Hilgya vs Malack

[Luna_Mayflower]

So who was Durkon talking about when he mentioned the other evil cleric?

First up, we have Hilgya, the deranged murder who killed Durkon for asking a question. This lunatic currently has avoided any responsibility for her actions.

Then we have Malack, a kind soul who offered peace and only defended himself when Durkon tried to kill him, or at least destroy the person he was.

N.B. Durkon was Malack's child. Durkon had a child with Hilgya. Double standards at play here?

[drazen]

Malack, a kind soul who offered peace and only defended himself when Durkon tried to kill him

Malack (and Tarquin) is/are practically the poster child(ren) for the "As long as you do what I want/say voluntarily, it won't be mandatory" brand of Evil.

Also, Malack made the first strike against Durkon in their confrontation in the pyramid (Quickened Inflict Light Wounds + Flame Strike).

Durkon's initial response to this violence was Turn Undead, which wasn't going to kill or even really harm Malack, just make him retreat for... *checks d20srd.org* ... 1 minute.

[Luna_Mayflower]

Malack (and Tarquin) is/are practically the poster child(ren) for the "As long as you do what I want/say voluntarily, it won't be mandatory" brand of Evil.

I'd say that's the basis of lawful, not evil. For example, in modern society, the law says "as long as you don't kill someone voluntarily, you won't be put in a cage and stopped from doing so".

Also, Malack made the first strike against Durkon in their confrontation in the pyramid (Quickened Inflict Light Wounds + Flame Strike).

Durkon's initial response to this violence was Turn Undead, which wasn't going to kill or even really harm Malack, just make him retreat for... *checks d20srd.org* ... 1 minute.

Malack tried. He tried to make peace. People often forget how important it is to try...

[Fyraltari]

{Scrubbed}

[Schroeswald]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[hroþila]

Malack was Bashful Evil.

[Fyraltari]

Clearly, Hilgya was too hot to handle, but Malack bit more than he could chew.

[Luna_Mayflower]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm quite fine, thank you. My brain remains intact. You, however, did not answer my original post.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Who is this man and where did he invoke my name?

Malack was Bashful Evil.

Tsundere evil.

Clearly, Hilgya was too hot to handle, but Malack bit more than he could chew.

Hilgya slaughtered poor Durkon like a pig. Malack was very respectful.

[Squire Doodad]

Clearly, Hilgya was too hot to handle, but Malack bit more than he could chew.

I mean the look on Durkon's face after fighting Malack was downright ashen, wasn't it?

[The Pilgrim]

So who was Durkon talking about when he mentioned the other evil cleric?

First up, we have Hilgya, the deranged murder who killed Durkon for asking a question. This lunatic currently has avoided any responsibility for her actions.

Then we have Malack, a kind soul who offered peace and only defended himself when Durkon tried to kill him, or at least destroy the person he was.

N.B. Durkon was Malack's child. Durkon had a child with Hilgya. Double standards at play here?

I too did think about Hylgia when Durkon said that line. If not by this forum, I wouldn't have made the connection to Malack at all.

[Psyren]

...Taking this question at face value... it seems to be referring to Malack. He was murdered by Hilgya using divine fire, so he wouldn't have had time to become "clammy."

It is interesting that Durkon seems about to go 3/3 loss rate with evil cleric negotiations though.

[Squire Doodad]

...Taking this question at face value... it seems to be referring to Malack. He was murdered by Hilgya using divine fire, so he wouldn't have had time to become "clammy."

It is interesting that Durkon seems about to go 3/3 loss rate with evil cleric negotiations though.

"Lemme talk to Xykon. Xykon's an evil sorcerer, so it's gonna work!"

[Schroeswald]

Who is this man and where did he invoke my name?

I don’t remember which one invoked your name, might have been Fyraltari, but the thread was insulting Malack and saying Nale killing him made him Good and a Hero actually.

[KorvinStarmast]

I did too think about Hylgia when Durkon said that line. If not by this forum, I wouldn't have made the connection to Malack at all.

My immediate connection was to Malack, since Durkon mentioned that it was down right clammy and "didn't work out so hot" - Hilgya's worked out far too hot, right?

I don’t remember which one invoked your name, might have been Fyraltari, but the thread was insulting Malack and saying Nale killing him made him Good and a Hero actually.

It was for sure one of Nale's very few fine moments in the whole story. But as Durkon said to Zzdrti and Nale, "you two are still the same old d's"

[Metastachydium]

Hilgya slaughtered poor Durkon like a pig.

(This might be a good time to discuss the ways in which you should not slaughter a pig, mostly because this method (rightly) referred to in-comic as an artillery strike is definitely one of those.)

[understatement]

"Lemme talk to Xykon. Xykon's an evil sorcerer, so it's gonna work!"

In fact, maybe Durkon could just talk to the Dark One himself! Evil gods wouldn't kill him on sight, would they?

[Fyraltari]

I'm quite fine, thank you. My brain remains intact. You, however, did not answer my original post.

Oh that’s trivial, Hilgya was the last time he met an evil Cleric and he did not in fact try to work out a deal with Malack, Malack tried to bribe him out of his mission and he refused.

Also people forget the deal that he made with Durkon* (an evil cleric) to show only one memory and no more in exchangefor Kudzu’s life and that one worked out just fine.

Hilgya slaughtered poor Durkon like a pig. Malack was very respectful.

Now, now, Malack killed him and consumed his blood which is a thing we actually do to pigs (blood pudding) while Hilgya burned him alive which we don’t do to pigs. Also she raised him twice and acknowledged his rights with regards to Kudzu while Malack forced him to watch a twisted copy of him work against everything he believes in so I’ll say that Hilgya is ahead in the « respect » department.

I mean the look on Durkon's face after fighting Malack was downright ashen, wasn't it?

He looked like death warmed over, even!

I don’t remember which one invoked your name, might have been Fyraltari, but the thread was insulting Malack and saying Nale killing him made him Good and a Hero actually.

That sounds like a thing I might do.

Edit: Yup:

The thread title was sufficiently out there for me to believe our resident prophetess has graced us with another dream-vision. But then I remembered she liked Jake and would have spelled his name correctly.

[Metastachydium]

Malack forced him to watch a twisted copy of him work against everything he believes

Well, as a matter of fact, so long as Malack was alive undead, the thrall basically just went around dutifully following orders and dutifully not following (i.e. pursuing with hostile intent) the Order, staying separated from them for the entire time, which is mostly the same thing Durkon normally did while still alive, so…

[Particle_Man]

Killing Durkon is a hell of a drug.

[understatement]

Killing Durkon is a hell of a drug.

Every Evil cleric needs a daily dosage of dead Durkons.

[Luna_Mayflower]

"Lemme talk to Xykon. Xykon's an evil sorcerer, so it's gonna work!"

Clearly what he needs is a Chaotic caster. Lawful Evil is the problem. Silly.

(This might be a good time to discuss the ways in which you should not slaughter a pig, mostly because this method (rightly) referred to in-comic as an artillery strike is definitely one of those.)

Speak for yourself.

Oh that’s trivial, Hilgya was the last time he met an evil Cleric and he did not in fact try to work out a deal with Malack, Malack tried to bribe him out of his mission and he refused.

You have absolutely no clue, do you? Jake did not bribe him. He offered a kind and gentle joy for his friend. Durkon refused. Besides, if offering to marry someone isn't "working things out", then I'm short an explanation.

Now, now, Malack killed him and consumed his blood which is a thing we actually do to pigs (blood pudding) while Hilgya burned him alive which we don’t do to pigs. Also she raised him twice and acknowledged his rights with regards to Kudzu while Malack forced him to watch a twisted copy of him work against everything he believes in so I’ll say that Hilgya is ahead in the « respect » department.

I really don't care about dwarves. Jake loved him far more than she ever did. All I'll say is that I've seen a pig burnt alive at least twice. Once even outside of a vision.

Well, as a matter of fact, so long as Malack was alive undead, the thrall basically just went around dutifully following orders and dutifully not following (i.e. pursuing with hostile intent) the Order, staying separated from them for the entire time, which is mostly the same thing Durkon normally did while still alive, so…

Can someone get this warlock a drink of water? I think xe needs one. Durkon loved being Malack's boy toy. Literally.

Killing Durkon is a hell of a drug.

I don't want to play in this ground anymore. Visions of lost tomorrows keep me here where voices are never heard.

[Schroeswald]

Clearly what he needs is a Chaotic caster. Lawful Evil is the problem. Silly.

Ah yes, Hilgya is the epitome of Lawful Evil as we all know and is definitely not Chaotic.

[ShaneWegner]

Hilgya wasn't planning to sacrifice 1,000 sentient beings (per day) to her god in some kind of awful gas chamber or Room of Sawblades or Gelatinous-Cube-At-The-Bottom Waterslide as her endgame. More like have fun, drink mead, raise her kid, gate out of this reality if it broke.

Malack was polite and soft-spoken, but he was working with dictators towards an endgame of mass murder.

Plus, Durkon knows from experience that the former snake shaman wasn't in control anymore. His decayed soul was wrapped up in now cement-strong shackles, with the malevolent, if soft-spoken and polite negative energy vampire spirit in control.

[drazen]

I'd say that's the basis of lawful, not evil. For example, in modern society, the law says "as long as you don't kill someone voluntarily, you won't be put in a cage and stopped from doing so"..

Not the same as Malack/Tarquin. Tarquin wants Elan to behave in a certain way and not idolize Roy, and his best offer was for Elan to have a conversation with Roy before each adventure (and Tarquin only conceded this when he had basically lost the battle and knew it, but he had been trying to get Elan to embrace his own narrative up to that point, and when Elan disagreed, Tarquin resorted to force). Malack was happy to not fight Durkon or his friends... as long as Durkon voluntarily ceded the pyramid and gate. But when Durkon did not volunteer the desired prize, Malack resorted to conflict to force the desired result.

I do not see what is Lawful about saying that if someone doesn't do as you say, you'll force them to. That seems to fall on the Evil spectrum; nothing is REALLY voluntary if you're just going to mandate it when you don't get volunteers. Words mean things, and mandatory is literally the antonym of voluntary.

If you tell someone they are free to choose to eat a sandwich (or not), entirely their legal and free choice, but then get angry and force them to do the opposite of their choice (and maybe intended to do so all along), that is Evil, not Lawful. Nobody is legally free to choose to murder anyone. Nobody says it's merely "voluntary" not to murder. It's straight up illegal. Thus your analogy does not hold.

[KorvinStarmast]

Killing Durkon is a hell of a drug.

And we all need a new drug

[Luna_Mayflower]

Ah yes, Hilgya is the epitome of Lawful Evil as we all know and is definitely not Chaotic.

You need to swat up on my prophecies. This has been covered.

Hilgya wasn't planning to sacrifice 1,000 sentient beings (per day) to her god in some kind of awful gas chamber or Room of Sawblades or Gelatinous-Cube-At-The-Bottom Waterslide as her endgame. More like have fun, drink mead, raise her kid, gate out of this reality if it broke.

Of course you'd bring that up...

Malack was polite and soft-spoken, but he was working with dictators towards an endgame of mass murder.

Oh yes. Yes he was.

You weren't trying to make him less attractive, were you?

Not the same as Malack/Tarquin. Tarquin wants Elan to behave in a certain way and not idolize Roy, and his best offer was for Elan to have a conversation with Roy before each adventure (and Tarquin only conceded this when he had basically lost the battle and knew it, but he had been trying to get Elan to embrace his own narrative up to that point, and when Elan disagreed, Tarquin resorted to force). Malack was happy to not fight Durkon or his friends... as long as Durkon voluntarily ceded the pyramid and gate. But when Durkon did not volunteer the desired prize, Malack resorted to conflict to force the desired result.

I do not see what is Lawful about saying that if someone doesn't do as you say, you'll force them to. That seems to fall on the Evil spectrum; nothing is REALLY voluntary if you're just going to mandate it when you don't get volunteers. Words mean things, and mandatory is literally the antonym of voluntary.

If you tell someone they are free to choose to eat a sandwich (or not), entirely their legal and free choice, but then get angry and force them to do the opposite of their choice (and maybe intended to do so all along), that is Evil, not Lawful. Nobody is legally free to choose to murder anyone. Nobody says it's merely "voluntary" not to murder. It's straight up illegal. Thus your analogy does not hold.

Malack and Tarquin never said that Durkon or Elan had a voluntary choice. They used force to get their desired outcome. I have the choice whether to pay my taxes or not. If I don't, the government will use force to get their desired outcome.

[drazen]

Malack and Tarquin never said that Durkon or Elan had a voluntary choice. They used force to get their desired outcome. I have the choice whether to pay my taxes or not. If I don't, the government will use force to get their desired outcome.

Excluding one (in)famous and particularly novel legal interpretation of the definition of "taxable" and "income," the US government never said that paying your income taxes is voluntary. The law requires you to file a return, even, I believe, when you have no taxable income. If someone says "It's fine that you can choose to pay a tax or not, but if you don't, we'll make it mandatory" that's basically how racketeering/mafia shakedowns work (you don't have to pay us protection, wink wink).

Tarquin is basically all polite and smiles at first with Elan, "proud" of him as an adventurer, and sends him on his way to do his own thing. But when Elan expresses a desire to be support and/or comic relief, Tarquin becomes dismissive and attempts to force an outcome. He offered the illusion of choice to Elan but revoked it when he did not get his desired outcome.

Same thing with Malack. In the dungeon, Malack made several offers of peace to Durkon, but all of them involved the Vector Legion seizing the pyramid and the gate. Durkon reacted pretty badly, but he did hint that he might be willing to overlook Malack's vampirism ("e'en if I ignored tha"), but not the seizure of the pyramid and Gate. So really Malack was not interested in compromise - the status of pyramid and Gate were never really negotiable.

[Lethologica]

Double standards at play here?

{scrubbed}

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

One of the best crafted sentences that I have read in quite a while on this sub forum.
Have a nice pint of strong dwarven ale. 🍺

[Squire Doodad]

One of the best crafted sentences that I have read in quite a while on this sub forum.
Have a nice pint of strong dwarven ale. 🍺

Now would this be "Treekiller Rockaxe Lightningstrike Treekiller", the more mild "Oakfeller Cyclone", or Tungsten Merlot?