We are not speaking of "the choice between two small evils" but the choice between "Fully flegded evil empire" and "Fully fledged evil chaos". Supporting any of them for decades is hardly going with a neutral alignment.
Actually, it seems to me that supporting Lawful Evil as an alternative to Chaotic Evil is perfectly in keeping with Lawful Neutral, just as the reverse would be in keeping with Chaotic Neutral.
Although I think Malack is probably evil I will play Devil's Advocate here. By official definition what LN cares about is order NOT good and evil. Whatever his faults Tarquin does bring order. An LN cleric does not care about HOW order comes about just that it comes about.
Neutral characters normally care a little bit:
"Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbours and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."
PHB page 105.
Now that's for True Neutral. However, add a certain attachment to order, and we get Lawful Neutral.
But I don't think that alone tells us much about Malacks alignment (it makes good questionably, but that's it - I think there are stronger reasons to discard good)
You have it right with statement, but are still wrong in this specific case.
We are not basing Malack's probable evilness solely on the fact that he is close friends with Tarquin but that he also takes a large part in the Empire in specific and the entire setup in general himself.
Malack not only lives close to Horribly Evil Tarquin and is his probably closest friend but he also rules the Horribly Evil Empire himself and furthermore is part of a scheme that connects several similar evilly schemed nations together and mixes them whenever the need arises.
The second alone might not be a proof of evilness but it very surely is VERY borderline neutral at best. Joined with the fact he does not seem to have any issue with being friend with Tarquin is another VERY borderline neutral at best.
"very borderline neutral but possibly evil" + "very borderline neutral but possibly evil" does not, in my book, add up to "very borderline neutral" but to "possibly evil".
__________________
Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, Queen Cersei, King Joffrey, The Tickler, The Hound, Ser Amory, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling, Weese, Dunsen, Nale, Ser Gregor Clegane and Chiswyck: Winter is coming!
1) Tarquin is evil
2) Malack and Tarquin are friends
But I don't think that alone tells us much about Malacks alignment (it makes good questionably, but that's it - I think there are stronger reasons to discard good)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
You have it right with statement, but are still wrong in this specific case.
We are not basing Malack's probable evilness solely on the fact that he is close friends with Tarquin but that he also takes a large part in the Empire in specific and the entire setup in general himself.
Malack not only lives close to Horribly Evil Tarquin and is his probably closest friend but he also rules the Horribly Evil Empire himself and furthermore is part of a scheme that connects several similar evilly schemed nations together and mixes them whenever the need arises.
The second alone might not be a proof of evilness but it very surely is VERY borderline neutral at best. Joined with the fact he does not seem to have any issue with being friend with Tarquin is another VERY borderline neutral at best.
"very borderline neutral but possibly evil" + "very borderline neutral but possibly evil" does not, in my book, add up to "very borderline neutral" but to "possibly evil".
Please point out where I am wrong. I never said anything about whether he is LE or LN, I pointed only out that the friendship with Tarqin is no indicator for LE. (For the recording: If I had to choose, at the moment I would choose LN, because of the relationship towards Durkon [especially 847: "Tarquin, we agreed that Brother Thundershield was not to be harmed!"], but I wouldn't be surprised if he is LE, and by my books it wouldn't be a contradiction.)
And perhaps his role in this (=the empire and all that stuff) is because he thinks he has the choice between helping the LE empire or to let the regions there be more or less chaotic (and probably also evil). And between these choices a LN character would choice the first (even more so if it also helps a good friend).
Overall I think Malacks alignment situation is pretty close to Vs. Only V has enough screentime to tell the difference.
__________________
Awesome custom Avatar made for me by the Giant himself.
Thanks for that, Giant
Last edited by ChristianSt : 05-17-2013 at 07:03 AM.
Reason: Edited to add singature
At the risk of being a party pooper, I honestly don't think we have enough information yet, and thus this debate cannot reach a satisfactory point. Theirs simply too much that's ambiguous at the moment.
The focus is on your alone. Yes, you are correct if we'd base something on that alone. But it is one factor among others and as such is a valid clue in the puzzle.
So yes, in general you are correct, in this specific case I think you are wrong as there is no "alone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreesOfDeath
At the risk of being a party pooper, I honestly don't think we have enough information yet, and thus this debate cannot reach a satisfactory point. Theirs simply too much that's ambiguous at the moment.
You are not. You merely state the obvious that I think everyone here is aware of. The debate is not about finding ultimate truth but about outlining the personal interpretation and the giving of reasons for it, while also pointing out where we think someone else's interpretation falls short (or hits a mark).
If it was not vague and unclear at the moment, discussing this would be even more pointless than now (e.g. we do not have to discuss Belkar's alignment anymore (yess!!), doing that would really be pointless).
Discussing those things during a run through the story only make sense when they are unclear and the data does not (yet) allow a clear conclusion.
Once the story has progressed to the point where we see when and how Redcloak betrays Xykon, what the MitD does then, what Haley's Secret is, if Hinjo is gay or what the Snarl is (now)... discussing all those things becomes pointless after that.
__________________
Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, Queen Cersei, King Joffrey, The Tickler, The Hound, Ser Amory, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling, Weese, Dunsen, Nale, Ser Gregor Clegane and Chiswyck: Winter is coming!
...Are there seriously people speculating on whether Hinjo is gay?
No, I'm not speculating it.
But I am assuming for myself he is. It does not really matter what gender he likes, but it gives a nice twist to it and it very nicely explains why he is never seen with girls (and has neither interest in Lien nor in Sangwaan (bonus comics in the print)).
__________________
Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, Queen Cersei, King Joffrey, The Tickler, The Hound, Ser Amory, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling, Weese, Dunsen, Nale, Ser Gregor Clegane and Chiswyck: Winter is coming!
There isn't actually anything in the D&D rules saying homosexuality (or any consensual sexual activity except possibly BDSM) is Evil. They go out of their way to say that stuff like institutionalized sexism and heterosexism in the real world doesn't necessarily exist in D&D unless you bring it in with you, or their writers are feeling particularly lazy and exploitative.
Last edited by The Glyphstone : 10-23-2012 at 10:30 AM.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Yet another thread about Malack's alignment..
