So, Malack...

[hamishspence]

Neutral can mean not much caring about the bigger picture, just staying "good" (by which in this context I mean loyal, supportive, etc.) to those closest to you, and to hell with strangers. In Henlein's Starship Troopers, there is a good point to be made that ethical thought has constantly grown to include ethic rules to deal with more and more diverse groups of people. From family, to tribe, to city, to country, etc. Paladins think that Good is defending humans and slaughtering goblins. We know that is unethical, because goblins should be considered individuals with ethics as well. Well, if Malack is stuck in the "tribe" level of ethical thought, he could easily be Good to the tribe while being Evil to those refusing to follow the strict rules. I.e. Neutral.

Savage Species takes the approach that Evil can mean "Good to those you care about, Evil to those that fall outside that class"

page 102:

Evil characters are still people. Even bad guys have feelings, emotions and loyalties. This means it is just as possible to play a well-rounded character who happens to be evil as one who happens to be neutral or good. An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way; this merely reflects they way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups, brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

So- if Malack's "peers and loved ones" are his tribe, and "those he considers beneath him" are those who break its rules" - he can qualify as Evil if he is vicious enough to rulebreakers.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Savage Species takes the approach that Evil can mean "Good to those you care about, Evil to those that fall outside that class"

page 102:


So- if Malack's "peers and loved ones" are his tribe, and "those he considers beneath him" are those who break its rules" - he can qualify as Evil if he is vicious enough to rulebreakers.

OK, I'm getting lost here. What is your point? That you can find a definition of Evil that matches my definition of Neutral? I'll save you some time and agree. I can find a definition of Good that matches my definition of Evil just by browsing a history book, after all. Which is why I believe that, in the end, for purposes of this discussion, what we would need is Rich's definition of Neutral, or a facsimile thereof. My insistence on knowing what everyone else's definition is is so that I know what hell they mean (pun intended) when they use those malleable words "Neutral" and "Evil".

GW

[hamishspence]

Which is why I believe that, in the end, for purposes of this discussion, what we would need is Rich's definition of Neutral, or a facsimile thereof. My insistence on knowing what everyone else's definition is is so that I know what hell they mean (pun intended) when they use those malleable words "Neutral" and "Evil".

D&D sources might help shed light on what The Giant's definition is likely to be though.

"All sentients are owed respect- not just those of my own tribe" I'd say is pretty fundamental to Good.

Neutral and Evil might be gauged by varying levels of "disrespect for life"- both in how extreme the disrespect is (what kind of Evil acts one is willing to commit against other beings) and how wide the "disrespected class" is.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

D&D sources might help shed light on what The Giant's definition is likely to be though.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. D&D definitions, individually, are a little too strict from what we have seen of Rich preferences. You also have already given me three D&D definitions (maybe? Is Savage Species D&D?), which means that is plenty of conflict right there. In fact, I originally thought your point was that D&D doesn't have strict definitions, instead you can pick and choose from the different ones in all the books.

Grey Wolf

[Winter]

This has been on my mind for some time: I think that from Malack's perspective, creating vampires is not a bad thing, not even without consent, since from his perspective being a vampire is better than being a living being.

Interesting. May I ask why you come to that conclusion?
So far, I did not see many hints he might it see that way. It is very possible and given he considers his offspring "children" and "family" might even make it likely, but I think that ice is still way too thin to put something on it. But he even can call his offspring "children" and "family" without the stance outlined above.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Interesting. May I ask why you come to that conclusion?
So far, I did not see many hints he might it see that way. It is very possible and given he considers his offspring "children" and "family" might even make it likely, but I think that ice is still way too thin to put something on it. But he even can call his offspring "children" and "family" without the stance outlined above.

It is circumstantial. There are three points to consider, one of which is his attitude towards children that you have already mentioned.

The second is his attitude to unthinking undead. He clearly draws a line between his kind of undeath and mummies/zombies. I am guessing at this point, but I think the evidence is strong enough that he considers vampires (and liches?) "better" than other undead.

The third point is the conversation he is having with Durkon. "This {me being a vampire} is upsetting to the living". As someone has already pointed out, Malack exudes condescension/smugness. He clearly feels superior to others, and in this case the others happen to be the living.

Mix this to the traditional vampire traits (quite a few do think they have been made "better" by being turned) and the common-to-all-living-beings self-deluding ability to make two groups of people and place yourself in the correct half, and I think it is very likely that Malack thinks as I said. After all, in various rational, measurable ways, being a vampire is indeed better to being alive (stronger, harder to kill, etc.). If you don't think yourself a monster, then it stands to reason that giving others your traits can't be bad.

The question then is "how would that be judged". In this case, Malack judge will be his god, who we know has a much looser definition of undead than Malack himself (Malack objects to mummies, his god doesn't). This means that when he does face his god, he probably won't be penalised for having created other vampires (if he treated them well and so on; we don't really have good knowledge of what his god expects of him vis: treating undead, but there are hints that he expects something).

Now, Malack may have lied and his god may be Evil, but if we take him at his word, his god is actually Neutral, so I'll add a fourth point I did not consider in my previous post: if his Neutral god doesn't object to creating mummies, that means that Malack's god's code of morality, which by definition is Neutral (probably LN at that), creating vampires is also Neutral.

Grey Wolf

[Paseo H]

In such an environment, I can well see why even lawful good soldiers would fight for the Empire of Blood. Because gladiatorial combats and strict laws are STILL, at least from some points of view, better than a state of constant war which is perilously close to making the entire continent uninhabitable.

Nice argument you got there.

Still, I think the issue of Malack is about his ways, specifically, even without reference to the larger political climate.

Basically, I think he's evil because of his actions, and his actions are enough for him to still be on the redeemable side of the Moral Event Horizon. That's what I mean by 'evil.'

Incidentally, evil and affable have nothing to do with each other. I consider Eugene to be the most consistently maddening character, in that there is nearly nothing about his approach that isn't grating in every conceivable way. I also consider Haley, even though she's good, to be terrible to Elan. It's like she loves him, but still considers him a moron. That's not fair to Elan. She shouldn't be with him if she thinks like that.

Point being, Malack's a total bro, when there's no evil needing to be done. And so far none of that evil seems to be of the type that makes me open the comic and go like...Tarquin's Lightshow did, for instance.

EDIT: Additionally, one can decide that stability is more important than chaos without being good or neutral. After all, they might need a framework with which to accomplish their dark ambitions.

[Incom]

Another minor point against Malack: in the same discussion where he calls death Neutral, he calls Tiamat "a fine deity". We, at least, know otherwise.

[Raineh Daze]

Another minor point against Malack: in the same discussion where he calls death Neutral, he calls Tiamat "a fine deity". We, at least, know otherwise.

Because she flipped at so many of her worshippers being killed in one instant?

[allenw]

Because she flipped at so many of her worshippers being killed in one instant?

No; because we've been on the Dungeons and Dragons ride at the fair.

[Emmit Svenson]

Now, Malack may have lied and his god may be Evil, but if we take him at his word, his god is actually Neutral...

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

[Raineh Daze]

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

"Neutral suits them better."

Sounds to me that he thinks Nergal should be Neutral, whatever he is.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Malack has never said Nergal is a neutral deity. He said that gods of death and their clerics are not necessarily evil. This should be a red flag; Malack has displayed a penchant for deceiving without lying.

He has also been honest several times. Which is why I hedged. I can perfectly believe Nergal to be Neutral and Malack Evil, and viceversa, as well as both the same.

Grey Wolf

[Paseo H]

Incidentally...

What is to be lost, if Malack does turn out to be evil?

[Raineh Daze]

Incidentally...

What is to be lost, if Malack does turn out to be evil?

A lot of potential. An evil vampire priest serving an evil death god in an evil empire and friends with an evil overlord, no matter how interesting they are in person, is just... bland, as far as I can tell. It just fits far too many stereotypes.

[Paseo H]

A lot of potential. An evil vampire priest serving an evil death god in an evil empire and friends with an evil overlord, no matter how interesting they are in person, is just... bland, as far as I can tell. It just fits far too many stereotypes.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Cliches aren't bad. They can just be used badly.

And for the most part, I'd say The Giant is well up to the task of taking cliches and making them interesting.

[Raineh Daze]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Cliches aren't bad. They can just be used badly.

That doesn't mean you have to use them at every single opportunity; it's not as if they're always going to be more interesting than the alternative.

And for the most part, I'd say The Giant is well up to the task of taking cliches and making them interesting.

See the previous point. The ability to make a cliché interesting is not sufficient reason to pick it.

[Paseo H]

That doesn't mean you have to use them at every single opportunity; it's not as if they're always going to be more interesting than the alternative.

Subjective, preference.

See the previous point. The ability to make a cliché interesting is not sufficient reason to pick it.

See above.

[Raineh Daze]

See above.

It's subjective that the ability to write a cliché interestingly isn't sufficient reason to pick it?

Malack's being LN rather than LE is more interesting from an interactions standpoint. Like seeing how the undead hating cleric would actually take something like that.

[Paseo H]

Honestly, I'd consider it a mark of good writing to take a cliche and actually make it interesting, rather than trying to tread new ground just to be original.

[Raineh Daze]

That's because it has to be good writing to be interesting in the first place. Writing a cliché well is no better than writing a new take on things well.

As it stands, OotS has no shortage of evil monsters. It'd be nice to see a (literal) monster that isn't evil.

[Paseo H]

I'm fashioning a further counterargument to all that.

But now The Giant has obliged us with more context, and I have to consider this carefully.

Let's return to our corners for the now.

EDIT: Alright then, let's begin with a question, credit to Kish

Which of the compromises should Durkon have accepted?

[Incom]

I wouldn't say that Durkon should have accepted any of those offers outright; that's not how negotiations work.

What he should have done was made a counteroffer. Or, barring that, should have perhaps called out for Roy, who could probably articulate the point of conflict better than Durkon could have, and who actually has the authority to parley. (Don't forget that the only character who understands how the gate is actually used is Redcloak, who isn't present.)

Malack could also have handled the situation better: by asking "So why haven't you attacked me yet?", or by simply walking away, or by otherwise making actual concessions, or by playing the "I just want to be treated as a person" card, or...

[Rakoa]

To be fair, Malack was being reasonable in offering that each of them retreat from the battlefield. He was being reasonable when suggesting that, should they stay, neither would harm the other. Malack wanted to remain friends with Durkon despite them being on different teams, but Durkon refused his offer because Malack is "a frickin' vampire". Racism, if you ask me.

[hamishspence]

He can't "allow them to seize this place"- because it holds the gate.

Walking away at this point would be a betrayal of the Order's trust.

[Raineh Daze]

Explaining what is so important about this that he cannot accept these offers would be a good start. Not 'there is no compromise' and 'we can never get along'.

[Paseo H]

Explaining what is so important about this that he cannot accept these offers would be a good start. Not 'there is no compromise' and 'we can never get along'.

As long as any offer acceptable to Malack entails the Order surrendering one inch of ground towards the Rift, then Durkon is well within his rights to not compromise, even if he is being undiplomatic in his tone.

[Kish]

On the off chance that Malack doesn't already know "the Gate represents a power great enough to destroy the world and the gods as well," telling him would be profoundly stupid.

("You can't steal that! It's worth over five billion dollars!")

[Raineh Daze]

Well, does Nale know it contains the power to destroy the world?

[Kish]

If he doesn't, all the more reason not to tell someone who is currently, however reluctantly, an ally of Nale's.