OOTS #1147 - The Discussion Thread

[Keltest]

"You know, neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil. That's a common misconception. If anything, Neutrality suits them better," said the Lawful Evil cleric of Nergal planning a program of genocide for the entire continent.

You're arguing that there was no intended deception there?

In what way does Malack personally being evil affect his greater point? Presumably there are many schools of thought about Nergal, given that he seems to have legitimate worship and reverence (as opposed to, say, Hel, who apparently only ever managed to coerce and threaten that respect out of mortals).

[hroþila]

In what way does Malack personally being evil affect his greater point? Presumably there are many schools of thought about Nergal, given that he seems to have legitimate worship and reverence (as opposed to, say, Hel, who apparently only ever managed to coerce and threaten that respect out of mortals).

His greater point regarding Death gods might be correct, but he was planning his genocidal-scale slaughter as a direct tribute to Nergal, so unless Malack was utterly confused about how his god rolls I think it's more likely than not that he's Evil. I think that's too big to put it down as mere doctrinal nuances within a theologically diverse church.

[Peelee]

In what way does Malack personally being evil affect his greater point?

Hos point is to hide the fact that he's evil. That he hides it in a completely true statement just means that he's good at equivocation, not that he's making a case for anything.

[Gift Jeraff]

Malack wasn't just any cleric, he was a high priest which Book 6 has pretty strongly established as a singular, highest ranking within a god's church, to the point that they literally stand in for their god. Even if Rich is playing loose with the cleric alignment rules, I imagine high priests have, for the most part, identical alignment to their masters. Exceptions would be cases like Hel where she can't really be picky.

Alright. Not a thing that I expected. I thought sure Hilgya would just spit on the corpse-dust and walk away.
On the other hand, maybe she just wants to personally murdalize him, instead of settling for Belkar doing the deed.
On the third hand, ... I've run out of hands.

Other possibilities: A) She realized something was up when Vampire Durkon gave her Kudzu and let himself be slain. B) Bringing back Durkon robs him of Valhalla and increases his odds of going to Hel.

[factotum]

They wipe the memories of ALL the Outsiders?! That's a lot of mindwipes!

I guess they mindwipe the petitioners too, to avoid the forbidden knowledge spilling around... That must be confusing, to be a steampunk talking animal or a living slice of pizza and not knowing where you come from...

They don't need to mindwipe the petitioners because those will have already merged with their afterlife planes by the time the next world gets created--the planet creation process takes centuries, according to the dialogue in earlier strips.

[Roland Itiative]

come to think of it, is the spawn of a Slaad and a Deva just 100% pure Slaad, or some kind of Celestial Slaad? Could it have been 100% Deva or 100% Slaad but not 50% of each?

Half-Celestial, yet Chaotic... The spawn is clearly Haley.

[Keltest]

Hos point is to hide the fact that he's evil. That he hides it in a completely true statement just means that he's good at equivocation, not that he's making a case for anything.

Really? Because im pretty sure that his intent at the time is just to have a theological discussion with a fellow cleric, one who he has no intent of coming into conflict with in the immediate future.

[Fyraltari]

"You know, neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil. That's a common misconception. If anything, Neutrality suits them better," said the Lawful Evil cleric of Nergal planning a program of genocide for the entire continent.

You're arguing that there was no intended deception there?

The only intended deception (that we know of) is that Malack himself would be one of those Non-evil Clerics, which he isn't.
That doesn't make his point wrong. Neutrality does suit death-themed gods better than Evil.

I can see Nergal being Evil, but we don't have evidence for that.

Malack was planning to create a continent-spanning theocracy dedicated to Nergal that would commit sacrifices in an "orderly regime of destruction" where before there were only a multitude of warring ephemereal kingdoms. The strip where he describes his plan is even called "Calm, Orderly, Efficient", I can see a Lawful Neutral deity sponsoring that regime for the greater Law of everyone on the Western Continent.

I can also see, and if Nergal is Neutral, that would be more likely, I think, a Lawful Neutral deity not bothering to correct* his LE servant on what an ideal society would be to him (after all Malack's empire was still a distant dream when he died. Hell Nergal might have expected the world to end before that) as long as he is motivated to take part in a scheme that is actually bringing Order, if slowly, to the Western Continent.

If you want to argue that Nergal is definitely Evil, you need evidence, like a clear statement of Nergal being evil, Malack casting something that only Evil gods can grant or the like.
For example, is it said anywhere that only Evil gods accept human sacrifices?


*If he can, we've seen that there isn't that much communication between gods and worshippers, c.f. Thor, the Dwarves and the trees.

[Peelee]

Really? Because im pretty sure that his intent at the time is just to have a theological discussion with a fellow cleric, one who he has no intent of coming into conflict with in the immediate future.

Indeed, and not knowing how evangelical this Lawful Good cleric is, hiding that he is Evil works towards the intent of not coming into conflict, similar to hiding that he is a vampire. Again, hiding it behind irrelevant but completely true statements just means he's good at equivocation.

Malack was planning to create a continent-spanning theocracy dedicated to Nergal that would commit sacrifices in an "orderly regime of destruction" where before there were only a multitude of warring ephemereal kingdoms. The strip where he describes his plan is even called "Calm, Orderly, Efficient", I can see a Lawful Neutral deity sponsoring that regime for the greater Law of everyone on the Western Continent.

I disagree that a Lawful Neutral god would be fine with sponsoring continual mass slaughter so long as it was Lawful enough.

[Fyraltari]

I disagree that a Lawful Neutral god would be fine with sponsoring continual mass slaughter so long as it was Lawful enough.

I mean, Neutral Ganji and Enor are fine with delivering people to slave-driven dictatorship and using lethal force on people for the crime of asking questions while Neutral Therkla is fine with helping her daimyo lauch attacks on their own countrymen (including wivilians during a wedding) in a bid for power, so I get the impression Neutrals can get away with a lot without being evil.

[Peelee]

I mean, Neutral Ganji and Enor are fine with delivering people to slave-driven dictatorship and using lethal force on people for the crime of asking questions while Neutral Therkla is fine with helping her daimyo lauch attacks on their own countrymen (including wivilians during a wedding) in a bid for power, so I get the impression Neutrals can get away with a lot without being evil.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that Gannji, Enor, or Therkla would approve of a holocaust.

[Kish]

"Lawful Neutral deities permit atrocities" is pretty much implicit in "Lawful Neutral deities regularly have Lawful Evil clerics." If a god wasn't willing to support mass slaughter, that leads to a situation where a Lawful Neutral deity is happy to supply power to Lawful Evil clerics, making them more likely to succeed at their plans, as long as they aren't too successful...and if you're doing that, it makes more sense to just St. Cuthbert it and say "this particular Lawful Neutral god has no evil clerics."

(That said, there's no reason at all to think Nergal isn't evil without, for some reason, treating the half of a statement which hasn't been explicitly proven to be deceptive as gospel. So to speak.)

[Roland Itiative]

Yes, but I wouldn't say that Gannji, Enor, or Therkla would approve of a holocaust.

Well, V pretty much single-handedly pulled one off (the power didn't come from him, but the decision to use it was his own), without making the jump to Evil alignment. OotS seems to follow the "neutral can go to both extremes to fit their needs, but don't get any real fulfillment from good/evil/law/chaos actions by themselves, just the benefits the actions provide" interpretation.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, but I wouldn't say that Gannji, Enor, or Therkla would approve of a holocaust.

First, points for the literal use of holocaust.
Second, we don't know Nergal would approve of it either, while Malack seem to believe he would it should be noted that
A) Clerics can be wrong about what their gods approve and
B) Malack and his vampire ruling class would need to kill hundreds of people daily anyway, so why not dedicate them to Nergal?
C) Ganji, enor and Therkla don't have any responsabilties. As a god Negal does. This encourages the "omelette" mindset. Or in the words of Shojo "You have to understand... in order to do what is best for the entire [continent], I sometimes need to take... unpopular actions". Of course Shojo was Good, so the worse he did was rigging trials, being emotionnally abusive, going back on his oath and violating people's habeas corpus.

"Lawful Neutral deities permit atrocities" is pretty much implicit in "Lawful Neutral deities regularly have Lawful Evil clerics."

(That said, there's no reason at all to think Nergal isn't evil without, for some reason, treating the half of a statement which hasn't been explicitly proven to be deceptive as gospel. So to speak.)

"There is no reason to think he isn't evil" is a terrible reason to think he is. I don't know wether he is Evil or Neutral, if someone has evidence, I'll accept it, but nothing conclusive has been offered in either way.

[Priceguy]

Malack wasn't just any cleric, he was a high priest

Where did we learn that? I don't remember it.

[Kish]

"There is no reason to think he isn't evil" is a terrible reason to think he is. I don't know wether he is Evil or Neutral, if someone has evidence, I'll accept it, but nothing conclusive has been offered in either way.

I get that. I just don't want Peelee thinking I'm anywhere close to being there with you just because I point out the implications of a generic not-Nergal Lawful Neutral god having Lawful Evil clerics.

[Fyraltari]

I get that. I just don't want Peelee thinking I'm anywhere close to being there with you just because I point out the implications of a generic not-Nergal Lawful Neutral god having Lawful Evil clerics.

Carry on then.

[Peelee]

Well, V pretty much single-handedly pulled one off (the power didn't come from him, but the decision to use it was his own), without making the jump to Evil alignment.

A.) I disagree with the conclusion.
B.) Even assuming the conclusion is correct, a one-time act is still different from a continual act (and, as Malack is undead, a planned-for-eternity continual act, at that).

First, points for the literal use of holocaust.
Second, we don't know Nergal would approve of it either, while Malack seem to believe he would it should be noted that
A) Clerics can be wrong about what their gods approve and
B) Malack and his vampire ruling class would need to kill hundreds of people daily anyway, so why not dedicate them to Nergal?
C) Ganji, enor and Therkla don't have any responsabilties. As a god Negal does. This encourages the "omelette" mindset. Or in the words of Shojo "You have to understand... in order to do what is best for the entire [continent], I sometimes need to take... unpopular actions". Of course Shojo was Good, so the worse he did was rigging trials, being emotionnally abusive, going back on his oath and violating people's habeas corpus.

"There is no reason to think he isn't evil" is a terrible reason to think he is. I don't know wether he is Evil or Neutral, if someone has evidence, I'll accept it, but nothing conclusive has been offered in either way.

First, thanks! Its a good word in the right context. Very evocative, even without the historical significance.

Second,
A) True, but I would expect more from a high priest.
B) I was under the impression they would be killing significantly more than what they need to feast on.
C) Fixing trials and violating habeus corpus strike me as more Lawful/Chaotic than Good/Evil, especially when looking at the desired result of doing those things.

I get that. I just don't want Peelee thinking I'm anywhere close to being there with you just because I point out the implications of a generic not-Nergal Lawful Neutral god having Lawful Evil clerics.

I didnt.

[MADCrab]

How cold-blooded would you call Roy in panel one here?

'Cause you know, those goblins had done way less to establish "I'm a moral monster!" than Crystal had even going on online-only content.

Well....

Isn't "Goblins got the short end of the stick in being classified as always-justified targets" kinda a major plot point?

[Peelee]

Well....

Isn't "Goblins got the short end of the stick in being classified as always-justified targets" kinda a major plot point?

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

At least some paladins fell for the raid on Redcloak's village, so I wouldn't say "always-justified."

[Keltest]

Well....

Isn't "Goblins got the short end of the stick in being classified as always-justified targets" kinda a major plot point?

As I recall, the grievance was "goblins are forced to choose between acting in such a way as they become legitimate targets or starve", not "there is a huge moral double standard when it comes to killing goblinoids."

Now, some groups might have that double standard, such as the Sapphire Guard, but it arises due to the callousness of the groups and the existence of the real problem TDO wants corrected. Its not an inherent function of the setting.

[Fyraltari]

First, thanks! Its a good word in the right context. Very evocative, even without the historical significance.

"Hecatomb" works too, when you don't want the subtext crushing your meaning.

Second,
A) True, but I would expect more from a high priest.

Is Malack even the high priest? I honestly can't recall.

B) I was under the impression they would be killing significantly more than what they need to feast on.

Well, that rather depends on how many vampires that ruling class of his would be made of and how often and how much a vampire needs to feed (jusging by Durkon*, at least once a day). 1,000 people is 6,000 liters of blood, and I cannot see class ruling a continent without at least numbering in the thousands.

C) Fixing trials and violating habeus corpus strike me as more Lawful/Chaotic than Good/Evil, especially when looking at the desired result of doing those things.

Roy calls it "personal violation" once and making Hinjo belive his uncle had gone mad is an evil action. More to the point, Shojo openly agrees that "the end justifies the means" and justifies his actions with the half-million citizens he is responsible for.

[Roland Itiative]

A.) I disagree with the conclusion.
B.) Even assuming the conclusion is correct, a one-time act is still different from a continual act (and, as Malack is undead, a planned-for-eternity continual act, at that).

Oh, I was not trying to argue for Malack being possibly Neutral, I should have made that clear. He's definitely as Evil as they come. But I do think Hilgya could be Neutral (even though I'd still put my money on her being Evil too, due to the lack of redeemable actions shown on-panel), which was the original discussion. Reading through the whole thing at once made me not realise the shift :P

[Kish]

Well....

Isn't "Goblins got the short end of the stick in being classified as always-justified targets" kinda a major plot point?

I'm not seeing the relevance. Your expressed negative view of Haley's actions wasn't a plot point.

[Peelee]

"Hecatomb" works too, when you don't want the subtext crushing your meaning.


Is Malack even the high priest? I honestly can't recall.

Oooh, New word! Also, yep. I'll get to the rest when I have more time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I cannot see class ruling a continent without at least numbering in the thousands.

Really? Usually military dictatorships manage with a handful of generals. Hundreds, maybe, if you include their direct reporting staff (although they aren't ruling class), but there is not reason for the vampires to only have vampires working in the middle rungs.

Heck, the continent as it is is ruled by about a dozen people, including the patsies on the thrones.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Really? Usually military dictatorships manage with a handful of generals. Hundreds, maybe, if you include their direct reporting staff (although they aren't ruling class), but there is not reason for the vampires to only have vampires working in the middle rungs.

Heck, the continent as it is is ruled by about a dozen people, including the patsies on the thrones.

Grey Wolf

If by "the continent" you mean "a third of the inhabited part of the desert, which itself is only about two thirds of the landmass."

[Fyraltari]

Really? Usually military dictatorships manage with a handful of generals. Hundreds, maybe, if you include their direct reporting staff (although they aren't ruling class), but there is not reason for the vampires to only have vampires working in the middle rungs.

Heck, the continent as it is is ruled by about a dozen people, including the patsies on the thrones.

Grey Wolf

Ruling class and government are two different things.

[Ruck]

"You know, neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil. That's a common misconception. If anything, Neutrality suits them better," said the Lawful Evil cleric of Nergal planning a program of genocide for the entire continent.

You're arguing that there was no intended deception there?

I'll add to that: Why wouldn't Malack just say "Nergal isn't Evil" if he wasn't Evil, instead of going to all the trouble to equivocate in the fashion he does?

[Fyraltari]

I'll add to that: Why wouldn't Malack just say "Nergal isn't Evil" if he wasn't Evil, instead of going to all the trouble to equivocate in the fashion he does?

Because Malack likes to sound smart?