Those horrible adventurers! (#628)

[mcv]

His skin made into armor for the party leader to wear.
Has it ever occurred to you what horrible, inhuman monsters adventurers really are?

Slaughtering someone's kid is bad, but this one takes the cake.

[whitelaughter]

About the same as people who make shoes out of leather?

It's creepy, especially when dealing with a sentient creature, but if you are prepared to kill to eat, then killing for armour (another basic necessity in a D&D world) isn't a big step.

No, what's really disturbing is when a party thinks of putting a ring of regeneration on a captured dragon....

[Tempest Fennac]

:smalleek: If someone did that in my games, I'd be tempted to have several relatives of the captured dragon find them. Sadly, that's just how this sort of game works, mcv. I guess the main reason so many mosters are listed as usually or often evil is because it allows players to justify what they do toa certain degree.

[factotum]

About the same as people who make shoes out of leather?


As you kind of allude to, there is a significant difference between a cow or other unintelligent being, and a dragon, who is clearly intelligent. You might as well say that someone who kills a deer or a cow is as guilty of murder as someone who kills their next door neighbour, and while I realise some of the more militant vegetarians may consider that to be the case, I don't think the majority of the population do!

[RMS Oceanic]

The funny thing is there's a Prestige Class in Book of Exalted Deeds that revolves around you making armor out of a Red Dragon's scales. And Bahamut come along every now and then and gives you money for doing this. :smallbiggrin:

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding intelligence, I tend to agree with a researcher named Temple Grandin who came to the conclusion that different animals are intelligent in different ways (I read her books due to the both of us having autism, and I have an interest in animal communication, as my sig suggests*:smalltongue:). The alignment sstem never made sense to me as far as things being listed as "always whatever" went, so I'd be tempted to ignore it as far as this sort of thing goes (I see BoED as being a poorly thought out book from a fluff perspective).

*Thinking in Pictures and Animals in Translation are both solely concerned with down-to-earth scientific research into how animals behave.

[King of Nowhere]

The alignment sstem never made sense to me as far as things being listed as "always whatever" went, so I'd be tempted to ignore it as far as this sort of thing goes (I see BoED as being a poorly thought out book from a fluff perspective).


Totally seconded.
Anyway, we should see how the fight with that dragon started. It is possible that it was the dragon's fault, so after killing him in self defense it would not be a problem to use his skin to make and armor.
However, often adventurers use "evilness" as an excuse to kill sentient creatures and make a profit from it. The manuals listed the creatures as evil so that players could feel justified in that, and used the lamest possible interpretation of evilness, like "they're evil for the sake of it, they love to kill and enslave and they're all equal so you will be unburdened by any moral decision when you come to their village and slain them all for 2d6 copper pieces and 7 XP each".
Luckily, there's plenty of people that refuse to play DnD that way.

[whitelaughter]

As you kind of allude to, there is a significant difference between a cow or other unintelligent being, and a dragon, who is clearly intelligent.
True; however a cow is both more closely related to humans, and far less likely to descend on a human town and devour the population.

And intelligence as a judge of value causes all sorts of problems when dealing with the mentally disabled!

[kamikasei]

Killing an intelligent creature in order to make use of its body parts is evil. (Of course there are ways to mitigate this, say if you don't just want the body part for itself but need it for some good end - e.g. the way to banish the rampaging demon is to burn the heart of the evil wizard who summoned it in a hallowed brazier).

Using the body parts of an intelligent creature which you have killed for some unrelated reason isn't evil, it's just somewhere on the creepy-weird-disgusting spectrum. The question of whether metallic dragons abhor the use of armor made from chromatic dragons, or for that matter whether chromatic dragons care about it in general rather than when it's their friends or family who donated, is an open question in the standard game world - in other words, up to the DM to decide for his settings/dragons.

[Nenec]

Poor dragoness, my heart really went with her...can't a baby dragon play joyfully in his cave without some adventurers going there to kill him so they can steal his toys?:smalleek:

[Snake-Aes]

As you kind of allude to, there is a significant difference between a cow or other unintelligent being, and a dragon, who is clearly intelligent. You might as well say that someone who kills a deer or a cow is as guilty of murder as someone who kills their next door neighbour, and while I realise some of the more militant vegetarians may consider that to be the case, I don't think the majority of the population do!
that's exactly it. Our beliefs on the whole killing thing are different than those of the people in that world.
It's not fine for us to torture someone. It was about 120 years ago.
(and sometimes it was/is done even though it wasn't a good idea to expose it to the public)
A good example is how paladins, the epitome of good, are completely fine slaughtering evil beings. No one's saying it's fair or that it isn't cruel for the family, but it's still done.

Myself? I never gave my group a lot of moral implications upon that. Instead I make them pay where it hurts them: their feeling of invulnerability. Killing intelligent beings means potential of having intelligent vengeful associates.

[Snake-Aes]

Poor dragoness, my heart really went with her...can't a baby dragon play joyfully in his cave without some adventurers going there to kill him so they can steal his toys?:smalleek:

That dragon was no baby :p

[Surfing HalfOrc]

This "Oh, that poor dragon" thing only works as long as you don't consider what dragons do... They hunt and kill and take.

That dragon hoard? Not earned by selling magazine subscriptions door to door.
That dragon size? Built on delicious sheep, shepherds, village guards, villagers, travelers, and stray cattle.

Dragons have what they have, because they go out and get it for themselves. Usually death and bloodshed is involved. Teen dragon may have spent a few weeks with his playdrakes and hand lotions, but once he got hungry, he didn't fry up a nice tofu burger and some watercress... He went out, found something living, and made it into a snack. Then he repeated the process until he was ready to head back to the cave. And if any of his meals had any spare chane on them, he dropped it off on the hoard to keep the rest of it company.

And momma? She was out doing the same thing. Killing, eating, taking.

It's a dragon eats peasant world, and all you can hope for is a pair of advenurer underwear!

[Janmorel]

...can't a baby dragon play joyfully in his cave without some adventurers going there to kill him so they can steal his toys?:smalleek:

If they stole his toys, I'm going to be very disturbed. Hopefully they just stole the hoard and left the magazines and lotion alone.:smalleek:

[Kurald Galain]

Has it ever occurred to you what horrible, inhuman monsters adventurers really are?

Who says they were human? It could easily have been an inhuman dwarf or elf.

I expect we'll eventually find out it was the Order of the Scribble, though.

[Kish]

This "Oh, that poor dragon" thing only works as long as you don't consider what dragons do... They hunt and kill and take.
Now they sound like adventurers.

(Also, are you arguing for metallic and chromatic dragons both being treated as monsters to be killed? None of your statements about dragons have a qualifier.)

[Atelm]

Has it ever occurred to you what horrible, inhuman monsters adventurers really are?



This is exactly what Redcloak goes on about, except he thinks like this for the whole "civilized" (PHB) races (Humans, dwarves, elves, etc.).

Perhaps sadly, this is how the D&D world works. A dragon comes up and attacks a town and slaughters some locals, townspeople cry out for help, in comes the adventurering party who slaughter the dragon and are showered with loot and exp.

Now, the comic takes an interesting spin on it by showing the other side of the equation too; the ones who are often shown as the villains. In Redcloak's case it's the goblinoid races, in the latest few comics it's the chromatic dragons.

[whatchamacallit]

I seem to recall black dragon skin can be cured into leather armour, how sweet would that look on a rogue :smallbiggrin: I say skin and tan them all otherwise all that prime material is going to waste instead of raising PC armour classes like it ought to.

On the other hand I don't want to meet the dragon running around draped in the skins of humanoids, sure it's a fashion statement but it just screams eccentric.

[Spiryt]

Poor dragoness, my heart really went with her...can't a baby dragon play joyfully in his cave without some adventurers going there to kill him so they can steal his toys?:smalleek:

In this case dragon "baby dragon" attacked them on sight just beacuse, so it's not like he's got anyone compassion.

[Nenec]

In this case dragon "baby dragon" attacked them on sight just beacuse, so it's not like he's got anyone compassion.

If someone weapons-on-hand entered my home, I really think I'd do the same.


That dragon was no baby :p

But very young indeed, even if reading adults "literature" :smallwink:


If they stole his toys, I'm going to be very disturbed. Hopefully they just stole the hoard and left the magazines and lotion alone.:smalleek:

We can never know, now that you made me think about that :smalleek: But I could only see Belkar such disturbed :smalltongue:

[Snake-Aes]

If someone weapons-on-hand entered my home, I really think I'd do the same.

But very young indeed, even if reading adults "literature" :smallwink:

Mamma Dragon hinted he was a teenager.




We can never know, now that you made me think about that :smalleek: But I could only see Belkar such disturbed :smalltongue:

See Rule 34

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Now they sound like adventurers.

(Also, are you arguing for metallic and chromatic dragons both being treated as monsters to be killed? None of your statements about dragons have a qualifier.)

I left any qualifiers off for the same reason the OP left any qualifiers off... I wanted to shake people up, and start pointless arguments. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, adventurers and dragons and goblins seeling to release world destroying abominations don't exist in our world, so why do we come to this board and try to impose our morals and ethos on them? :smallconfused:

Dragosn in OotSverse hunt and kill, take what they want, and have no pity on mere monkey people like humans, elves, halflings or dwarves. Yet now people are getting up in arms about a bunch of heroes who killed a dragon who was taking an active role in killing THEM! The black dragon family didn't gain it's wealth through prudent investments and long-term planning, they killed whoever had the wealth, ate them, and added the now deceased person's wealth to their personal hoard.

As for the metalic dragons, I don't believe we've met any (outside of my pet theory that Haley is a copper dragon, disguised as a human; and that she bluffed Durkon with the bald-faced truth), so it's hard to tell if metalic dragons are truly altruistic, or just have a better PR frim fronting for them. Probably the same ones that represented hamsters, thus convincing kids and thier parents that a rat is a perfectly acceptable pet!

[Texas Jedi]

I would never let my DnD group kill a monster just because it was evil. It would have to another reason....like the dragon was rampaging across the kingdom, or a goblin raid destroyed a villiage. I would always make sure the adventurers were justified in killing the monster.

I would have thrown the DM monkey wrench at a person or party that justified killing something just because it was evil. I would make it my personal responsibility to make sure they are never that stupid again.

[Snake-Aes]

I would never let my DnD group kill a monster just because it was evil. It would have to another reason....like the dragon was rampaging across the kingdom, or a goblin raid destroyed a villiage. I would always make sure the adventurers were justified in killing the monster.

I would have thrown the DM monkey wrench at a person or party that justified killing something just because it was evil. I would make it my personal responsibility to make sure they are never that stupid again.

pally had a miko moment and slaughtered a small caravan composed of skeletons and orcs while we traveled between cities.






Turned out they were transporting valuable livestock for a rather vengeful lich.

[Spiryt]

If someone weapons-on-hand entered my home, I really think I'd do the same.


To be fair, they had their weapons sheathed.

And dragon is intelligent enough to realise that most creatures passing trough the darkness in some forgotten rift would bever realise that it's someones home.

[Mina Kobold]

First I agree with that the world is different and lacks moral development that we got because NOTHING threatens us in this way (and we are only friendly to tigers and the like because we wants to keep the big kitties) in this world. Being moral like us might not keep you alive for very long plus the fact that we would kill different looking people at sight if at war with them (these adventures are almost at war with dragons). Second Certain cultures (cannibals) meant that burying others was a waste, this and the things humans are willing to do when desperate (people stranded on islands have eatened each other) making armor, a vital thing in this world froo their hides might be justified. Third, people acted this way a few hundred years ago (you could buy unicorn horns and dried mermaid (fake of course) in the colonial era).

Just my 20 gps:smalltongue:

[Porthos]

*reads thread very carefully*

*re-reads just to make sure*


Huh.

Guess this board wasn't nearly as anti-Celia as I thought. :smallamused:

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.

Interesting. :smallamused:

[chiasaur11]

I left any qualifiers off for the same reason the OP left any qualifiers off... I wanted to shake people up, and start pointless arguments. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, adventurers and dragons and goblins seeling to release world destroying abominations don't exist in our world, so why do we come to this board and try to impose our morals and ethos on them? :smallconfused:

Dragosn in OotSverse hunt and kill, take what they want, and have no pity on mere monkey people like humans, elves, halflings or dwarves. Yet now people are getting up in arms about a bunch of heroes who killed a dragon who was taking an active role in killing THEM! The black dragon family didn't gain it's wealth through prudent investments and long-term planning, they killed whoever had the wealth, ate them, and added the now deceased person's wealth to their personal hoard.

As for the metalic dragons, I don't believe we've met any (outside of my pet theory that Haley is a copper dragon, disguised as a human; and that she bluffed Durkon with the bald-faced truth), so it's hard to tell if metalic dragons are truly altruistic, or just have a better PR frim fronting for them. Probably the same ones that represented hamsters, thus convincing kids and thier parents that a rat is a perfectly acceptable pet!

Well, even standard rats are fine pets. My little sister had a couple. Fairly friendly critters if they don't have any parasites and are well fed.

[Snake-Aes]

*reads thread very carefully*

*re-reads just to make sure*


Huh.

Guess this board wasn't nearly as anti-Celia as I thought. :smallamused:

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.

Interesting. :smallamused:It's the sob story and the actually cruel fitting revenge.

[Donald]

And this poor distraught mother is taking V to the proper authorities for trial and incarceration? Or even dealing a vigilante justice of her own? No. She's gonna kill some kids that had nothing to do with the original "crime". On the up bright side, I'm sure no innocent bystanders will be harmed by the mother dragon on the way to kill V's children. :smallannoyed:

[mcv]

Anyway, we should see how the fight with that dragon started. It is possible that it was the dragon's fault, so after killing him in self defense it would not be a problem to use his skin to make and armor.
If a human skinned another human and wore his skin as clothes, I don't think any judge would accept "but it was self-defense!".


However, often adventurers use "evilness" as an excuse to kill sentient creatures and make a profit from it.
I wonder if they didn't turn to evil to get back at the humans who keep killing them. Us humans are also capable of some quite despicable evil.


It's not fine for us to torture someone. It was about 120 years ago.
Even genocide used to be quite acceptable. As long as the people you were slaughtering were sufficiently different (skin, culture, religion) at least.

We all know Saddam was evil because he gassed Kurds, but did you know Winston Churchill did the same thing? Just in another time.

Anyway, back to wearing the skin of intelligent beings: it reminds me quite a lot of Obsidiman skin armor in Earthdawn. Obsidiman are an intelligent PC race made of living rock, and their skin makes quite effective armor. But while killing an Obsidiman somewhat acceptable (considering the violence of the world -- it's no more acceptable than killing a dwarf or human), wearing their skin will get you in a lot of trouble.

[snafu]

OK, everyone. Flash back eight years. Baldur's Gate 2. You're going through the Windspear Hills and you meet Firkraag, the nobleman who's been messing you around lately. Turns out he's a red dragon. He offers you the chance to leave without a fight.

Did you? Even if you did, did you come back to finish him off after you'd levelled a few times?

Yeah, thought so. You killed him. You killed him and took the +5 Holy Avenger sword, and harvested his skin to have Cromwell forge the Red Dragon Scale Armour for you. Of course you did. I did too.

It's a good thing to do. He's an evil dragon - colour coded for your convenience - and in addition it's the only way to get the best paladin weapon in the game. And it's worth 64,000xp.

Adventurers explore dungeons and kill dragons. It's kind of the selling point of the game. And the chief perk of dragonslaying, besides the hoard, is making armour from their hide.

You and I and every damn player killed Firkraag and took his loot and wore his skin for armour. Even though we didn't have to and could leave quite freely.

So we really shouldn't criticise the mystery dragonslayer here. He was just doing what adventurers do. Natural hazard for dragons, only to be expected.

[mcv]

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.

Well, a vengeful ancient black dragon is a slightly bigger problem than a vengeful Celia.

But my problem with Celia isn't that she thinks evil people are people too, it's that Haley feels bound by an agreement that Celia made, despite it going against everything Haley believes in ("if it's not nailed down, it's mine").

[Porthos]

It's the sob story and the actually cruel fitting revenge.

Oh, I know why there is angst and indignation about this, have no fear. :smallsmile: It's just that I thought that I would pour a little gasoline on the fire that Surfing HalfOrc started. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I fully realize the difference between people connecting with the Viewpoint Character of a scene and someone who is hindering Established Characters. And I also realize how people will react differently to people who are, lets be kind and say perceived as being, sanctimonious and people who are driven by blood-maddened revenge.

Really it's classic Storytelling 101.

But it doesn't set aside my overall (admittedly snarky) point. Celia is running around saying: Don't kill things as there will be consequences. Said consequences have now shown up.

Now it could all just be a coincidence and Rich didn't intend to show that, as morally self-righteous that Celia is, that she does in fact have a point. Even if she can't express it in just the right way. On the other hand, seeing that Rich can indeed be subtle in his writing when he wants to be, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see that he deliberately set up the Dragon Encounter immediately after the Thieves Guild Incident as a way of working on a theme.

Of course just because Celia (and the Ancient Black Dragon) has a point about running around killing things, it doesn't follow that they are right in their viewpoints. After all for every Redcloak who may (or may not) have justifiable reasons for doing the bad things that they are doing there is a Xykon who needs to be shoved into the nearest Sphere of Annihilation. And for every Thog who may (or again may not) be redeemable/channelling his rage into something productive there is a Nale who wallows in his evilness.

Course at it's heart DnD is a combat game. And as fun as it is to play against trope (and indeed I have played, and had a blast, with pacifist characters/combat-lite campaigns) it's pretty undeniable that DnD at it's heart is a "Beat People/Things Up And Take Their Stuff" Game. Which makes it all the more worthy for subversion/inversion/aversion/double-serversion when it's looked at with a "Hey, let's look at the campaign world from the other guy's point of view". But just because there is room for subversion that makes us pause and think for a moment, let's not do a complete 180 and forget why people want to kill Ancient Black Dragons in the first place. :smallwink:

[King of Nowhere]

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.
I don't think the forum here is siding with the dragon. At least, I'm not doing it.
That particular dragon is in the wrong. The oots could never have known the cave was a dragon's home, and the dragon attacked on sight, so they were justified in the killing. That makes the mother injustified in the vengeance against V, and her vengeance against hir sons would never be justified in any way.
It was a more general case I was talking of: the case of adventurers looking in the manual "look, that creature is listed as evil, so it's ok to kill it. Also, we can gain a lot of money and XP. Let's find some to slaughter". That kind of attitude, common in gaming parties, and apparently common in the oots world. That, and the stupid idea that you can tell wheter it's ok to kill someone or not by simply looking at him.
That has nothing to do with the specific case of the black dragon's family, who is in the wrong.



However, often adventurers use "evilness" as an excuse to kill sentient creatures and make a profit from it.
I wonder if they didn't turn to evil to get back at the humans who keep killing them. Us humans are also capable of some quite despicable evil.
Apparently, Redcloak turned evil for that reason. Also, most of the goblins did.
I also used the other races prejudices to explain how some humanoids races are mainly evil in my campaign setting (and still, I'd never allow the PCs to attack on sight a member of said races. I'm actually planning to have them defend a tribe of good orcs from an evil elf).

[SteveMB]

And this poor distraught mother is taking V to the proper authorities for trial and incarceration?

What proper authorities? The starmetal quest was in the Wooden Forest, which is a lawless area (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html).

[mcv]

For me it's not so much the killing, it's the wearing of an intelligent being's skin that creeps me out.

[chiasaur11]

For me it's not so much the killing, it's the wearing of an intelligent being's skin that creeps me out.

In DnD any creature can be intellegent. And, given the younger dragon didn't speak common, it's a distinct possibility pops didn't either, giving fighty mcstabsalot no particular reason to assume there'd be any issue with using the monster's skin as fancy new togs.

[Snake-Aes]

For me it's not so much the killing, it's the wearing of an intelligent being's skin that creeps me out.

WHy does that specifically bothers you? Is it because the being could think? Is it because the being has a whole kin that would recognize it? Is it because he'd scream for mercy as you brutally slaughtered it?

I assure you, all of these are present in any kind of being capable of interacting with the world in an active manner. Be it a dog, a dragon, an elf or a walking eggplant.

[Porthos]

For me it's not so much the killing, it's the wearing of an intelligent being's skin that creeps me out.

Well, I don't think you can exactly blame DnD in this case as the idea of if you wear/eat something/one you'll gain their strength is as old as antiquity itself (and can be found in every ancient culture that I am aware of). For example, is there any real difference between wearing Dragon Scale Armor and using Medusa's Head as a Prop?

I think not. :smallamused:

Medusa, after all, was just as self-aware/intelligent as any dragon of lore. Yet I don't hear many people getting upset that her head was used to stone Perseus' enemies. :smalltongue: And, as intimated, the idea of The Hero wearing the skin of a dragon after killing it is well established in the legends and lores of stories regarding dragons.

In fact, it'd be a bit odd if DnD didn't allow Dragon Scale Armor.

Now I agree that if one looks at it straight the idea of wearing another person's skin can be a bit.... squicky. Which is why the idea is ripe for subversion. But let's not forget why the idea of Dragon Scale Armor is in the game in the first place before we engage in too much navel-gazing (pro-killing things and using them as you see fit and non). :smallwink:

[Mina Kobold]

IT AINT OUR WORLD. In our world humans are the only sentient being, in DnD even a sword could be sentient. that plus my previous points (might not be disqusting because they consider it a waste of resurces, desperation, another world and it would be acceptable a few hundred years ago)and the fact that their morals could be very different because a)we haven't had other sentient beings around in the entire world history like they has. b)For them it might be dangerous leaving your village because of the majority of members of the "monster" species live there and would kill you for fun/food/getting in their way, this would result in only little to none importing of goods leaving the villagers/guards/adventures (the late is probably responsible for most of those places existance because of the dragonhide they use and would maybe have died years ago if without it) forced to use wathever they can get. In this low on information, higly justifued reasons for racism (if you're not a racist you'll probably end dead) and resource lacking medieval world do you really think they CAN be better than this and survive. With all that fear and desparation I don't think they could (unless you think every little village has wizards able of creating all needed stuff for everyone to a price they are capable of paying (Wizards aren't that many or able to get the recruired components in a RESSOURCE LACKING world, they would be lucky if they get to cast one spell with material components in their lives))

[Snake-Aes]

IT AINT OUR WORLD. In our world humans are the only sentient being, in DnD even a sword could be sentient. that plus my previous points (might not be disqusting because they consider it a waste of resurces, desperation, another world and it would be acceptable a few hundred years ago)and the fact that their morals could be very different because a)we haven't had other sentient beings around in the entire world history like they has. b)For them it might be dangerous leaving your village because of the majority of members of the "monster" species live there and would kill you for fun/food/getting in their way, this would result in only little to none importing of goods leaving the villagers/guards/adventures (the late is probably responsible for most of those places existance because of the dragonhide they use and would maybe have died years ago if without it) forced to use wathever they can get. In this low on information, higly justifued reasons for racism (if you're not a racist you'll probably end dead) and resource lacking medieval world do you really think they CAN be better than this and survive. With all that fear and desparation I don't think they could (unless you think every little village has wizards able of creating all needed stuff for everyone to a price they are capable of paying (Wizards aren't that many or able to get the recruired components in a RESSOURCE LACKING world, they would be lucky if they get to cast one spell with material components in their lives))

I'd be greatly thankful if you used the enter key a little more and were a little more careful on how you want to pass your message. I'm confused on what you are trying to say.

[Mina Kobold]

I'd be greatly thankful if you used the enter key a little more and were a little more careful on how you want to pass your message. I'm confused on what you are trying to say.

Not our world:
We have a world without monsters and we have great comunicating and trading- They have a world filled with monsters and probably no communication or trading.

We have TOO MANY resources and able to choose whatever we want- They have nothing because walking to long away will kill you if you aren't an adventurer in extremely expensive armor.
Thus their resources are few and shattered while they need to protect themself.

I said about that and asked if you could blame them trying to survive with almost no ressources in this medieval themed world (they can't actually live by our ideals AND survive).

Besides I'm 14 and from Denmark, I shouldn't be able to understand this post by the standard for English education over here.

[Finwe]

About the same as people who make shoes out of leather?

It's creepy, especially when dealing with a sentient creature, but if you are prepared to kill to eat, then killing for armour (another basic necessity in a D&D world) isn't a big step.

No, what's really disturbing is when a party thinks of putting a ring of regeneration on a captured dragon....

There's a colossal difference between killing an animal to use it's body and killing a being with human-like intelligence to steal it's stuff.

[David Argall]

given the younger dragon didn't speak common,
See 185 where the dragon talks with the party

[Kish]

They have nothing because walking to long away will kill you if you aren't an adventurer in extremely expensive armor.
Where on earth are you getting that?

[chiasaur11]

See 185 where the dragon talks with the party

Ah. My mistake.

Thanks for the correction on that one. Can't believe I missed that.

[Kish]

OK, everyone. Flash back eight years. Baldur's Gate 2. You're going through the Windspear Hills and you meet Firkraag, the nobleman who's been messing you around lately. Turns out he's a red dragon. He offers you the chance to leave without a fight.

Did you? Even if you did, did you come back to finish him off after you'd levelled a few times?

Yeah, thought so. You killed him. You killed him and took the +5 Holy Avenger sword, and harvested his skin to have Cromwell forge the Red Dragon Scale Armour for you. Of course you did.

Statements like that are pretty much always a mistake. However, while I'm sure there are people in the world who didn't kill Firkraag, I'm not one of them. He had committed thoroughly despicable acts, and manifestly felt no remorse for them, going so far as to state that he intended to kill Garren Windspear and take the deed to his land after I left.

Then, I went on to Throne of Bhaal, to Watcher's Keep. And I met another red dragon, named Saladrex. Had a huge opinion of himself, and from reading online I knew he guarded one of the four weapons in the game that could be upgraded to +6. So I killed him, right?

No, of course I didn't, what kind of psychopath do you take me for? He had done nothing to justify attacking him, and my character was good.

From what you're saying and insisting everyone did in Shadows of Amn, you probably did kill Saladrex if you ever played Throne of Bhaal at all. And you'll probably say it's a good thing to do, since it fits the three reasons you list for Firkraag, and for some weird reason you're not talking about Firkraag's actions. Saladrex is a red dragon. Killing him is the only way to get a very powerful weapon. I don't know how much XP he's worth, but I'm pretty sure it's more than none. If those make murder and robbery good, then slaughtering him as he tries to talk you out of fighting is good. Just out of curiosity, how much XP would you estimate Vaarsuvius would be worth to the dragon in OotS?

[King of Nowhere]

In Neverwinter Nights 1, at a certain point you are asked to find 5 criminals who evaded prisons.
You find them separeted, fight them, then he surrenders, giving you XP. At this point you can choose to let him go, or kill him for additional XP and a good magical item.
Speaking to them, I realized not all of them were really evil. In two cases, I decided to let them go, even if it costed me 200+ XP and a major magic item. It even cost me having my alignment being thrown 10 points toward evil (each) because the programmer didn't agreed with my decision, but I did it anyway, feeling it was right.
So, no, I may feel that someone is so horribly evil that the world is bettter off without him, but I refuse the concept of killing sentient beings for loot and XP, even in videogames.
I'm glad to see from Kish's post that I'm not the only one.

[Milcho]

Man, there's a lot of debate about this lately. Has anyone not considered before that killing sentient creatures can be viewed as evil, no matter what the motive?


He had committed thoroughly despicable acts, and manifestly felt no remorse for them...

This kind of reminds me of Miko and her reasoning behind hating OOTS.

Killing creatures is morally wrong, no matter what you call it. Yeah, that's my opinion only, but if you don't agree, then its impossible to draw a line between good and evil. From that point of view, all adventureres comit evil acts. One of the major reasons I've personally never played adventure or rpg games extensivly is because I am not happy with the idea of leveling up only through killing. But I digress.

So, this ultimately poses a question, is the mother dragon doing justice by going after either V or his/her children? Well, the answer I give is: No. She isn't evil either, but her justification is no better or no worse than that of OOTS when they killed that dragon. So, in terms of good/evil they are pretty much identical.

Besides Xykon who for some odd reason wants to take over/destroy the world, the motivation behind Redcloak's plans is identical to the motivation behind OOTS's plans (as someone already brought up). I feel like that's one of the major background ideas behind this comics - the fact that the distinction between good and evil is indeed fuzzy.

[maxon]

*reads thread very carefully*

*re-reads just to make sure*

Huh.

Guess this board wasn't nearly as anti-Celia as I thought. :smallamused:

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.

Interesting. :smallamused:

Smirk

What he said.

[Assassin89]

Reminds me of one scenario in my D&D group in which my Cleric nearly died (he's dead now and I am rolling a new character),
A warforged, a white golem we call the good captain (who turned out to be a woman) and I encountered a camp of goblin and the leader was a half-fiend. The group of three did kill most of the goblins, not because they were goblins, but because they were causing trouble for a nearby town by robbing caravans and killing people. I was willing to negotiate, but the goblins were planning to kill us because I was willing to drop my weapon, provided that the goblins do the same, but the warforged made his sense motive check and it was a trap (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4) and there was no other option than to fight. We did not kill all of the goblins because one retreated after seeing his allies and leader killed by a mysterious black box held by the "good captain". We did loot the camp and burned it.

In short, although I killed a few of those sentient beings (while prone), they were not killed for loot and XP, but because they were threatening the livelihood of a community.

[tcrudisi]

:smalleek: If someone did that in my games, I'd be tempted to have several relatives of the captured dragon find them. Sadly, that's just how this sort of game works, mcv. I guess the main reason so many mosters are listed as usually or often evil is because it allows players to justify what they do toa certain degree.

Normally I agree with what you have to say, Tempest, but this time we don't.

If anything, I would argue that it's better to make armor out of that dragon. I cite up for evidence the colonization days of the United States. The Indians would kill buffalo for food, clothing, shelter, etc. They would use every part of the buffalo that they could. Then these white people moved in. They would kill the buffalo for money, pride, trophies, whatever.

In my eyes, it's a Neutral act to use that entire body. If you already had to kill the dragon for other reasons (self-defense, food, it was terrorizing a town), then you are showing it a lot more respect by using it's scales to make armor with versus just allowing them to rot in the sun.

[whitelaughter]

For me it's not so much the killing, it's the wearing of an intelligent being's skin that creeps me out.

[nods] there's no denying that it would be incredibly creepy.
Creepier if a cleric starts casting Speak with Dead on your armour...

But it would happen. And it would be common; no matter how disturbing people found the idea, in a world that dangerous, the choice is between take every possible advantage or die.

[Kish]

Killing creatures is morally wrong, no matter what you call it. Yeah, that's my opinion only, but if you don't agree, then its impossible to draw a line between good and evil.

That is also your opinion only.

And by that metric, there is exactly one major non-evil character in the whole comic. Her name's Celia.

[Milcho]

Yeah, when it comes to morals, that's all you can do - give opinions.

But, on a lighter note, I like debating. So, you say that last line is only my opinion, eh? Well, do you have an opposing view? If so, that means you can draw a line between good and evil even if kiling isn't considered neccesarily good. Do you really think so?

Well, if you do, then a further, more difficult question is, what exactly separates good people murdering others, and bad people murdering others?

[tcrudisi]

*reads thread very carefully*

*re-reads just to make sure*


Huh.

Guess this board wasn't nearly as anti-Celia as I thought. :smallamused:

Funny how when it's Celia is making these sorts of arguments the board rises up in righteous indignation. But when it's a vile, horrible, despicable evil creature like an ANCIENT BLACK DRAGON, suddenly the board is tripping over itself in its new found pacifism and tut-tut-tut ness.

Interesting. :smallamused:

Given an option between Celia or the black dragon, I'm honestly not sure which one I would want to die. I certainly do not feel any pity for the black dragon, as I tend not to feel pity for evil creatures. Say what you like about the good or evil about killing sentient beings, but D&D is a game. Part of the rules of that game tell me that black dragons are evil. As such, when I see a black dragon, I default to it being evil and worthy of smiting, unless prior actions have shown me otherwise, or I have an alternate method of getting rid of the threat to humans (or other "good" creatures).

I know, it's crazy. I follow the rules of the game instead of trying to impose my own morals and beliefs onto them. Imagine if I tried to be a good guy in Monopoly? I'd never win. :smallyuk:

(As an aside, I never win Monopoly anyway. I hate that game. I pick one person who I want to win and I do everything in my power to let them win. It generally let's the game last less than 24 hours that way.)

[Porthos]

Well, if you do, then a further, more difficult question is, what exactly separates good people murdering others, and bad people murdering others?

Killing != Murder.

YMMV of course. And probably does depending on how one views ethics. :smallsmile:

[satorian]

Were those native American tribes that wore human scalps as battle trophies evil? All of them? And that's the same species.

[Milcho]

Ooh, well, what you said is true. Murder isn't the same as killing. But for the point at hand I meant what I said.

Killing may be accidental and unintentional.

Murder is the killing of another human being with intent. (Wikipedia)

So, I did mean exactly that, killing with intent.

Bleh, anyway, this topic is perhaps left not debated too much.

[DigoDragon]

In Neverwinter Nights 1, at a certain point you are asked to find 5 criminals who evaded prisons.

I know which plot you're referring to and I made very similar choices as you. :smallsmile: I also went back and edited the choices to be more fair, but that might be an Alignment hit for a different reason. :smallbiggrin:

[Porthos]

Given an option between Celia or the black dragon, I'm honestly not sure which one I would want to die.

Well I will (and indeed did) admit to being slightly OTT in my post. :smalltongue:

It's just that I was struck by all of the posting of "It's DnD! Of course there's killing" when it came to discussing Celia. Now when it's an Ancient Black Dragon, I'm seeing other people (coz it's not necessarily the same posters) intimating that all/nearly all killing is wrong. Or at least equally wrong.

And while, again, I know why people are feeling this way to the character (the ABD was meant to be sympathetic, Celia.... less so :smallamused:) I just find it funny that there are these cries for (and lets call a spade a spade here) moral relativism over a friggin' wargame. :smallwink:

But I always have found the Good Adventures Are Exactly As Morally Culpable As The Monsters They Slay to be an amusing idea. Again, not to say that there isn't room for discussion/subversion here. Coz there obviously is. But if one says that there is no difference between a (picking names out at random) Roy or Hinjo and the ABD...

.... Well let's just say I disagree. Strongly. :smallwink:

Let's look at Roy and the ABD for a sec. Both have had family members destroyed. And each decide to embark on revenge. Each for personal gratification. The difference between Roy and the ABD is two fold.:

A) The ABD is seeking to harm innocents.

B) Roy realized that killing Xykon for revenge was pointless and unworthy of him. Instead he needs to kill Xykon to save the world.

That is one of the differences, when it comes right down to it, between Good and Evil (at least in DnD*). Realizing that you are doing something wrong morally and stopping that action.

Or at least coming up with different reasons for your actions. :smallwink:

=======

Back to the whole Dragon Scale business. In a game where people can run around seeking the Eye/Hand/Head of Vecna and think nothing of using shall we say exotic items (ie parts of monsters) as spell components I really think that Dragon Scale Armor is really no big deal.

Unless, of course, you want to play it up in your campaign. :smallbiggrin:

* NOTE - I've said it before and I'll say it again: If philosophers over the last 4000 years can't agree on what exactly is good and what exactly is evil, then why anyone actually expects a RPG (especially one that has had input [large and small] from literally millions of people) to have a consistent and universally agreed upon definition of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is beyond me. :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

Yeah, when it comes to morals, that's all you can do - give opinions.

But, on a lighter note, I like debating. So, you say that last line is only my opinion, eh? Well, do you have an opposing view? If so, that means you can draw a line between good and evil even if kiling isn't considered neccesarily good. Do you really think so?

Yes. Is this really a surprise? The only character in the comic to formally espouse the viewpoint that killing is always wrong is Celia. Have you been reading the board for such a short time that you haven't noticed the outrage she's caused by pursuing that belief?


Well, if you do, then a further, more difficult question is, what exactly separates good people murdering others, and bad people murdering others?


mur⋅der
   /ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mur-der] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.
—Idioms
8. get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9. murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10. yell or scream bloody murder,
a. to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b. to protest loudly and angrily: If I don't get a good raise I'm going to yell bloody murder.

Using the term "murder" loads the question. Obviously murder is never justified, because what murder means is unjustified killing!

Using the Baldur's Gate 2 example. When you meet Firkraag (and know he's a dragon), he tricked you into killing a group of paladins by making you look like a group of ogres to the paladins, and them look like a group of ogres to you. Of course, if both groups had attempted to talk to the "ogres" first, his plan would never have worked; but while you can attempt to talk to the "ogres" you see, they will not be interested in talking to you. So you can either kill them or die. Regrettable, but there's one: I don't think it's evil to kill someone when they attack you and it's their lives or yours.

Then a nobleman named Garren Windspear volunteers to use his influence with the paladin order, the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart, to convince them not to kill you. He tells you that the same "nobleman" who set you up to kill the paladins has been conducting a vendetta against him, ruining his land, and he has no idea why. While you're staying at his cabin, Firkraag sends mercenaries to kidnap Garren's child, and orders most of them to stay behind to attack you. It's obvious in context that Firkraag fully expected them to die.

Following a challenge letter Firkraag sends you, you explore a dungeon to the northeast. Firkraag's utter disregard for the lives of his minions and generally everyone other than himself is a running theme there. When you finally meet Firkraag, he tells you coolly that he'll let you rescue Garren's child and leave, though he also states that he intends to kill Garren and take the deed to his land sometime soon. If you're evil, you can also volunteer to kill Garren and bring him the deed yourself in return for a reward--if you do this, he'll have Garren's child killed before you leave. Unless you insist on fighting, Firkraag doesn't attack you. Yet, I don't consider it wrong to kill him.

Saladrex is a red dragon you meet later. He brags about how grand he is. But he doesn't mention anything evil that he's done. He'll help you try to figure out a puzzle, though it seems to be mainly because he likes to show off. Killing him, I would call murder, plain and simple. Robbery-motivated murder, something over 99% of the time--and the other less than 1%, it's a hate crime based on "because he's a red dragon, duh!"

Or, here's another one, in Neverwinter Nights.
You discover a Neverwinter outpost under siege by the Uthgardt. After you rescue the outpost (which involves killing a number of Uthgardt), you discover that the Uthgardt allied with the forces attacking Neverwinter because the commander of the outpost, Commander Damas deliberately infected them with a plague. He's completely unrepentant about it. "The fact that we have the power to remove them gives us the right to remove them," he says. Regrettably, NWN doesn't include a dialogue option to point out the logic flaw in saying that while standing within reach of my sword...I generally kill the captain too. I think most people who take an absolute stance in either direction would be mystified by how I play most CRPGs. I'll go far out of my way to kill a Commander Damas when a game obviously expects me to pay him off, and I'll go far out of my way to avoid killing duergar and drow enslaved by illithids when a game obviously expects me to carve through them to get to the Illithid Elder-Brain.

[Porthos]

Ooh, well, what you said is true. Murder isn't the same as killing. But for the point at hand I meant what I said.

Killing may be accidental and unintentional.

Murder is the killing of another human being with intent. (Wikipedia)

So, I did mean exactly that, killing with intent.

Actually murder, AIUI, is illegal killing. :smallwink: Otherwise anyone whose ever been in a war is a murderer. Or, for that matter, anyone who is a State Executioner.

So the question then becomes when is it OK to kill? After all, duels were once OK. And then there is the idea of killing people Outside The Law (where the term "outlaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw)" comes from) was not just seen as just, but as absolutely necessary. Transitioning that concept to DND we have a world where goblin hordes are massing over the border and dragons can swoop down and terrorize villages, and there isn't enough of an organized force to stop it (i.e. the concept of the state having a monopoly on violence) simply because they don't have the resources/manpower to deal with the problem...

... Well I can see why the idea of killing the Ancient Black Dragon wouldn't be such a terrible thing. Again, the reason why people were declared outlaws back in the day is that the State (such as it was, and it wasn't nearly like the concept of the State that we have now) just couldn't deal with the problem. So they let people take justice into their own hands.

And that's what a lot of the humor/debate of OotS comes in. It's taking a game that is supposedly based on Epic Mythic Fantasy (and it really isn't, but let's not go there :smalltongue: ) and tweaking it with modern outlooks/situations. I mean, really the Cliffport Police Department? :smalltongue:


Bleh, anyway, this topic is perhaps left not debated too much.

Nah, it's all good. No pun intended. :smallwink:

And I do, believe it or not, understand where you are coming from. I was once in a particularly bloodthirsty campaign. One those Shoot First and Then Sort of Wonder If Maybe We Should Sort of Talk One Day types.

Got to the point where I got so fed up with the play style that I actually started playing a pacifistic character. Course it helped that he had an interesting PrC designed for him (ie, "you will be calm now and stop attacking me and my friends" type thing). :smallbiggrin:

Course that eventually played its course and said character finally had a situation where he had to resort to violence to save the day (which resulted in a rather drastic change of ethics for said character). But that game was fairly heavy on the philosophical pondering, and I fully realize that not all RPG campaigns are based on such things. :smallsmile:

[Milcho]

Oh, wow, um, that's quite a responce; I really wasn't expecting that.

Ok, point and case, I concede that the term "murder" does in fact mean what both of you (Porthos and Kish) say it does, and that I did use it rather losely. I'm glad to see though that you've seen beyond my inadequate wording and have understood what I really meant.

I could debate, perhaps a little, on the issue of what is unlawful, but since its closely related to my actual point, I'll just state my point.

I've read the forums, though not as much as most of you, and I know Celia isn't the most popular character. I don't like her either. Yet, I agree that killing other sentient beings is just wrong. Her problem is that she is bent on imposing her will - in this case her belief that killing is wrong - on others, something of which I'm not perticularly fond of. I like to explain my point of view, and reason with people, but not beyond what they want to hear.

So, the point you make, Kish, is that its right to kill those who hurt others without provocation. That's a good point, and I agree, at least emotionally. I like reasoning though, and I've reasoned myself to a different position - those that hurt others are to be stopped, but taking their lives is not something that I see as neccessary. Why? Genreally because I don't think a person's intents can be truly understood and his or her actions judged correctly. Ok, I'm getting somewhat into real world here, I'll stick to role-playing. For example, I don't think that defending yourself and others close to you is wrong, and you seem to agree - by which logic, Redcloak's actions are not unjustified, and from which standpoint I don't see him as Evil.

To that extent when you say "I don't think it's evil to kill someone when they attack you and it's their lives or yours." - greatly reminds me of a lot of quests, in which the goal is often to kill some type of generic creature that has been doing something to some peasant you might have randomly met. Actually it reminds me of the comics Goblins. Random creatures that defend themselves from attacking adventureres are by what you said, not evil. Which means that you cannot use their fighting you as proof that they are evil. So you cannot say that a creature is evil if it fights you when you are in a threataning position to it.

And not all random creatures have comitted an act worthy of being punished by death, by any standard. (by my standard, that's never). But I don't think I've seen many quests where the goal is to incapacitate the creature or bring it to justice without killing it/them.

So, my answer to one of your examples "Unless you insist on fighting, Firkraag doesn't attack you. Yet, I don't consider it wrong to kill him." is simply this: fight to incapacitate him, and bring him to justice, where you alone do not act as executionor, jury and judge.

Yeah, I know, I might seem like a hippie after all that, but I actually aren't. I have to admit that at certain life-or-death situations its impossible to save yourself without killing someone, so. It just seems that in a wonderous world of adventuring, where one can achieve almost anything, there has to be a way to do things without killing everything that even barely stands in your way.

Yeah, in DnD there is no organized power, as Porthos says, and where there's a lot of creatures which are willing to kill, seemingly without reason, its hard to say "don't kill them if they attack you and are trying to kill you" - in fact I woulnd't say that, but outside of those immidiate situations I try to think of alternatives.

Final paragraph: Unless your, or someone else's life is immidiately threataned by someone and you cannot stop them in any way besides killing them, it is not justified to kill that someone.
I hope you see my point.
Anyway, long long discussion, if you read it all, good job. I don't usually respond in this much detail, but eh.
(wow, i took so long to type that when i hit Preview Post, it asked me to sign in again)

[JonahFalcon]

The funny thing is there's a Prestige Class in Book of Exalted Deeds that revolves around you making armor out of a Red Dragon's scales. :smallbiggrin:

So? That's like making a pillow stuffed with human hair.

[JonahFalcon]

Here's the thing - if you attack and kill the children of an intelligent creature - don't be surprised if they decide to do the same. Especially when they're powerful.

Anyone see Dragonslayer? Remember Vermithrax when she came home to find her babies slaughtered by the hero?

(And Vermitrax couldn't talk. Her eyes and howl said plenty, though.)

[mcv]

One of the major reasons I've personally never played adventure or rpg games extensivly is because I am not happy with the idea of leveling up only through killing.

D&D isn't the only RPG out there. Admittedly, many other RPGs (particularly those that don't necessarily involve kiling) don't have D&D style levels, but playing RPGs is definitely an option for you. You just need to find other RPGs, but there's a lot of those.

[mcv]

Creepier if a cleric starts casting Speak with Dead on your armour...
A deceased dragon speaking through your armor? Yes, that would be a creepy.


But it would happen. And it would be common; no matter how disturbing people found the idea, in a world that dangerous, the choice is between take every possible advantage or die.
Of course. Different world, different mores. Consider, for example, that plane crash in the Andes where survivors had to eat the people who had died in the crash in order to continue surviving? There's a big taboo on canibalism in our world, yet in their case it's acceptable, because they simply had no other choice.

[mcv]

Well, if you do, then a further, more difficult question is, what exactly separates good people murdering others, and bad people murdering others?
In one case it's the good people who survive, in the other it's the bad people?

But I agree, you can't spread "good" values through "evil" actions. At some point, you lower yourself to their level. At the same time, real life requires the occasional compromise to get anywhere at all.


Were those native American tribes that wore human scalps as battle trophies evil? All of them? And that's the same species.
Apparently that custom was actually started by a white guy. Put a bounty on the scalps of a particular tribe, so other tribes would hunt them and collect their scalps, or something like that. And hunting people for bounty is something I would consider evil. (Then again: different time, different situation, the need to make a stand, or at least a statement, against more powerful invaders...)

[Snake-Aes]

So? That's like making a pillow stuffed with human hair.

An ashtray made of a human skull, or a knife made from carved man femur would be more appropriate.

[Tempest Fennac]

tcrudisi, my comment was actually refering to players repeatedly skinning a dragon while regenerating his/her skin. I wouldn't have a problem with just killing the dragon then taking it's skin if there was a good reason for killing it, and I agree with your point about making the most of slain creatures completely (I'm sorry if I was confusing). Interrestingly enough about using dragon skin, Races of the Dragon claims that Dragonborn never used any sort of dragonskin for armour due to considering it to be as bad as a human wearing human skin.

Going back to the point about Celia, I agree with her about not killing things for profit. I hate her because she's constantly doing ridiculous things which wouldn't happen if she had the sense to check things first or just listen to people who know what they are talking about, while trying to take the moral high ground dispite the fact that her "principals" seem to revolve entirely around getting what she wants (eg: she critercized Haley for stealing things, but she's happy to team up with wife beaters and dog fighting enthusiasts to get her boyfriend's corpse back after she lost it due to her cluelessness, and she seems perfectly fine with Haley killing people while not wanting to contribute to her own defence).

As far as dragons eating humans go, I know I'm applying real life rather then how D&D and sentinace work, but is eating humans really that different to eating, for instance, a bovine if the bovine was hunted? I'd see it as being pretty much the same thing.

[snafu]

Then, I went on to Throne of Bhaal, to Watcher's Keep. And I met another red dragon, named Saladrex. Had a huge opinion of himself, and from reading online I knew he guarded one of the four weapons in the game that could be upgraded to +6. So I killed him, right?

No, of course I didn't, what kind of psychopath do you take me for? He had done nothing to justify attacking him, and my character was good.

From what you're saying and insisting everyone did in Shadows of Amn, you probably did kill Saladrex if you ever played Throne of Bhaal at all. And you'll probably say it's a good thing to do, since it fits the three reasons you list for Firkraag, and for some weird reason you're not talking about Firkraag's actions. Saladrex is a red dragon. Killing him is the only way to get a very powerful weapon. I don't know how much XP he's worth, but I'm pretty sure it's more than none. If those make murder and robbery good, then slaughtering him as he tries to talk you out of fighting is good. Just out of curiosity, how much XP would you estimate Vaarsuvius would be worth to the dragon in OotS?

I haven't played ToB as often as regular BG2, so I don't recall exactly how Saladrex conducted himself. I'm pretty sure he began by insulting and threatening me; something about being a mouse. Which insults me, and far worse, it insults the honour of small rodentkind. GO FOR THE EYES, BOO!

It's a red dragon, found in a dungeon which is advertised by the priests outside as containing unspeakable evil - indeed, having been built for that specific purpose - an evil which had apparently attracted yet more evil to come and live in the keep, seemingly by being just that evil. Any of its regular inhabitants had better prove from the word go that I shouldn't kill them and take their stuff, because quite frankly I'm on a hair trigger here.

Mind you, CRPGs can be confusing on moral issues like this one. Especially where you disagree with the programmer's opinion of what's right. Most recently, I found a bunch of guys trying to tunnel into my highly exclusive gated community with intent to kill everyone and live there themselves; gunned them all down, gained karma for it. Later I found another bunch of guys trying to tunnel into someone else's highly exclusive gated community with intent to kill everyone and live there themselves. I shot them all too, but lost karma... apparently I was supposed to help them!

[Milandros]

The main mistake I think people are making is that they are confusing empathy for the dragon with support for the dragon.

They are thinking how horrible it would be, and how it is completely understandable that the dragon is angry and vengeful. I sure as hell would be. If someone obliterated my little girl I'd want revenge - and the darker emotions would want to destroy everything they'd ever cared about first and make sure they knew it. In fact, part of me would want to wipe out their entire damned species. So yes, I understand why the dragon thinks that way.

However, that doesn't mean that the dragon is in the right, or that anybody did anything evil or wrong in killing the other two. It merely means that I understand why the dragon thinks that way, and can identify with its emotions.

The point to remember is that these are black dragons, which, unless the Giant is subverting the standard rules/backgrounds (and there's no evidence currently for this), are nasty, nasty evil monsters. Yes, killing the young dragon will have upset its mother, but how many other mothers had their lives destroyed when junior ate their husbands/ children/ livestock/ friends/ family and village?

At which oint in the following list does killing become unjustified (assuming, of course, the option to transport to protected reservations or other planets is not available)?

In your area:
There is a nasty bacterium killing many people. You can kill it with antibiotics.
There are nasty insects poisoning many people. You can kill them with poisons.
There is a nasty wolf that is killing people. You can hunt and kill it.
There is a nasty tiger that has killed many people. You can hunt and kill it.
There is a nasty bandit who is killing whole households to steal their stuff. You can track him down and either fight him to the death or let him escape.
There is a tribe of ogres regularly attacking towns. You can kill them.
There is a dragon who kills dozens a week. Now what?

If a man suprises the above bandit while he's halfway through murdering his family and kills him, it's perfectly understandable that the bandit's mother/children/whatever will hate the man for it and may even seek revenge. It does not mean, however, that the original action was wrong.

[Roderick_BR]

A good example is how paladins, the epitome of good, are completely fine slaughtering evil beings. No one's saying it's fair or that it isn't cruel for the family, but it's still done.

A well played paladin is like a cop. He'll use violence and killing as a last resource. Yes, somewhere a mom will miss her son, but if you don't kill that guy NOW, many more moms around will miss their sons.

[Snake-Aes]

A well played paladin is like a cop. He'll use violence and killing as a last resource. Yes, somewhere a mom will miss her son, but if you don't kill that guy NOW, many more moms around will miss their sons.

That's totally right, and it's also totally right that it doesn't make the death less of an issue for the involved parties.
Kinda reminds me of the movie Hero.

[Kish]

I haven't played ToB as often as regular BG2, so I don't recall exactly how Saladrex conducted himself. I'm pretty sure he began by insulting and threatening me; something about being a mouse. Which insults me, and far worse, it insults the honour of small rodentkind. GO FOR THE EYES, BOO!

Of course, "It is nice to have a new mouse stumble into my lair" justifies whatever you might want to do which doesn't have anything to do with murder or robbery. Play how you please, but don't assume everyone plays the same way you do, and especially don't use that incorrect assumption to invalidate their moral judgments.

You didn't answer my question about Vaarsuvius' XP value to the dragon, but now I have another one. While you were making this, "Anything I meet in Watcher's Keep has to convince me it's not evil" judgement for your psychopath in Throne of Bhaal...

...where was he standing?

[David Argall]

Apparently that custom was actually started by a white guy. Put a bounty on the scalps of a particular tribe, so other tribes would hunt them and collect their scalps, or something like that.
As the winners, we had more chances to commit atrocities than the natives did, but that does not mean they didn't do their share when they got the chance, particularly with each other. And scalping was one of the ways they did so. Archaeologists have found scalped bodies that predate the arrival of the white man by centuries.

[King of Nowhere]

How about asking a dragon some of his scales to make an armor, coming to an agreement when he accepts to give you some part of his skin in exchange for some gold and a regeneration spell? That would be a totally acceptable way to make dragon scales' armors.

[hamishspence]

sounds a little painful though.

Most acceptable way- dragons shed scales without harm to themselves- and these scales can be stitched together into a scale suit. or, they shed skin layers like snakes/lizards, and the layer is thick enough to be made into something.

on skins of sentient beings, in Deathstalker Coda, after the alien party member has betrayed the party and attacked them, the two most psychopathic party members make its skin into boots for themselves. However, it is a bit unusual for good guys to do this sort of thing- and these were definitely Evil Teammates.