Yet another thread about Malack's alignment..

[ti'esar]

We saw a lot of lizardfolk in Bleedingham, as well as that desert port town where the OotS started their search. I think Tarquin also spoke of consolidating "human and lizardfolk territory" as opposed to the elven lands in the north.

In fact, I think it's been specifically mentioned that humans and lizardfolk are pretty well-integrated throughout the Western Continent.

[Turgon9357]

Dewey decimal system strictly enforced.

[snikrept]

Still of the opinion that Malack doesn't choose to dine at Tarquin's state dinners because he's aware that Tarquin serves some pretty repulsive foods. And is too polite to say that.

[brilliantlight]

My GUESS is Malack is LE just like Tarquin and like him doesn't wear his villainy on his sleeve. However I do think he is more lawful than evil so he is either LE leaning LN or straight up LN.

[Water_Bear]

It's kind of funny, because this debate seems like the inverted counterpart to the discredited "Thog is Chaotic Neutral" idea.

Being stupid and behaving in a childlike manner does not absolve Thog of his many on-screen Evil actions. Being wise and behaving in a sophisticated manner does not absolve Malack of the vast off-screen atrocities which he has directly supported through his participation in Tarquin's scheming.

As for the Nergal thing, I am 100% ready to believe that Malack worships a LN deity. After all, how many Evil Clerics of Wee Jas are running around in the standard cosmology; there's no mechanical or story reason why his alignment would have to match that of his god exactly.

[LadyEowyn]

Being stupid and behaving in a childlike manner does not absolve Thog of his many on-screen Evil actions. Being wise and behaving in a sophisticated manner does not absolve Malack of the vast off-screen atrocities which he has directly supported through his participation in Tarquin's scheming.

The difference is that we saw Thog do plenty of evil stuff. We haven't seen Malack take any specific actions that are actually we evil. We don't even have hearsay of him, specifically, doing things that are definitely evil.

We only know that he's associated with Tarquin and that Tarquin is evil. However, the Order is also associated with Belkar and Belkar is evil. Since Tarquin's running the Empire of Blood and Belkar's clearly not running the Order, it's not equivalent, but association alone isn't enough to peg him for certain as evil. My guess would be Lawful Neutral.

However, a couple of questions for people more versed in D&D:

We've seen Malack raise mummies. Is a certain alignment required to use necromancy (i.e.: do you have to be evil to do so, or at least have to be non-good)? Also, same question regarding Harm.

EDIT: Correction: Malack being willing to feed Elan to a dragon when he thought Elan was Nale may qualify as an Evil act. However, it wouldn't have looked that way if he had just be trying to feed Nale to a dragon, and he didn't have particularly strong evidence that Elan wasn't Nale, so it's probably only sufficient to say Malack isn't Good.

[hamishspence]

"Create Undead" has the [Evil] tag- but Neutral clerics can cast [Evil] spells and still be Neutral. Good aligned clerics are simply unable to cast such spells- Good-aligned wizards can though.

So we know he's "non-good".

[LadyEowyn]

Thanks! So the fact that he'll use necromancy but generally doesn't like to do so and will only use it in particular circumstances (like stumbling across a bunch of mummies) also seems to suggest Lawful Neutral.

[hamishspence]

That said- he was using a staff to do so- might get around the normal rules.

Still doubt very much that he's Good.

[Water_Bear]

The difference is that we saw Thog do plenty of evil stuff. We haven't seen Malack take any specific actions that are actually we evil. We don't even have hearsay of him, specifically, doing things that are definitely evil.

We only know that he's associated with Tarquin and that Tarquin is evil. However, the Order is also associated with Belkar and Belkar is evil. Since Tarquin's running the Empire of Blood and Belkar's clearly not running the Order, it's not equivalent, but association alone isn't enough to peg him for certain as evil. My guess would be Lawful Neutral.

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.

[Mike Havran]

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.

I would like to point that judging from the names like Cruelvania etc., pretty much the whole part of the western continent (wc) looks similar to Tarquin's empires. The conquest scheme itself maybe isn't anything extraordinarily Evil, by wc's standards and environment. Tarquin's deeds probably are Evil even then; but it is not certain Malack knows about them.

[theNater]

He's had a key role in Tarquin's "unite and conquer" scheme for the better part of fifteen years; a campaign of conquest deceit and the brutal subjugation of the better part of an entire continent. Even if he didn't do any of the dirty-work himself, he has certainly earned his 1/6th of his party's evil deeds just through knowingly aiding the conspiracy.

Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.

[zimmerwald1915]

I would like to point that judging from the names like Cruelvania etc., pretty much the whole part of the western continent (wc) looks similar to Tarquin's empires. The conquest scheme itself maybe isn't anything extraordinarily Evil, by wc's standards and environment. Tarquin's deeds probably are Evil even then; but it is not certain Malack knows about them.

"Looks" is a very telling verb. About the only thing we know about Cruelvania and all the countries of the Western Continent is that they probably weren't around as recently as two years ago, and were most certainly not around when Tarquin first set foot on the continent. Even then, country names aren't necessarily to be taken at face value. Tyrinar the Bloody may have been a milquetoast who made up for his utter lack of political power and savvy with terrible fashion sense, but he didn't seem on board with the total Tarquin package - he certainly lasted less long than the Empress, and we are made to understand that this is because Tarquin just got tired of putting up with him.

Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.

Elan saw through Tarquin's rationalizations eventually, and he had known Tarquin for three days or so at that point. This from a man with intelligence and wisdom scores so low as to be unable to cast cantrips as a wizard or orisions as a cleric. Malack is no fool - his being able to cast Harm proves that much - and he's known Tarquin for more than twenty years. To suggest that he's ignorant of what Tarquin is and what he's doing is absurd. Now, he might not care, and he might, if he really is neutral, rationalize to himself that his sequestration from Palace life and the non-ecclesiastical business of Empire-management absolves him of responsibility, but he cannot possibly be ignorant of what's really going on.

[weeping eagle]

So, long story short, I think Malack is delighted to have Durkon around and figures why spoil a potentially nice friendly relationship if he doesn't even have to lie to do it?

My thoughts as well. I would also add that perhaps the LE/LG tension is fascinating to both parties and even a learning opportunity.

[Joe the Rat]

My thoughts as well. I would also add that perhaps the LE/LG tension is fascinating to both parties and even a learning opportunity.

I wouldn't go so far as saying both parties - Durkon feels like he comes down more on the smite side than the smile at side in regards to Evil, but Malack has a more philosophical bent.

That said, I'm on the fence about Evil, but my impression is that he's Lawful, and on the balance somewhere south of the equator. Though if he does ultimately come down to evil, a Durkon-Malack team-up could be interesting. More intelligent, less hijinks-prove, and not as wacky as the Elan-Thog version...

Okay, maybe not that interesting.

[Winter]

Neither conquest nor deceit are inherently evil. Brutal subjugation is, but if Malack doesn't personally participate in that and believes Tarquin's "greater good" justification, it is possible he could still squeak through as neutral.

Now you're kidding yourself.

Malack has been adventuring with Tarquin for decades and has been orchestrating Evil Empires that rule through oppression in changing setups for years.
I very much doubt it is even remotely possible he doesn't have his part in this (and it's even more impossible he does not know all this, as you claimed).

Belkar = Evil.
Thog = Evil.
Redcloak = Evil.
Malack = Evil.

All four are utterly evil and about all four we have to endure all the same debates over and over again.

To address what all those four have common: Just because you like a character it does not mean he's not evil.

[theNater]

Now you're kidding yourself.

I said Malack "could squeak through as neutral". I am not insisting that he must be neutral, only leaving it as a possibility until we have confirmation of his alignment.

Malack has been adventuring with Tarquin for decades and has been orchestrating Evil Empires that rule through oppression in changing setups for years.
I very much doubt it is even remotely possible he doesn't have his part in this (and it's even more impossible he does not know all this, as you claimed).

Yes, Malack almost certainly knows that Tarquin's rule is brutal and oppressive. However, Malack may believe, rightly or wrongly, that the brutality and oppression of living under Tarquin is less terrible than the brutality of incessant warfare. If he does believe that(and we don't know whether he does or not), then supporting Tarquin would be reasonable for a neutral character.

Belkar = Evil.
Thog = Evil.
Redcloak = Evil.
Malack = Evil.

All four are utterly evil and about all four we have to endure all the same debates over and over again.

To address what all those four have common: Just because you like a character it does not mean he's not evil.

Of the characters on your list, Malack is the only one we have not seen perform an evil act. This leaves room for questioning not present in the other cases.

[Winter]

Yes, Malack almost certainly knows that Tarquin's rule is brutal and oppressive. However, Malack may believe, rightly or wrongly, that the brutality and oppression of living under Tarquin is less terrible than the brutality of incessant warfare. If he does believe that(and we don't know whether he does or not), then supporting Tarquin would be reasonable for a neutral character.

Tarquin is not hiding his evilness to those close to him.
He's torturing women to marry him (which is also some kind of rape), he murders people just he finds it convenient (the husband of someone who could become the next Mr. Tarquin), he also does lots of evilness for fun (dipping people in acid, having anyone murdered who even comes close to show dissent (in the arena or by some Ninja-agent), he burns slaves to give Elan a show, he has a Dinosaur eatING people for amusement of the masses.
Malack knows all that and still is not only tolerating Tarquin "as the end is what matters", but he is close friends.
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.

If "the means do not justify the end" and we consider Redcloak evil (he is), then Malack also has to be, even if his support of the Empire is merely a "choice of lesser evils" (which it very probably is not Malack's core motivation).

Yes, we do not know. But the option of neutrality is unlikely enough for not mattering to me.

[theNater]

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.

If "the means do not justify the end" and we consider Redcloak evil (he is), then Malack also has to be, even if his support of the Empire is merely a "choice of lesser evils" (which it very probably is not Malack's core motivation).

The rules are ambiguous on whether supporting an evil organization without personally performing any evil acts makes a character evil. This ambiguity does not matter in the case of Redcloak, as he has personally committed evil acts in furtherance of his goals. However, as far as we know, it does matter in the case of Malack.

[denthor]

How Malack can be Nuetral with a destruction domain.

Earthquakes fires(from lighting strikes(Cough(Thor) cough) and Floods are Nuetral. They all cause destruction. Loss of life on all sides of the alignment spectrum.

[Concept]

Malack the cleric of Nergal, the lion-headed god of death and destruction.
"You know, neither gods of death nor their clerics are necessarily evil. That's a common misconception. If anything, Neutrality suits them better."

It seems that Malack would consider himself (and his deity) as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. But is that necessarily true? He might be outright lying, but it's also possible that he's slightly delusional, and actually believes this of himself.

From that quote, it sounds more like Malack is talking about a hypothetical [italics]them[/italics]. He is clearly not outright lying, nor delusional. He's using misdirection, saying something true and letting you hear something completely different, simply because that's what you want to hear. (Wizard's first rule, to steal from another author.)

Why else would a lawful evil cleric in a lawful evil party in the middle of a huge lawful evil campaign use such vague language, instead of simply saying "us," which he would need to do if he were going to simply lie outright and claim to be neutral.

[Mike Havran]

Here, the Giant implies that Malack's alignment is one of the things he wants to be ambiguous - at least for the time being.

That's basically why, if Malack is LN, he couldn't state it clearly during his conversation with Durkon. Of course, it doesn't mean Malack is not LE, but in that case his cunning deception would be in sharp contrast with his usual behaviour.

This also makes a huge difference between Malack and Belkar, Redcloak or Thog. For those three, the Giant openly stated they are Evil (presumably in order to finish the debates about their alignment).

[Kish]

Here, the Giant implies that Malack's alignment is one of the things he wants to be ambiguous - at least for the time being.

That's basically why, if Malack is LN, he couldn't state it clearly during his conversation with Durkon.

The question is, what is Malack's in-character reason for phrasing what he said that way?

"There is none" is a fairly huge assumption, and not exactly one complimentary to Rich's writing ability. If he just wanted to withhold information and couldn't think of a logical, in-character way to have Malack not spill that information, he would just not have the subject come up on-panel at all.

[denthor]

How about htis Malack wants to draw worshipers to his deity so he stress the less scary thought until they are ready to delve deep unto the wisdom like he has.

Malack the used car sales man.

Spoiler

Show

Qoute AL Bundy
run, run like water through a first time tourist in Mexico. Run baby Run

[Mike Havran]

The question is, what is Malack's in-character reason for phrasing what he said that way?

"There is none" is a fairly huge assumption, and not exactly one complimentary to Rich's writing ability. If he just wanted to withhold information and couldn't think of a logical, in-character way to have Malack not spill that information, he would just not have the subject come up on-panel at all.

I can not think of any especially convincing reason, but I'll try. I'll just copy Malack's Death-is-Neutral speech:

:You know, neither gods of Death nor their clerics are necessarily Evil. That's a common misconception. || If anything, Neutrality suits them better || If the power of Death were truly Evil, it would take only the pure and heroic, wouldn't it?

Now, the crux here seems to be why he didn't use "us" instead of "them". The only suitable reason I see is that he was too polite to put himself on the same level as his God by his speech. He wanted to avoid sounding like this bodyguard: "Our mighty king Roy doesn't wear golden armor, neither do his bodyguards. We like to look modest."

Or much more simple: the Giant wanted to put some ambiguity about Malack, and made him phrase it so that it could go either way. And did not bother about in-character motives. I think it happened before; that he made something to happen without thinking about the exact in-universe process. (Like, Xykon getting out of Lirian's cave)

Now, I only thought about this because I consider the alternative, that Malack is LE and this is a deliberate and cunning ploy on his part, less likely since it contradicts Malack's ordinary behaviour.

[coineineagh]

Elan saw through Tarquin's rationalizations eventually, and he had known Tarquin for three days or so at that point. This from a man with intelligence and wisdom scores so low as to be unable to cast cantrips as a wizard or orisions as a cleric. Malack is no fool - his being able to cast Harm proves that much - and he's known Tarquin for more than twenty years. To suggest that he's ignorant of what Tarquin is and what he's doing is absurd. Now, he might not care, and he might, if he really is neutral, rationalize to himself that his sequestration from Palace life and the non-ecclesiastical business of Empire-management absolves him of responsibility, but he cannot possibly be ignorant of what's really going on.

Elan has bard savvy. It's hard to put into words, but in charisma-based issues he would be an expert, not a fool. Perhaps Elan has the ability to see through strongly persuasive arguments because of his storytelling/narrative abilities. It would not be out of the question to think that Elan might see through a story that Malack might believe.

On the other hand, Malack has proven smart enough to call out Tarquin for goofing around in battle out of sentimentality to his son. Perhaps Tarquin thought he could pull the wool over Malack's eyes, because he has done so successfully in the past.

I think it's still up in the air whether Malack might be deceived by Tarquin in some fashion or other.
As for Tarquin's actions automatically making Malack evil: We only have to look at Belkar to see that it's the underlying intent that matters, not the resulting actions. As the angel told Roy: "You were trying."

[ti'esar]

Malack knows all that and still is not only tolerating Tarquin "as the end is what matters", but he is close friends.

This is, to me, really the crucial point. They may bicker constantly, and we still don't know whether Tarquin will side with Malack in the "Nale problem", but it's been clearly shown that they are friends. And not only is the assumption that Malack has been unaware of some of Tarquin's more senselessly Evil actions for 20+ years implausible in its own right, Tarquin has never particularly tried to hide the fact that he is a Very Bad Man.

[ChristianSt]

We know:

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)

Reasoning:

We know that neutral and good alignend peoples can have friendship (best example V and the good parts of the Order).
If there are neutral alignend characters that have friendship with good fellows, why couldn't there be some with evil friends? (and from the Law/Chaos axis we even have friends inside the Order from the complete axis)

[brilliantlight]

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.

[Sorator]

We know that neutral and good alignend peoples can have friendship (best example V and the good parts of the Order).
If there are neutral alignend characters that have friendship with good fellows, why couldn't there be some with evil friends? (and from the Law/Chaos axis we even have friends inside the Order from the complete axis)

That's a very good point - V is Neutral on each axis, and yet spends most his/her time doing rather Good things. Granted, we've seen V do some unmistakably evil things too, so we see that they're balanced - but we haven't actually seen Malack do much either way yet. For all we know, he runs an orphanage as part of his services to Nergal (granted, it'd probably be pretty different from what we think of as an "orphanage", but still).

Put that together with the idea that your deeds aren't all that determine alignment, what you're aiming for has an impact as well, and I don't think we can really tell where Malack stands till we see more of him. (Apart from "probably not Good and definitely not Chaotic," that is.)