The demise of V's mate and children will be well deserved (Spoiler) [Archive]

Kish

2009-02-07, 01:53 AM

So, the pitiful attacks by the rest of the Oots against the young dragon don't count?
We can argue until the cows come home on morality, but IIRC your claim is incorrect legally. Frex, if you hold up a bank with a plastic gun, you're in deep do do - and a fair target to get shot.
Only if the cop claims to have believed it was a real gun. If you hold up a bank with a clear yellow plastic gun with visible water sloshing around inside it, you might be up for a Darwin award but the police are unlikely to employ lethal force against you, even if the bank chooses to call them rather than the insane asylum.

As far as legality goes, I don't see either Vaarsuvius or the dragon attempting to take the matter to any court higher than their magic, teeth, and claws, amusing as I find this thread, and much as I sympathize with what I perceive to be its purpose.

My positions, just because I've never stated them all together:
1) Vaarsuvius was wrong not to try to talk to the dragon when s/he discovered it spoke Lizard. However, his/her actions were easily in line with any of the three morally neutral alignments--and s/he is not Good. Every other member of the Order, especially Roy because he's the leader, was wrong not to attempt to negotiate with the dragon--but the only character we've seen who would be acting inconsistently by not trying to negotiate with the dragon would be Celia. (Belkar, of course, would very often be acting inconsistently by failing to do the morally wrong thing!) Four members of the Order are likely good-aligned, but none are paragons of virtue.
2) The ancient black dragon would, morally speaking, be sitting pretty if she had concluded her demonstration of Vaarsuvius' inferiority by killing Vaarsuvius, whether or not she then took steps to obliterate the body to prevent any possibility of resurrection. Since she chose instead to direct her vengeance at uninvolved innocents, she's thoroughly evil. Her further description of her plans (assuming she meant all of it, which I think she probably did) pushes her close to Xykon/Nale territory, morally speaking. It is interesting, in a detached way, to consider that she would judge her own actions by an "elves aren't people" metric which mirrors the metric used by people on this board to insist there is no obligation to attempt to negotiate with a black dragon whose home you've invaded, or to take a course which avoids killing him if a course which involves killing him is marginally more convenient. But I don't grant that argument validity from those people and I certainly wouldn't grant it validity from her.
3) I don't think Vaarsuvius' children are in any real danger. Qaar can come up with a way to help and is unlikely to take Vaarsuvius trying to kill him personally, I'm sure. Vaarsuvius' immortal soul, of course, is quite another matter...

TheSummoner

2009-02-07, 01:55 AM

I dunno... parental instinct and all... I fully see V's mate telling the children to run while she tries to distract the dragon as long as possible, even though its futile...

Morthis

2009-02-07, 02:46 AM

I'm not saying that they have a chance; just that they try to attack the ABD. Probably with crayons and a frying pan....

What kind of kids are you around that, when confronted with something they fear, will charge at it as opposed to the much more natural reaction of running away?

Also, as already mentioned, soul binding it would instantly rule out any kind of argument about making it even.

kusje

2009-02-07, 02:56 AM

Also, as already mentioned, soul binding it would instantly rule out any kind of argument about making it even.

Who said anything about making it even? The whole concept of revenge is to exert more harm than was exerted upon you so you'll feel better. If someone stole $10 from him, I wouldn't be satisfied taking $10 from him....

Of course, this doesn't make it fair for the children but V would deserve the hurt.

kusje

2009-02-07, 02:59 AM

What kind of kids are you around that, when confronted with something they fear, will charge at it as opposed to the much more natural reaction of running away?

No, not fear. Innocent kids probably, who have no concept of the danger posed by a dragon. They might assume it is a game and start hitting it or poking it with a stick.

Noam

2009-02-07, 03:32 AM

Following the line of thought that dragon junior deserved to die because he attacked a couple of armed intruders without trying to negotiate, I predict that the ABD will appear in the house and be immediately attacked by V's mate and children without a chance to speak.

Dragon junior deserved to die because he attacked a couple of armed intruders who had no idea they are in his home and were trying to escape the moment they saw him.

My positions, just because I've never stated them all together:
1) Vaarsuvius was wrong not to try to talk to the dragon when s/he discovered it spoke Lizard. However, his/her actions were easily in line with any of the three morally neutral alignments--and s/he is not Good. Every other member of the Order, especially Roy because he's the leader, was wrong not to attempt to negotiate with the dragon--but the only character we've seen who would be acting inconsistently by not trying to negotiate with the dragon would be Celia. (Belkar, of course, would very often be acting inconsistently by failing to do the morally wrong thing!) Four members of the Order are likely good-aligned, but none are paragons of virtue.

I agree about V, though you need to remember that the dragon was trying to kill the OOTS - a good person might've tried to negotiate anyway but it's not unreasonable for a neutral person to attack him. The rest of the OOTS couldn't really negotiate with him, could they? They didn't know if he is speaking common and they were trying to get away from him but he was trying to kill them anyway. That doesn't seem like someone willing to negotiate.

2) The ancient black dragon would, morally speaking, be sitting pretty if she had concluded her demonstration of Vaarsuvius' inferiority by killing Vaarsuvius, whether or not she then took steps to obliterate the body to prevent any possibility of resurrection. Since she chose instead to direct her vengeance at uninvolved innocents, she's thoroughly evil. Her further description of her plans (assuming she meant all of it, which I think she probably did) pushes her close to Xykon/Nale territory, morally speaking. It is interesting, in a detached way, to consider that she would judge her own actions by an "elves aren't people" metric which mirrors the metric used by people on this board to insist there is no obligation to attempt to negotiate with a black dragon whose home you've invaded, or to take a course which avoids killing him if a course which involves killing him is marginally more convenient. But I don't grant that argument validity from those people and I certainly wouldn't grant it validity from her.

I agree with that.

3) I don't think Vaarsuvius' children are in any real danger. Qaar can come up with a way to help and is unlikely to take Vaarsuvius trying to kill him personally, I'm sure. Vaarsuvius' immortal soul, of course, is quite another matter...

I don't know. Even if V teleports there with Qaar, the dragon showed that it can beat V in combat. If dragon mama would've wanted V dead, V would've been dead. What can V do to stop her?

Tempest Fennac

2009-02-07, 03:38 AM

Qarr could teleport them to safety if he thought it would get V to help him.

kusje

2009-02-07, 03:55 AM

Dragon junior deserved to die because he attacked a couple of armed intruders who had no idea they are in his home and were trying to escape the moment they saw him.

Baby dragon had no way of knowing what the armed intruders were thinking which would make it the moral equivalent of a seemingly unprovoked attacked on mother dragon if it appeared in the eleven house.

Noam

2009-02-07, 04:16 AM

Baby dragon had no way of knowing what the armed intruders were thinking which would make it the moral equivalent of a seemingly unprovoked attacked on mother dragon if it appeared in the eleven house.

Baby dragon? Judging by his size, he was a young adult at least. That means he had 12 intellect and 13 wisdom - that's slightly smarter than the averege human. The guy lived in an unmarked cave, and he is smart enough to understand that people have no way of knowing that this is his house.

Also, the OOTS were running away. You need to be really stupid to not see that if the armed intruders that entered your home ran away as soon as they saw you they mean no harm.

Niburu

2009-02-07, 04:32 AM

Noam

2009-02-07, 04:39 AM

The point that i'm seeing missed alot is this: it is a dragon. A creature made in this world to be destroyed and robbed of possesions. If this dragon had never spoken, just went to V's home and devoured the children without explaining the why, (which had to be done only because we needed to know what was going to happen) we would be furious and wish it a swift death. I don't think we should feel sympathy for something that occurs in our own adventures every day: IE killing the creatures that inhabit our worlds. What if every goblin who spinned a sob story about their family was justified in killing adventurers who murdered their loved ones? then we would have an upset balance. Things are this way for a reason, npc's get ignored, nameless soldiers die, and monsters get killed, and we should not disrupt this order because of some mother dragons tale of woe. It is a black dragon, and therefore evil. we should not show it mercy just because it has had a bad experience, for it will not give you any mercy itself.

While I agree, black dragons and goblins are not the same. While black dragons are always evil and thus evil until proven otherwise, goblins and most evil humanoids are usally evil. Going around killing goblins just for being goblins is wrong, because a decent part of goblin society is not evil. Also, just because something bad happened to you it doesn't mean you can go around and do evil things - if a human character's family was wiped out by goblins, and so that character set out to rid the world of every single goblin (coughazurecitypaladinscough), we would've treated it as a villian, or at least treat that part of the character's personality as a flaw.

MorhgorRB

2009-02-07, 06:04 AM

While I agree, black dragons and goblins are not the same. While black dragons are always evil and thus evil until proven otherwise, goblins and most evil humanoids are usally evil. Going around killing goblins just for being goblins is wrong, because a decent part of goblin society is not evil. Also, just because something bad happened to you it doesn't mean you can go around and do evil things - if a human character's family was wiped out by goblins, and so that character set out to rid the world of every single goblin (coughazurecitypaladinscough), we would've treated it as a villian, or at least treat that part of the character's personality as a flaw.

So... What your saying is.... Malakai Makaison's Goblin Hewer ( As seen here : http://www.coyotesdenonline.com/images/Malakai%20Makaison's%20Goblin%20Hewer.gif ) Is a speciesist, and generally bad idea? :smallfrown:

Noam

2009-02-07, 06:29 AM

So... What your saying is.... Malakai Makaison's Goblin Hewer ( As seen here : http://www.coyotesdenonline.com/imag...in%20Hewer.gif ) Is a speciesist, and generally bad idea? :smallfrown:

I was talking about goblins in the D&D verse. Are goblins in Malakai's setting always evil? If so, he is fine. If not, yes, he is a speciesist basterd.

Shadowcaller

2009-02-07, 06:48 AM

Kaytara

2009-02-07, 07:19 AM

ABD will then kill V's mate and children and proceed to soulbind them for all eternity.

This should satisfy both the "V's children are innocent and I'll stop reading if they die" and the "Mother Dragon must succeed because she is so awesome and is so just" camp.

Question... How will the dragon successfully slaughtering and soulbinding V's kids satisfy the "V's kids shouldn't die" camp? :smallconfused:

Shadowcaller

2009-02-07, 08:23 AM

Question... How will the dragon successfully slaughtering and soulbinding V's kids satisfy the "V's kids shouldn't die" camp? :smallconfused:

Well the creator of this thread is using this logic I think:

If V's child/mate attacks the dragon first then they did the same thing the black dragons child did to the order of the stick and thus everything is just in the world.:smallsigh:

Now, I have no idea why V's children would attack the dragon. The dragons child was a young adult, maybe 20-23 years in human terms.

V's children on the other hand looks like they are 6 years or something in human terms so they don't really have the same choice as the young dragon had, they are still to young to get whats going on.

So its not really the same thing as the creator seems to think. No one deserve to die by the way, least of all because some stupid revenge thing:smallannoyed:.

John Campbell

2009-02-07, 08:45 AM

Sinewmire

2009-02-07, 08:56 AM

Warhammer Goblins are without exception evil little beggars, yes.

The Goblin hewer isn't racist/speciest, it works just fine on other races/species too.

The Black Dragons are evil. They're monsters, in the literal and figurative sense, and nobody should feel bad about killing them - you're saving lives in doing so. However, Rich typically makes very compelling and realistic characters, even relatively minor ones. It is a life you're taking if you kill one, make no mistake.

kusje

2009-02-07, 09:05 AM

Well the creator of this thread is using this logic I think:

If V's child/mate attacks the dragon first then they did the same thing the black dragons child did to the order of the stick and thus everything is just in the world.:smallsigh:

Now, I have no idea why V's children would attack the dragon. The dragons child was a young adult, maybe 20-23 years in human terms.

V's children on the other hand looks like they are 6 years or something in human terms so they don't really have the same choice as the young dragon had, they are still to young to get whats going on.

So its not really the same thing as the creator seems to think. No one deserve to die by the way, least of all because some stupid revenge thing:smallannoyed:.

That is indeed my logic.

And I assumed the dragon to be around 15 years old due to the fact that he made a reference to his mother (face it, which self-respecting adult goes around talking about mommy?) and the fact that his mother seemed to think it was a big leap of faith leaving him alone.

While V's children could be less mature than the dragon, they could easily be as innocent as the dragon.

I don't really think V's children deserve to die, I think they are as deserving of death as little dragon...

kusje

2009-02-07, 09:06 AM

Remember, guys, these are D&D dragons. You know, "color-coded for your convenience"? Their scales aren't all shiny; they are therefore absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed Evil. Don't ask why... they just are. Vaarsuvius is therefore entirely justified in slaughtering them for the gold and XP. That's just the way the world works.

If that is the way you're going to argue it then you might as well rename Good and Evil into Team A and Team B. A kills B and B kills A. A killed little B so now B kills little A.

Noam

2009-02-07, 09:47 AM

If that is the way you're going to argue it then you might as well rename Good and Evil into Team A and Team B. A kills B and B kills A. A killed little B so now B kills little A.

...OK. Now I lost you.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that what you are saying is that good and evil have no meaning and that those are just two teams fighting each other.

This is how it works:
This is team Good. The members of that team try to achieve goals. The means vary but the goal is generally making the world a better place and stoping those who wish to harm the innocent/the cosmic balance/cute little rabbits.
This is team Evil. The members of that team try to achieve goals. The goals vary but the means are generally killing things that get in your way because it's fun/you are serving a greater evil/you think that you are right and they are wrong even though the universe says you are wrong.

Team Good's goals and team Evil's means clash, and there is bloodshed.

Now, a few words about black dragons:

I assumed the dragon to be around 15 years old

Well, the dragon is larger than the party, making him at least a young adult. That makes him something like a 20 year old human, not a teenager and sure as hell not a kindergarten aged boy. He was not an innocent little boy.

About black dragons being evil: they are, as John said, born evil. Which doesn't make any damn sense. Actions dedicate aligment, not the other way around. How can you be born evil? Did you do something bad before you were even alive?

I don't know. Maybe dragon souls get the choice bettwen being good dragons or evil dragons. Maybe the crimes of their parents are horrible enough to taint them. Maybe (and that's probably it) the designers didn't really think this through. But from the moment a black dragon is born, its going to do evil things.

Is killing a dragon just because he is a black dragon fine? Kinda. A black dragon can be good, but the chances are so low that unless the dragon goes out of its way to show you that it is good, you should assume he is evil. Did the black dragon the OOTS killed did this? No, he did not. He attempted to kill them for entering an unmarked cave.

I agree that there are a lots of things that are screwy about all this, and all I can say is that we should be glad that morality doesn't work like that in our world.

...Or does it? (DUN DUN DUNNN)

raphfrk

2009-02-07, 10:04 AM

Qarr could teleport them to safety if he thought it would get V to help him.

So, something like:

"In exchange for your soul, I will teleport in grab one of them and teleport back here. Which one do you want me to grab?"

V loses his soul and only gets one of them saved.

One potential advantage is that it would give a reason for the dragon not to disappear to an unknown plane of existence, as it would still need to finish the job.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 10:10 AM

Devilish contracts are often "in exchange for doing these evil acts" rather than "in exchange for your soul" in FC2- favour for favour trades, since they are a more insidious way of getting a grip (the Pact Insidious, to be precise)

Kaytara

2009-02-07, 10:20 AM

While V's children could be less mature than the dragon, they could easily be as innocent as the dragon.

......
You must have missed the part where the dragon called the adventurers "stupid humanoids" and commented how tasty Haley was before attacking V for desert.

The main difference is that an evil black dragon, no matter if it's an adult or "just" a young adult, has survived for so long by preying on people and, if his comments are any indication, isn't even slightly bothered by the fact.

As for V's kids, on the other hand, it's a fair bet they literally wouldn't hurt a fly.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 10:30 AM

Even non-evil chromatics "think nothing of eating the occasional passer-by" And these passers-by have tried to cast Suggestion on the dragon, and shot it in the eye. Dragons are predators first and foremost, and an any negotiation "the dragon expects them to be grateful. It has, after all, done them the favour of allowing them to live."

Oslecamo

2009-02-07, 10:43 AM

Dragons are predators first and foremost, and an any negotiation "the dragon expects them to be grateful. It has, after all, done them the favour of allowing them to live."

Not in D&D. All dragon sourcebooks imply that dragons love to play with "lower" beings before killing them. And if they do kill them, it's either for their own amusement or to protect their hoards. Or because those beings have shiny loot to increase their hoard.

Dragons can actually hardly be considered predators, since they can susbsist by eating pretty much anything. Treasure is particularly tasty.

So, dragons aren't any more "kill first, ask questions later" than other evolved smart beings are. They don't kill for food. They kill for profit and fun. And many times leaving a lower being alive will be more profitable than killing them right there.

The young black dragon in particular, takes his time to speack to the party and expose himself to prove his arrogant superiority, instead of crushing them right away or retreat and regroup after being severly hurt.

The mommy dragon in particular is as evil as they come, since she goes in all this sophisticated vengeance plan instead of simply seeking a 17th level cleric to bring back her disintrigated son. Heck, she can cast 7th level spells, she's epic level, and has acess to the super oracle. No reason to don't bring back her son other than being really evil, thus choosing to spread more pain and misery instead of erasing her own.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 10:49 AM

"Dragons are carnivores and top predators, though in practice they are ominvorous and can eat anything if necessary": 3.5 Draconomicon.

Yes, in D&D- these quotes come from D&D sourcebooks- 4th Ed Draconomicon, 3.5 ed Dragon Magic, Talking To Dragons is not exactly out of the question.

D&D novels going back a long way, frequently have dragons, even evil dragons, willing to work with the party's wishes, under the right conditions.

Oslecamo

2009-02-07, 11:06 AM

Yes, in D&D- these quotes come from D&D sourcebooks- 4th Ed Draconomicon, 3.5 ed Dragon Magic, Talking To Dragons is not exactly out of the question.

Well, you've got a point there. In 4e, dragon are indeed almost mindless predators who've lost almost all their powers and wait for adventurers to pass by and then kill them or die trying.

But the comic is 3.5. Where a black dragon will bother to spy their enemy for months, only so she can deliver a threat, and then do a sophisticated revenge by killing his family in a cruel and sophisticated way.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 11:16 AM

Kish

2009-02-07, 11:27 AM

Kaytara

2009-02-07, 11:33 AM

Not true. The Monster Manual spells out that even the "always" tag on an alignment doesn't mean no exceptions exist.

But if that young black dragon had been an exception, presumably he would have had issues with attacking "stupid humanoids" who wander into his lair.

Noam

2009-02-07, 11:33 AM

Not true. The Monster Manual spells out that even the "always" tag on an alignment doesn't mean no exceptions exist.

Yes, but it says exceptions are X-TREMEly rare. The black dragon the OOTS did nothing to show that he was one of those rare good black dragon, so they killed him.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 11:40 AM

Evil dragons, especially powerful ones, are known to find roles for themselves in society- forming truces with the locals- common trope in D&D fiction.

even "always Evil" doesn't always equate to "mass-murderer of long standing."

Its not unusual in fantasy settings for any being to react badly to intrusion- even townsfolk "release the hounds" if they catch an intruder on their property. So, concluding from the dragon's reaction to intruders that its utterly evil with no redeeming features may be a bit of a jump.

For an example, Hinjo refuses to let Miko kill Belkar, despite "knowing" he was guilty.

Noam

2009-02-07, 11:55 AM

Evil dragons, especially powerful ones, are known to find roles for themselves in society- forming truces with the locals- common trope in D&D fiction.

even "always Evil" doesn't always equate to "mass-murderer of long standing."

They still force the locals into those deals, and they are a threat. Also, the dragon the OOTS killed wasn't making any deals - no one knew he was there, remember?

Its not unusual in fantasy settings for any being to react badly to intrusion- even townsfolk "release the hounds" if they catch an intruder on their property. So, concluding from the dragon's reaction to intruders that its utterly evil with no redeeming features may be a bit of a jump.

Yes, because the townsfolk have a town, not an unmarked cave in the middle of a forest. Also, we conclude the dragon is utterly evil because dragons are utterly evil, and the black dragon showed that he wasn't a rare exception when he attacked the OOTS.

For an example, Hinjo refuses to let Miko kill Belkar, despite "knowing" he was guilty.

The only reason Hinjo didn't kill Belkar because:
1) His master told him so.
2) He is lawful and believes Belkar deserves a fair trial.
3) He knows the OOTS use Belkar for a greater good.

The dragon can't get a trial (because it's impossible to get him anywhere and because he is in a forest that isn't a part of any kingdom), the OOTS don't answer to any authority that can command them to spare him and as far as we know he is not working for any greater good.

Animefunkmaster

2009-02-07, 12:01 PM

if you hold up a bank with a plastic gun, you're in deep do do - and a fair target to get shot.

But holding up a bank with crayons and a salad bowl...? That doesn't sound like your holding up a bank.

Oslecamo

2009-02-07, 12:06 PM

actually, its the other way round- in 4th ed Dragons are Usually evil rather than Always Evil, often plot-spinners, etc. They have full access to Rituals, though limited powers.

4th ed took Dragon Magic and similar books and cemented the concept into the core world, with Dragons as Empire Builders.

Eerrr, I'm geting consused now. Mommy dragon is evil(ressurect her sweet son or bitter revenge? REVENGE!). She's not a plot spinner(she's working almost alone). And I don't see any dragon building an empire in the Oots world. Even the personal oracle of Tiamat is a kobold!

Anyway, my point is that 3.X dragons =/= 4e dragons, so using 4e sources isn't really a valid argument.

Specially when a 4e dragon couldn't even dream of doing what's hapening on the comic right now!

EDIT:

For example, this excerpt from 3.5 Dracomicon:

Bluutsvilvarrt
Wyrm Black Dragon
Bluutsvilvarrt is a sadistic tyrant whose greatest pleasure in
life is inflicting as much suffering as possible on any creature
that dares to enter her sight. Her deepest contempt is
reserved for younger black dragons, including her own offspring.
Several of her brood, including Haldulfvinemmonis
(page 203), nurse centuries-old grudges against her because
of this.
Bluutsvilvarrt loves to inspire terror, stalking intruders
in her swampy domain and allowing them glimpses of her
wing, tail, or eyes before disappearing. When the intruders
are properly terrorized, she separates the members of
the group and toys with each one before dispatching it.
She discontinues these playful tactics if her life is threatened,
shifting to full offensive mode or escaping invisibly
if need be

Notice the "as much suffering as possible" part. Killing is painfull, but killing someone's sons after humiliating them? MUCH more painfull.

Sounds familiar? I do.

Noam

2009-02-07, 12:11 PM

But holding up a bank with crayons and a salad bowl...? That doesn't sound like your holding up a bank.

When you try to rob a bank with crayons and a salad bowl, everyone in the bank can see that you are not a real threat. If you do it with a plastic gun that looks like a real one, you make people think that you are a threat.

LostOne

2009-02-07, 01:30 PM

No, not fear. Innocent kids probably, who have no concept of the danger posed by a dragon. They might assume it is a game and start hitting it or poking it with a stick.

Yes, the children will think it's a game and poke the dragon with a crayon, thus justifying the dragon's actions as self defense. Fan's of V's offspring will then rejoice everywhere since they will realize the dragon has no choice but to eat and soul bind them to survive their onslaught. I don't think so.

Warren Dew

2009-02-07, 02:21 PM

How can you be born evil?

From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n8_v53/ai_19069949:

A female sand tiger shark produces 400 to 500 embryos at a time. While still in the womb, these embryo sharks grow razor-sharp teeth, says marine biologist John Wourms. The embryonic sharks start to eat other embryos. Within a few months, three to four dominant sharks engage in a life-or-death struggle until only one survives. By the time it is born, the sole-surviving shark pup has become an experienced predator.

Perhaps something similar happens inside black dragon eggs.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 02:26 PM

according to Dragon 298, something similar happens in the wombs of drow elves. However, that issue did play up drow into Complete Monster levels- most D&D sourcebooks don't go that far.

Optimystik

2009-02-07, 02:34 PM

And we're back to "Han Shot First" - did the misguided adventurers jump the territorial yet otherwise peaceful dragon? Or did the murderous reptile lash out at the unsuspecting adventuring party?

Due to the timeskip between #181 and #182 we won't really know, but we do know one thing: "BACK INTO THE DARKNESS!!!" followed by retreating isn't much of an aggressive act for supposedly 'bloodthirsty' adventurers to use.

We can argue until the cows come home on morality, but IIRC your claim is incorrect legally. Frex, if you hold up a bank with a plastic gun, you're in deep do do - and a fair target to get shot.

Your logic is flawed - your example assumes that the bank guards don't know the gun is plastic. If the same man walked into that bank with a super soaker or Nerf gun he will not get shot, because his gun is obviously non-threatening.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 02:40 PM

insecure

2009-02-07, 02:46 PM

Those of you who thinks that the parent and children will attack first: Have you taken the black dragon's frightful presence ability into consideration? I don't think V's kids will be able to make the save, but I'm not sure about the other parent.

Noam

2009-02-07, 03:02 PM

From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n8_v53/ai_19069949:

Perhaps something similar happens inside black dragon eggs.

That makes sense. Thanks.

true, being intruders on the territory of an aggressive, intelligent predator doesn't mean they lose the right to defend themselves. still, once the Dragon had been rendered temporarily harmless, the fact that they were intruders does come into play.

How so? Were they supposed to let the black dragon be, because this is his territory? I ask you again: what were they supposed to do?

Optimystik

2009-02-07, 03:07 PM

true, being intruders on the territory of an aggressive, intelligent predator doesn't mean they lose the right to defend themselves. still, once the Dragon had been rendered temporarily harmless, the fact that they were intruders does come into play.

I agree completely; V could have easily had the dragon relay the pertinent information (i.e. "the purple lizard at your feet is Vaarsuvius, please restore him at the soonest possible opportunity") then they could have done one of two things:

1) Taken a look around the dragon's lair while it was charmed, thus possibly finding the starmetal,

2) left the lair immediately with plenty of time to spare on the enchantment.

Instead, V had them all wait for EIGHT HOURS until Durkon could ask Thor for a Dispel, something he could have done just as easily outside of the dragon's domain. So yeah, V is purely to blame.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 03:09 PM

V could have gone: "I suggest you tell me if there is any starmetal"- "I suggest you bring me it" "I suggest you remain in the cave until the spell expires"

Yes, the dragon might have pursued them, but it wouldn't have much reason to- one piece of starmetal lost- not that big a loss from a dragon's point of view, as Mama Dragon points out.

Optimystik

2009-02-07, 03:16 PM

V could have gone: "I suggest you tell me if there is any starmetal"- "I suggest you bring me it" "I suggest you remain in the cave until the spell expires"

That wouldn't be wise; those tasks are completable (except the third) and performing them would free the dragon immediately, with no guarantee of re-enslavement. By contrast, a task like "do nothing except what I ask you to" can never actually be completed, making the spell last for the entire 11+ hour duration. I think that would be plenty of time to search the cave and locate the starmetal even without the dragon's help. And as you mentioned yourself, the dragon would be unlikely to be incensed at their theft.

In fact, V could have asked the dragon to lead them to the starmetal WITHOUT waiting until he was restored to his natural form first. His vanity would simply not permit it.

To conclude: killing the dragon was entirely unnecessary and V deserves everything that's coming to him.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 04:09 PM

I'd say V subscribes to same view as Haley and Belkar: we say "You didn't need to kill him" V would say "True, but I ddn't need to Not kill him either"

In fact, V promised to kill the dragon moments before casting the spell "Nobody eats my friend and lives to see the next sunrise"

V isn't so much "deserving" as "committed a morally dubious act with these events resulting"

Its like Shojo- as Rich said in War & XPs- he brought it on himself- but that doesn't mean he deserves it.

and V's offspring certainly don't.

Shadowbane

2009-02-07, 04:21 PM

CliveStaples

2009-02-07, 08:22 PM

That's really good distinction. I don't feel V deserves this. I'll agree that, oh yeah, he definitely brought it upon himself but deserves it?

Heck no.

His family doesn't deserve it.

But V certainly does, in the ancient Greek tradition of telos and character-as-destiny.

kusje

2009-02-07, 09:31 PM

Starmetal

Wait. What? After finding out that a dragon lives in the cave and owns the starmetal, the order should still try to steal it?

stabbybelkar

2009-02-07, 09:49 PM

The point that i'm seeing missed alot is this: it is a dragon. A creature made in this world to be destroyed and robbed of possesions. If this dragon had never spoken, just went to V's home and devoured the children without explaining the why, (which had to be done only because we needed to know what was going to happen) we would be furious and wish it a swift death. I don't think we should feel sympathy for something that occurs in our own adventures every day: IE killing the creatures that inhabit our worlds. What if every goblin who spinned a sob story about their family was justified in killing adventurers who murdered their loved ones? then we would have an upset balance. Things are this way for a reason, npc's get ignored, nameless soldiers die, and monsters get killed, and we should not disrupt this order because of some mother dragons tale of woe. It is a black dragon, and therefore evil. we should not show it mercy just because it has had a bad experience, for it will not give you any mercy itself.

ladys and gentelmen we have found the real-would incarnation of MIKO MIYAZAKI!!!! Seriously though dude that attitude is exactly what caused the heros to be in this mess in the first place after the saphire gard killed Redcloak's Famaly

Porthos

2009-02-07, 09:51 PM

Wait. What? After finding out that a dragon lives in the cave and owns the starmetal, the order should still try to steal it?

In a word?

Yes.

What flipping difference is there between delving into a deep dank dungeon and slaying the Kuo-Toa/High Drow Priestess/Mind Flayer/Goblin Leader for the <INSERT QUEST ITEM> and slaying a... what is it again?

Oh yes.

Friggin Black Dragon

for a quest item?

Yeah yeah, poor little Anicent Black Dragon. She's got a huge sob story.

Well cry me a river lady. Don't want your son (and hubby) carved up and skinned for adventurers? Then how about trying not to be... Oh what's the phrase I'm looking for?

Oh yes.

How 'bout trying not to be mind-crushingly evil? Who knows? You might not have adventurers trying to carve you up so much. :smallamused:

<<<NOTE: And for the people who might be taking this post a wee bit too seriously.....>>>

I'm being just as serious in my argument as I suspect the OP is being in his.

That is to say, not at all. :smalltongue:

Quorothorn

2009-02-07, 11:18 PM

That is indeed my logic.

And I assumed the dragon to be around 15 years old due to the fact that he made a reference to his mother (face it, which self-respecting adult goes around talking about mommy?) and the fact that his mother seemed to think it was a big leap of faith leaving him alone.

While V's children could be less mature than the dragon, they could easily be as innocent as the dragon.

I don't really think V's children deserve to die, I think they are as deserving of death as little dragon...

...What kind of ridiculous narrow-minded view is that, "what self-respecting adult goes around talking about mommy?" The kind mature enough to know there's no embarrassment in having parents, that's what kind.

That wouldn't be wise; those tasks are completable (except the third) and performing them would free the dragon immediately, with no guarantee of re-enslavement. By contrast, a task like "do nothing except what I ask you to" can never actually be completed, making the spell last for the entire 11+ hour duration. I think that would be plenty of time to search the cave and locate the starmetal even without the dragon's help. And as you mentioned yourself, the dragon would be unlikely to be incensed at their theft.

In fact, V could have asked the dragon to lead them to the starmetal WITHOUT waiting until he was restored to his natural form first. His vanity would simply not permit it.

To conclude: killing the dragon was entirely unnecessary and V deserves everything that's coming to him.

Maybe she does--MAYBE--but his family certainly doesn't.

CliveStaples

2009-02-07, 11:24 PM

ladys and gentelmen we have found the real-would incarnation of MIKO MIYAZAKI!!!! Seriously though dude that attitude is exactly what caused the heros to be in this mess in the first place after the saphire gard killed Redcloak's Famaly

Niburu is apparently discontented that OOTS doesn't make the same standard assumptions as d&d modules do--that goblins are evil, so killing them is okay. Newsflash: this isn't a d&D module. This isn't WoW. It's an actual story about actual people, not a system designed to model combat to entertain you. There's a reason people don't give a sh*t that they play 'terrorists' in CounterStrike, but in reality they would never approve of terrorism.

Optimystik

2009-02-07, 11:34 PM

Wait. What? After finding out that a dragon lives in the cave and owns the starmetal, the order should still try to steal it?

The dragon is not using it and didn't even make it. She just picked it up and dragged it back to her cave. That's not sufficient to give her an unassailable right to it.

Not to mention, as we found out later, she didn't even value the "chunk of metal" very much.

Its like Shojo- as Rich said in War & XPs- he brought it on himself- but that doesn't mean he deserves it.

Shojo didn't deserve it because he was serving a greater good with his deception. V patiently waiting for his spell to expire and then killing the dragon in cold blood was selfish, easily avoidable, and was the only thing they did in that cave that led to the current confrontation.

and V's offspring certainly don't.

On this we are in perfect agreement.

CliveStaples

2009-02-07, 11:50 PM

The dragon is not using it and didn't even make it. She just picked it up and dragged it back to her cave. That's not sufficient to give her an unassailable right to it.

True. But she does have an unassailable right to her dwelling, does she not? Even if someone possesses something that you own, you can't break into their house. It's still a crime.

Not to mention, as we found out later, she didn't even value the "chunk of metal" very much.

"They won't miss it" isn't sufficient justification for taking someone else's possession.

Optimystik

2009-02-07, 11:55 PM

True. But she does have an unassailable right to her dwelling, does she not? Even if someone possesses something that you own, you can't break into their house. It's still a crime.

The last we saw of the Order before they were attacked was an attempt to flee. But even if they charged in full bore, killing the dragon once it was successfully charmed - for 11+ hours, no less - was strictly unnecessary.

"They won't miss it" isn't sufficient justification for taking someone else's possession.

That's the problem; how does finding a chunk of metal in the swamp make it her possession? She may be the biggest and meanest creature in that swamp, but that alone doesn't give her total dominion over everything that ends up inside it.

Noam

2009-02-07, 11:58 PM

Niburu is apparently discontented that OOTS doesn't make the same standard assumptions as d&d modules do--that goblins are evil, so killing them is okay. Newsflash: this isn't a d&D module. This isn't WoW. It's an actual story about actual people, not a system designed to model combat to entertain you. There's a reason people don't give a sh*t that they play 'terrorists' in CounterStrike, but in reality they would never approve of terrorism.

...

Ok. One more time.

Usually evil isn't like always evil. Usually evil means that as many as 49% of the creature can be good. Always evil means that a dragon that isn't evil probably never lived and never will. On the off chance that one did, he wouldn't act like the black dragon the OOTS encountred did.

To conclude: killing the dragon was entirely unnecessary and V deserves everything that's coming to him.

I'm not sure. I mean, yea, the OOTS could've gotten out of the cave with the dragon alive. But it's a black dragon, he wouldn't let some stupid humanoids defeat him and get away with it, would he?
Since the creature they were dealing with is evil by nature, it's not exactly far-fetched to say that he'll come back after the OOTS. What we should ask is was V thinking about that, or just killing the black dragon because he's in the way.

Also, note that V seems to suffer from a case of stupdity at that point - not asking the dragon about the starmetal, seriously? Maybe V was planning to tell the dragon to let them go or something as soon as s/he becomes elf again. Is s/he evil for acting like a moron?

CliveStaples

2009-02-08, 12:00 AM

The last we saw of the Order before they were attacked was an attempt to flee. But even if they charged in full bore, killing the dragon once it was successfully charmed - for 11+ hours, no less - was strictly unnecessary.

I agree. Although that depends on how far the narrative actually is distanced from standard D&D rules about killing things for XP and treasure.

That's the problem; how does finding a chunk of metal in the swamp make it her possession? She may be the biggest and meanest creature in that swamp, but that alone doesn't give her total dominion over everything that ends up inside it.

She has just as equal a claim to it as the adventurers, and perhaps more, since she found it first. Picking it up off the ground from where it fell didn't dispossess anyone of the starmetal, whereas removing it from someone's possession does. The acts are not equivalent; the party needs greater justification for abrogating the dragon's property rights.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 12:06 AM

I agree. Although that depends on how far the narrative actually is distanced from standard D&D rules about killing things for XP and treasure.

Both OtOoPCs and SoD prove that the narrative spits in the eye of standard D&D alignment rules: "It's not okay to kill it just because of a monster manual entry" seems to be an overarching theme for the comic.

She has just as equal a claim to it as the adventurers, and perhaps more, since she found it first. Picking it up off the ground from where it fell didn't dispossess anyone of the starmetal, whereas removing it from someone's possession does. The acts are not equivalent; the party needs greater justification for abrogating the dragon's property rights.

Fair enough. But had V simply asked the younger dragon to lead him to the starmetal so they could take it, V would be unlikely to be in his current predicament; he is therefore still to blame for what has befallen him.

kusje

2009-02-08, 12:06 AM

That's the problem; how does finding a chunk of metal in the swamp make it her possession? She may be the biggest and meanest creature in that swamp, but that alone doesn't give her total dominion over everything that ends up inside it.

Absent any legitimate owner, most people will defer to the finders keepers rule. :smallbiggrin:

Not to mention, as we found out later, she didn't even value the "chunk of metal" very much.

That's not the idea I got. I got the idea that she was trying to tell V that her son was way more important than the starmetal. She clearly thought it was important enough to be in a room all by itself in the cave.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 12:10 AM

I'm not sure. I mean, yea, the OOTS could've gotten out of the cave with the dragon alive. But it's a black dragon, he wouldn't let some stupid humanoids defeat him and get away with it, would he?
Since the creature they were dealing with is evil by nature, it's not exactly far-fetched to say that he'll come back after the OOTS. What we should ask is was V thinking about that, or just killing the black dragon because he's in the way.

Whether he was thinking that or not doesn't make his actions any more moral. To paraphrase Elan "Hey, we should totally go around killing people! As long as it makes our lives easier, why worry?"

Also, note that V seems to suffer from a case of stupdity at that point - not asking the dragon about the starmetal, seriously? Maybe V was planning to tell the dragon to let them go or something as soon as s/he becomes elf again. Is s/he evil for acting like a moron?

Actually, the thought to ask the dragon did occur to him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html), he simply waited until after he had tranced and recovered his spells for that day to try it - by which time it failed because he was no longer a lizard. Had he been less selfish (forcing the party to sit and wait until Durkon could pray for a Dispel), the thought might have occurred to him sooner, if it didn't already.

CliveStaples

2009-02-08, 12:10 AM

Both OtOoPCs and SoD prove that the narrative spits in the eye of standard D&D alignment rules: "It's not okay to kill it just because of a monster manual entry" seems to be an overarching theme for the comic.

I think recent developments are challenging that theme. The Giant has never been explicit about exactly how 'real' the story and characters are. There's obviously some homage paid to D&D, even in plot elements, but I think it's mistaken to think that it's simply a D&D module told in comic panels.

Fair enough. But had V simply asked the younger dragon to lead him to the starmetal so they could take it, V would be unlikely to be in his current predicament; he is therefore still to blame for what has befallen him.

I partially agree. V deserves to be punished for his conduct, but the dragon has all the blame for targeting his family. Presumably, they did nothing wrong; they're just innocent bystanders. If the dragon had killed V, it would be justified. Killing V's family is a different kettle of fish.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 12:16 AM

I think recent developments are challenging that theme. The Giant has never been explicit about exactly how 'real' the story and characters are. There's obviously some homage paid to D&D, even in plot elements, but I think it's mistaken to think that it's simply a D&D module told in comic panels.

I just explained it WASN'T "simply a D&D module." D&D has no issues with several of the plot points in the strip, but Rich is illustrating that his comic doesn't take such a black and white view of morality. Both Redcloak's and Roy's backstories indicate that strongly.

I partially agree. V deserves to be punished for his conduct, but the dragon has all the blame for targeting his family. Presumably, they did nothing wrong; they're just innocent bystanders. If the dragon had killed V, it would be justified. Killing V's family is a different kettle of fish.

Oh I agree, V's family should never have entered into the equation at all. I meant that V deserves to be targeted and humiliated by a creature with a challenge rating he can't hope to match.

Absent any legitimate owner, most people will defer to the finders keepers rule. :smallbiggrin:

That's not the idea I got. I got the idea that she was trying to tell V that her son was way more important than the starmetal. She clearly thought it was important enough to be in a room all by itself in the cave.

Oh don't get me wrong, had they simply stolen the starmetal either dragon may have still been (rightfully) incensed... but mad enough to track down V's family and bring them into it is another issue entirely.

Noam

2009-02-08, 06:08 AM

Actually, the thought to ask the dragon did occur to him, he simply waited until after he had tranced and recovered his spells for that day to try it - by which time it failed because he was no longer a lizard. Had he been less selfish (forcing the party to sit and wait until Durkon could pray for a Dispel), the thought might have occurred to him sooner, if it didn't already.

We don't really know why V acted the way s/he did. It was stupid, sure, but was it evil? You say V was selfish - how so? Why did V wait for Durkon to preapre his dispel magic spell? I can't see a good reason for acting the way V did other than stupdity (which is odd, as V is supposed to be smart).

Whether he was thinking that or not doesn't make his actions any more moral. To paraphrase Elan "Hey, we should totally go around killing people! As long as it makes our lives easier, why worry?"

But black dragons are not people. You keep bringing up goblins and orcs, and I keep saying that it's not the same - you seem to ignore that. I will say it, again.

Usually evil isn't like always evil. Usually evil means that as many as 49% of the creature can be good. Always evil means that a dragon that isn't evil probably never lived and never will. On the off chance that one did, he wouldn't act like the black dragon the OOTS encountred did.

Prak

2009-02-08, 06:24 AM

I'm not saying that they have a chance; just that they try to attack the ABD. Probably with crayons and a frying pan....

what if the kids endear themselves to the dragon and she can't bring herself to kill them? That'd be interesting... she could even still get revenge... raise the kids (some nice PrCs there...) against their parent, and in a hundred years, have them kill V.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 06:46 AM

So, the pitiful attacks by the rest of the Oots against the young dragon don't count?

No.

2CR1 character vs 4CR14 character vs 1CR22 character.

The group of CR14 has a chance. As could be seen by the fact that THEY WON.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 06:48 AM

Oh don't get me wrong, had they simply stolen the starmetal either dragon may have still been (rightfully) incensed... but mad enough to track down V's family and bring them into it is another issue entirely.

Do you have anything that would make that situation untenable?

CE dragon. Loses part of Hoard? See what Smaug does when he loses the least of his treasure.

David Argall

2009-02-08, 01:22 PM

True. But she does have an unassailable right to her dwelling, does she not? Even if someone possesses something that you own, you can't break into their house. It's still a crime.
It is not a crime to go thru an open door. Break in means just that, you break something to get in. You can also be charged if you use some unorthodox way to get in where your criminal intent is clear, even if you don't break anything, but using an unmarked passage is simply not breaking and entering.
The party did not break and enter. They can be ordered to leave, but not charged.

had V simply asked the younger dragon to lead him to the starmetal so they could take it, V would be unlikely to be in his current predicament; he is therefore still to blame for what has befallen him.

This assumes that the current situation was a predictable consequence of the previous actions. I rather doubt anybody predicted it until we saw Ma. By contrast, we can rather easily see the chance that junior would hunt the party down, if they fled [and they are under no duty to flee]. So V is not at fault for failing to foresee the unforeseeable any more than you would be if you pointed out that lotteries are a ripoff and persuaded your pal not to buy what turns out to be the winning ticket.

Silverraptor

2009-02-08, 01:30 PM

Question

What is the laws of the swamp? Is it a society with rules to govern them? Because if it isn't, the Order of the Stick really can't be held responsible for taking the starmetal.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 01:32 PM

Noam

2009-02-08, 01:46 PM

"they are under no duty to flee" Why? They trespassed. Once the dragon had been rendered harmless, the issue of them being the ones in the creature's territory comes into play.

By contrast, in the case of Xykon- Xykon stole the dungeon (and killed the owner) they weren't trespassors there.

You again claim that because they entered an unmarked cave they are for some reason criminals. The fact that it was the dragon's territory matters little - it attacked them, with an intent to kill. He can't hurt them now, but are you claiming (again) that they were just supposed to let him be? You keep talking about laws and respect to other property territory, but do you think the black dragon gave a crap about any of those things? If he did, he wouldn't attack the OOTS without talking, he would've considered marking his cave and I doubt he would've got such a huge hoard.

If you do claim that the OOTS were to go away and leave the dragon, I have this to say:
-He is a black dragon. Yes, that matters.
-He attempted to kill them. No, no it wasn't just protecting his (unmarked) home.
-He cannot be brought to justice in any other way. When was the last time you heard of a black dragon standing for trial? I kept saying again and again, it is hard to get him anywhere, the crimes he commited were in a place where it's technically legal, it's impossible to contain him.

Kish

2009-02-08, 01:47 PM

Question

What is the laws of the swamp? Is it a society with rules to govern them? Because if it isn't, the Order of the Stick really can't be held responsible for taking the starmetal.
Xykon would appreciate that concept of "good," I'm sure. "Not against the laws of the society"=/="Not wrong."

Silverraptor

2009-02-08, 01:47 PM

"they are under no duty to flee" Why? They trespassed. Once the dragon had been rendered harmless, the issue of them being the ones in the creature's territory comes into play.

However, remember V told the dragon to eat all who leaves so that they could break the bale polymorph spell.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 01:49 PM

But black dragons are not people. You keep bringing up goblins and orcs, and I keep saying that it's not the same - you seem to ignore that. I will say it, again.

Ah, but you are missing MY point. Is it right to kill intelligent creatures just because a monster manual entry says it's okay? It can say usually, always, only on sundays, during a full moon, whatever it wants, but the answer is that that kind of thinking is both senseless and dangerous. V's current predicament is a pile of karma being delivered quite literally to his doorstep.

You say black dragons are not people. Nothing contradicts you more squarely than the comic itself. The BDM is petty, she's spiteful, utterly malevolent and highly calculating - in other words, completely human, scales or no scales. We could swap her out with a powerful human sorceress and her emotions would be just as believable. The moral is simple: Don't kill things unless you have a damn good reason to do it. You never know what will happen. Even in a world with a revolving door afterlife, death can still be just as irrevocable.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 01:51 PM

which is why all the blame falls of V for consquences of their Not Fleeing.

Noam

2009-02-08, 02:06 PM

Ah, but you are missing MY point. Is it right to kill intelligent creatures just because a monster manual entry says it's okay? It can say usually, always, only on sundays, during a full moon, whatever it wants, but the answer is that that kind of thinking is both senseless and dangerous. V's current predicament is a pile of karma being delivered quite literally to his doorstep.

Look, usually and always are not the same, and you need to stop ignoring that. Yes, it is fine to kill intelligent creatures if every story you ever heard, every creature of that type you ever saw and the gods themselves tell you it is right. Is killing demons, incarnations of evil itself, wrong? You are going to bring up the point that the gods are basterds, I am sure. So just so you know:

-Few people know that. "They shouldn't blindly trust their gods," then. But really, if you can't trust your gods, who can you?
-Dragons have a god. If dragons weren't evil and were just labled like that by the other gods, Timat would've done something about it. The goblins only got a god later on, and we get an explanation as to why he couldn't help them on that matter.

You say black dragons are not people. Nothing contradicts you more squarely than the comic itself. The BDM is petty, she's spiteful, utterly malevolent and highly calculating - in other words, completely human, scales or no scales. We could swap her out with a powerful human sorceress and her emotions would be just as believable. The moral is simple: Don't kill things unless you have a damn good reason to do it. You never know what will happen. Even in a world with a revolving door afterlife, death can still be just as irrevocable.

Just because the dragon has feeling doesn't make it human. Sure, it is sad. That's not enough to make it human! Even the most horrible of people can love and hate, so what? You talk about those things because you have a perspective of someone in our world, where morality isn't like that. But that's not how it works in their world. In the D&D world, the scales of a dragon are enough of a reason to kill him. You don't like it? Good, neither do I. But that's the reality of the D&D world.

Not to mention that the dragon wasn't killed just for being a dragon, but rather for trying to kill them.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 02:12 PM

Given the number of times the Order have spared people who were "trying to kill them" and failed, there is a bit of a double standard.

Noam

2009-02-08, 02:23 PM

Given the number of times the Order have spared people who were "trying to kill them" and failed, there is a bit of a double standard.

In all those cases, they had the option of handing those who attacked them to the authorities. In the dragon's case, they didn't.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 02:25 PM

Except, according to Roy, the bandits.

Noam

2009-02-08, 02:29 PM

Except, according to Roy, the bandits.

I said somewhere else - leaving the bandits like that was a horrible thing. There were two options:
1) Someone would've freed them, and they would've probably hurt him.
2) They would've starved to death.

In case you are talking about the whole group and not Samantha and her father, they did what they did because of Samantha. They disliked her and weren't really evil. They couldn't turn them in to the authorities in that case too, but since they weren't evil they decided to let them go.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 02:29 PM

Look, usually and always are not the same, and you need to stop ignoring that. Yes, it is fine to kill intelligent creatures if every story you ever heard, every creature of that type you ever saw and the gods themselves tell you it is right. Is killing demons, incarnations of evil itself, wrong? You are going to bring up the point that the gods are basterds, I am sure. So just so you know:

I'm not ignoring anything. Why you bring up demons is a mystery to me: demons are very different from dragons. Like undead, demons' mere presence on the material plane corrupts the area around them over time. Removing them immediately and by force is therefore just and righteous. But if dragons, even chromatic dragons, are not posing an immediate threat to innocents nearby - say, if they are minding their own business in an empty swamp - then immediately resorting to killing is excessive force and unjustified.

Now once it attacked the Order, they were free to use any force necessary to protect their lives. But after it was charmed, no force was necessary. Killing it at that point was like killing a child.

-Few people know that. "They shouldn't blindly trust their gods," then. But really, if you can't trust your gods, who can you?

Which deity's dogma says to go out and indiscriminately slay dragons? Demons, yes. Undead, yes. Find me the good deity that hates dragons. Even Bahamut encourages behind the scenes activity from his clergy, not overt and preemptive violence.

-Dragons have a god. If dragons weren't evil and were just labled like that by the other gods, Timat would've done something about it. The goblins only got a god later on, and we get an explanation as to why he couldn't help them on that matter.

SHE DID! She gave them an Oracle that could pinpoint their murderers and their families with zero chance of error! If that's not divine intervention, how would you define it?

Just because the dragon has feeling doesn't make it human. Sure, it is sad. That's not enough to make it human! Even the most horrible of people can love and hate, so what? You talk about those things because you have a perspective of someone in our world, where morality isn't like that. But that's not how it works in their world. In the D&D world, the scales of a dragon are enough of a reason to kill him. You don't like it? Good, neither do I. But that's the reality of the D&D world.

For someone who cites the "D&D world" as much as you do, you know precious little about it. From Book of Exalted Deeds: "Violence against evil is only acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." "The mere existence of evil creatures is not a just cause for war against them, if they have been causing no harm." It encourages the destruction and banishment of both demons and undead, yes, but neither of those are dragons.

Not to mention that the dragon wasn't killed just for being a dragon, but rather for trying to kill them.

This is blatantly untrue. The dragon had stopped trying to kill them a full 11-14 hours before V landed the killing blow. Hardly the most compelling case for self-defense.

Your only connection between demons and chromatics is that they both say "Always XXX Evil" in their entries. That by itself isn't enough, even in D&D.

Noam

2009-02-08, 02:39 PM

For someone who cites the "D&D world" as much as you do, you know precious little about it. From Book of Exalted Deeds: "Violence against evil is only acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." "The mere existence of evil creatures is not a just cause for war against them, if they have been causing no harm." It encourages the destruction and banishment of both demons and undead, yes, but neither of those are dragons. .

V did act to stop evil acts. V knew the dragon was going to try and kill the OOTS once it's free. Why didn't V use h** power over the dragon in all the time s/he had? I don't know, and neither do you. V acted in an extremely stupid way, but it doesn't make h** evil.

Which deity's dogma says to go out and indiscriminately slay dragons? Demons, yes. Undead, yes. Find me the good deity that hates dragons. Even Bahamut encourages behind the scenes activity from his clergy, not overt and preemptive violence.

I can't bring you good deities that hate dragons because we don't know the OOTS deities. I was talking about good and evil here: dragons are always evil, and since the gods are the ones who decide what is good or evil, the gods declare that dragons are always evil.

Your only connection between demons and chromatics is that they both say "Always XXX Evil" in their entries. That by itself isn't enough, even in D&D.

That's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that the fact that it's 'Always Evil' and the fact that it attacked the party was enough of a reason to kill it.

Kish

2009-02-08, 02:41 PM

Look, usually and always are not the same, and you need to stop ignoring that.
The core of the argument, when it isn't people on either side fighting strawmen, seems to be,
One side: Always X Evil, in D&D, is sufficiently close to "always-in-the-literal-real-world-sense, irredeemably, monstrous and nothing else" to make it okay to kill creatures with that classification.
The other side: The Always X Evil classification, in D&D, does not constitute justification to kill any intelligent creature by itself.

I'm posting this because you seem to have reached a point of thinking that reiterating your (first side) viewpoint enough will overwhelm all the second side people with your rightness. It won't. I find that viewpoint every bit as incomprehensible and distasteful as you seem to find the opposing one. I will note, however, that morality aside (as we seem extremely unlikely to ever agree on the morality of the situation), it's very clear that Vaarsuvius has practical reasons to wish s/he hadn't killed the young dragon.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 02:43 PM

attempted crime. Not successful crime.

Gven the deities supposedly created all the monsters in the first place (SOD), the idea that they think its never evil to kill the monsters may be a bit of a stretch- especially since, unlike the Dark One, Tiamat, Queen of Chromatic Dragons, is a member of the Western pantheon, and protector of dragons and dragonkind (including kobolds).

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 02:46 PM

in D&D, there are places where even killing a fiend or undead may constitute murder- Sigil, City of Doors, where creatures of all alignments are welcome and expected to behave around each other, and archons argue with devils on street corners.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 03:02 PM

V did act to stop evil acts. V knew the dragon was going to try and kill the OOTS once it's free. Why didn't V use h** power over the dragon in all the time s/he had? I don't know, and neither do you. V acted in an extremely stupid way, but it doesn't make h** evil.

V created that situation himself. "Kill any of my companions that try to leave" is extremely morally dubious, and directly led to them all being imperiled by the charm breaking hours later. Furthermore, it was a calculated act to make sure the party did nothing else until he was restored to his natural form - an act of surpassing vanity on Vaarsuvius' part.

I can't bring you good deities that hate dragons because we don't know the OOTS deities. I was talking about good and evil here: dragons are always evil, and since the gods are the ones who decide what is good or evil, the gods declare that dragons are always evil.

Which provides you with a good reason not to talk to or associate with them, but not a reason to hunt them down when they haven't done anything wrong. If either dragon was raiding the countryside, killing peasants etc. then I would see the need to attack. Even having stumbled upon the dragon, they removed their justification for killing it by successfully charming it for such a large length of time.

That's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that the fact that it's 'Always Evil' and the fact that it attacked the party was enough of a reason to kill it.

It would be if they hadn't neutralized it during the fight - but they did. BoED is clear: "Once an enemy is dominated, charmed or compelled, it should never be killed, but treated the same as a prisoner that had willingly surrendered." As I said above, the only reason the party was in danger of the charm breaking was V's insistence that they sit there and wait for so long. This entire situation is purely his doing.

fangthane

2009-02-08, 03:10 PM

I just wanted to go on record with this... If it were my dragon, it wouldn't be eating V's family. It'd be off somewhere else running errands with arcane sensors all around the cottage, always ready (thanks to the Sorc's advantage over wizards) to teleport in, antimagic and/or use other high-level magic*. Even a failed Disintegrate save is, at its age, unlikely to kill it even if it's wounded; the dragon is (according to Qarr, who admittedly could be mistaken) ancient which puts its HP bonus above the max 180 that can be rolled on 30d6 (assuming V is 15th level) - and unless it rolls an ace on the save, it pretty much can't fail.

*It's my contention that it wants to prolong its torture of the fragile monkey. Teleporting in to beat V down so he can watch it eating? That's a win.

Warren Dew

2009-02-08, 03:29 PM

The core of the argument, when it isn't people on either side fighting strawmen, seems to be,
One side: Always X Evil, in D&D, is sufficiently close to "always-in-the-literal-real-world-sense, irredeemably, monstrous and nothing else" to make it okay to kill creatures with that classification.

Actually, that's still a strawman. In both the post you are responding to and the post immediately above yours, Noam makes clear that this is only part of the picture. Read the phrase after the second bolded word in his post immediately before yours for the rest of the picture.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 04:10 PM

attempted crime. Not successful crime.

Attempted murder can see you in jail longer than actual murder.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 04:11 PM

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 05:20 PM

Actually, that's still a strawman. In both the post you are responding to and the post immediately above yours, Noam makes clear that this is only part of the picture. Read the phrase after the second bolded word in his post immediately before yours for the rest of the picture.

And if you had read my posts, you would see that I addressed both parts of his argument.

1) Okay to kill because of "always evil" tag? Refuted by BoED.
2) Okay to kill in self defense? Negated by 11+ hour Suggestion.

Therefore killing the dragon is unjustified and excessive.

Lunawarrior0

2009-02-08, 05:36 PM

the 11+ hours of suggestion didn't make the dragon any less of a threat, thanks to the way that V phrased the suggestion. The dragon was about to attack the group when V was turned back into elf form. thus they had little choice but to kill it. if V had done something different with the suggestion spell then they might have been able to get away with not killing it, but that is stupidity, not evilness.

While the dragon may have been charmed when they attacked it, it had 1 round left on the charm when V attacked it, this is less the equivalent of someone who has surrendered and is going peacefully, more the equivalent of someone who has surrendered, and is currently running towards your weapons stash. The first is not OK to attack, the second on the other hand really is. because the instant that the spell wore off, the dragon would have attacked.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 05:39 PM

And if you had read my posts, you would see that I addressed both parts of his argument.

1) Okay to kill because of "always evil" tag? Refuted by BoED.
2) Okay to kill in self defense? Negated by 11+ hour Suggestion.

Therefore killing the dragon is unjustified and excessive.

BoED is not extant in this (or most other D&D related) universes.

End of 11+hour suggestion negates the actuality of the Suggestion.

What could V have done? "Go away nasty dragon"? Remember, it has to be something at least appropriate to the dragon's tendency to act upon. It's not Dominate. It's Suggestion.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 05:48 PM

BoED is not extant in this (or most other D&D related) universes.

Prove it. Not only does BoVD, its counterpart, make an explicit appearance in #431, but Soon's Ghost Martyrs are taken straight from BoED's pages. The available evidence points my way.

End of 11+hour suggestion negates the actuality of the Suggestion.

It ended because of Vaarsuvius' insistence that the party sit passively in a room with a black dragon until his form was restored. It is his fault.

What could V have done? "Go away nasty dragon"? Remember, it has to be something at least appropriate to the dragon's tendency to act upon. It's not Dominate. It's Suggestion.

"Take no actions except those I order you to" would arguably be against any dragon's tendencies, yet it worked. And he wouldn't have to ask the dragon to go away, either. "Do not move from this spot," "Wait in the corner until long after we are gone," and "Show me where the starmetal is" would all be reasonable actions for a dragon to carry out.

Kish

2009-02-08, 05:48 PM

What could V have done? "Go away nasty dragon"?
"Do not pursue us." And then Vaarsuvius and the rest of the Order leave, immediately. Hell, that would actually fall within believable tolerances for a Suggestion spell, which the things Vaarsuvius does with it instead--"Obey me implicitly and do nothing but what I tell you to do" "Vomit" "Stand around for hours doing nothing"--manifestly do not.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 05:54 PM

"Do not pursue us." And then Vaarsuvius and the rest of the Order leave, immediately. Hell, that would actually fall within believable tolerances for a Suggestion spell, which the things Vaarsuvius does with it instead--"Obey me implicitly and do nothing but what I tell you to do" "Vomit" "Stand around for hours doing nothing"--manifestly do not.

{Scrubbed}

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 05:59 PM

Prove it. Not only does BoVD, its counterpart, make an explicit appearance in #431, but Soon's Ghost Martyrs are taken straight from BoED's pages. The available evidence points my way.

Because it isnt canon.

And since it is HUGELY inconsistent internally, you cannot take ALL of it. It would never work.

So it's all DM fiat.

Now, YOU prove that your assertion that V's actions are considered evil by Rich. So far every time V's been "about to show he's evil" he's proven himself still moral.

Every.
Time.

Quarr? Dissed out of hand. Quarr attempt 2. Disssed out of hand and attacked for not getting the hell out of there.

Doesn't look like he's Evil, does it.

So where is your proof that V is evil? You can't use BoVD because according to that, all the AC guard are fallen and V would have said "yes" to quarr if he was evil already.

EDIT

Oh, and does the existence of THE BOOK as a real item mean that it is actually a rule? Or is it just a source of monsters that can be created that are

a) like a lich
b) hard

?

Seems to me, the book was being used as a source for new monsters. Rather like Chlorine elemental. No such monster, but knowing Our World physics and chemistry enables one to be created.

Book could and seems to be used merely for that (See the context the book turned up in: creating the undead).

No proof and some disproof that it has any rule binding in this universe.

Except as comic inclusion.

Optimystik

2009-02-08, 06:07 PM

Because it isnt canon.

No, it's non-core. That isn't the same thing. Non-core elements have not only been included in the story, they've actively driven the plot. (E.g. Tsukiko's electric orb resulting in summoning Celia.)

And since it is HUGELY inconsistent internally, you cannot take ALL of it. It would never work.

So it's all DM fiat.

Whether he cherry picks the parts he likes or blanket-includes it isn't my problem. The door to its use has been opened.

Now, YOU prove that your assertion that V's actions are considered evil by Rich. So far every time V's been "about to show he's evil" he's proven himself still moral.

Every.
Time.

You have very odd ideas of morality if you can call V "moral", but it's all moot. I said V deserved what was coming to him because of what he did to the dragon. How you extrapolated my judgment of that single act into a review of V's entire alignment is beyond me.

He may be immoral (Evil) or amoral (Neutral), but moral? Very odd indeed.

Quarr? Dissed out of hand. Quarr attempt 2. Disssed out of hand and attacked for not getting the hell out of there.

Doesn't look like he's Evil, does it.

The only relevance his struggle with Qarr has on his current predicament is that it made him burn his high-level spells. I really don't see how else Qarr comes into this.

So where is your proof that V is evil? You can't use BoVD because according to that, all the AC guard are fallen and V would have said "yes" to quarr if he was evil already.

Again, I said nothing about V "being evil." You're trying to put words in my mouth and failing badly. I'm judging one lone action that led to his current situation.

Kish

2009-02-08, 06:47 PM

Mum left him in charge. Didn't leave him to eat things.

And five rounds later, when the party is laden with loot,

Who said anything about loot?

Junior is no longer suggested to leave and will catch and eat them.

Yeah, solid battle plan.

...or battle plans, for that matter?

If you can't be civil despite the moderators editing one of your posts and warning you to, at least keep track of what questions you're getting answered.

Noam

2009-02-09, 12:15 AM

It would be if they hadn't neutralized it during the fight - but they did. BoED is clear: "Once an enemy is dominated, charmed or compelled, it should never be killed, but treated the same as a prisoner that had willingly surrendered." As I said above, the only reason the party was in danger of the charm breaking was V's insistence that they sit there and wait for so long. This entire situation is purely his doing.

I agree that it was V's fault. What we seem to disagree on is why V acted the way s/he did. I can see no reason other than stupdity to act as s/he did. So, does stupdity make you evil?

Also, about letting the dragon go: let's say you fight a bandit and manage to tie him up. Assuming you, for some reason, can't get him to any court. Do you kill him, free him and let him go back to killing people and taking their stuff, what?

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 01:10 AM

I agree that it was V's fault. What we seem to disagree on is why V acted the way s/he did. I can see no reason other than stupdity to act as s/he did. So, does stupdity make you evil?

For the last time, I'm not calling V evil. Stop saying that. One morally dubious act does not an alignment make. I believe (and have said this in numerous threads) that V is TN.

Now, you claim V acted stupidly; yet the only truly stupid thing V did down there was not ask the dragon where to find the starmetal while he was still a lizard. Everything else, from holding the party hostage with the charmed dragon, to researching the spells and later vaporizing said dragon, was calculated, thought out, and morally questionable.

Also, about letting the dragon go: let's say you fight a bandit and manage to tie him up. Assuming you, for some reason, can't get him to any court. Do you kill him, free him and let him go back to killing people and taking their stuff, what?

Killing what people? What stuff? He was sitting in a cave, minding his own business, then he attacked intruders! And those intruders completely neutralized him for over 11 hours! You're telling me that had they left as soon as it was charmed, that it would resume its attack? What exactly would it be attacking when they have half a day's lead?

Your analogies make no sense to me. If a bandit is sitting in a cave and very pointedly NOT robbing or trying to kill anyone, in what way is he a bandit? Why would you need to drag him to any court when you are the one trespassing on HIS home? Ugh!

David Argall

2009-02-09, 03:25 AM

"they are under no duty to flee" Why? They trespassed. Once the dragon had been rendered harmless, the issue of them being the ones in the creature's territory comes into play.
Immediately, because the dragon had not asked them to leave. In fact, he seems to be trying to prevent them from leaving.
Once outside the cave, the dragon's claim to any territory is based only on its ability to kill any in it. Accordingly, the dragon has no ethical right to demand they leave the general area.

By contrast, in the case of Xykon- Xykon stole the dungeon (and killed the owner) they weren't trespassors there.
The distinction is artificial. Xykon was behaving as was the dragon. The claim in both cases is based on sheer power.

Ah, but you are missing MY point. Is it right to kill intelligent creatures just because a monster manual entry says it's okay?
Pretty close. No creature can have mercy extended to it an infinite number of times. Eventually, it simply is not worth it. Effectively our evil creature has already had mercy extended a good number of times, and so it is a relatively small number of times before we say "enough is enough."

V's current predicament is a pile of karma being delivered quite literally to his doorstep.
It is to be noted that sparing the Linear Guild is delivering the same type of "karma". V has no good reason to think the universe is trying to get back at him here for his "sin". Her problem is that he is a protagonist, and that means "interesting" things happen to her whether she does good or evil.
By any objective measure, V did the right thing if he wanted to avoid later problems.

Soon's Ghost Martyrs are taken straight from BoED's pages.
Definitely incorrect. As Redcloak tells us, they are a homebrew.

"Do not pursue us." And then Vaarsuvius and the rest of the Order leave, immediately.
What is this nonsense idea of the party running away? We are talking about the heros. They stand and fight. [Granted, ours run a fair amount, but that is due to the rule of funny, not to ethics.] The heros have a perfect right to be, if not in the cave itself, at least in the grounds near it. And they have a right to defend themselves, which includes doing so in advance of any attacks.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 05:42 AM

And they have a right to defend themselves, which includes doing so in advance of any attacks.

Also just occurred to me that when it came to Junior trying to snack on them, ***he*** was allowed to go first merely because they were adventurers and *everyone* knows they kill dragons...

An attack in defense in advance of the adventurer attacks.

Double standards, eh.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 05:45 AM

And those intruders completely neutralized him for over 11 hours!

And so what V "should" have done is remember Suggestion as his only spell for the forseeable future, firing them off in the hope that one catches before anyone is killed and then telling junior to get lost again.

Yup, tactically superior mind at work there...

Noam

2009-02-09, 05:59 AM

For the last time, I'm not calling V evil. Stop saying that. One morally dubious act does not an alignment make. I believe (and have said this in numerous threads) that V is TN.

Ok, sorry for that. I meant to ask if you think that the action that V did was evil because s/he acted stupidly.

Now, you claim V acted stupidly; yet the only truly stupid thing V did down there was not ask the dragon where to find the starmetal while he was still a lizard. Everything else, from holding the party hostage with the charmed dragon, to researching the spells and later vaporizing said dragon, was calculated, thought out, and morally questionable.

Based on what? What makes you think V was planning to kill the dragon all along? And what did the holding of the party hostage or the death of the dragon gave V? Nothing at all. So I still mantain that V was acting like a moron, unless you give me a good reason as to why V did what s/he did.

Killing what people? What stuff? He was sitting in a cave, minding his own business, then he attacked intruders! And those intruders completely neutralized him for over 11 hours! You're telling me that had they left as soon as it was charmed, that it would resume its attack? What exactly would it be attacking when they have half a day's lead?

Your analogies make no sense to me. If a bandit is sitting in a cave and very pointedly NOT robbing or trying to kill anyone, in what way is he a bandit? Why would you need to drag him to any court when you are the one trespassing on HIS home? Ugh!

You keep saying that they were trespassing. They entered an unmarked cave and it seems they were escaping when they saw the dragon. The dragon attacked, no questions asked. What about the next "intruders" who wander into his unmarked cave? If you want people to stay out of your house, you should make clear that it's your house. Otherwise, you have no right to attack people on sight.

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 09:40 AM

Pretty close. No creature can have mercy extended to it an infinite number of times. Eventually, it simply is not worth it. Effectively our evil creature has already had mercy extended a good number of times, and so it is a relatively small number of times before we say "enough is enough."

What mercy? It was charmed and then summarily executed. The only reason V didn't kill it sooner was because his spell slots were full of feather falls and suggestions.

It is to be noted that sparing the Linear Guild is delivering the same type of "karma". V has no good reason to think the universe is trying to get back at him here for his "sin". Her problem is that he is a protagonist, and that means "interesting" things happen to her whether she does good or evil.
By any objective measure, V did the right thing if he wanted to avoid later problems.

The comic clearly disagrees with you. For example, During Roy's review, his Deva mentioned repeatedly how Evil Belkar was. Yet when Roy asked her if he should have cut Belkar's throat, she balked. The lesson is that simply slaying evildoers out of hand when the opportunity arises is not an acceptable solution.

Definitely incorrect. As Redcloak tells us, they are a homebrew.

All homebrews are based on an existing creature. Do you think he based them on spectres and wraiths?

Ok, sorry for that. I meant to ask if you think that the action that V did was evil because s/he acted stupidly.

As I said before, I am separating V's Evil act from his stupidity.
Not questioning the dragon about starmetal: Stupid.
Threatening the party with violence if they try to leave: Certainly not Good.
Killing an intelligent being while charmed and helpless: Evil.

Based on what? What makes you think V was planning to kill the dragon all along? And what did the holding of the party hostage or the death of the dragon gave V? Nothing at all. So I still mantain that V was acting like a moron, unless you give me a good reason as to why V did what s/he did.

He spent 8 hours replacing his memorized Suggestion and Feather Fall spells with Disintegrations. His attack was provably premeditated.

As for what holding the party hostage gave V, it prevented them from progressing further until they had acquiesced to V's wishes. Vanity.

You keep saying that they were trespassing. They entered an unmarked cave and it seems they were escaping when they saw the dragon. The dragon attacked, no questions asked. What about the next "intruders" who wander into his unmarked cave? If you want people to stay out of your house, you should make clear that it's your house. Otherwise, you have no right to attack people on sight.

Oh my yes, what could possibly be living out in a dank cave in the middle of a swamp? Something friendly, I hope.

Perhaps our party is so lacking in common sense as to need a porch and welcome mat to realize caves may be inhabited by unsavory creatures, but they would definitely be in the minority even so. In other words, the wise presumption is that a dank cave is occupied, and usually by something that doesn't entertain visitors.

Besides, I have no problem with the party defending themselves, as I've pointed out repeatedly. But once you disable your attacker, particularly for such a staggering length of time, both accidental discovery AND self defense cease to apply.

Noam

2009-02-09, 09:57 AM

As I said before, I am separating V's Evil act from his stupidity.
Not questioning the dragon about starmetal: Stupid.
Threatening the party with violence if they try to leave: Certainly not Good.
Killing an intelligent being while charmed and helpless: Evil.

I agree that the whole "I will kill you if you leave" part wasn't good. V could've been bluffing, though we have no reason to believe that. About killing an intelligent being while charmed and helpless - see bottom of this post.

He spent 8 hours replacing his memorized Suggestion and Feather Fall spells with Disintegrations. His attack was provably premeditated.

You have a point.

As for what holding the party hostage gave V, it prevented them from progressing further until they had acquiesced to V's wishes. Vanity.

V didn't have to keep all of them. Nothing stopped V from making only Durkon stay and send the rest of the party searching. The party wouldn't leave without Durkon, and Durkon was the one that could grant V's wish.

Oh my yes, what could possibly be living out in a dank cave in the middle of a swamp? Something friendly, I hope.

Perhaps our party is so lacking in common sense as to need a porch and welcome mat to realize caves may be inhabited by unsavory creatures, but they would definitely be in the minority even so. In other words, the wise presumption is that a dank cave is occupied, and usually by something that doesn't entertain visitors.

What? Are you freaking kidding me?
The party was supposed to know that there is something in a cave that wants to kill them. Seriously? So it's all the OOTS fault that they entered the guys home? If someone is living inside a cave in a swamp, yes, it's probably isn't friendly. Why on earth would the party think there's someone living inside the cave? Even if you say that they were supposed to know all this, what are you saying? They are too stupid to live?

Besides, I have no problem with the party defending themselves, as I've pointed out repeatedly. But once you disable your attacker, particularly for such a staggering length of time, both accidental discovery AND self defense cease to apply.

Let's use another analogy. The bandit one wasn't very good.
There's a black man, who lives in a park. He has little place that he calls home. No one knows he is there, because the people in the area are racist and would kill him if they knew he was there (let's forget for a moment that in D&D it's a dragon who really is probably evil). Now, everytime someone gets to the place that the owns - a place no one knows he owns - he attacks them with his shotgun, no questions asked. For some reason, you can't get him to a trial. So once you disable him, you're supposed to go away and hope that innocent people won't come there? What?

nleseul

2009-02-09, 11:10 AM

Killing what people? What stuff? He was sitting in a cave, minding his own business, then he attacked intruders!

If the dragon was just sitting in a cave minding its own business, where did its hoard come from?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 11:44 AM

What mercy? It was charmed and then summarily executed. The only reason V didn't kill it sooner was because his spell slots were full of feather falls and suggestions.

Uh, thug Junior tried to summarily execute THEM. No "Gert Orf Moi Laaaanndd", just "Nom nom nom".

The only reason his spell slots were full of feather fall and suggestion is because as a lizard he cannot cast any spell in his repertoire APART from those.

nleseul

2009-02-09, 11:57 AM

The only reason V didn't kill it sooner was because his spell slots were full of feather falls and suggestions.

Or possibly because V, not being evil, chose to wait until it was no longer helpless.

(Note that the party had been awake, V's spells had been recharged, for some time before the suggestion wore off. If ze had wished to kill it immediately upon regaining zir spells, there was ample opportunity.)

hamishspence

2009-02-09, 01:16 PM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 01:33 PM

BoED is extant in Faerun, Eberron, and Greyhawk (all three use BoED content and BoED was written for Greyhawk in the first place)

There are Eberron and Faerun sourcebooks to show it- Player's Guide to Faerun, Champions of Valor, City of Stormreach (a Saint NPC).

Well you're going to have to start a thread so that you can collect and counter all the internal inconsistencies in BoVD so that we know which rules are available and extant, yes?

Because that has come up time and TIME AGAIN whenever you want to say "ITZ TEH EVIL!!!1!".

We don't believe you.

I don't believe that anything you say that is purely backed up by BoVD that isn't shown evidencially in this comic strip is true because you will not say which rules in BoVD are in effect and which ones (because of evidence showing such is not the case in OotS) are not.

Do so first. Or drop the "But the BoVD says sooooo.....".

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 01:46 PM

V didn't have to keep all of them. Nothing stopped V from making only Durkon stay and send the rest of the party searching. The party wouldn't leave without Durkon, and Durkon was the one that could grant V's wish.

That's my point exactly. In fact, he didn't even have to make Durkon stay. "The wizard bids me to tell you to restore him at your earliest convenience." They could have gone on to explore the cave, find whatever they wished, and not

What? Are you freaking kidding me?
The party was supposed to know that there is something in a cave that wants to kill them. Seriously? So it's all the OOTS fault that they entered the guys home? If someone is living inside a cave in a swamp, yes, it's probably isn't friendly. Why on earth would the party think there's someone living inside the cave? Even if you say that they were supposed to know all this, what are you saying? They are too stupid to live?

If your DM told you "there is a dark cave looming ahead in the bog," what exactly would you assume about it? They are career adventurers on a sidequest. Expecting to just waltz in and complete it with no effort is naive at best and deadly at worst - as they learned quickly.

Let's use another analogy. The bandit one wasn't very good.
There's a black man, who lives in a park. He has little place that he calls home. No one knows he is there, because the people in the area are racist and would kill him if they knew he was there (let's forget for a moment that in D&D it's a dragon who really is probably evil). Now, everytime someone gets to the place that the owns - a place no one knows he owns - he attacks them with his shotgun, no questions asked. For some reason, you can't get him to a trial. So once you disable him, you're supposed to go away and hope that innocent people won't come there? What?

Your analogy is still bad.

1) A swamp is not a park. Nobody but adventurers have any reason to go there, and adventurers are not innocent.

2) The dragon is not the only threat in that region, as their encounter with the hag AND the bandits proved. Shall we exterminate them all? Raze every potentially dangerous place in the world to the ground? All to protect innocents who have no business being in places like that to begin with?

3) The "little place he calls his home" is a cave at the bottom of a chasm. Again I ask you, what the heck do you think would live in a place like that? If you just walk in without expecting a fight - and encounter magical darkness, no less - chances are something lives there, and not something friendly. Yet they pressed on foolishly, and walked quite literally into the thing's waiting jaws.

If the dragon was just sitting in a cave minding its own business, where did its hoard come from?

His mother clearly accumulated that, just as she found the starmetal in the first place. Remember that she was living in that very cave until recently, when she decided to leave her baby alone.

Uh, thug Junior tried to summarily execute THEM. No "Gert Orf Moi Laaaanndd", just "Nom nom nom".

What did you think the darkness spell was? A welcome mat?

The only reason his spell slots were full of feather fall and suggestion is because as a lizard he cannot cast any spell in his repertoire APART from those.

I know that. He still didn't have to research - and fire - double disintegrates. Hell, he didn't have to research anything in that cave.

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 01:53 PM

Or possibly because V, not being evil, chose to wait until it was no longer helpless.

(Note that the party had been awake, V's spells had been recharged, for some time before the suggestion wore off. If ze had wished to kill it immediately upon regaining zir spells, there was ample opportunity.)

There was also ample opportunity to not kill the dragon at all, a fact that V is no doubt only too aware of at this moment in time.

Besides which, you are incorrect - he could not have killed it until Durkon restored him, because Disintegrate requires a somatic component. He did kill it immediately after being restored - immediately for V anyway, which in most cases requires several panels of exposition before the deed.

Well you're going to have to start a thread so that you can collect and counter all the internal inconsistencies in BoVD so that we know which rules are available and extant, yes?

Because that has come up time and TIME AGAIN whenever you want to say "ITZ TEH EVIL!!!1!".

You are the one attempting to show its invalidity, therefore the onus is on you to make such a compilation. I won't do it for you.

We don't believe you.

Speak for yourself please.

I don't believe that anything you say that is purely backed up by BoVD that isn't shown evidencially in this comic strip is true because you will not say which rules in BoVD are in effect and which ones (because of evidence showing such is not the case in OotS) are not.

Do so first. Or drop the "But the BoVD says sooooo.....".

If the author didn't like the sourcebooks, he wouldn't be using content from them in his story. It is certainly possible that he only pulled monster stats from them and disregarded the rest, but until he says so himself we only have one unassailable fact to rely on - that BoVD has been introduced to OotS-land. If you don't like seeing it referenced in discussions, too bad.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 02:05 PM

If the author didn't like the sourcebooks, he wouldn't be using content from them in his story. I

You seem to think that all that you consider should be included is included if ANYTHING is included.

So you consided it IMPOSSIBLE that the book was there just so that Redcloak can make a couple of lich-like powerful undead to fool the defenders into going for one of the wrong Xykons. AND NOTHING ELSE.

Hmmm.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 02:08 PM

What did you think the darkness spell was? A welcome mat?

Uh, I think it was a darkness spell.
Moreover, If I recall my dragon powers, one that the dragon can see through and given himself a tactical advantage.

And how are any people walking along supposed to thing "hey, ho, magic darkness. Must be a warning to walk away. Now if only we knew which way we were walking, which we can't because of all this magical darkness"...

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 02:08 PM

You seem to think that all that you consider should be included is included if ANYTHING is included.

So you consided it IMPOSSIBLE that the book was there just so that Redcloak can make a couple of lich-like powerful undead to fool the defenders into going for one of the wrong Xykons. AND NOTHING ELSE.

Hmmm.

Reading comprehension much? Here is my post again, with bold:

If the author didn't like the sourcebooks, he wouldn't be using content from them in his story. It is certainly possible that he only pulled monster stats from them and disregarded the rest, but until he says so himself we only have one unassailable fact to rely on - that BoVD has been introduced to OotS-land. If you don't like seeing it referenced in discussions, too bad.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 02:17 PM

His mother clearly accumulated that, just as she found the starmetal in the first place. Remember that she was living in that very cave until recently, when she decided to leave her baby alone.

Clearly, eh? So Junior never left. And Mom said this??? Or where does the "clearly" come from?

And I thought we put this "baby" thing to bed with HE'S A YOUNG ADULT. And of better mental and physical capabilities than any normal fully grown human.

He's not a baby.

And we DO have only one unassailable fact: the book with "BoVD" was being used by a character in the strip.

We have a decent chance that this was used as you say for inspiration for one of the boogeymen. However, there is no evidence and some evidence against, the definition of "Evil" that is defined in BoVD is what defines Evil in OotS.

Noam

2009-02-09, 02:25 PM

That's my point exactly. In fact, he didn't even have to make Durkon stay. "The wizard bids me to tell you to restore him at your earliest convenience." They could have gone on to explore the cave, find whatever they wished, and not

Ok, and? Isn't that something stupid that V did, rather than selfish/evil?

If your DM told you "there is a dark cave looming ahead in the bog," what exactly would you assume about it? They are career adventurers on a sidequest. Expecting to just waltz in and complete it with no effort is naive at best and deadly at worst - as they learned quickly.

And again. So what? Do they deserve to die because "they were supposed to know that can happen"?

Your analogy is still bad.

1) A swamp is not a park. Nobody but adventurers have any reason to go there, and adventurers are not innocent.

Maybe some people pass through the swamp, for whatever reason. And while I'm not sure if 'innocent' is the right way to call adventurers, adventurers are a varied group that is at least partly good. Maybe some lower level adventurers get killed by that dragon? Also, if no one was passing through the area, why would the bandits be there? There wouldn't be anyone to rob.

2) The dragon is not the only threat in that region, as their encounter with the hag AND the bandits proved. Shall we exterminate them all? Raze every potentially dangerous place in the world to the ground? All to protect innocents who have no business being in places like that to begin with?

If they attack us first? Yes, yes we can. I am not saying "kill them all because they might be a threat", but rather "if they try to kill you for little to no reason they are a threat and should be killed".

3) The "little place he calls his home" is a cave at the bottom of a chasm. Again I ask you, what the heck do you think would live in a place like that? If you just walk in without expecting a fight - and encounter magical darkness, no less - chances are something lives there, and not something friendly. Yet they pressed on foolishly, and walked quite literally into the thing's waiting jaws.

Umm...And again. Do they deserve to die for being stupid? What?

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 02:43 PM

Clearly, eh? So Junior never left. And Mom said this??? Or where does the "clearly" come from?

"Our hoard" (#628) implies she did at least some collecting. Logic dictates that either she or Dad (or both) gathered more than Junior, since children would hardly be expected to be better at gathering than their parents.

And I thought we put this "baby" thing to bed with HE'S A YOUNG ADULT. And of better mental and physical capabilities than any normal fully grown human.

He's not a baby.

Speaking from Mother's perspective.

And we DO have only one unassailable fact: the book with "BoVD" was being used by a character in the strip.

We have a decent chance that this was used as you say for inspiration for one of the boogeymen. However, there is no evidence and some evidence against, the definition of "Evil" that is defined in BoVD is what defines Evil in OotS.

What evidence against? Please be specific.

Ok, and? Isn't that something stupid that V did, rather than selfish/evil?

I'll reiterate:
Not commanding the dragon properly: stupid.
Holding the party hostage: selfish/evil.
Vaporizing the helpless dragon: selfish/evil.

And again. So what? Do they deserve to die because "they were supposed to know that can happen"?

I am not talking about the entire Order being deserving of death. I'm talking about V deserving to have an angry mother dragon on his tail for being so quick to use the Index Finger dissertation.

Maybe some people pass through the swamp, for whatever reason. And while I'm not sure if 'innocent' is the right way to call adventurers, adventurers are a varied group that is at least partly good. Maybe some lower level adventurers get killed by that dragon? Also, if no one was passing through the area, why would the bandits be there? There wouldn't be anyone to rob.

We can toss out "maybes" all day long. Maybe the swamp gas will spontaneously combust and fry any adventurers that go into the swamp. Maybe the dragons will eat each other. What matters is what's likely, and it is NOT likely for anyone but adventurers - who SHOULD know better - to venture into a remote swamp. To paraphrase Nale, "It has quest written all over it."

Also, the bandits were in the forest, not the swamp. Incidentally, THEY could have been dragged to a magistrate (the father and daughter at least) but the Order simply didn't bother. Lots of care for innocents there.

If they attack us first? Yes, yes we can. I am not saying "kill them all because they might be a threat", but rather "if they try to kill you for little to no reason they are a threat and should be killed".

Again, I am not disputing self-defense. But that argument ends once you have placed the enemy under your mental control.

Umm...And again. Do they deserve to die for being stupid? What?

You mean like fighting a lich on the back of an undead dragon? Yes, stupidity while adventuring has very severe consequences, as any DM will tell you.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-09, 02:56 PM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 03:34 PM

Speaking from Mother's perspective.

Ah. I think I see the problem here.

Ever listened to Bill Bailey "Part Troll"? "Speaking as a mother"...

Yeah, whatever. Waste of time talking to you because you've got that little bit that says "mother" that means EVERYONE ELSE has the little bit that says "child".

It ain't a mom. It's a monster.

I'll reiterate:
Not commanding the dragon properly: stupid.
Holding the party hostage: selfish/evil.
Vaporizing the helpless dragon: selfish/evil.

Stupid. OK. Don't agree but nothing to really *disagree* about.

Holding party hostage? Selfish. Yup. Evil no.

Vaporising 10-ton acid breathing young adult (who should have been kicked out two age categories ago) mostrous YOUNG ADULT who is hardly helpless (what? should wait until he attacks first AGAIN?????) Neutral.

Noam

2009-02-09, 03:58 PM

I'll reiterate:
Not commanding the dragon properly: stupid.
Holding the party hostage: selfish/evil.
Vaporizing the helpless dragon: selfish/evil.

But why, dammit? What did holding the party hostage gave V? I explained why V only benifited from Durkon being a hostage, and you put that claim into doubt. So what exactly did V get from doing this? As for the killing the dragon, Snake-Aes said it pretty well.

Also, the bandits were in the forest, not the swamp. Incidentally, THEY could have been dragged to a magistrate (the father and daughter at least) but the Order simply didn't bother. Lots of care for innocents there.

Roy explained that they broke no law as the forest wasn't a part of any kingdom. I do believe that living the father and daugther tied up was a horrible, horrible thing.

Again, I am not disputing self-defense. But that argument ends once you have placed the enemy under your mental control.

But this is the thing - the dragon was going to get free. Yes, V had 11 whole hours to do something else, but V didn't use them, and I can still so no reason other than stupdity. You said that not commanding the dragon properly was stupdity - so now that V acted in an extremely stupid way, a dragon is going to be free and try to kill them. V had no choice at that point.

You mean like fighting a lich on the back of an undead dragon? Yes, stupidity while adventuring has very severe consequences, as any DM will tell you.

I'm not saying stupdity isn't dangerous, but is sure as hell doesn't give you a right to kill someone! That's like saying that Xykon has the right to kill everyone who fights him or doesn't run like hell when they see him, because he's really strong and they should know better than that. So I guess Xykon is good?

Kish

2009-02-09, 04:30 PM

But why, dammit? What did holding the party hostage gave V?

It forced them to prioritize breaking the enchantment on Vaarsuvius above everything else. And all it cost Vaarsuvius was having to kill a dragon s/he had already declared s/he intended to kill anyway. If you assume Vaarsuvius would have taken a peaceful option if it had been presented to him/her--hell, if you assume Vaarsuvius wouldn't have grumbled if Roy had told him/her to stand down--your concept of Vaarsuvius is quite at odds with mine and, I would say, also at odds with Vaarsuvius' actions in the comic. S/he says that the dragon will not live to see the next sunrise, then s/he mind controls the dragon and uses it to bully his/her party. Saying "S/he's behaving inexplicably stupid there" doesn't work when there are perfectly good in-comic explanations for Vaarsuvius' actions, in the sense of "that's why s/he did it," just not in the sense of "and it was an okay thing to do."

David Argall

2009-02-09, 04:36 PM

What mercy? It was charmed and then summarily executed. The only reason V didn't kill it sooner was because his spell slots were full of feather falls and suggestions.
We are discussing whether to be merciful here, and the fact the dragon is evil is a good starting reason not to be merciful, as is the fact it will resume trying to eat the party as soon as it can.

During Roy's review, his Deva mentioned repeatedly how Evil Belkar was. Yet when Roy asked her if he should have cut Belkar's throat, she balked.
More precisely, she hesitated, but she did not rule it out. She wisely did not like the idea, but knew the alternatives were not nice either. So she ruled that Roy was Belkar's jailer. However, a jailer is empowered to kill escaping prisoners and so she is in principle endorsing Roy killing Belkar.

The lesson is that simply slaying evildoers out of hand when the opportunity arises is not an acceptable solution.
But Roy also killed sleeping goblins, a deed very similar to V killing the "helpless" dragon. The Deva apparently did not deem this a major sin.

All homebrews are based on an existing creature. Do you think he based them on spectres and wraiths?
The original statement was that the martyrs came "taken straight from BoED's pages", which is wrong. If they came from BoED at all, they used a distinctly long detour on the way.

As I said before, I am separating V's Evil act from his stupidity.
Not questioning the dragon about starmetal: Stupid.
Threatening the party with violence if they try to leave: Certainly not Good.
Consider Roy's response. "...would have gotten around to...sooner or later." That is the response of the little kid who has been putting off his chores or homework and wants to continue to do so. And that gives V the role of the exasperated parent who knows the brat has been putting this off far too long as it is. "Enough is enough. Get to it Now!"

Killing an intelligent being while charmed and helpless: Evil.
As has been noted frequently enough, this is effectively what the executioner does, and so we can not accept such a position as absolute.[/QUOTE]
The dragon was a clear danger and the fact it was currently unable to attack an unimportant point. It would attack soon, making it trivial whether it could right then. The guy with the axe is bashing down the door. He can't hurt you now, but a couple more swings... You are free to start shooting now.

As for what holding the party hostage gave V, it prevented them from progressing further until they had acquiesced to V's wishes. Vanity.
V is of the firm belief that the party needs an arcane caster [who is not a bard]. They have just encountered a danger that justifies that belief. Insisting the party stop and get that arcane caster back to full fighting strength is thus much the same as the mother insisting the child wear a jacket on a cold day. The claim of vanity is not supported.

once you disable your attacker, particularly for such a staggering length of time, both accidental discovery AND self defense cease to apply.
Self defense can turn off, and back on, very rapidly. Here, the dragon was made helpless, and the party would have the duty not to attack, if there was a reasonable alternative. Finding none, and finding that the dragon will resume attacking, the party comes back under self defense and takes no blame for killing the dragon.

the bandits could have been dragged to a magistrate (the father and daughter at least) but the Order simply didn't bother. Lots of care for innocents there.
We can take Roy as Word of God here in saying no magistrate would have been interested. This is wrong in the real world as governments only deem something beyond their jurisdiction when other governments make them. However, we are talking OOTS and so the choices suggested are killing them, selling as slaves, and letting them go, none of which are appealing. The difference suggested is that Samantha & dad are not an immediate or obvious danger to anyone. The dragon was.

What did you think the darkness spell was? A welcome mat?
It was very inefficient as "private property. Keep out." It functioned better as a way to slam the door shut behind them.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 04:40 PM

Hey, here's a wee story about "stupid". A genuine commercial module was being played. We knew there was a contained lich somewhere down there and he had a doohickey we needed.

So we go down.

We fight and puzzle our way through. And then there comes another puzzle. In the form of a magically impervious door. 8' wide and 8' high, 1' thick.

Made of mithril.

I kid you not.

Probably figured it would be impenetrable to our weapons so a good block.

Lich forgotten about toot-sweet.

We spent the next two or three hours happily working out how to get this massive fortune to the surface.

Stuff the lich, he can wait.

Worked it all out, enacted the plan, left it and spelled up for another wallop at the lich and the doohickey.

Set for life monetarily.

We start looking again.

And you'll never guess. They put a pair of double doors 12' high and 16' wide and 5' thick. MADE OF ADAMANTIUM.

Our DM laughed a crestfallen sigh and said it was hollow.

So it wasn't the block the game maker wanted it to be, but it WASN'T another fortune 100x the one we already dug up.

Strange what people will think will work when someone else would see a glaring hole in their plan.

It was (despite the sidetrack) a really pleasant afternoon planning.

And nothing died while we did it.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 04:46 PM

Optimystik

2009-02-09, 06:56 PM

I look at v's killing of the dragon as a neutral act, actually.
Hir knew the dragon was evil. Hir knew the dragon would try to kill him once released. Hir also knew what hir could do, and choose to take a night of revenge over the order.
Then hir remembered hir had 2 rounds left, and killed the dragon so he wouldn't try to kill them.

I can't look at it (evil dragon soon to be free - must take measures - killing is a reasonable measure) and call it evil, not the slightest.

And before more self rigtheousness drop here, killing IS a reasonable measure in d&d. It's SO reasonable that the DMs sometimes have to remind the players that it's not the ONLY measure.

I'm willing to concede that it may have been neutral given the Dragon's nature. It is true that once the enchantment was done, the dragon would have been quite murderous. Killing it while charmed would therefore be the safest way to dispatch it.

However, that presumption does nothing to alter the basic premise of this thread: That V's actions in that cave directly led to his current predicament. I am still sure that he could have gotten out of that situation with the starmetal and without a vendetta had he simply not taken the bloodthirsty PC route. For the party member that prides himself on his tactical assessment and intellect, his decisions in that cave were unforgivable. I conclude: he deserves everything that has befallen him, though his family of course does not.

The original statement was that the martyrs came "taken straight from BoED's pages", which is wrong. If they came from BoED at all, they used a distinctly long detour on the way.

Not very long at all, if you read the Deathless entry. Everything fits, from their incorporeality, to the negative energy effects, to Redcloak's 'turning' strategy.

Consider Roy's response. "...would have gotten around to...sooner or later." That is the response of the little kid who has been putting off his chores or homework and wants to continue to do so. And that gives V the role of the exasperated parent who knows the brat has been putting this off far too long as it is. "Enough is enough. Get to it Now!"

What gives V the right to take on the role of parent, exasperated or not? That's right - vanity.

The dragon was a clear danger and the fact it was currently unable to attack an unimportant point. It would attack soon, making it trivial whether it could right then. The guy with the axe is bashing down the door. He can't hurt you now, but a couple more swings... You are free to start shooting now.

Yet it is purely V's fault that they are in the room when the axe man is breaking in.

V is of the firm belief that the party needs an arcane caster [who is not a bard]. They have just encountered a danger that justifies that belief. Insisting the party stop and get that arcane caster back to full fighting strength is thus much the same as the mother insisting the child wear a jacket on a cold day. The claim of vanity is not supported.

Again you have him assuming the role of mother against the party's wishes. And however useful an arcane caster may be, sleeping in the same room with an ensorcelled dragon is far from the smartest way to go about recovering one.

Self defense can turn off, and back on, very rapidly. Here, the dragon was made helpless, and the party would have the duty not to attack, if there was a reasonable alternative. Finding none, and finding that the dragon will resume attacking, the party comes back under self defense and takes no blame for killing the dragon.

They didn't bother to find one. Certainly V didn't. He merely decided to prepare Disintegrates at least 8 hours before the spell was up and take the Xykon approach to problem solving.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-09, 07:40 PM

I'm willing to concede that it may have been neutral given the Dragon's nature. It is true that once the enchantment was done, the dragon would have been quite murderous. Killing it while charmed would therefore be the safest way to dispatch it.

However, that presumption does nothing to alter the basic premise of this thread: That V's actions in that cave directly led to his current predicament. I am still sure that he could have gotten out of that situation with the starmetal and without a vendetta had he simply not taken the bloodthirsty PC route. For the party member that prides himself on his tactical assessment and intellect, his decisions in that cave were unforgivable. I conclude: he deserves everything that has befallen him, though his family of course does not.

Sure, and I think no one disagrees that mama dragon is angry because V killed her son.

"Without Vendetta" i don't know. Both dragons would know who did it, and the whole OOTS would be somehow hunted, but nothing that harsh. Maybe eating a member or two.

And yeah, his family doesn't deserve it, but then again mama dragon is evil to the bone, so she doesn't quite care about them any more than "Hm, their suffering can be useful to my purposes"

Warren Dew

2009-02-09, 07:54 PM

hell, if you assume Vaarsuvius wouldn't have grumbled if Roy had told him/her to stand down--your concept of Vaarsuvius is quite at odds with mine and, I would say, also at odds with Vaarsuvius' actions in the comic.

If you assume that there is any chance at all of Roy telling anyone to stand down against the dragon - heck, even of not ordering them to continue to fight - I think your concept of Roy is completely at odds with how he single mindedly pursued the starmetal side quest.

nleseul

2009-02-09, 07:57 PM

They didn't bother to find one. Certainly V didn't. He merely decided to prepare Disintegrates at least 8 hours before the spell was up and take the Xykon approach to problem solving.

Heh, but when would V ever not prepare Disintegrate?

B. Dandelion

2009-02-09, 08:40 PM

edit: ahh, crap! I just realized I quoted the wrong sections. Never mind.

Knaight

2009-02-09, 09:11 PM

It would be if they hadn't neutralized it during the fight - but they did. BoED is clear: "Once an enemy is dominated, charmed or compelled, it should never be killed, but treated the same as a prisoner that had willingly surrendered."

This is dubious at best. BoED is notorious for being inconsistent about morality, and this is a case of that. If somebody attacks you, and you manage to temporarily incapacitate them, killing them later is still self defense, since they will probably attack you again as soon as they have the opportunity. In this case they could have fled, at which point the trigger happy dragon would attack again. Killing the dragon after using suggestion isn't akin to killing a child, its akin to killing somebody who attacked you with a gun, was disarmed, and was guaranteed to somehow get that gun back later. The dragon started the fight, and just because it was temporarily disabled didn't mean it was down, and it could have been finished off later. Its supposed to be smart, and it would realize that the intruders had no hostile intent, from there it attacked, threw things into kill or be killed, and was killed.

In modern context, if some hikers went into an abandoned looking cave, came upon a hermit with a knife, and the hermit attacked them with the knife, at which point they tried to flee, killing the hermit would be self defense. If they knocked the hermit out, but were far away enough from civilization that the violent hermit would be able to chase them down and kill them later, knife or no knife, killing the hermit afterwards would be justified, because the hermit attacked in the first place.

Larspcus2

2009-02-10, 12:25 AM

Well, killing the dragon did have a benefit in the form of XPs, so a case could be made that it was within the bounds of NN, if a little on the evil side.

The Extinguisher

2009-02-10, 01:03 AM

Byah

2009-02-10, 01:28 AM

Noam

2009-02-10, 01:30 AM

It forced them to prioritize breaking the enchantment on Vaarsuvius above everything else. And all it cost Vaarsuvius was having to kill a dragon s/he had already declared s/he intended to kill anyway. If you assume Vaarsuvius would have taken a peaceful option if it had been presented to him/her--hell, if you assume Vaarsuvius wouldn't have grumbled if Roy had told him/her to stand down--your concept of Vaarsuvius is quite at odds with mine and, I would say, also at odds with Vaarsuvius' actions in the comic. S/he says that the dragon will not live to see the next sunrise, then s/he mind controls the dragon and uses it to bully his/her party. Saying "S/he's behaving inexplicably stupid there" doesn't work when there are perfectly good in-comic explanations for Vaarsuvius' actions, in the sense of "that's why s/he did it," just not in the sense of "and it was an okay thing to do."

But I already told you, V only needed Durkon to stay there - there was no point having the rest of the party there, because they couldn't do a damn thing.

I'm willing to concede that it may have been neutral given the Dragon's nature. It is true that once the enchantment was done, the dragon would have been quite murderous. Killing it while charmed would therefore be the safest way to dispatch it.

However, that presumption does nothing to alter the basic premise of this thread: That V's actions in that cave directly led to his current predicament. I am still sure that he could have gotten out of that situation with the starmetal and without a vendetta had he simply not taken the bloodthirsty PC route. For the party member that prides himself on his tactical assessment and intellect, his decisions in that cave were unforgivable. I conclude: he deserves everything that has befallen him, though his family of course does not.

Of course V brought it on himself, but I really don't think s/he deserves it.
Could V act in another way? Of course. Would it be wise, or good? I really, really, don't know. If dragon junior is anything like his mother, he would've hunted them down and killed them, just because they annoyed him. The dragon did attempt to murder the entire party. If they could bring him to a trial, he would've probably been executed anyway.

chiasaur11

2009-02-10, 01:33 AM

I don't get this forum.

Apparently, It's okay to root for the Ancient Evil Black Dragon who plans to kill, eat and then SOULBIND (hey, remember that most evil spell you heard of, the one that traps a soul and keeps them from the afterlife) and then disappear forever. Yes, the Order killed the dragon's kid. But if Redcloak had decided to kill all the children of Azure City and SOULBIND them, you people would be appalled. Make up your minds!

It makes no sense. Yes, V acts like an arrogant bastard and completely brought it upon himself, but how can anyone want the dragon to succeed?

No, you see Redcloak would be fine.

The real problem is Celia trying to get the thieve's guild (Some of whom I would place money on being in the N range) resurrected. Pacifism should ONLY apply to always Chaotic Evil sorts who try to kill you.
:sigh:

Kaihaku

2009-02-10, 01:53 AM

Overanalysis much?

Rich is poking "fun" at the logic and moral flaws inherent to Dungeons and Dragons. You can argue until you're blue in the face and pull out all sorts of sourcebooks to back your claims but in the end the worldview embraced by most Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings is irrational. Xenocide is Xenocide unless the target in question is in the Monster Manual.

David Argall

2009-02-10, 03:55 AM

However, that presumption does nothing to alter the basic premise of this thread: That V's actions in that cave directly led to his current predicament.

How do we get this as anything at all V could predict? She has killed hundreds as an adventurer. Why should this particular one lead to a plan of revenge? Dragons are routinely loners. The only clues found are found after the dragon is dead, and hardly suggest another dragon in residence, in particular one of this power. This hardly seems karma, just drama.

I am still sure that he could have gotten out of that situation with the starmetal and without a vendetta had he simply not taken the bloodthirsty PC route.
Now what really backs up such sureness? On the face of it, a surviving dragon is more likely to seek out V for revenge simply because dead ones can't.

What gives V the right to take on the role of parent, exasperated or not? That's right - vanity.
The role of parent, as shown here, is taken over by just about any member of a team when other members are dogging it, including children bossing their parents at times. Again, vanity is simply a charge.

Yet it is purely V's fault that they are in the room when the axe man is breaking in.
I suppose they could be wandering lost in the storm instead, or already axed...

Again you have him assuming the role of mother against the party's wishes. And however useful an arcane caster may be, sleeping in the same room with an ensorcelled dragon is far from the smartest way to go about recovering one.
Under the circumstances, what were the alternatives? It would seem the party was going to get around to it when they got around to it. Since delay had already worked out badly, risking more delay seems rather rash.

They didn't bother to find one. Certainly V didn't. He merely decided to prepare Disintegrates at least 8 hours before the spell was up and take the Xykon approach to problem solving.
And it worked.

Learnedguy

2009-02-10, 04:57 AM

Whelp, the way I see it, the dragon ambushed the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html). Notice how he put up a Darkness to make sure they got close enough for him to have a shot at them the moment they reemerged?

And I'll believe the statement that they were trespassing the moment I see some papers on who actually owns that cave. But for now, this is clearly a case of attempted murder by setting up an ambush inside a cave with the intent of killing the first poor schmuck who sticks his head in:smallamused:

Grady

2009-02-10, 06:29 AM

There are seriously people threatening to stop reading if these "innocent children" die in a webcomic? How many "innocent" people do you think die in the cource of a D&D campaign, by the parties hands?

The world of D&D is a tough one. Let 'em stop reading, but in the end they've probably done worse in a campaign (if they're D&D players, which is OotS main demographic) at least once than what the dragon is about to do here.

Although some of these arguments are crazy, such as equating small children to a young-adult dragon. Unless those elven kids can BREATHE ACID then I don't think it's equal.

Also, I have one word to describe any "innocents" who walked into the black dragon's cave: Food.

Do you go upto a trapdoor spider's hole and screech at it for killing "innocent" bugs? No? It wouldn't make much sense, would it? Do you tell it off for using a tricky trap door to fool bugs and lead them to their doom? If no, why is the black dragon so wrong for using magical darkness?

You'd think this'd be obvious, the dragon even tried to eat Haley.

Noam

2009-02-10, 06:54 AM

Do you go upto a trapdoor spider's hole and screech at it for killing "innocent" bugs? No? It wouldn't make much sense, would it? Do you tell it off for using a tricky trap door to fool bugs and lead them to their doom? If no, why is the black dragon so wrong for using magical darkness?

You'd think this'd be obvious, the dragon even tried to eat Haley.

No, because animals are too stupid to be anything but netural. The dragon, with it's above human averege intellect and wisdom score, is fully capable of making morale choices.

The Minx

2009-02-10, 06:56 AM

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 07:06 AM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 07:52 AM

There are seriously people threatening to stop reading if these "innocent children" die in a webcomic

Uh, what did you expect? Kiddies being tortured to death is a bad thing, yes?

I mean, why are fake snuff movies rated high and avoided by lots of people?

Why are faked pictures of KP illegal, even though "no children were harmed in the making of Kiddie Kiddie Bang Bang"?

H e ll, why is "flamebait" considered verboten, punishable by 100 points and all the text scrubbed on this site? What do you think "I'm now going to talk about torturig kiddies to death" is???

IT'S FLAMEBAIT.

It would be nicer if people could be a little calmer about it but in such a world, most of the rules on this site would be taken down since they would have no need to be there.

So whilst the owners of this site consider it necessary to post such rules, consider it highly likely that such a subject will have such a reaction (and know that the owners of the site believe so too, which is again a good indicator of flamebait).

EDIT: PS take a look at all the people on this site rooting for the dragon 'cos she's a mommy and she's lost her widdle baby. Aaaawwww. Poor mommy.

Why? Cos she's a mommy apparently and her young adult son was killed in a fight.

But she's a mommy.... Poor mommy.

Volkov

2009-02-10, 07:56 AM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:07 AM

While the soul binding is a little extreme, that Dragon feels immense pain, her mate was turned into a suit of armor, and her son into a pile of ashes. Plus she worships Tiamat who probably is almost exactly like her Greyhawk version judging soley by looks, and Tiamat is Lawful Evil, the type to scheme revenge for the loss of status, but that dragon lost her last bit of family, all her hoard, and her home was desecrated. That gives reason for anger comparable To Argajag's hatred for Arthur Dent for killing him 30+ times.

Black dragons aren't LE.

You don't have to be the same alignment as your god.

And why is she feeling pain? "Might makes right" is the CE screed. Junior wasn't mighty enough. He didn't deserve to survive.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And all that jazz.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:12 AM

Black dragons aren't LE.

You don't have to be the same alignment as your god.

And why is she feeling pain? "Might makes right" is the CE screed. Junior wasn't mighty enough. He didn't deserve to survive.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And all that jazz.
Because she said so. And it's her kid. And sometimes dragons do raise their brood.

I am confident she did like her mate and child, and that's why her revenge is so specific against V, and so oriented at giving him the same trouble she felt when she lost her kid.

The fact she's evil doesn't mean she wants revenge. The fact she's evil means her revenge involves other innocent beings(in this case, V's family) in order to make her target suffer.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:17 AM

Because she said so. And it's her kid. And sometimes dragons do raise their brood.

Dragons (black) kick out their kids early.

Scorpion mums eat their kids. Well, so do many predators.

Lion dads will kill sons if they don't leave and their mums let it happen.

Dragons aren't human.

And there's STILL no justification for the moral outrage of junior being killed in a fight he started to a creature whose lifestyle creed is "Might makes right". Junior weren't mighty enough, so he weren't righty enough.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:22 AM

Dragons (black) kick out their kids early.

Scorpion mums eat their kids. Well, so do many predators.

Lion dads will kill sons if they don't leave and their mums let it happen.

Isn't that only to childs of other lions? >.> Infanticide and all is about granting the preservation of HIS genes, not the species.

Dragons aren't human.

And there's STILL no justification for the moral outrage of junior being killed in a fight he started to a creature whose lifestyle creed is "Might makes right". Junior weren't mighty enough, so he weren't righty enough.

Isn't there a mention on the dragon 'specialized' books that older black dragons do bother raising it to a certain point?
Plus, the dragon said so. Even if for us it is not a reason to want revenge, for her it is.

And no, her actions are not justifiable to us. But hey, she's evil. It is justifiable for her, she's got no moral restrictions to do whatever she wants.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:32 AM

Isn't that only to childs of other lions? >.>

Nope, if the male kids don't leave, they're dinner too.

Infanticide and all is about granting the preservation of HIS genes, not the species.

He doesn't have a doctorate in evoluitionary theory. But he can have 20 more kids if he stays there another year. 20 vs 1, you do the maths.

And no, her actions are not justifiable to us. But hey, she's evil. It is justifiable for her, she's got no moral restrictions to do whatever she wants.

And that's really my point, Evil cannot have moral outrage when they lose a loved one. Maybe if the loved one never worked "the business" and then only if they themselves tried not to kill. But this dragon kills the loved ones of thousands of families and feels NOTHING.

Well, payback's a btch, innit, mom. Maybe if you and your son were nicer you wouldn't have a dead son and the grief from it. But no, you rampaged and terrorised and lived high on the fat.

Well here's the bill.

The thousands of mothers you left widowed or without sons has now returned on you. And you don't like it? Well, neither did they.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:37 AM

He doesn't have a doctorate in evoluitionary theory. But he can have 20 more kids if he stays there another year. 20 vs 1, you do the maths.

Uhh, isn't that behaviour instinctive? :p

And that's really my point, Evil cannot have moral outrage when they lose a loved one. Maybe if the loved one never worked "the business" and then only if they themselves tried not to kill. But this dragon kills the loved ones of thousands of families and feels NOTHING.

Well, payback's a btch, innit, mom. Maybe if you and your son were nicer you wouldn't have a dead son and the grief from it. But no, you rampaged and terrorised and lived high on the fat.

Well here's the downside.

The thousands of mothers you left widowed or without sons has now returned on you. And you don't like it? Well, neither did they.Before we enter thea greeing to disagreeing about agreeing in disagreement headasplosion loophole, why couldn't an Evil being care about other being? I can totally see an evil being falling in love, for example. I can totally see an evil being caring about, say, his worshippers. Mama dragon loving her offspring is far from unreasonable.

--Well damn, I missed the part where we are STILL agreeing while at the same time disagreeing. Where is the shiny to cut it off? >.>

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:47 AM

, why couldn't an Evil being care about other being?

Because they don't care about other beings.

Like if kitty dies. Belkar sad. But if he goes all nuclear about it, point out that Mrs Gnome Merchant probably wasn't too thrilled at losing hubby. Especially just for a chocolate bar and a donkey.

I can *sympathise* with RC (Xykon, and this is a good example of Evil with a capital E, I don't sympathise with, but doesn't need or want sympathy either) on their losses but I can't feel they have a moral imperative to do what they're doing because they don't care when they to it to others.

I mean, logically, here's the situation:

a) Mom dragon kills thousands and makes women distraught.
b) Mom's dragon son and husband is killed. Mom is distraught
c) Mom is going to kill V's children so V is distraught
d) Mom thinks this is A-OK

Well, what if Dad was killed by a team hired by the thousands of women to visit just retribution on Mom to show her what it feels like to lose your husband?

And what if it hadn't been V but the moms again who hired someone to kill junior?

How would mom dragon approach that?

Empathy.

Doesn't stop evil, but without it you don't have much else to do.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:57 AM

Because they don't care about other beings.

"Other" beings is key here. They indeed don't care about other beings.

Like if kitty dies. Belkar sad. But if he goes all nuclear about it, point out that Mrs Gnome Merchant probably wasn't too thrilled at losing hubby. Especially just for a chocolate bar and a donkey.

I can *sympathise* with RC (Xykon, and this is a good example of Evil with a capital E, I don't sympathise with, but doesn't need or want sympathy either) on their losses but I can't feel they have a moral imperative to do what they're doing because they don't care when they to it to others.

I mean, logically, here's the situation:

a) Mom dragon kills thousands and makes women distraught.
b) Mom's dragon son and husband is killed. Mom is distraught
c) Mom is going to kill V's children so V is distraught
d) Mom thinks this is A-OK

Well, what if Dad was killed by a team hired by the thousands of women to visit just retribution on Mom to show her what it feels like to lose your husband?

And what if it hadn't been V but the moms again who hired someone to kill junior?

How would mom dragon approach that?

Empathy.

Doesn't stop evil, but without it you don't have much else to do.

Well, like I said, they are still evil. Both redcloak and xykon have the same evil in their alignments, so it's kidna hard to point differences just from that.

Both Belkar example and mama dragon example fall under the same thing we are kinda agreeing and not at the same time: They don't care about damage done to others. The moment the damage is done to them(or to those they care about), the sky will fall on someone's head. And they are fine with that.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 09:08 AM

"Other" beings is key here. They indeed don't care about other beings.

But to other beings, THEY are "other beings".

Well, like I said, they are still evil. Both redcloak and xykon have the same evil in their alignments, so it's kidna hard to point differences just from that.

Xykon is the butch, RC is the bitch. Do you have Start Of Darkness?

Both Belkar example and mama dragon example fall under the same thing we are kinda agreeing and not at the same time: They don't care about damage done to others. The moment the damage is done to them(or to those they care about), the sky will fall on someone's head. And they are fine with that.

But cosmically (kharmically, if you like) they have no right to be. They'll do it, but it merely is a rampage for a different reason to the one they would use otherwise. Why should we care about them, if they don't care about us?

I mean you CANNOT take "might is right" and then throw a hissy fit when someone was mightier than someone you liked and NOT be a hypocrite. That's why we made the term up, fer crying out loud. People don't really believe what they say they believe. And when that hidden coda comes out "but not when I think it shouldn't apply" turns up, BAM: Hypocrisy.

So momma dragon can get all choked up, but it's karma, baby. maybe your ethos isn't right, hmm and if nobody believed in it, your kid would be alive, hmm?

Noam

2009-02-10, 09:37 AM

It's all one big bag of waste if you look at it. Everyone keeps wanting to justify their chosen side, when both were violent, harsh and cynical. Self defense could be equally accounted at both sides, and if anyone is willing to discuss enough, for all we know the dragon was lawful good, regardless of the "ALways Evil" alignment.

I hope you mean V and the black dragon when you say "both sides". I think V is right, but that doesn't mean that I can't see how someone can disagree with her. The rest of the OOTS, on the other hand? The rest of the OOTS were defending themselves and had nothing to do with the death of the black dragon.

Also, lawful good people (or dragons) don't attack other people on sight.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 09:50 AM

But to other beings, THEY are "other beings".

Xykon is the butch, RC is the bitch. Do you have Start Of Darkness?

But cosmically (kharmically, if you like) they have no right to be. They'll do it, but it merely is a rampage for a different reason to the one they would use otherwise. Why should we care about them, if they don't care about us?

I mean you CANNOT take "might is right" and then throw a hissy fit when someone was mightier than someone you liked and NOT be a hypocrite. That's why we made the term up, fer crying out loud. People don't really believe what they say they believe. And when that hidden coda comes out "but not when I think it shouldn't apply" turns up, BAM: Hypocrisy.

So momma dragon can get all choked up, but it's karma, baby. maybe your ethos isn't right, hmm and if nobody believed in it, your kid would be alive, hmm?It's very easy to do that without being a hypocrite: "My might is right and yours isn't."

there's no hypocrisy there if you stick to it :p

And yes, I have Start of Darkness, and it's exactly why I pointed out that regardless of their reasons and the fact Xykon has him morally stuck to serving him, both are evil in their sheets.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 10:35 AM

It's very easy to do that without being a hypocrite: "My might is right and yours isn't."

there's no hypocrisy there if you stick to it :p

Yeah, not really an ethos, then, is it. In fact why put "might" in there. Just "I'm right and you're wrong".

And yes, I have Start of Darkness, and it's exactly why I pointed out that regardless of their reasons and the fact Xykon has him morally stuck to serving him, both are evil in their sheets.

Then you'll know that Xykon (if he HAD a kid) would be all "meh" if that kid was horribly tortured to death. If it was done in front of him, he'd probably figure "Ah, well, it passed the time, didn't it. And I was bored".

RC is the sympathetic character because he tries to do what's good and ends up even deeper in the evil.

Xykon is like Ming from the Flash Gordon Movie. When Mings only daughter was said to be his betrayer, he didn't even blink. If anything, he was bored with it and told metal face guy to do what was necessary to get the conspiracy cleared.

No sympathy. Not a sympathetic character. But that's why HE'S Evil and RC is merely evil. And all the more impressive and humorous for it. If a little two dimensional.

There is a LOT of difference between RC evil and Xykon Evil. And maybe you're trolling to ensure you get the last word.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 11:15 AM

Yeah, not really an ethos, then, is it. In fact why put "might" in there. Just "I'm right and you're wrong".

Fits perfectly an evil person. Being sincere about yourself is the only requirement to not be a hypocrite, and that doesn't mean you have to be neutral, good, or evil.

Then you'll know that Xykon (if he HAD a kid) would be all "meh" if that kid was horribly tortured to death. If it was done in front of him, he'd probably figure "Ah, well, it passed the time, didn't it. And I was bored".

RC is the sympathetic character because he tries to do what's good and ends up even deeper in the evil.

Xykon is like Ming from the Flash Gordon Movie. When Mings only daughter was said to be his betrayer, he didn't even blink. If anything, he was bored with it and told metal face guy to do what was necessary to get the conspiracy cleared.

No sympathy. Not a sympathetic character. But that's why HE'S Evil and RC is merely evil. And all the more impressive and humorous for it. If a little two dimensional.

There is a LOT of difference between RC evil and Xykon Evil. And maybe you're trolling to ensure you get the last word.
<sigh> It's much more simple than what you are trying to bring. They are both evil. Yes Xykon is a much more horrible villain and his behaviour is hectic in comparison to RC. What i'm trying to say is that both still fall under EVIL in their alignment. It's a measure that doesn't quite explain the varying degrees of cruelty and (lack of) caring about anything.

RC cares about his kin. That's the starting difference between Xykon and Redcloak. The second one is exactly what Xykon said, on how low you're willing to go.The moral conflicts that bind RC to Xykon derives from his caring of his kin, for example.

But they're still both Evil. Redcloak isn't going to just randomly go rampant like Xykon does, but both go out of their way to be cruel and horrible if they so wish.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 11:34 AM

<sigh> It's much more simple than what you are trying to bring. They are both evil. Yes Xykon is a much more horrible villain and his behaviour is hectic in comparison to RC. What i'm trying to say is that both still fall under EVIL in their alignment

Ah, so no shades of grey.

Hmm.

So Fudd from Star Trek is as evil as Ming in Flash Gordon?

They both have Evil in their alignment is true but irrelevant. They aren't their stats. And Xykon is Evil. RC is evil. Read the bloody book again. It didn't take.

PS You already said there is a difference right after you said there was no difference.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 12:02 PM

Ah, so no shades of grey.

Hmm.

So Fudd from Star Trek is as evil as Ming in Flash Gordon?

They both have Evil in their alignment is true but irrelevant. They aren't their stats. And Xykon is Evil. RC is evil. Read the bloody book again. It didn't take.

PS You already said there is a difference right after you said there was no difference.

I'm trying to explain that the alignment system has this inherent flaw when you are faced with two beings of the same alignment, at which you can't really say they are the same.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 12:12 PM

I'm trying to explain that the alignment system has this inherent flaw when you are faced with two beings of the same alignment, at which you can't really say they are the same.

If you know that then what was the last three missives (in the loosest sense of the word) been about????

Wanderlust

2009-02-10, 12:49 PM

And the circles continue...

This is one of those 'big' debates that OoTS has spawned, so don't be surprised if you don't sway someone on the other side of the fence. Too many times you'll find people frustrated that they can't change someone's mind, then they get mad and start flaming. This conversation seems dangerously close to that point, if not there already.

As for my own personal thoughts, I have been wondering about the ADB's decision to planar shift (or whatever she said to get away) after she eats and soulbinds V's family. She gets to live out her days knowing that somewhere V is crushed, but she'll never get to see for herself. Wouldn't she want to see V's reaction? Savor the pain? I feel like she would need to see how V responds in order to 'finalize' the situation for herself and put it behind her.

Any thoughts on this, or is it just another delving into the concepts of what a generic 'evil' being would/wouldn't do? :smallconfused:

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 01:06 PM

If you know that then what was the last three missives (in the loosest sense of the word) been about????

I have this belief that the only reason we don't see redcloak as evil as xykon is because he didn't have the chance to. Redcloak carse about the goblins overall and part of it is his angst against non goblinoids, and the other part is the great plan. He's also very pragmatic and seek the results rather than the methods. Were redcloak to actively torment someone, he'd do so in the same manner of cruelty that xykon would.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:13 PM

I have this belief that the only reason we don't see redcloak as evil as xykon is because he didn't have the chance to.

What brings this belief about?

Go back and read Xykon's epologue to RC on the nature of Evil.

RC cares about even Hobgoblins (even though his entire life has been harrassed by these martial-based knucleheads). Xykon cares about being bored.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where would that put these two on the "Scale of Evil"?

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 01:16 PM

What brings this belief about?

Go back and read Xykon's epologue to RC on the nature of Evil.

RC cares about even Hobgoblins (even though his entire life has been harrassed by these martial-based knucleheads). Xykon cares about being bored.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where would that put these two on the "Scale of Evil"?

ok, switch "his kin" to "goblinoids" if you want to. Like I said, we haven't seen the range at which RC does nasty things because his scope is fairly different.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 01:19 PM

The O-Chul interrogation scene: Redcloak effectively commits to throwing the hostages off tower if O-chul doesn't talk. O-chul refuses. Redcloak changes his mind.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:21 PM

The O-Chul interrogation scene: Redcloak effectively commits to throwing the hostages off tower if O-chul doesn't talk. O-chul refuses. Redcloak changes his mind.

Do we have an icon for "Epic Fail" on the site? If so, snake aes gets one here > <

Noam

2009-02-10, 01:26 PM

As for my own personal thoughts, I have been wondering about the ADB's decision to planar shift (or whatever she said to get away) after she eats and soulbinds V's family. She gets to live out her days knowing that somewhere V is crushed, but she'll never get to see for herself. Wouldn't she want to see V's reaction? Savor the pain? I feel like she would need to see how V responds in order to 'finalize' the situation for herself and put it behind her.

Any thoughts on this, or is it just another delving into the concepts of what a generic 'evil' being would/wouldn't do? :smallconfused:

Maybe she will scry on V.

The O-Chul interrogation scene: Redcloak effectively commits to throwing the hostages off tower if O-chul doesn't talk. O-chul refuses. Redcloak changes his mind.

I think Redcloack is better than Xykon, but I think that if he thought that throwing the hostages off the tower will actually achieve something, he would've done it. He's just not willing to do evil for evil's sake.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 01:29 PM

Do we have an icon for "Epic Fail" on the site? If so, snake aes gets one here > <

Evil doesn't mean dumb. He wanted info and resorted to the murder of innocent beings for it. It didn't work. He gave up on the idea.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:39 PM

Evil doesn't mean dumb. He wanted info and resorted to the murder of innocent beings for it. It didn't work. He gave up on the idea.

Uh, no innocents were murdered.

Epic Fail. PART TWO!!!

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:40 PM

I think Redcloack is better than Xykon, but I think that if he thought that throwing the hostages off the tower will actually achieve something, he would've done it. He's just not willing to do evil for evil's sake.

And Xykon would have done it to pass the time.

Which one's worse?

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 01:47 PM

Uh, no innocents were murdered.

Epic Fail. PART TWO!!!

Did you read the comic at all? He didn't do it in the end because he was convinced that it wouldn't help him getting his info at all.

Evil does NOT mean dumb. Resorting to kill innocents to make someone speak is evil. Killing them anyway because it won't work is dumb.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:53 PM

Did you read the comic at all? He didn't do it in the end because he was convinced that it wouldn't help him getting his info at all.

Evil does NOT mean dumb. Resorting to kill innocents to make someone speak is evil. Killing them anyway because it won't work is dumb.

Well you didn't since you figured RC had killed them.

So until you tell us where that illusary memory came from leave off the "did you read" stuff. Makes you look pathetic.

And Xykon would have killed them anyway since he'd gone to all that trouble in the first place.

So who is worse?

Someone who will do evil when the must

Or

Someone who will do evil when they must or feel like it or are bored, having a laugh...

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 02:00 PM

Well you didn't since you figured RC had killed them.

Ok, I finished what he didn't. What does it change on RC besides timing? he had every intention of killing them and didn't do so exclusively because he realized it'd be a waste of hostages.

So until you tell us where that illusary memory came from leave off the "did you read" stuff. Makes you look pathetic.

You know, I pulled that line because you kept throwing it at me. Petty is not pretty when it's against you.

And Xykon would have killed them anyway since he'd gone to all that trouble in the first place.

That's the difference between the two villains, indeed. Doesn't make any of them more or less evil.

So who is worse?

Someone who will do evil when the must

Or

Someone who will do evil when they must or feel like it or are bored, having a laugh...

It's not about "when he must" more than "when it's worth it". RC evaluates the need to do anything, regardless of "evilness". Xykon just goes and breaks the toys anyway. You can't quantify evilness in those.
Xykon saw a bunch of killable things that scream when squished. Redcloak saw a valuable source of hostages to further his project.

Which is worse for the captive. Being randomly slaughtered or used as lamb / guinea pig?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:12 PM

So the most evil one is the one that does evil less.

Yeah.

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 02:22 PM

Ah, so no shades of grey.
Yes.

This is the inevitable outcome of a system that only allows for three moral alignments of GOOD, NEUTRAL, and EVIL. Yeah, dude, there is no gray. Except for neutral. Of course it makes no friggin sense! It's an approximation of an extremely subtle and complex division.

If you wanted, you could make your own system of rating evil on a scale from 1-99 and you'd wind up with lots and lots of grays. But I can tell you right now it still wouldn't work perfectly. I've already tried it. Get the idea out of your head that you should be able to use the D&D alignment chart to get meaningful or consistent results out of anything, or you are doomed to disappointment.

So Fudd from Star Trek is as evil as Ming in Flash Gordon?
Hmm, gee, good question. What's Fudd's position on climate control? ::rolls eyes:: Sorry. I don't know either of these characters, I don't think I have to. The point here is, again, GOOD, NEUTRAL, or EVIL. Both your "complete monster" villain and your "well-intentioned extremist" villain can both fit within the extremely wide-brush area of "evil" while still allowing for massive differences in character... including the idea of one being capable of redemption but not the other.

They both have Evil in their alignment is true but irrelevant. They aren't their stats. And Xykon is Evil. RC is evil. Read the bloody book again. It didn't take.
Is there a difference in game mechanics between "evil" or "Evil?" Xykon mocks Redcloak in this manner because Xykon has actually embraced evil (or EVIL if you wish, although I'm not sure where that specific alignment ranks in comparison to evil, Evil, EVIL! or EVIL!) as a philosophy, while Redcloak hasn't, and the fact that Redcloak uses evil without owning up to it is a weakness in character -- he blinds himself to the truth about himself, and thus reality, which gives Xykon power over him. Redcloak has do what Xykon says, despite the fact that he has every reason to HATE him, because Xykon gives him an excuse for his own behavior.

Yeah, not really an ethos, then, is it. In fact why put "might" in there. Just "I'm right and you're wrong".

You're thinking that an "ethos" has to apply consistent rules to people of different races, genders, religions, eye colors, sexual orientation... it doesn't. The dragon ethos can start with the presumption that dragons are the only "people" whose feelings and experiences are in any way significant in and of themselves. The pain felt by the thousands of humans who found a grisly death at the hands of momma dragon are of no consequence, as is the pain of loss felt by their loved ones. The pain felt by the momma dragon is one worth an infinite retribution.

This is obviously grossly unfair. Redcloak and the Dark One's main issue is with the world is that that they and their people are perpetual victims of a similar warped outlook. The ethos of the gods -- who make the rules -- counts the PC races as "people" but not the humanoids. It's thus considered okay for humans and elves and so forth to go on campaigns of mass genocide and still be considered "good." So long as they don't treat real "people" in the same way.

So you see, the momma dragon is a total evil bitch, but she's not actually operating on a "might makes right" mentality that she's only complaining about now that she found herself on the wrong end. She's a mass murderer of creatures she sees as pathetic little monkeys worth stomping out with the same casual dispassion most humans would extend to insects. Now that she's been bitten, it's personal.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 02:22 PM

So the most evil one is the one that does evil less.

Yeah.
That's not exactly a good way to compare.

Xykon is more destructive indeed, but that's not why I can say that Xykon is more evil than Redcloak. Xykon is more evil than RC because of what he said in SoD: It's about how low you are willing to go to get what you want. Redcloak went as far as killing his own brother, which is completely against what he believes and cares about, but was made towards completing The Plan. Xykon has absolutely no kind of restraint other than his own sense of entertainment, while RC wants the best for the goblins and has people he wouldn't harm if he could(his family)
Xykon's running rampant on random people like he does from day one(throwing goblins at the gate), means he's more violent, and has a lower attention span. That is a contrast of chaos versus law, if you want to stick it into the alignments, not Good versus Evil.

Wanderlust

2009-02-10, 02:23 PM

Maybe she will scry on V.

Having never played high level campaigns and/or wizards, I never think of this kind of stuff. Good idea.

Having said that, I think V will be on permanent alert as far as shielding himself from scrying in the future. If V has a future...

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:46 PM

That's not exactly a good way to compare.

No, it is exactly the correct way to care.

Xykon's running rampant on random people like he does from day one(throwing goblins at the gate), means he's more violent, and has a lower attention span. That is a contrast of chaos versus law, if you want to stick it into the alignments, not Good versus Evil.

He's also willing to tell RC that he can at any time wipe him, his family and all the goblins out if he doesn't give Xykon 100% support. Read SoD. In the coffee bar, second time.

He's also willing to kill anything and everything that needs killing (like the good aligned things sitting in his old home).

So Xykon will kill when he needs to.

Just like RC

AND he'll kill because he's bored.

Or he's going to get a laugh out of it.

Or he just can.

So Xykon will do MORE EVIL than RC. RC will refrain from it often when it would be easier and safer than him (see the epiphany on the assault on AC and he gets the dire woolly mammoth).

To put your reasoning into simple and ACCURATE words

"The one who does less evil is more evil"

Is correct and accurate and appropriate.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:49 PM

Yes.

This is the inevitable outcome of a system that only allows for three moral alignments of GOOD, NEUTRAL, and EVIL.

Who was talking about the ALIGNMENT SYSTEM??????

I wasn't. Never said I was.

And you can't say "and so ANY ACTION HAS TO BE IN THAT ALIGNMENT" because the actions aren't the alignment system.

What the clucking bell are you going on about???

You're making up an argument that DOES NOT EXIST.

Butterfly, or whatever the hell your name is, have you got SoD? If you have, do you think when Xykon is going on about two different alignments "Evil" and "evil"? Or was he talking about the attitude that they cover? The, to put a phrase on it, grey area?

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 02:55 PM

No, it is exactly the correct way to care.

Well, this closes the whole argument. You use destructiveness as measure of Evilness. Then indeed Xykon is evil and redcloak is "maybe neutral", or "wuss evil", or whatever title you want to give.

The Devils want to have a talk with you, so i'm stopping here.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:05 PM

Well, this closes the whole argument. You use destructiveness as measure of Evilness. Then indeed Xykon is evil and redcloak is "maybe neutral", or "wuss evil", or whatever title you want to give.

The Devils want to have a talk with you, so i'm stopping here.

Uh, that was an example.

Xykon would torture someone because he wanted to. And he doesn't get out of not wanting to.

RC will stop if there's no point.

So Xykon would keep torturing OChul and RC stopped.

Who would be the most evil???

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 03:07 PM

Uh, that was an example.

Xykon would torture someone because he wanted to. And he doesn't get out of not wanting to.

RC will stop if there's no point.

So Xykon would keep torturing OChul and RC stopped.

Who would be the most evil???

Neither, but RC would be doing something else and Xykon would be entertained.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:09 PM

Neither, but RC would be doing something else and Xykon would be entertained.

Nope, RC would not necessarily be doing evil. Whilst if Xykon is DOING evil, this means that anything less than 100% full-time evil roster for RC, means he's doing less evil.

It's not a 24/7 job. Goblins love their children too.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 03:11 PM

It appears that in OOTS, so do black dragons.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:13 PM

It appears that in OOTS, so do black dragons.

And so what?

What does that have to do with what you apparently responded to?

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 03:17 PM

Who was talking about the ALIGNMENT SYSTEM??????

I wasn't. Never said I was.

And you can't say "and so ANY ACTION HAS TO BE IN THAT ALIGNMENT" because the actions aren't the alignment system.

What the clucking bell are you going on about???

You're making up an argument that DOES NOT EXIST.
Might want to lay off the caffeine some, Mr. Histrionic. If you actually took a minute or two to fully process what anyone tried to tell you, maybe you'd manage to keep up something resembling a rational discussion. Or at least not get told off for needing to make two or three replies to every post. As it is, almost every reply you've given is delivered in a style suggesting you are in fear of the barbarians at the gate.

What terms would you prefer to use? We're talking about "shades of gray," but I haven't heard you bring up any alternate terminology. People keep acknowledging the shades of gray but maintain that evil actions are in fact... still evil actions. Shall we start calling them mauve actions if they are done with the hope of good results? A rationalization and a justification are not the same thing.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 03:20 PM

the comment about Evil not being a 24-7 job, and Redcloak being less evil than Xykon.

Same principles can apply to dragon- it may not be as sympathetic as Redcloak, but its more sympathetic than Xykon.

Warren Dew

2009-02-10, 03:24 PM

I hope you mean V and the black dragon when you say "both sides". I think V is right, but that doesn't mean that I can't see how someone can disagree with her. The rest of the OOTS, on the other hand? The rest of the OOTS were defending themselves and had nothing to do with the death of the black dragon.

Come again?

The rest of the Order of the Stick attacked on sight just as quickly as Vaarsuvius did. In fact, they attacked instantly, while Vaarsuvius talked for a couple of panels.

If it hadn't been for Haley, Vaarsuvius would have been dragon chow. It took the party working together to win that battle.

It's true that Vaarsuvius did the heavy lifting, and landed the killing blow. That's just because of how powerful high level wizards are, though. Morally, the rest of the party is in the same boat.

The dragon may be singling out Vaarsuvius partly because of the killing blow, but I think it's mostly because Vaarsuvius is powerful enough to be worthy of notice. If your child dies to an insect bite, you don't go out and try to find that particular insect and take revenge on it; if it's a wolf, though, you might well go to the trouble to find that wolf and killing it.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:32 PM

Come again?

The rest of the Order of the Stick attacked on sight just as quickly as Vaarsuvius did. In fact, they attacked instantly, while Vaarsuvius talked for a couple of panels..

That's a misrepresentation of it. Just recently looked again.

Last panel of 181, Haley is pushing Roy back in, Roy is oblivious of the dragon probably because Haley is the centre of attention, pushing him back and all. The rest of the party invisible.

First panel of 182, fight scene. V isn't fighting because he has no spells, no attacks and no HP.

And, being V, monologues.

You could be right that Mom picked V because she is magic obsessed and beating another magic user is like wining a steeley in marbles, or sinking the battleship (mind you, thinking about it, why is it called battleship? having one or sinking it doesn't really mean anything in terms of the game mechanics: you still go one-at-a-time calling out labels. Heck when the battleship is gone, you're somewhat better off because there's a much lower chance of any shot that hits a ship of yours will get hit again next time. Ah well).

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:33 PM

And killing and eating people who wandered into your unmarked cave rather than telling them to get out is an evil act.

So it doesn't have to be a 24/7 action if you kill intruders on sight.

'cept maybe in Texas.

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 04:03 PM

Now see, this is precisely what I am talking about. You had to edit your post to include this, because of your zeal to immediately shoot out a -- rather insulting, not that I am in the position to take people to task for being flippant -- response to me. So when I replied in turn, I didn't see it. Meaning that if you were to reply to my other post, and I replied to your reply, where would this topic go? Take a few minutes to compose yourself. You'll make better replies, and with luck you'll lose a bit of that extremely defensive emotional response you seem to experience when anyone takes issue with your arguments.

Butterfly, or whatever the hell your name is,

The "B" is for "broken," actually. The dandelion is a weed that masquerades as a flower.

have you got SoD?
Yes, of course. I have all five books.

If you have, do you think when Xykon is going on about two different alignments "Evil" and "evil"? Or was he talking about the attitude that they cover? The, to put a phrase on it, grey area?
No, actually, I don't agree with your interpretation. I tried to put it humorously in my response, but that never seems to work around here. Xykon and Redcloak do have different attitudes. And I would agree with an assessment of Xykon as the "more" evil partner of the two. Xykon mentions this in his speech to Redcloak, but that's actually not his overall point -- that he's evil and Redcloak is gray and because "more evil" automatically translates to "more powerful," that Xykon is the stronger partner.

The point is that Xykon's honest about himself. He knows what he wants and he does as he pleases. Redcloak is not. Redcloak is, in fact, a hypocrite who uses evil while affecting to deplore it. He doesn't actually want to think of himself as evil, or to be evil, and the fact that he won't face up to the reality of his own evil deeds and instead rationalizes them -- "your whiny 'evil, but for a good cause,' crap" -- is a huge weakness on his part that Xykon is gleefully exploiting for all it's worth. Since Redcloak won't take responsibility for himself, he needs the justification that Xykon provides for him. He tells himself he has no choice but to do as he's told and so anything evil he does is really Xykon's fault and he is an innocent trapped by circumstance.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 04:13 PM

No, actually, I don't agree with your interpretation. I tried to put it humorously in my response, but that never seems to work around here. Xykon and Redcloak do have different attitudes. And I would agree with an assessment of Xykon as the "more" evil partner of the two. Xykon mentions this in his speech to Redcloak, but that's actually not his overall point -- that he's evil and Redcloak is gray and because "more evil" automatically translates to "more powerful," that Xykon is the stronger partner.

Not really true. Some little weaselly little scumbucket could be far more evil just unable to make it really widespread. Carcer in "Nightwatch" likes that sort of person.

RC isn't as evil because of the attitude he has. He's still got an Evil alignment. But then again, I've never talked about that in this thread. 'cept you brought it up as did shattered tower. PS if you want to make a joke, make it short. Unless it's rip-roaring laughter side-splitting guffaw fest, nobody is interested in reading 500 words to get a joke.

The point is that Xykon's honest about himself. He knows what he wants and he does as he pleases. Redcloak is not. Redcloak is, in fact, a hypocrite who uses evil while affecting to deplore it.

Well, yes. That's why despite being irredeemably evil and evil with a capital E, he's liked. But NO SYMPATHY. And he doesn't need it.

And RC used evil anyway. Before Xykon and even after Xykon up until the end of the SoD tale RC was somehow redeemable.

And for that fall, there's sympathy for RC.

And for not being irredeemably evil, some people think that RC could end up a dark hero and save the day at the end.

From Xykons POV RC is weak and spineless. He sees RC's concern for others as irrelevant. However, without the infinite hobgoblin army and RC's attempts to stop Xykon from killing them, Xykon would have died ages ago.

But you started with "there's no black and white, the alignment system doesn't allow it". How that is a joke if that was what you meant it to be I can't possible figure out.

It wasn't funny, was it. 'cos nobody's laughing.

Kish

2009-02-10, 04:21 PM

Don't presume to speak for "everyone."

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 04:46 PM

Don't presume to speak for "everyone."

She can if she wants to.

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 06:22 PM

Not really true. Some little weaselly little scumbucket could be far more evil just unable to make it really widespread. Carcer in "Nightwatch" likes that sort of person.
You're actually disagreeing here with the concept of "more evil means more powerful" that I mentioned as a hypothetical-but-incorrect interpretation of Xykon's remarks. I agree with you. Evil isn't synonymous with effectiveness or competency -- especially in the OOTS-verse. Hell, the Giant himself said it in so many words when referring to Nale in "War and XPs."

RC isn't as evil because of the attitude he has. He's still got an Evil alignment. But then again, I've never talked about that in this thread. 'cept you brought it up as did shattered tower.
I don't exactly see what the problem is, then, in saying he's still evil. Even without meaning evil in the strict alignment sense of the word.

PS if you want to make a joke, make it short. Unless it's rip-roaring laughter side-splitting guffaw fest, nobody is interested in reading 500 words to get a joke.
Do we read the same comic? :smallyuk:

It's totally your prerogative to not laugh at my poorly conveyed attempts at humor. I had kinda thought the multicolored fonts were a giveaway though...

Well, yes. That's why despite being irredeemably evil and evil with a capital E, he's liked. But NO SYMPATHY. And he doesn't need it.
What does sympathy have to do with it?

And RC used evil anyway. Before Xykon and even after Xykon up until the end of the SoD tale RC was somehow redeemable.
I'm not saying Xykon is what drove him to evil in the first place. But he was pretty young when they first met, and as time went on he was willing to reconsider his approach. Xykon is what prevents him from turning back and repenting, since he's now (in his own mind) crossed the point of no return.

"I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

And for that fall, there's sympathy for RC.
Sympathy does not equal sanction.

And for not being irredeemably evil, some people think that RC could end up a dark hero and save the day at the end.
This proves he's a popular character a lot of people would like to see come to a good end, and that they would believe a redemption story coming from his character. But what is "liked," "believed," or "hoped for" by fans isn't really the issue.

From Xykons POV RC is weak and spineless. He sees RC's concern for others as irrelevant. However, without the infinite hobgoblin army and RC's attempts to stop Xykon from killing them, Xykon would have died ages ago.
All true, but so what? What I mean is that Xykon's point is something else altogether.

But you started with "there's no black and white, the alignment system doesn't allow it". How that is a joke if that was what you meant it to be I can't possible figure out.
You're looking in the wrong place for the so-called "joke," it's not the opening statement. At any rate, I thought the problem was the opposite -- that I said there was only black and white, or really black and white and a rather limited gray within the confines of the alignment system.

Why did I think you should have been able to figure it out? Because D&D's alignment is a system of classification. Which is what you have primarily concerned yourself with. You kept disagreeing with people who still wanted to classify villains as evil even when they weren't as evil as the really evil villains, and were getting annoyed with them and bringing up specific examples of "evil" versus "not as evil" -- which is just a different sort of personal, subjective classification. If that's not something you're concerned with, than I don't see why you're getting bent out of shape over the prospect of people using words like "evil" even for sympathetic villains when there are a thousand and one villains who are "worse," because people know that already.

It wasn't funny, was it. 'cos nobody's laughing.
I am bereft.

Don't presume to speak for "everyone."
Thank you! Even if you only meant to acknowledge the possibility of such an occurence.

She can if she wants to.
Is it my fault if there are people who can get a vicarious joy out of watching me kick the tar out of someone's online arguments? There are a few posters I'm more than happy to let speak on my behalf.

But, seriously, where did I do that?

King of Nowhere

2009-02-10, 06:23 PM

Maybe the statement about being only black and white was the joke? Because Miko said something similar in the preface of SoD?
Well, anyway, even with an alignment sistem there is still plenty of space for grey. It's not that every creature of the same alignment must be indistinguishable from each other.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 06:51 PM

You're actually disagreeing here with the concept of "more evil means more powerful" that I mentioned as a hypothetical-but-incorrect interpretation of Xykon's remarks. I agree with you. Evil isn't synonymous with effectiveness or competency -- especially in the OOTS-verse. Hell, the Giant himself said it in so many words when referring to Nale in "War and XPs."

Yes, I am.

They aren't *independent* of each other, since you can have no power and just *dream* of the evil you'd do, and power means you don't just have to dream.

I don't exactly see what the problem is, then, in saying he's still evil. Even without meaning evil in the strict alignment sense of the word.

RC is evil. Small e. Whiney pretend to be evil. From Xykon's POV the worse evil because it doesn't even believe in itself.

RC is a more sympathetic character because of it. Buy Xykon doesn't want and definitely doesn't need sympathy.

But if RC started doing a Xykon, he'd lose it all. He'd not even be the welcome character Xykon is because he's just bigged himself up to be more evil and lost the sympathetic character.

Xykon wouldn't do a RC, though. And we love him for it. (in a totally platonic way, of course)

I'm not saying Xykon is what drove him to evil in the first place. But he was pretty young when they first met, and as time went on he was willing to reconsider his approach.

Because of his brother. That got stuffed. By RC's decision for short term avoidance of consequences.

Xykon is what prevents him from turning back and repenting, since he's now (in his own mind) crossed the point of no return.

And RC is wrong. There is ALWAYS a chance to change. Ever played Planescape: Torment?

SoD
Xykon thinks that RC is too weak so he doesn't think, though I kind of agree with him, though it's not a certainty, because he'd have to admit he killed his own brother. But the remorse at having done so futilely is the consequence of having done so. Protecting Xykon and being his bitch isn't. RC hasn't realised it and Xykon never will

"I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

But never lose what you cannot afford. Even if it means taking the chips off and going home. You ALWAYS CAN.

Sympathy does not equal sanction.

True. I didn't and I didn't accuse you of it either.

But, seriously, where did I do that?

I don't know. Ask kish. She's the one who said it.

And kick the tar? Only if you consider part of the conversation. Edit out all the bits where you made an ashole of yourself and then go "See? I made it".

I didn't read most of your multicoloured swapshop. Why? TOO LONG. So where did you whale the tar out of anything? As far as I read, you said "Huh, the alignment just has one level, there is no grey" but I never talked about the alignment as put down on the D&D sheet. I was talking about how the character realises the alignment. Which is only grey. 'cept for demons and angels and the like. And sometimes not even then.

So you whaled the tar out of something you made up me having said???

Ohhoooh, I won! I won! is what you're saying here. Grow the feck up.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 07:21 PM

{Scrubbed}

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 08:26 PM

Yes, I am.

They aren't *independent* of each other, since you can have no power and just *dream* of the evil you'd do, and power means you don't just have to dream.
I'm not seeing any significant disagreement going on between our two positions in this particular aspect, then.

RC is evil. Small e. Whiney pretend to be evil. From Xykon's POV the worse evil because it doesn't even believe in itself.
Whiny, yes. Pretend? Please explain to me why I should consider the slaughter of tens of thousands, or the potential destruction of every creature on the face of the planet, right down to their very souls, a "pretend" version of evil.

"Doesn't believe in itself?" in what aspect does it not? He knows that it's evil. He rationalizes that it's justified. If you're willing to accept Redcloak's rationalization for his evil actions, on what basis can you take Momma Dragon to task? She feels fully justified in her position, too.

RC is a more sympathetic character because of it. Buy Xykon doesn't want and definitely doesn't need sympathy.
In how many different languages do I have to tell you that this is completely beside the point?

But if RC started doing a Xykon, he'd lose it all. He'd not even be the welcome character Xykon is because he's just bigged himself up to be more evil and lost the sympathetic character.
You trying to change the topic from the laws of morality to the laws of narrative function.

Xykon wouldn't do a RC, though. And we love him for it. (in a totally platonic way, of course)
::throws up hands:: NOT. THE. POINT!!

Because of his brother.
Do you imply a coercive element to that? Otherwise why does it matter? I said he was willing to reconsider. That willingness was a still a natural result of the values he started with -- that capacity for love, fully expressed.

That got stuffed. By RC's decision for short term avoidance of consequences.
He had a great desire to avoid the consequences of Xykon murdering everyone in sight. That does have an obviously coercive element. There's a level of coercion underlying all of his interactions with Xykon -- which is something people tend to overlook, probably because a lot of their banter comes off as rather misleadingly friendly.

And RC is wrong. There is ALWAYS a chance to change.
Well, yeah. Personally I agree. But I am talking about what Redcloak thinks.

Ever played Planescape: Torment?
Sorry, no.

SoD
Xykon thinks that RC is too weak so he doesn't think, though I kind of agree with him, though it's not a certainty, because he'd have to admit he killed his own brother. But the remorse at having done so futilely is the consequence of having done so. Protecting Xykon and being his bitch isn't. RC hasn't realised it and Xykon never will
I don't know if I follow you here, how does this tie into your main argument?

But never lose what you cannot afford. Even if it means taking the chips off and going home. You ALWAYS CAN.
Like I said... Redcloak's position on the matter is his own. That's my interpretation of his mindset.

True. I didn't and I didn't accuse you of it either.
I... wasn't saying you were, either? It's just that whether or not people sympathize, there are things he's done that aren't excusable no matter what the Freudian excuse. I sympathize with him plenty -- he's my favorite character, hands down. I still don't have a problem with saying he's "evil," and I don't think that's insulting. It's selling him kind of short, yeah, he's complicated... but his evilness is an important part of the plot.

I don't know. Ask kish. She's the one who said it.
That people should refrain from presuming to speak for "everyone"? Funny how I thought she was directing that at you, since you made several statements including phrases like "everybody thinks," "nobody is interested," whereas my post did not contain any at all -- or at least, not in the post that is actually on this board as opposed to the imaginary one in your head.

And kick the tar? Only if you consider part of the conversation.
Keep this up and perhaps I shall kick the tar out of your ability to remain unbanned from the discussion forums, which would be a shame since I'm not actually aiming for that goal.

Edit out all the bits where you made an ashole of yourself and then go "See? I made it".
I make a jerk out of myself for being right? Else tell me what you refer to.

I didn't read most of your multicoloured swapshop. Why? TOO LONG.
I'm sure it was a very taxing 20 words or so to plow through, but don't you think it's slightly hypocritical to claim that it was impossible to deduce the intended meaning of a post you admit to having not read?

So where did you whale the tar out of anything?
I did not, actually, claim to have done that. I asked if it was a problem if people would enjoy it vicariously in the case that it did happen. Once again, all level of subtlety is completely lost on you due to your tendency to assume and react to every response as a personal attack. Grow some skin.

As far as I read, you said "Huh, the alignment just has one level, there is no grey" but I never talked about the alignment as put down on the D&D sheet.
You have repeatedly referred to the D&D alignment version of morality in your responses to this very thread. Do you not actually read your own posts? There's too many even to quote here!

I was talking about how the character realises the alignment. Which is only grey. 'cept for demons and angels and the like. And sometimes not even then.

So you whaled the tar out of something you made up me having said???
Go back and read some of your old posts. I'll wait.

Ohhoooh, I won! I won! is what you're saying here. Grow the feck up.
Wanton, I honestly could not care less whether I "win" or "lose" an argument on a discussion board. You are the one preoccupied with perceiving things only in those terms. It's a shame because now and again you've actually made a few good points, and they wind up not coming across because you're more concerned with making it clear that you find the very existence of people who disagree with you to be some kind of personal affront.

Cúchulainn

2009-02-10, 08:39 PM

Sure is GAR in here. If I have to scroll through another degenerated wall of angstext I think I might go straight to -9 hitpoints.

I might not speak for everyone else like everyone else does in this thread but tl;dr, can we get back on topic? I was enjoying the bar scuffle more than the pistols at dawn.

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 09:50 PM

OK, we're going to go through this.

This one is ignorable since it was all apparently a "joke".
I... said specifically the joke was not in the first section...

You're looking in the wrong place for the so-called "joke," it's not the opening statement.
^-------------- If you will re-examine that post, you should notice the lack of editing, because it's what I said the first time. It is the very post you are referencing when you claim I have said the opposite.

Moot.
Yes, I would have to agree with that assessment. It is quite ridiculous for me to hold myself responsible for the misconceptions you keep leaping to in your haste to belittle me, when it's plain I'm going to be attacked for saying black is white whether I have said either black is white or black is black.

I am also terribly sorry for the ulcers I have apparently given you, and although of course it is no excuse, I hope you can find it in you to forgive me some day as my intention was never to cause you pain. And while that is obviously dripping with irony, I'm not actually insincere on that last point, because I wasn't being patronizing when I said I thought you'd brought up some good points earlier and I hadn't wanted to get into a flame war at all.

Sure is GAR in here. If I have to scroll through another degenerated wall of angstext I think I might go straight to -9 hitpoints.

I might not speak for everyone else like everyone else does in this thread but tl;dr, can we get back on topic? I was enjoying the bar scuffle more than the pistols at dawn.
Buy me a beer and I'll think about it.

Cúchulainn

2009-02-10, 10:50 PM

B. Dandelion

2009-02-10, 11:12 PM

You're cute when you're indignant but take it to PM's if you want to continue please, when things get to a point where honest peace loving posters like myself won't be heard above the roar of the gladiator stands the thread might as well be locked.
Oh, no, believe me I understand. I'm sorry if that came off like "you're not the boss of me!" because I'm done -- there are plenty of places I can go if I'm actually looking for trouble. But you didn't pick up a specific portion of the debate to go with, so the ball's in your court.

I have to be "in the mood," you know?

stabbybelkar

2009-02-10, 11:18 PM

But black dragons are not people. You keep bringing up goblins and orcs, and I keep saying that it's not the same - you seem to ignore that. I will say it, again.

look as much as I hate to quote from the live-action transformers movie
"Freedom is the right of ALL SENTIENT BEINGS"
look at a monster manual. Dragons are an entire race of F**King geniuses. As in the combined intellect of Albert Einstien and Steiven Hawking smart. the dragon is in my opinion compleatly justifyed. Hell V got off lightly.

Noam

2009-02-11, 12:31 AM

And Xykon would have done it to pass the time.

Which one's worse?

Did you read my post? I did say I think Redcloack is better than Xykon.

Come again?

The rest of the Order of the Stick attacked on sight just as quickly as Vaarsuvius did. In fact, they attacked instantly, while Vaarsuvius talked for a couple of panels.

If it hadn't been for Haley, Vaarsuvius would have been dragon chow. It took the party working together to win that battle.

It's true that Vaarsuvius did the heavy lifting, and landed the killing blow. That's just because of how powerful high level wizards are, though. Morally, the rest of the party is in the same boat.

The dragon may be singling out Vaarsuvius partly because of the killing blow, but I think it's mostly because Vaarsuvius is powerful enough to be worthy of notice. If your child dies to an insect bite, you don't go out and try to find that particular insect and take revenge on it; if it's a wolf, though, you might well go to the trouble to find that wolf and killing it.

Haley pushed roy into the darkness the moment she saw the dragon. It appears that the OOTS were running away, not attacking on sight.

kusje

2009-02-11, 12:47 AM

Haley pushed roy into the darkness the moment she saw the dragon. It appears that the OOTS were running away, not attacking on sight.

It appears Haley was running away.

pearl jam

2009-02-11, 01:41 AM

I don't get the fuss over what's going on being justice or good vs evil.

The dragon clearly stated that this was about nothing more than revenge. The dragon never attempted to justify it, only tell V about the pain it caused her and her wanting to inflict it back to V.

I think this post sums it up nicely, myself. Vengeance is not about what someone deserves; it's about what the party who feels wronged believes they deserve.

pearl jam

2009-02-11, 01:48 AM

look as much as I hate to quote from the live-action transformers movie
"Freedom is the right of ALL SENTIENT BEINGS"
look at a monster manual. Dragons are an entire race of F**King geniuses. As in the combined intellect of Albert Einstien and Steiven Hawking smart. the dragon is in my opinion compleatly justifyed. Hell V got off lightly.

And do you know the penalty they pay, at least in Western mythology, in return for being an entire species of geniuses? They are EVIL. Which pretty much eliminates the probability of their actions being justified, because dispensing justice is a quality of the good, rather than the evil.

David Argall

2009-02-11, 02:33 AM

look as much as I hate to quote from the live-action transformers movie
"Freedom is the right of ALL SENTIENT BEINGS"
that is not D&D alignment logic. Freedom is a chaotic virtue, and thus a lawful vice. Freedom is, to the lawful mind, the doing of the unlawful, which condemns it out of hand.
Nor does the lawful look favorably on the idea of rights. There are no rights, just duties. The man robbing you is not violating your rights, he is violating his duty not to rob you.

look at a monster manual. Dragons are an entire race of F**King geniuses. As in the combined intellect of Albert Einstien and Steiven Hawking smart. the dragon is in my opinion compleatly justifyed. Hell V got off lightly.
Older dragons are pretty smart all right, but your exceptional PC, aided by routine toys can keep up with all but the real studs, and your high level tweeked out wiz can manage to talk down to the average gold dragon.

Cúchulainn

2009-02-11, 03:24 AM

Hell I don't even know which way to hit the ball anymore. It doesn't seem like anyone is in disagreement, but it seems like everyone has a different opinion, gives me a headache.

I don't condone the dragon's actions, settling a score with someone other than the person that wronged you is cowardly and malicious, which tend to go hand in hand. Then again this is a dragon we're talking about and it doesn't care about morality or anything like that, it's just a monster after all, I doubt it could comprehend humanoid feelings. Not that I care, I would have just killed it. You stop to make sure every monster that you come by doesn't have any vengeful bigger parent and you might as well retire as an adventurer.

The dragon is just another high level, high CR random encounter as far as I'm concerned. I won't sympathize with a giant evil lizard anymore than I will a hypocrite goblin, swashbuckling kobold or overzealous paladin. I doubt any one of them would sympathize for me.

As for the D&D alignment system, I gave up caring or thinking about that a long time ago. I used to be a paladin, now I'm just a lawful neutral fighter, can you guess why that is? I guess shades of grey suited me better than gold, and I found freedom in being neutral instead of good, as opposed to chaotic instead of lawful.

RC only has to answer to one person, that's himself. Right now he's a slave to a lich, an evil god and his own dirty conscience. That wouldn't stop me from stabbing him in the heart and throwing him off the turrets. Everything he does is evil and for evil things and causes, I don't care whether deep down he doesn't want to or that he thinks he's just striking down an enemy for justice. At the end of the day evil is evil, whether you kill 1 person or 1000, nothing is going to stop that wrong being righted.

Does that mean if RC killed 1 person and Xykon killed 1000 they would be just as evil as eachother? Sure, why not. A murderer is a murderer, the perceptions and feelings of the people determine how evil they are seen, not how evil they are.

Anyway I'm bored of this, hopefully the next comic wraps things up. Unlikely but eh at least I know it has the potential to be interesting if B. is in the mood for it to be.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-11, 05:45 AM

Hell I don't even know which way to hit the ball anymore. It doesn't seem like anyone is in disagreement, but it seems like everyone has a different opinion, gives me a headache.

I don't condone the dragon's actions, settling a score with someone other than the person that wronged you is cowardly and malicious, which tend to go hand in hand. Then again this is a dragon we're talking about and it doesn't care about morality or anything like that, it's just a monster after all, I doubt it could comprehend humanoid feelings. Not that I care, I would have just killed it. You stop to make sure every monster that you come by doesn't have any vengeful bigger parent and you might as well retire as an adventurer.

It's quite the opposite. Any dragon with any willingness to have any level of understanding of the human(or elves for the comic's matter) is very capable to do so, as even the younger dragons are as mentally apt as a human. They just don't happen to care very much.

The dragon is just another high level, high CR random encounter as far as I'm concerned. I won't sympathize with a giant evil lizard anymore than I will a hypocrite goblin, swashbuckling kobold or overzealous paladin. I doubt any one of them would sympathize for me.

As for the D&D alignment system, I gave up caring or thinking about that a long time ago. I used to be a paladin, now I'm just a lawful neutral fighter, can you guess why that is? I guess shades of grey suited me better than gold, and I found freedom in being neutral instead of good, as opposed to chaotic instead of lawful.

RC only has to answer to one person, that's himself. Right now he's a slave to a lich, an evil god and his own dirty conscience. That wouldn't stop me from stabbing him in the heart and throwing him off the turrets. Everything he does is evil and for evil things and causes, I don't care whether deep down he doesn't want to or that he thinks he's just striking down an enemy for justice. At the end of the day evil is evil, whether you kill 1 person or 1000, nothing is going to stop that wrong being righted.

Working towards a happy end shouldn't be a sure way to go, as in something that can just be assumed by the reader. Some of both the best stories I've read, and the best games I've played were the ones were "good trumps bad in the end" was never guaranteed, and sometimes the bad guys would win anyway.
This hits me as weakness, personally.

Cúchulainn

2009-02-11, 06:39 AM

It's quite the opposite. Any dragon with any willingness to have any level of understanding of the human(or elves for the comic's matter) is very capable to do so, as even the younger dragons are as mentally apt as a human. They just don't happen to care very much.

Important part bolded. Dragons are arrogant creatures who believe themselves the progenitor of every form of life that matters. I won't say a dragon doesn't have feelings but their very existence is so far removed and different from almost every other race that common ground is non-existent as well. The only times dragons even consider 'lesser' races is when they're threatened, hungry or need them to complete a duty or quest or something.

I don't think a giant lizard could truly comprehend what it's like to be a 6 foot tall hairy humanoid and the feelings associated with that. Then again they do live a long time and have nothing else to do. One of them might idly wonder about it looking at the bones of its last meal. Point is that I don't expect a dragon no matter how shiny its scales are to give me a second thought if I do something that annoys it, for good or evil. Right back at it to be honest.

Working towards a happy end shouldn't be a sure way to go, as in something that can just be assumed by the reader. Some of both the best stories I've read, and the best games I've played were the ones were "good trumps bad in the end" was never guaranteed, and sometimes the bad guys would win anyway.
This hits me as weakness, personally.

Hell I enjoy a happy ending just as much as the next sad soul but I haven't been so naive as to think evil always loses since I was 5. Good and evil are just ways of doing things and living, if I don't like that I stop it, if they don't like how I do things I expect to be stopped. There's a wrong way to do things and then there's another wrong way to do things and as far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat. It'll be a cold day in hell before I begrudge someone for standing up for his beliefs, even if they're truly wrong but manage to defeat me. Two wrongs never make a right but at least you're adding instead of subtracting, eh? Maybe 3 wrongs make a right, who knows.

Anyway I prefer not to think about it as good winning and evil losing and vice versa, I prefer to think of it as the wheel keeping on turning. Course, neutral always wins in the end because we can be on both sides or no sides at all. Roll with the punches and all that. In the end the happiest end is what you make of it. You start fighting for everyone but yourself and you find you have nothing to come home to after the fight is over, so for those people the fight never ends. Is that a happy ending for all the good people out there fighting for us selfish neutral people? Like I said I gave up caring about alignment and good and evil, it's a headache waiting to happen, especially when the zealots who put too much emphasis on words and thoughts instead of actions get a wind of someone like me. "Stop that guy, he just doesn't get us!"

Noam

2009-02-11, 07:18 AM

It appears Haley was running away.

Since the rest of the OOTS didn't see the dragon at that point, they had no one to run from. From the look on the OOTS' faces in the battle, they didn't want to fight the dragon.

look as much as I hate to quote from the live-action transformers movie
"Freedom is the right of ALL SENTIENT BEINGS"
look at a monster manual. Dragons are an entire race of F**King geniuses. As in the combined intellect of Albert Einstien and Steiven Hawking smart. the dragon is in my opinion compleatly justifyed. Hell V got off lightly.

Dragons are also an entire race of evil basterds. I never said they are mindless or anything, but they don't deserve to be treated as (demi)humans unless they go out of their way to prove you that they are not evil.

kusje

2009-02-11, 07:58 AM

Another little dragon-might-not-be-evil fact: He eats corn!

Raging Gene Ray

2009-02-11, 08:35 AM

Another little dragon-might-not-be-evil fact: He eats corn!

You can't prove that.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-11, 08:36 AM

Another little dragon-might-not-be-evil fact: He eats corn!

And Xykon drank Coffee like a madman.

lord_khaine

2009-02-11, 09:30 AM

Kish

2009-02-11, 04:31 PM

Dragons are also an entire race of evil basterds. I never said they are mindless or anything, but they don't deserve to be treated as (demi)humans unless they go out of their way to prove you that they are not evil.
Whereas I would say that the quickest way to forfeit your right to being treated "as a demihuman," whatever that means, is to expect other intelligent creatures to prove to you that they're not evil or you'll assume they are. :smalltongue:

pearl jam

2009-02-11, 05:16 PM

Dragons are also an entire race of evil basterds. I never said they are mindless or anything, but they don't deserve to be treated as (demi)humans unless they go out of their way to prove you that they are not evil.

Whereas I would say that the quickest way to forfeit your right to being treated "as a demihuman," whatever that means, is to expect other intelligent creatures to prove to you that they're not evil or you'll assume they are. :smalltongue:

Technically, a demihuman would be half-human, as in less than a full human- so it's unlikely you would wish to retain any "right" to be treated this way.

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 05:23 PM

Really technically, a demihuman is an old term for dwarf, elf, or halfling in Basic D&D.

still, point is made.

stabbybelkar

2009-02-11, 05:42 PM

I think this post sums it up nicely, myself. Vengeance is not about what someone deserves; it's about what the party who feels wronged believes they deserve.

Look, I don't know if you knowtaced but V killed her only son! Ask any one with kids and they will tell you that if someone killed their children they would do whatever it takes to make that person pay. So really the dragon is about as evil as the average human.

pearl jam

2009-02-11, 05:59 PM

Look, I don't know if you knowtaced but V killed her only son! Ask any one with kids and they will tell you that if someone killed their children they would do whatever it takes to make that person pay. So really the dragon is about as evil as the average human.

I have a daughter, so you don't need to tell me how people feel about their kids. But a parent who kills their child's killer still faces prison themselves. They may not regret their choice, but that doesn't make it justice.

Code Black

2009-02-11, 06:43 PM

I have a daughter, so you don't need to tell me how people feel about their kids. But a parent who kills their child's killer still faces prison themselves. They may not regret their choice, but that doesn't make it justice.

Indeed. This whole issue seems to be intentionally morally ambiguous. Neither V nor the dragon is portrayed as being in the right, or justified. Neither are exactly completely wrong, but the message is still clear:

Vengeance, dismissal of others' feelings, and unbridled aggression are all things that only cause pain in the end. This is the lesson V will learn: The Dragon has been consumed by all three, and this will be the wake-up call that brings V out of his/her current state.

In fact, if V didn't specify arcane power, I'd assume this was where V would gain ultimate power, that is, ultimate wisdom.

YesImSardonic

2009-02-11, 09:02 PM

Howdy.

Query: Whence came the dragon's hoard?

Given the fact that the dragon is an Evil creature, it would not be unreasonable to assume she (and her husband and son) was in the habit of raiding castles and villages and plundering them for all the gold they had, in addition to murdering the inhabitants.

That would make the dragons guilty of theft and murder and therefore devoid of rights to life and property themselves. Any misfortune that befalls them is fully deserved.

I don't know if this point has been iterated before. If it has, I apologize for the redundancy.

Mesfens

2009-02-11, 09:15 PM

Knaight

2009-02-11, 09:43 PM

Not quite, they do have other uses, such as being part of a general world, which interacts as normal with it, and is more morally ambiguous, such as in this case, where the dragon isn't just bad for being a dragon, but is bad for deciding that attacking V's children is some how a reasonable action. Basically for being overly ruthless and evil.

Warren Dew

2009-02-11, 10:48 PM

Haley pushed roy into the darkness the moment she saw the dragon. It appears that the OOTS were running away, not attacking on sight.

And yet in the very next frame, they have all moved away from the darkness and are engaged with the dragon. The first attacker may have been the dragon, or it may have been the rest of the Order of the Stick, but it definitely wasn't Vaarsuvius.

Another little dragon-might-not-be-evil fact: He eats corn!

About time someone brought that up. While I think it's unlikely the dragon is innocent, the corn does help keep the question a little open.

Kish

2009-02-12, 12:07 AM

Cúchulainn

2009-02-12, 12:23 AM

Like Celia, you mean?

Yes, definately. Painfully.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-12, 05:53 AM

On an unrelated note, what puzzles me is why there seems to be a defense at all for the dragon. Really, it confounds me. Dragons and other non-player races exist to be killed by the player characters.

Sometimes that alone is enough reason for me to root for them. Giving PCs a reality check that they can die if they aren't careful is sweet.

robertm

2009-02-12, 08:20 AM

Sometimes that alone is enough reason for me to root for them. Giving PCs a reality check that they can die if they aren't careful is sweet.

Agree! First it is meaningless to discuss morale in a pure D&D context. There is no morale in D&D, just an alignment system, and behavior that is tied to the different alignments.
Now I don't hesitate to kill an intelligent evil monster in a D&D campaign, if it is in my way. That is, unless the DM has indicated that there is a 'morale' dimension to the adventure.
OOTS is however more that a normal D&D adventure, and Rich has skillfully put characters into NPCs and woven questions about morale and the consequences of ones actions into the story.
In the D&D rules a Black Dragon is just an evil monster (though powerful and intelligent). In Rich world it also has feelings and cares for its kin. That makes for a more interesting and deep adventure, where one has to think twice before cutting into things.

And personally I'm quite fond of dragons - be they golden or black :smallcool:

kusje

2009-02-12, 08:29 AM

moral not morale. Morale is something else entirely.

Noam

2009-02-12, 09:13 AM

Whereas I would say that the quickest way to forfeit your right to being treated "as a demihuman," whatever that means, is to expect other intelligent creatures to prove to you that they're not evil or you'll assume they are. :smalltongue:

If you expect all intelligent creatures to prove that they're evil, yes, you are a jerk. But it's perfectly fine to assume that about dragons, or mind flayers, or any other always evil creature.

Kish

2009-02-12, 10:28 AM

If you expect all intelligent creatures to prove that they're [not] evil, yes, you are a jerk. But it's perfectly fine to assume that about dragons, or mind flayers, or any other always evil creature.
...Are you genuinely still unaware that I don't agree that that position is morally viable, or do you just think if you repeat it enough times I'll give up?

Assuming. That. About. Dragons. Or. Mind. Flayers. Or. Any. Other. Species. Is. Evil. It's in the freaking Player's Handbook: that's an example of Lawful Evil behavior. To be good you need to judge individuals, not races.

Noam

2009-02-12, 12:38 PM

...Are you genuinely still unaware that I don't agree that that position is morally viable, or do you just think if you repeat it enough times I'll give up?

Assuming. That. About. Dragons. Or. Mind. Flayers. Or. Any. Other. Species. Is. Evil. It's in the freaking Player's Handbook: that's an example of Lawful Evil behavior. To be good you need to judge individuals, not races.

If the OOTS were to kill the dragon just because it was a black dragon I can maybe see how this is wrong. But the dragon attacked them, and not the other way around (and even if you claim that they didn't run away but charged at the dragon a moment after Haley pushed Roy into the darkness, the dragon did cast the darkness) and were defending themselves. The dragon was helpless but he was also 2 rounds away from being free.

Now, tell me this: do you think that black dragons are, in 99.9999999% of the cases, evil, or that this is not the case? Let's agree on either option and work from there.

B. Dandelion

2009-02-12, 01:03 PM

On an unrelated note, what puzzles me is why there seems to be a defense at all for the dragon. Really, it confounds me. Dragons and other non-player races exist to be killed by the player characters. There is no other reason for them being there, unless it is to render some sort of service, such as being a "pack mule" or being the monster holding a coveted item - in the latter's case their death is necessary anyway. That is the axiomatic truth of their world.
Wait, you've read SoD, haven't you? Why would you be confounded by people rejecting the idea that any sentient being can only exist "for" the purpose of being killed?

Actually, does that idea even apply to dragons at all? She's claiming Tiamat as a patron deity, and the dragon goddess has been around from the beginning. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for her to craft dragons in her own image only to turn them over as intended PC chow. I say she's up to something.

Kish

2009-02-12, 01:05 PM

Now, tell me this: do you think that black dragons are, in 99.9999999% of the cases, evil, or that this is not the case? Let's agree on either option and work from there.
In what? In Eberron? No. In the Forgotten Realms? The number of nines is probably still excessive. In Rich's work? We've only seen two of them, one of whom is evil, the other of whom we don't know about.

Beyond that, I don't think you grasp why we disagree so fundamentally. In the paragraph I quote, you write like you're trying to establish an essential foundation, and from your point of view, I would guess that is the case. From mine, you're arguing for an irrelevancy. I cannot impart to you how little regard I have for the idea of racial morality taken to the point of "see black scales, kill," rather than "and their culture tends to encourage..." No amount of repetition will make me respect that idea. Now, we can argue about whether D&D agrees with me or you more if you like--and if you want to do that, I'd suggest starting with coming up with a refutation to the Player's Handbook calling judging by race rather than individual a Lawful Evil quality. Or, and it would seem to have more relevance here, we can argue about whether Rich's writing agrees with me or you more, as perhaps we don't agree that a great deal of the point of the last few strips is mashing Vaarsuvius' nose in how wrong s/he was to casually kill the young black dragon and assume it existed just for him/her to kill. I'll freely admit that having dropped the gradated alignment tendencies with "Always" entirely in favor of noting that no race is guaranteed to be any alignment is one of the few things I like about 4ed. I've read a lot of literature which gives its villains real motivations and I've read a lot of literature which goes the "evil just because" route. One of those descriptions denotes a type of literature which, at its absolute best, just barely escapes being fit to line a birdcage and nothing more. Guess which one.

Optimystik

2009-02-12, 01:05 PM

This thread's still going? Wow.

Yes, definately. Painfully.

Your sig sounds a lot more like Chaotic Neutral than Lawful Neutral.

On an unrelated note, what puzzles me is why there seems to be a defense at all for the dragon. Really, it confounds me. Dragons and other non-player races exist to be killed by the player characters.

Codswallop. Anything that's not playable exists to be killed? Does that include archons and demons? gods and archdevils?

Some creatures and beings are around specifically to drive a setting's plot or add an element of danger. You are acting exactly like the bloodthirsty "solve-every-problem-through-violence" PC that so wonderfully ends up dead in any campaign that requires thinking with one's brain instead of one's sword arm. The whole point of any world is that no matter how powerful you get, something else out there is bigger than you, and you're best off not attracting its ire. Unless of course you're Pun-Pun.

Now, tell me this: do you think that black dragons are, in 99.9999999% of the cases, evil, or that this is not the case? Let's agree on either option and work from there.

You and your adventuring pals, who should know better, stroll nonchalantly into a bear's den. The bear attacks you. Is it evil? No, it's still True Neutral, like every other animal. Now you tell me: what is evil about minding your own business in a cave in the middle of a desolate swamp?