Malack, undeath and Nergal

[kabraxis]

Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Nergal disapprove of the undead? IIRC Malack said that when they found the mummies. So how come Malack is an undead priest of Nergal?

Thanks for the answers and sorry for my bad english :)

[FujinAkari]

No. Absolutely not.

If Nergal disapproved of undead, he wouldn't grant domain spells that allow the creation of undead. Malack disapproves of undead.

[KillianHawkeye]

More specifically, Malack appears to be against the enslavement of undead, not necessarily the creation of undead in general.

[kabraxis]

Ahh, I see. Thanks. I guess I just remembered it wrong.

[snikrept]

Malack used a magic item to create the mummies, so it's possible that a homebrew Nergal forbids that spell from his list, but... meh, seems unlikely

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0858.html

[KillianHawkeye]

Malack used a magic item to create the mummies, so it's possible that a homebrew Nergal forbids that spell from his list, but... meh, seems unlikely

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0858.html

If he was unable to cast the spell normally, he'd be similarly unable to use it from a staff (unless activating the staff with cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device skill).

[dps]

No. Absolutely not.

If Nergal disapproved of undead, he wouldn't grant domain spells that allow the creation of undead. Malack disapproves of undead.

I'm thinking that perhaps he only disapproves of undead that aren't sentient. Or only disapproves of undead that aren't vampires.

[Snails]

It is my strongly held personal belief that clerics of a Death god "should" abhor undeath as a perversion of the natural cycle of Life & Death.

The opposite opinion seems to be more common among D&D writers/designers, where indulging in the Goth Romanticism of death/undeath appears to be somewhat in vogue.

It is hard to say what the Giant thinks, but it would be logical that the OotSverse, emulating the feel of a "typical" D&D campaign would choose the more common belief, even if the Giant himself might have a different opinion.

Opinions are just opinions, whether mine or the designers/writers.

[FujinAkari]

I'm thinking that perhaps he only disapproves of undead that aren't sentient. Or only disapproves of undead that aren't vampires.

I agree. Being a vampire, I would presume Malack disapproves of using the dead as mindless thralls.

However, the line "Nergal has provided us with a resource," basically eliminates any possibility that undead are something Nergal disapproves of.

[Chantelune]

Malack used a magic item to create the mummies, so it's possible that a homebrew Nergal forbids that spell from his list, but... meh, seems unlikely

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0858.html

More likely he just never prepared the relevant spells given he don't like creating mindless undead. He did claim there that not doing so when presented with such fitting bodies by Nergal would just be plain rude.

[Mantine]

I don't understand what people get so confused about.
Nergal is the god of Death and Destruction, it's only natural that he'd be against any form of resurrection (even if only in the form of mindless zombies), while turning a perfectly alive and kicking Belkar into undeath would be perfectly ok with his policy.

As for the rest, I assume that by Nergal he meant Death, meaning that it'd been a waste not to use a rare form of undeads such as the mummies.

[FujinAkari]

I don't understand what people get so confused about.
Nergal is the god of Death and Destruction, it's only natural that he'd be against any form of resurrection (even if only in the form of mindless zombies),

And so not turning corpses into mummies would be rude? That makes absolutely no sense.

[EnragedFilia]

If he was unable to cast the spell normally, he'd be similarly unable to use it from a staff (unless activating the staff with cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device skill).

The way I read the rules on activating magic items, UMD is only required for "spell completion" items (like scrolls) of spells that the user doesn't have access to, and "spell trigger" items (like wands) with spells that the user's class doesn't have access to. So a scroll of holy smite (available only through the good domain) would be usable without UMD only by a 9th level cleric with the good domain (unless I'm mistaken or the DM decides otherwise), while a wand of the same spell would be usable by any cleric of any level. A staff could presumably have either "spell trigger" or "command word" activation types, either of which would make the "animate existing mummy" effect depicted here (which is presumably available to clerics somehow) usable regardless of Nergal's domains or opinions regarding mummies.

[Origomar]

More specifically, Malack appears to be against the enslavement of undead, not necessarily the creation of undead in general.

Interesting. I guess that means belkar will have free will/not be controlled by malack.

[Chantelune]

Well, a free-willed vampire Belkar would be a possibility given Malack considers himself a father making childs. I guess we'll have answers soon enough regarding that.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I don't understand what people get so confused about.
Nergal is the god of Death and Destruction, it's only natural that he'd be against any form of resurrection (even if only in the form of mindless zombies), while turning a perfectly alive and kicking Belkar into undeath would be perfectly ok with his policy.

Nergal is the god of war and pestilence as well as being a Solar deity (pestilence and the sun were also tied together by the Greeks in the form of Apollo, though Nergal was associated with the Planet Mars and the Greeks interpreted him as a foreign Ares or Hercules). His marriage to the Goddess of death Ereshkigal has parallels with the Greek myth of Hades and Persephone, in which a resurrection is used to symbolise the calender cycle. Nergal's ties to a specific 'phase' of the sun rather than the sun is another strong calender based theme.

Since calender cycles and resurrection are so linked in mythology I don't think you can say that Nergal would be anti-resurrection.

[FujinAkari]

Nergal is the god of war and pestilence as well as being a Solar deity (pestilence and the sun were also tied together by the Greeks in the form of Apollo, though Nergal was associated with the Planet Mars and the Greeks interpreted him as a foreign Ares or Hercules). His marriage to the Goddess of death Ereshkigal has parallels with the Greek myth of Hades and Persephone, in which a resurrection is used to symbolise the calender cycle. Nergal's ties to a specific 'phase' of the sun rather than the sun is another strong calender based theme.

Since calender cycles and resurrection are so linked in mythology I don't think you can say that Nergal would be anti-resurrection.

Do keep in mind that the OOTS Nergal has nothing whatsoever to do with the Babylonian Nergal :P

[Mantine]

And so not turning corpses into mummies would be rude? That makes absolutely no sense.

It does not to use a very rare type of minions which had been made plenty available.
It makes 100% sense, sorry that you're not following.

[Mantine]

Nergal is the god of war and pestilence as well as being a Solar deity (pestilence and the sun were also tied together by the Greeks in the form of Apollo, though Nergal was associated with the Planet Mars and the Greeks interpreted him as a foreign Ares or Hercules). His marriage to the Goddess of death Ereshkigal has parallels with the Greek myth of Hades and Persephone, in which a resurrection is used to symbolise the calender cycle. Nergal's ties to a specific 'phase' of the sun rather than the sun is another strong calender based theme.

Since calender cycles and resurrection are so linked in mythology I don't think you can say that Nergal would be anti-resurrection.

Well, but they're two different Nergal's

[Katuko]

It does not to use a very rare type of minions which had been made plenty available.
It makes 100% sense, sorry that you're not following.

It does not, in fact, make sense to state that obviously a God of Death would be against undead, and then go on to say that it is perfectly sensible that said god would provide a follower with the materials for creating undead.

[KillianHawkeye]

The way I read the rules on activating magic items, UMD is only required for "spell completion" items (like scrolls) of spells that the user doesn't have access to, and "spell trigger" items (like wands) with spells that the user's class doesn't have access to. So a scroll of holy smite (available only through the good domain) would be usable without UMD only by a 9th level cleric with the good domain (unless I'm mistaken or the DM decides otherwise), while a wand of the same spell would be usable by any cleric of any level. A staff could presumably have either "spell trigger" or "command word" activation types, either of which would make the "animate existing mummy" effect depicted here (which is presumably available to clerics somehow) usable regardless of Nergal's domains or opinions regarding mummies.

Please realize that the post I was responding to was positing that Malack used the staff because Nergal did not grant him the spell to animate the mummies himself. If that were the case, and animate dead and similar spells were effectively removed from Malack's spell list, then he would not be able to activate them from a staff because he lacks the knowledge of the spell needed. Lacking that knowledge, he could still activate the staff using the Use Magic Device skill (a skill he is unlikely to have any ranks in).

Also, note that staffs are always spell trigger items, never command word activated items.

[Mantine]

{Scrubbed}

As for the rest, I assume that by Nergal he meant Death

Meaning that the "nergal provided" was figurative speech, and not the actual god's doing. On one hand there is the precept of not creating undead, on the other a very rare resource that "death" had made available for use at just the best moment possible.
Any rule has exceptions, without said rule becoming void because of that.

[The Giant]

Nergal is not against undeath. Malack is against casual creation of undead to use as cannon fodder specifically because he IS undead; that is what he is referring to as "being against" in that panel.

Yes, it was intentionally vague at the time so as not to give away the twist.

[jere7my]

Do keep in mind that the OOTS Nergal has nothing whatsoever to do with the Babylonian Nergal :P

Not nothing — they're both lion-headed, for instance. But there's no reason to think what's true for one is true for the other.

[FujinAkari]

{{scrubbed}}

[TheYell]

If Nergal expects his follower to kill the target himself instead of allowing someone else to kill the target, then, that is consistent with disapproval of creation of an undead phalanx you walk behind.

It is also consistent with the idea that Making Children is a personal perogative of Malack, instead of any kind of duty.

[JackRackham]

Well, a free-willed vampire Belkar would be a possibility given Malack considers himself a father making childs. I guess we'll have answers soon enough regarding that.

I don't know, I see Malack as an old-fashioned kinda guy and children should obey their parents. Especially Belkar - he's only just been turned. It's for his own good, really. Besides, free-willed Belkar is far too likely to try to kill him and harvest his vampiric organs for later sale as some sort of super-rare spell component.

[Chantelune]

I don't know, I see Malack as an old-fashioned kinda guy and children should obey their parents. Especially Belkar - he's only just been turned. It's for his own good, really. Besides, free-willed Belkar is far too likely to try to kill him and harvest his vampiric organs for later sale as some sort of super-rare spell component.

Yeah, but parents don't enslave their children.

Also, Malack didn't interact much with Belkar, so I don't think he knows he's such a psychotic halfling that would attack him just for fun and possible profit. And we still don't really know how being a vampire will affect Belkar's mind, if at all. It might just create that "special bond" Malack is craving, making Belkar seeing him as his "father" even if not enslaved.

[Vemynal]

Nergal is not against undeath. Malack is against casual creation of undead to use as cannon fodder specifically because he IS undead; that is what he is referring to as "being against" in that panel.

Yes, it was intentionally vague at the time so as not to give away the twist.

Word from god =)

[Math_Mage]

Yeah, but parents don't enslave their children.

Also, Malack didn't interact much with Belkar, so I don't think he knows he's such a psychotic halfling that would attack him just for fun and possible profit. And we still don't really know how being a vampire will affect Belkar's mind, if at all. It might just create that "special bond" Malack is craving, making Belkar seeing him as his "father" even if not enslaved.

Not to be a downer, but your statement about parents is far from universal.

Malack knows Belkar is perfectly happy to attack him, because Belkar just attacked him. And the distinction between drastic mental alterations and slavery is not such a wide one.