused to negotiate, instead of, say, escaping, or perhaps even surrendering. Or even trying to put forth more favorable terms. If Malack was sincere about his friendship, he'd have done one of those things.

[Guancyto]

Mother of ****, how is this even-

Right, people thought Belkar was Neutral too.

Okay.

Malack is not 'allowing Tarquin's empire to exist,' he's been engaged in the mass conquest and exploitation of an entire continent, complete with brutal repression, slave burnings and other such loveliness. The person leading this is his best friend. He has been actively aiding this for decades, chewing through lives and rulers and countries constantly. Papers, please.

He is one of the six people that run the Big Evil Empire behind the scenes. You do not get into that position by being a passive observer. You get there by actively aiding a decades-spanning regime of constant atrocity from a position of tremendous authority.

Is he a decent guy to the people he finds reason to care about? Absolutely! So is Tarquin. The fact that he's willing to go extreme lengths for his friends is admirable, and I have to admit I very much like the both of them. They're very human, if you'll pardon the speciesist term. So I'll say the same thing of Malack that I will of Tarquin.

****, man, he's not a monster, he's just Evil.

I don't really expect this to be listened to. Goodness knows people were fundamentally unable to grasp the idea that Miko might be Good and a tremendous prick.

[SaintRidley]

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Eludecia, the succubus paladin, published as supplementary web content by WotC. There's also Fall-from-Grace, a Lawful Neutral succubus denizen of Sigil (she runs a Brothel for the Slaking of Intellectual Lusts) in Planescape: Torment.

[Endon the White]

Ah. So soldiers are evil then. Good to know.

I'm not claiming Malack is Good-or even Lawful Neutral-I'm saying he's Evil and he's a vampire, not because he's Evil because he's a vampire.

Ok, here's how I see it. Vampires are not Always Evil because they are made of evil-onium, which automatically makes you evil, but has no bearing on your actual actions. They are Always Evil because vampires live on the blood of the innocent and enslave people to act as their unwitting undead pawns.

Now this is standard Vampire behavior, and is almost universally true. It is not a foregone conclusion however. Vampires can choose to snack on animals, or volunteers. Vampires can choose to not create spawn for themselves. Vampires can choose to be a perfectly normal being with an aversion to sunlight and pointy sticks. They can choose to be an exception to the rule.

Malack has not chosen to be an exception. He does drink the blood of the innocent, and does choose to make enslaved servants. He is not evil just because he is a vampire, he is evil because he does all the evil stuff vampires do.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The way I see it is that the vampire curse (virus, animation, however you see it) just fundamentally alters the mind of whatever creature it invaded.

The mind and personality just becomes a twisted parody of who they were in life, it's not the same person. They're evil not because circumstances force them to be evil, but because vampirism molds them into a different person than they were before that only bears a passing resemblance to the old person.

That doesn't make them an automaton blindly following their programming, they can still vary wildly between bloodthirsty psychotic beast attacking everything in sight to calculating LE villain setting up organized blood farms to service their need.

They might even be a vampire that chooses not to do any active harm, taking blood from willing volunteers to satisfy their needs. But that isn't because they're good people. It's because that's an example of a vampire clever enough to realize that maybe getting your needs that way instead of a different way is far less likely to provoke a stake wielding mob into coming knocking on your door. It's not out of any sort of benevolent love for humanity, it's pragmatic.

[Winter]

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook?

Planescape: Torment had an awesome non-evil, non-sex succubus.

Story and awesome characters always trump rules and cosmology. In these cases, the rules do not even forbid some demon from turning into a special instance (being good and all demonic). This is especially true if the rules, alignment and cosmologies are fictional in the first place.

Play Planescape: Torment and tell me Fall-from-grace isn't an awesome character (Huh... What would a "Fallen Succubus" be like)

[Felyndiira]

'Canonical'? You mean it's happened in OOTS? Or it's described in a D&D rulebook? 'Cuz anything outside those sources isn't 'canon' for OOTS. No-one can stop some hack from introducing whatever house rules they want in their own campaigns, and I can't stop them from being published, but I can (and will) ridicule them when I hear about them.

Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin, as an official article on the official WotC website.

[Chantelune]

I meant he attacked outright after Durkon refused to negotiate, instead of, say, escaping, or perhaps even surrendering. Or even trying to put forth more favorable terms. If Malack was sincere about his friendship, he'd have done one of those things.

Well, he's working with Tarquin, a friend of more than 35 years. And he's lawful. Considering those two points, he was more than reasonable toward Durkon.

Tarquin wants the gate. We still don't know if he intends to work with Nale to the end or plans to betray him at some point. Regardless, their current objective is quite clear : reach and secure the gate. Malack was supposed to kill Durkon from the start, though he remained vague about it, stating he would "handle" him which can mean killing him, turning him or letting him go.

He offered compromises to Durkon, who not only refuses them, but stated clearly that he wanted no compromise and no discussion at all. At this point, offering more favorable terms wouldn't do anything more. And offering to retreat would mean jeopardizing his friendship with Tarquin for a dwarf who just made clear that he would no longer sees him as a friend given he's a vampire.

And after all that, Malack still didn't attack outright, he stated that there could be only conflict beetween Durkon and him if the former keep that stance, which Durkon confirmed, then took a few seconds before actually atttacking.

Considering this, walking away now meant both would meet again with their respective parties and fight anyway. If he has to kill Durkon, it's best doing it now that he's alone.

[Paseo H]

Well, he's working with Tarquin, a friend of more than 35 years. And he's lawful. Considering those two points, he was more than reasonable toward Durkon.

Tarquin wants the gate. We still don't know if he intends to work with Nale to the end or plans to betray him at some point. Regardless, their current objective is quite clear : reach and secure the gate. Malack was supposed to kill Durkon from the start, though he remained vague about it, stating he would "handle" him which can mean killing him, turning him or letting him go.

He offered compromises to Durkon, who not only refuses them, but stated clearly that he wanted no compromise and no discussion at all. At this point, offering more favorable terms wouldn't do anything more. And offering to retreat would mean jeopardizing his friendship with Tarquin for a dwarf who just made clear that he would no longer sees him as a friend given he's a vampire.

And after all that, Malack still didn't attack outright, he stated that there could be only conflict beetween Durkon and him if the former keep that stance, which Durkon confirmed, then took a few seconds before actually atttacking.

Considering this, walking away now meant both would meet again with their respective parties and fight anyway. If he has to kill Durkon, it's best doing it now that he's alone.

As annoying as it is that you seem to enjoy playing Malack's defense lawyer, I would be willing to consider all of those things, except...

The last panel is more key than you're giving credit for.

All hesitation is gone there. He's vamped out, he's super serious, he means to kill (at the least). If he was that serious about being friends, even in the face of Durkon's rejection, he wouldn't be that eager to stomp him, even if he presumably hesitated first, which isn't exactly clear. He could have just been readying himself.

[Kish]

Okay, I know you posted this days ago, but I just thought I'd point out...the latter isn't necessarily evil, but most definitely chaotic, and probably not good. Still, I've played non-evil characters who would leap at the chance to do exactly that.

Why do people think the characters they play are authoritative in these debates?

To be clear, it is your opinion that the characters you've played who would throw a bouncy ball with a Symbol of Insanity into a group of paladins are nonevil. If there was any prospect of you playing in a game I run, this would be your advance warning: Such characters would not keep a non-evil alignment written on their character sheets for long.

(Presuming, of course, that you noticed the members of the Sapphire Guard slaughtering each other and/or realize that the insanity caused by a Symbol of Insanity is permanent, rather than thinking it would be a harmless practical joke.)

[Feddlefew]

As annoying as it is that you seem to enjoy playing Malack's defense lawyer, I would be willing to consider all of those things, except...

The last panel is more key than you're giving credit for.

All hesitation is gone there. He's vamped out, he's super serious, he means to kill (at the least). If he was that serious about being friends, even in the face of Durkon's rejection, he wouldn't be that eager to stomp him, even if he presumably hesitated first, which isn't exactly clear. He could have just been readying himself.

Malack seems to value friendship with Tarquin more than his intense hatred of Nale, and he's willing to go along with Tarquin's schemes (including the current attempt to capture the gate) because of it. I think one of Malack's defining character traits might be how much he values having friends. Which makes sense, because he's probably lonely, being a reptilian vampire out in the middle of a sun-scorched desert. That doesn't excuse any of his past actions, but it does give Malack a realistic motivation.

I think the pause was Malack deciding between turning Durkon (Highly disrespectful to Durkon, but Malack can then force Durkon to maintain a positive relationship) or killing him (respecting Durkon's beliefs but ending their friendship forever). Right now we can't know which one Malack has chosen.

If Malack actually turns Durkon I will change my opinion on Malack's alignment from Ln(e) to LE.

[Paseo H]

Malack seems to value friendship with Tarquin more than his intense hatred of Nale, and he's willing to go along with Tarquin's schemes (including the current attempt to capture the gate) because of it. I think one of Malack's defining character traits might be how much he values having friends. Which makes sense, because he's probably lonely, being a reptilian vampire out in the middle of a sun-scorched desert. That doesn't excuse any of his past actions, but it does give Malack a realistic motivation.

I think the pause was Malack deciding between turning Durkon (Highly disrespectful to Durkon, but Malack can then force Durkon to maintain a positive relationship) or killing him (respecting Durkon's beliefs but ending their friendship forever). Right now we can't know which one Malack has chosen.

If Malack actually turns Durkon I will change my opinion on Malack's alignment from Ln(e) to LE.

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

[Mike Havran]

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

How do you know that Malack knows about those slaves and wives?

[sam79]

How do you know that Malack knows about those slaves and wives?

Do you assume he doesn't know? Possible, I suppose, but it misses the wider point. Do you seriously think Malack is under any delusions about the character of Tarquin and the nature of their combined rule? Even if it is impossible to prove that he knows about Individual Incident X, Y or Z?

[Feddlefew]

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

I'm a misanthrope that firmly believes that the vast majority people are willing to overlook the horrible, unforgivable things their friends (and lovers) do to maintain those relationships, especially if they have few friends (or it's a lover). As I stated earlier, Malack has demonstrated a willingness to put aside his own feelings for a friendship (Ex: not killing Nale). I'm also assuming that Tarquin gradually grew into the level and scale of evil he does now while Malack knew him, which also goes for the wife thing, since I remember that Nale and Elan's mom was his first wife.

I also think Malack's alignment is hovering in the fuzzy zone between neutral and evil, which is why I put Ln(e) instead of LN.

[Mike Havran]

Do you assume he doesn't know? Possible, I suppose, but it misses the wider point. Do you seriously think Malack is under any delusions about the character of Tarquin and the nature of their combined rule? Even if it is impossible to prove that he knows about Individual Incident X, Y or Z?

In fact, he might be. He was certainly desilusional enough to believe he can be friends with priest of Thor even though he is a vampire. And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc. And he seems thoroughly gullible during the EoB subplot.

[Paseo H]

What really bothers me throughout all of this, more than anything...

...is just how vain everyone seems to be.

The logic from quite a few of you seems to be "Durkon is ugly and coarse, he hurt Malack's feelings, everything is justified." Okay, maybe I exaggerate for effect, but it does show something quite a few of you overlook:

Would Durkon attack a non-evil person so readily? Are you really going to judge Durkon as a fool and horrible judge of character just because he's uncouth and unstylish? Not one of you can say he's wrong to stand in the way of the villains on their way to the Rift.

Stop letting style affect your judgment and consider substance, for once. I don't know about you, but Durkon believes he's evil, that should be good enough for everyone.

[Kish]

And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.

...Come again? Being horribly evil is not the opposite of being a fool.

[Winter]

How do you know that Malack knows about those slaves and wives?

Tarquin is very, very open with what he does and who he is to those close to him. Just read the comic from his first appearence in the Empire until now. I strongly doubt you can maintain the position "but Malack does not know". Tarquin drops casual remarks of his brutality all over the place. Constantly.

[sam79]

In fact, he might be. He was certainly desilusional enough to believe he can be friends with priest of Thor even though he is a vampire. And he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc. And he seems thoroughly gullible during the EoB subplot.

I must admit I haven't re-read the EoB strips (I tend to wait until the book comes out), but I must say that Malack never struck me as particularly gullible. Nor did I see him as anything less than a willing accomplice in the Empire-running scheme.

As for addressing Tarquin as a "fool": yes, I can see him doing that, assuming he is indifferent to Tarquin's Evil actions relating to his wives. It is not that the fact that Tarquin tortures people that makes him, in Malack's eyes, a fool; it is his Elanesque tendancy to showboat and be goofy. It is more a difference of personality than alignment, and certainly not an indication that Malaack doesn't know how many beans make five.

As for his friendship with a cleric of Thor; perhaps he was over-optimistic. Though I don't imagine that all clerics of Thor would be as uncomprinisingly principled as Durkon, and some might fall for his (Malack's) silver-tongued charm. And he did serve his 'friend' blood-tea, which may suggest a certain lack of genuineness about this relationship.

[Feddlefew]

What really bothers me throughout all of this, more than anything...

...is just how vain everyone seems to be.

The logic from quite a few of you seems to be "Durkon is ugly and coarse, he hurt Malack's feelings, everything is justified." Okay, maybe I exaggerate for effect, but it does show something quite a few of you overlook:

Would Durkon attack a non-evil person so readily? Are you really going to judge Durkon as a fool and horrible judge of character just because he's uncouth and unstylish? Not one of you can say he's wrong to stand in the way of the villains on their way to the Rift.

Stop letting style affect your judgment and consider substance, for once. I don't know about you, but Durkon believes he's evil, that should be good enough for everyone.

Wait, are you trying to counter an argument by telling people that they should just go with a character's view point?

Why should I let a character who has less information to act on (we, as readers, get more information to consider than any single character in this comic besides the Oracle) and literally just walked into the scene? Durkon hasn't had the villain scenes we've had, so he may very well think that Malack was only pretending to hate Nale and had set the Order up for the Linear Guild.

Edit:

As for his friendship with a cleric of Thor; perhaps he was over-optimistic. Though I don't imagine that all clerics of Thor would be as uncomprinisingly principled as Durkon, and some might fall for his silver-tongued charm. And he did serve his 'friend' blood-tea, which may suggest a certain lack of genuineness about this relationship.

Personally, I think Malack is a bit clueless about mammals (and or non vampires), in the same way Celestia is. Having high Charisma and Wisdom scores doesn't necessarily mean he's well socialized. He could have been attempting to use the sharing of food as a gesture of goodwill, but just didn't think it through.

[Paseo H]

Why are you still arguing and quibbling over meaningless details, when the preponderance of evidence is on Malack being an undead monstrosity who is in it just as deep as Tarquin, only difference perhaps being that "light shows" aren't his bailiwick.