Poor Malack

[Luzahn]

Honestly, I'm just hoping Durkon reaches for the nearest bit of pointy wood immediately after being freed.

In a case like this, pity is a luxury you can't afford.

[KillingAScarab]

I also can't help feeling sad for malack. Yes, I know he's strongly evil with that "1000 per day will be sacrificed", but that is work. as he said, he's a slave for his god and his place is to obey and find reward in service. he was sincerely friendly to durkon (to the point of letting a credible treath to his party live only to fulfill his last wish) and is sorry that his work required him to kill his friend, but he is lawful, so duty comes first.

"My aid is mine to give - or withdraw - as I see fit."

Yep. He's the neighbor with the cup of sugar (with word of recall cast upon the container, or worse).

In fact, he strongly reminds me the scene when hilgya asks durkon to abandon his party and durkon sends her away because he has a duty. Here malack could have just fled without harming durkon, and durkon would probably have let him, but he can't because he has a duty. Of a completely different nature, but still a duty.
He IS and evil opposite.

No, Durkon would not have just let Malack go.

Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger to everyone livin' on this continent!

[Mike Havran]

Reading more about Tarquin and Co. as a prequel would make this comic even more amazing. I love both Malack and Tarquin, and I'm pretty confident I'll enjoy the rest of his team equally.

This

[ReaderAt2046]

Make that a +2. Reading more about Tarquin and Co. as a prequel would make this comic even more amazing. I love both Malack and Tarquin, and I'm pretty confident I'll enjoy the rest of his team equally.

+3! (If the Giant doesn't want to, that's ok, but I'd really like a book like that.)

[The Succubus]

Malack's hints at his living past make me want to see some sort of Tarquin party equivalent to Start of Darkness

Oooh, yes. Definitely.

[King of Nowhere]

Why stop there? Make a thread that argues that Xykon is Chaotic Good. Hell, if you put your mind to it, I'm sure you could come up with an argument that Xykon is lawful good and the real hero of the comic because he, like, didn't kill Redcloak this one time when it would have been really funny. In fact, I bet he's secretly a Paladin!

I did that, in a joke thread.
I argued that with the "sacrificing minion" pretense Xykon is cleansing the world from evil humanoids, and his faked goofiness will ensure that those evil humanoids will not further any evil cause. Think on how many battles he sabotaged his own side while making it appear it was "for the evulz!"
You will notice, for example, that in the battle of azxure city Xykon left the goblins to attack the wall withgout support and get slaughtered, while he went in the throne room to fight the only fight that he could have lost. his plan was to have the whole goblin army dead against the walls with minimal casualties for the good side - note that he also tried in every way to talk redcloak out of planning! - and he should have died against soon, so he could justify to redcloak, the real villain of the comic, why he didn't win the battle single handed like he could have done. the plan failed because redcloak managed to win the battle despite xykopn's sabotage.
Xykon has been tried to sabotage redcloak all along for a while now. he don't trust trying to kill redcloak directly because he's unsure of the power of the crimson mantle, he's not sure he can win that fight so he just makes sure redcloak is ineffective.
You will notice also how xykon managed to let the order win a fight were they were massively outclassed in the first book, did all he could to let roy get away in the battle for azure city, how he tried in any way to kill O-Chul (without being obvious) to avoid redcloak questioning him, and how V became a much better person after Xykon spoke to him.
True, he's also causing the dead of plenty of good people, but it's a war; soldiers die on both sides, and an infiltrate in the enemy team can be required to kill his own side to not blow his cover.
So, ho can anyone still argue that xykon is evil?

[Flame of Anor]

I did that, in a joke thread.
I argued that with the "sacrificing minion" pretense Xykon is cleansing the world from evil humanoids, and his faked goofiness will ensure that those evil humanoids will not further any evil cause. Think on how many battles he sabotaged his own side while making it appear it was "for the evulz!"
You will notice, for example, that in the battle of azxure city Xykon left the goblins to attack the wall withgout support and get slaughtered, while he went in the throne room to fight the only fight that he could have lost. his plan was to have the whole goblin army dead against the walls with minimal casualties for the good side - note that he also tried in every way to talk redcloak out of planning! - and he should have died against soon, so he could justify to redcloak, the real villain of the comic, why he didn't win the battle single handed like he could have done. the plan failed because redcloak managed to win the battle despite xykopn's sabotage.
Xykon has been tried to sabotage redcloak all along for a while now. he don't trust trying to kill redcloak directly because he's unsure of the power of the crimson mantle, he's not sure he can win that fight so he just makes sure redcloak is ineffective.
You will notice also how xykon managed to let the order win a fight were they were massively outclassed in the first book, did all he could to let roy get away in the battle for azure city, how he tried in any way to kill O-Chul (without being obvious) to avoid redcloak questioning him, and how V became a much better person after Xykon spoke to him.
True, he's also causing the dead of plenty of good people, but it's a war; soldiers die on both sides, and an infiltrate in the enemy team can be required to kill his own side to not blow his cover.
So, ho can anyone still argue that xykon is evil?

LOL, that's actually pretty good.

[Rakoa]

I did that, in a joke thread.
I argued that with the "sacrificing minion" pretense Xykon is cleansing the world from evil humanoids, and his faked goofiness will ensure that those evil humanoids will not further any evil cause. Think on how many battles he sabotaged his own side while making it appear it was "for the evulz!"
You will notice, for example, that in the battle of azxure city Xykon left the goblins to attack the wall withgout support and get slaughtered, while he went in the throne room to fight the only fight that he could have lost. his plan was to have the whole goblin army dead against the walls with minimal casualties for the good side - note that he also tried in every way to talk redcloak out of planning! - and he should have died against soon, so he could justify to redcloak, the real villain of the comic, why he didn't win the battle single handed like he could have done. the plan failed because redcloak managed to win the battle despite xykopn's sabotage.
Xykon has been tried to sabotage redcloak all along for a while now. he don't trust trying to kill redcloak directly because he's unsure of the power of the crimson mantle, he's not sure he can win that fight so he just makes sure redcloak is ineffective.
You will notice also how xykon managed to let the order win a fight were they were massively outclassed in the first book, did all he could to let roy get away in the battle for azure city, how he tried in any way to kill O-Chul (without being obvious) to avoid redcloak questioning him, and how V became a much better person after Xykon spoke to him.
True, he's also causing the dead of plenty of good people, but it's a war; soldiers die on both sides, and an infiltrate in the enemy team can be required to kill his own side to not blow his cover.
So, ho can anyone still argue that xykon is evil?

This reminds me, too, of an argument somebody made that Xykon was Lawful Good. It would take some searching for me to dig up but it was equally hilarious. Good job writing this, by the way.

[Lord Ensifer]

As for Malack not killing Belkar (and letting a threat to the LG live just for a promise to Durkon), he did have Durkula bleed Belkar almost to the last drop. Malack might not have killed the halfling, but as #879 shows he certainly incapacitated him.

[Scow2]

[Xykon is actually good!]

Don't forget that he also gave advice to his 'enemies' about how to better use their power to 'defeat' him and his goals, only letting Roy die after it became clear that he wouldn't listen to reason, and teleporting O-Chul and V to safety with a touch-spell under the pretense of trying to finish them off (With the MitD providing believable cover)

[AngryHobbit]

Its obvious. Only evil characters in the story are Nale and Mr. Scruffy.
But maybe Nale IS actually good?

[rewinn]

Its obvious. Only evil characters in the story are Nale and Mr. Scruffy.

Cats are True Neutral. They just don't care.

(Insert Linear Guild Cat Girl joke here....)

[AngryHobbit]

Cats are True Neutral. They just don't care.

Domestic cats, unlike other cats (and most monsters from the Manual), hunt smaller animals even when they are well fed. EVIL!!!

[Burner28]

Get out

Hipster forever!

I would love to see and meet the rest of Tarquin's team too!

...especially that cute catgirl (Even if she is insufferably evil - what else can be expected from a cat?)

Maybe a prequel is the precise reason why they were introduced without having a significant impact on the current plot.

[F.Harr]

I think it's reasonable to applaud Malack's attention to his friendship, but he still doesn't let that get in his way of furthering his goals of helping Elan's dad enslave the continent brutally and then sacrifice sapient people like cattle to his god. He is affable and fulfills his responcibilites, both things we apove of, but he's still evil.

[King of Nowhere]

I think it's reasonable to applaud Malack's attention to his friendship, but he still doesn't let that get in his way of furthering his goals of helping Elan's dad enslave the continent brutally and then sacrifice sapient people like cattle to his god. He is affable and fulfills his responcibilites, both things we apove of, but he's still evil.

That's the tragedy of it, from my point of view. Here is someone who is a perfectly decent person, except that he follows a god of death. Malack, the way I read him, don't like to do evil (neither he shows any inclination for good), and don't even want to serve an evil cause. He just serves his god. Which happens to be evil. And that makes his cause evil.
It's like you have a friend in another country, then your countries get to war and you have to face him on the battlefield. And you don't want to fight each other, you don't have any personal grudge and you don't even have any particular reason to disagree, but you are both patriotic people who want to do their duty to their country and that forces you to fight. Alll the difference between friend or foe is that you were born on different sides of the border. That's what makes me sad about malack.

Its obvious. Only evil characters in the story are Nale and Mr. Scruffy.
But maybe Nale IS actually good?

I am taking the challenge.
Well, I already shown how Xykon is good and it is unreasonable to say otherwise. And what was the first thing Nale knew about Elan? That elan wanted to kill Xykon! Also, he traveled with belkar, who was clearly evil; those two facts were enough to convince nale that elan was traveling with evil people. Nale then gave elan one chance to leave them and come with him, abandoning his quest to saly the paladin in incognito Xykon. Elan refused, Nale deduced elan was strongly evil and attacked. He got defeated, but ever since Nale, being lawful, has seen as his duty to put elan down for good. If your brother turns your back on you to become evil, honor demands that YOU are the one to take care of him!
Also, his association with sabine is an attempt to redeem an evildoer. He is trying to talk her into only sacrificing evil people (elan), and has already managed to convert her from incarnation of illicit sex to monogamy. Well, not strictly monogamy, but you can't expect a demon to discard his nature easily, so nale is willing to bend a bit for her.
Of course, *we* know that elan is good, but nale is not the smartest guy around. And hey, it was an easy mistake to make: miko also did that, and she was clearly still good even if she tried to kill the order. I don't see why nale can't.
EDIT: And thog is very strong and very dumb, and thus very ddangerous to anyone around. By keeping thog with him, nale is attempting to at least have some control on him. Again it is not perfect. Nale has no more control over thog than roy has over belkar. I haven't seen anyone argue that belkar's evil deeds reflect on roy, and so neither should thog's ones on nale.

Now, that makes me quite worried. I believe things are right or wrong when I can argue soundly for or against them, but here I see I can make convincing arguments for things I know are ridiculous. Whenever I make a moral decision, is my reasoning equally warped? Would I even realize it?

[Harry Leipzig]

+3! (If the Giant doesn't want to, that's ok, but I'd really like a book like that.)

+4! Tarquin may be evil, but he's so deliciously evil. His evil is a a good chianti- exquisite, but not to be overindulged.

[Necris Omega]

Eh... interesting as it would be to see Malack n' Co's origin stories, and maybe even give them an organizational name, I'm still more invested in seeing Malack get his comeuppance.

Yes, he's an interesting character whose very easy to get invested in minus some points for gimmicks, but that doesn't make him any less easy and fun to hate.

I'unno. Maybe it's that I just want to see SOME meaningful retribution for the Order. Maybe with Durkon enthralled and all exposition-y goodness of his brainmeats available to Malack and Tarquin, they'll come to the conclusion that Nale's either expendable and/or was lying to them and let Durkon eat him.

[Shred-Bot]

Eh... interesting as it would be to see Malack n' Co's origin stories, and maybe even give them an organizational name, I'm still more invested in seeing Malack get his comeuppance.

The Polygon Guild: one-dimensional villains need not apply.

[Gift Jeraff]

The Greyscale Guild...because their first quest involved acquiring the scales of a silver dragon.

[Lord Torath]

I am taking the challenge.
Well, I already shown how Xykon is good and it is unreasonable to say otherwise. And what was the first thing Nale knew about Elan? That elan wanted to kill Xykon! Also, he traveled with belkar, who was clearly evil; those two facts were enough to convince nale that elan was traveling with evil people. Nale then gave elan one chance to leave them and come with him, abandoning his quest to saly the paladin in incognito Xykon. Elan refused, Nale deduced elan was strongly evil and attacked. He got defeated, but ever since Nale, being lawful, has seen as his duty to put elan down for good. If your brother turns your back on you to become evil, honor demands that YOU are the one to take care of him!
Also, his association with sabine is an attempt to redeem an evildoer. He is trying to talk her into only sacrificing evil people (elan), and has already managed to convert her from incarnation of illicit sex to monogamy. Well, not strictly monogamy, but you can't expect a demon to discard his nature easily, so nale is willing to bend a bit for her.
Of course, *we* know that elan is good, but nale is not the smartest guy around. And hey, it was an easy mistake to make: miko also did that, and she was clearly still good even if she tried to kill the order. I don't see why nale can't.
EDIT: And thog is very strong and very dumb, and thus very ddangerous to anyone around. By keeping thog with him, nale is attempting to at least have some control on him. Again it is not perfect. Nale has no more control over thog than roy has over belkar. I haven't seen anyone argue that belkar's evil deeds reflect on roy, and so neither should thog's ones on nale.

Now, that makes me quite worried. I believe things are right or wrong when I can argue soundly for or against them, but here I see I can make convincing arguments for things I know are ridiculous. Whenever I make a moral decision, is my reasoning equally warped? Would I even realize it?

Worry no more! The massacre of the citizens of Cliffport, plus his remarks to Sabine about how he can never be "an edgy good guy" like Elan should let you put your mind at ease. (Plus he tells Larry that when it comes to 'Tagonists, he (Nale) is more of an "Ant").

It's easy to make a convincing argument when you leave out half the evidence.

[martianmister]

League of Winners.

[Silverionmox]

Any doubt of Malack being thoroughly evil was removed when he attacked Durkon: "So you don't let me get my way? Then die!". Harming people who prevent you from getting what you want is practically the definition of evil. The sacrifices to Nergal just detail the lawful flavor of his evilness.

(Putting kill orders above friendship just because you wear another uniform is pretty much lawful evil too.)

[Gitman00]

I think it's extremely chilling how detached Malack is from his evil deeds.

"I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend." He acknowledges that Durkon was a friend. He acknowledges that his death was a tragedy. But for him, it was just an event that happened.

It wasn't "I murdered my friend." It was "tragedy visited a friend."

[KillingAScarab]

I think it's extremely chilling how detached Malack is from his evil deeds.

"I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend." He acknowledges that Durkon was a friend. He acknowledges that his death was a tragedy. But for him, it was just an event that happened.

It wasn't "I murdered my friend." It was "tragedy visited a friend."

Seconded. The Giant must come up with one whopper of a tale for there to ever be sympathy for Malack again. Even if he does, I will still doubt that it isn't just omission which would make it so.

[Rakoa]

Seconded. The Giant must come up with one whopper of a tale for there to ever be sympathy for Malack again. Even if he does, I will still doubt that it isn't just omission which would make it so.

The Giant, I think, isn't going to pull to try and get the audience to sympathize with Malack to a great extent. There might be a sad story or something, but nothing that would be enough to reverse the death he delivered to Durkon or the horrors he has planned for the future.

What I think The Giant might do, though, is similar to what was done in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Malack the Vampire is an evil, cold monster. Trapped inside of him is the soul of Malack the Lizardman, locked away for 200 years, more tortured than any soul Malack himself has ever killed, horrified at what he himself has become and praying for the destruction of his own body. I recall Helsing mentioning that Dracula is both the monster and the most tragic figure of them all in that respect, and at the end when he is staked through the heart an expression of complete peace crosses his face and a message of thanks is conveyed in his eyes.

[Math_Mage]

Poor MALACK?!

*ahem* 'Scuse me, had to get that out of the way.

[KillingAScarab]

Poor MALACK?!

*ahem* 'Scuse me, had to get that out of the way.

Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction, too.

In response to Rakoa... erm... 115 year old spoilers? I guess?

Spoiler

Show

I didn't get that impression at all when I last read Dracula, though I admit I listened to the LibriVox audiobook and haven't read the text in some time. Still, looking at it on Project Gutenberg, Mina wrote there was a look of peace in the next to last of her journal entries. I might dig into that more later

[sims796]

Poor MALACK?!

*ahem* 'Scuse me, had to get that out of the way.

Give this guy a platinum medal.

Seriously, this is one of those rare threads where reading the title alone while barely skimming though the OP's opening post will be enough to elicit a proper response.

[JohnnyTurbo]

Can a vampy kill his sire?

In fact, in order to become a vampire lord a vampire must kill his/her sire.