PDA

View Full Version : Support for the Black Dragon



Milandros
2009-02-07, 02:28 PM
In my opinion, I think a lot of people are mixing up understanding the dragon's motives with supporting it.

It's perfectly reasonable to empathise with mamma dragon. It's absolutely understandable that she's mad as hell, and that she wants revenge. It's even perfectly understandable that she wants that revenge to be as horrible as possible. Heck, if something like that happenened to my little girl, I'd want to end the perpetrators entire species along with every cause they ever supported.

That doesn't on the other hand, mean that the dragon is worthy of support, or that the killing of the original dragon was wrong.

Firstly, consider an analogy:
A corrupt and aggressive policeman shoots dead a young man on the street who didn't stop when he called because he was wearing headphones. The lad's mother wants revenge. Is she justified in killing the cop? In killing the cop's wife and children?

Then make it worse:
A policeman, following a lead, enters a house. An 18 year old charges at him firing a gun. The policeman probably shouldn't be there, but he shoots and kills the young man. How justified is revenge now?

Then make it comparable to this case:
A soldier and private detective(vaguely similar to what a good aligned adventurer often is), following a lead, enters a building he has no reason to believe is inhabited. An 18 year old gunman, recogniseable as a known killer who has robbed and murdered before, charges him, and he kills him.
How reasonable is it for the dead man's mother, who is herself a mass murder and known terrorist and responsible for hundreds of innocent deaths, to hunt down and kill the guy's family?

Remember, this is a Black Dragon. They're not nice, nor are they innocent ickle fluffybunnykins sitting quietly at home until attacked by them big 'ol mean nasty adventurers. They are violent, aggressive, horrible monsters without compassion or mercy for anything not their own. Would the opinion of the black dragon's supporters still be the same if we had seen those victims first? If the dragon had slowly killed and eaten Haley before they had ever entered its cave?

Of course, this doesn't mean that one can't feel sympathy for mama dragon. We feel sympathy for Redcloak, after all. But just as what happened to Redcloak's family all those years ago, plus the "necessary for the cause" deaths that Redcloak has inflicted on his own people since then don't justify the slaughter of Azure City's population decades later, the completely reasonable anger this monsterous killer feels for the death of her murdering son doesn't justify what she plans to do.

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 02:38 PM
main difference being, that the Order, and V, have no knowledge of specific crimes committed by the dragon other than "attacking them" Meaning its not quite the same as meeting a young killer you know has robbed and murdered before.

But yes, most people who understand the dragon's rage don't think her loss justifies inflicting harm on innocents.

Milandros
2009-02-07, 02:54 PM
main difference being, that the Order, and V, have no knowledge of specific crimes committed by the dragon other than "attacking them" Meaning its not quite the same as meeting a young killer you know has robbed and murdered before.



I'd agree, except for the fact that it's a D&D world and this is a black dragon. If it were a tribe of gnomes you'd have a good point, but unfortunately it's an "always evil" monster. You don't keep an "always evil" alignment without actually doing evil acts.

We regularly kill scorpions, poisonous spiders and snakes without any knowledge that they killed anyone first. We kill a rabid dog without waiting. A black dragon is like an intelligent rabid dog that knows it's rabid and can't wait to kill people as painfully as possible.

Revlid
2009-02-07, 02:57 PM
THIS.

Thank you for laying out the morality of the situation logically - V isn't in the right, but the BDM is most definitely in the wrong.

Laughing Dragon
2009-02-07, 03:01 PM
Of course we, as presumeably good and well intentioned beings do not believe that violence is justified.

However, from the Dragon's point of view ... I think that her actions make perfect sense. Also from her point of view I think that she believes her actions to be entirely justified.

We are talking about a being that, while extremly intellegent, is also extremly evil (not to mention filled with the arrogence, entitlement, and haughtyness often found in member of the race of dragons).

We are not talking about petty evil (done for personal or political gain), but profound evil (done just because it provides satisfaction).

While, from a warm-fuzzy standpoint I would prefer if V's family were to escape unharmed ... it is useful to remember that adventuring is not without its negative consequences for the otherwise good-oriented party (DM's take note).

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 03:02 PM
not entirely true on "dragon as rabid dog" most D&D novels portray them as capable of reasoning with people and keeping to agreements, albiet evil.

Thauglor in Cormyr: A Novel the elf lord challenges him to a duel, stipulating, if he loses, he must not harm the elves of the forest.

Or Mist in Azure Bonds: the paladin defeats her, with the stipulation for winning being that she help them against a greater threat.

Or Hephasteus in Sojourn: has been known to do smelting work, if commissioned, though is generally touchy.

All CE dragons.

Dragons in D&D, even evil ones, aren't always "things to exterminate"

Myou
2009-02-07, 04:46 PM
Very well said, OP.

Scion_of_Darkness
2009-02-08, 05:28 AM
Thank you. You are far more eloquent that I am when trying to articulate the idea that the dragon's actions are reasonable, but not right. However I disagree on the rabid dog characterization. If you were to consider dragons as humans, then we would be insects to them. The good dragons are the type of people who catch bugs in a tissue and throw them outside. The bad dragons are the type that squash you without a second thought. They don't set out to cause misery and death (except in this case where a non-dragon managed to become big enough to warrant malice) but they won't think twice about it if they do.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 06:49 AM
4th ed draconomicon uses almost these very words- good or non-evil chromatic dragons are like humans who are kind to animals- they still occasionally eat them and see this as "the natural order". Evil chromatic dragons, rather nastier.

Noam
2009-02-08, 07:14 AM
Thank you, OP. You are a voice of reason in a sea of madness.


not entirely true on "dragon as rabid dog" most D&D novels portray them as capable of reasoning with people and keeping to agreements, albiet evil.

Thauglor in Cormyr: A Novel the elf lord challenges him to a duel, stipulating, if he loses, he must not harm the elves of the forest.

Or Mist in Azure Bonds: the paladin defeats her, with the stipulation for winning being that she help them against a greater threat.

Or Hephasteus in Sojourn: has been known to do smelting work, if commissioned, though is generally touchy.

All CE dragons.

Dragons in D&D, even evil ones, aren't always "things to exterminate"

I think what the OP meant is not that dragons are insane or stupid, but that they are creatures that kill people for no reason other than the laughs. They are capable of keeping their words, but only to inflict more misery later or get more treasure.

B. Dandelion
2009-02-08, 07:20 AM
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the O.P. But...


Remember, this is a Black Dragon. They're not nice, nor are they innocent ickle fluffybunnykins sitting quietly at home until attacked by them big 'ol mean nasty adventurers.

Why do people always do this? Is it just not possible to discuss any kind of moral philosophy without taking at least one or two potshots at the imagined opponent? You obviously don't think people hew to this viewpoint literally, and you have turned your argument away from the facts and into a slam against an entire philosophy. Why the hell does it even matter if the dragon wasn't "nice?" Or even, was "evil?" As you are the person making it an issue, you're falling back on an apologist justification for atrocities committed against people not in a necessary self-defense or defense of others, but on the basis of "judgment," which is subjective. Yes, I know this is D&D and morality is "objective." That's not the point at issue. The point is, do you believe that V, or any other character in the strip, should get to make the final judgment call on the life, or death, that is "deserved" by anyone? If not, WHY BRING IT UP?

And just to be a total pedant about it, what evidence do we have of "evildoing" by the dragon V killed aside from that oh-so-convienient "always evil" classification? Attacking the OOTS may qualify. I'm not sure. Who attacked first? We don't actually see -- that that very possibly was intentional on the Giant's part. It cuts from Haley freaking out and the dragon looking menacing, to a fight where all parties have obviously been engaged for a while.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 07:26 AM
to give an example of non-always evil creatures which behave almost exactly like black dragons:

3.5 Draconomicon
Fang Dragon: Always CN: Especially enjoy flesh of intelligent mammals, has a tendency to play with its food in a cruel way.

so, in D&D, an intelligent creature which eats sentient beings and plays with them cruelly isn't necessarily evil.

Though personally I think thats stretching definition of CN a bit.

In a similar way, the Sympathetic Villain described in the Exemplars of Evil entry is murdering every soldier who destroyed her village, desecrates the body by carving "Justice" into it and putting it on a pole, and "regrets murdering a few drunks, etc who witnessed her acts, but letting them live would have compromised her mission" And she's LN.

Noam
2009-02-08, 07:36 AM
to give an example of non-always evil creatures which behave almost exactly like black dragons:

3.5 Draconomicon
Fang Dragon: Always CN: Especially enjoy flesh of intelligent mammals, has a tendency to play with its food in a cruel way.

so, in D&D, an intelligent creature which eats sentient beings and plays with them cruelly isn't necessarily evil.

Though personally I think thats stretching definition of CN a bit.

In a similar way, the Sympathetic Villain described in the Exemplars of Evil entry is murdering every soldier who destroyed her village, desecrates the body by carving "Justice" into it and putting it on a pole, and "regrets murdering a few drunks, etc who witnessed her acts, but letting them live would have compromised her mission" And she's LN.

That is NOT CN or LN. Killing people who destroyed your village? Fine. Killing people who saw it? That's cold blooded murder. Same goes for the CN dragon - mind flayers do the same, they are intelligent and they are very clearly evil.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 07:41 AM
true, I said it was stretching it. other books, like BoED, handle it rather better, saying cold-blooded murder OR revenge fuelled murder is evil even if its of evil people.

still, its possible some sourcebook writers are willing to stretch definitions a bit- the LN person could be teetering on the brink of LE, the CN dragon might only be getting a pass because its a dragon and dragons are very predatory.

4th ed modified fang dragons slightly, giving them a breath weapon, and moved them into Evil- which made more sense.

Noam
2009-02-08, 09:01 AM
true, I said it was stretching it. other books, like BoED, handle it rather better, saying cold-blooded murder OR revenge fuelled murder is evil even if its of evil people.

still, its possible some sourcebook writers are willing to stretch definitions a bit- the LN person could be teetering on the brink of LE, the CN dragon might only be getting a pass because its a dragon and dragons are very predatory.

4th ed modified fang dragons slightly, giving them a breath weapon, and moved them into Evil- which made more sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since BoVD/BoED came out, D&D sourcebooks have tended to back away from "revenge is evil" and more toward "revenge is non-good"

the Avenging Executioner character in Complete Scoundrel- abused by a rich family, taking it out on them and every other rich person who crosses their path- with a straight razor- CN.

Yes, the revenge-fuelled person is doing evil things, but in this case, they haven't quite changed alignment, yet, into full-blown Evil.

I think that if your ONLY motive is revenge, you're doing something bad. But, if you're hunting a mass murderer who killed your father and is also killing innocent people and needs to be stopped, it's fine.

The Avenging Executioner you mention sounds pretty evil to me. Killing every rich person he sees? That's not CN. And unlike the LN girl you mentioned before, who may really be on the brink of LE, that one sounds evil through and through - he's killing people who he never met for no reason other than their wealth. That's a little beyond CN, I think.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:06 AM
I thought the same- but the phrase was "Taking it out on the rich but morally bankrupt people of his city, beginning with his abusers"

Maybe the writers took it a little too far the other way, with a badly abused person snapping and going into "Kill everybody vaguely like my abusers" mode being not quite evil.

Point to be made is, in the context of D&D, some writers take "what a non-evil person/monster can do" a lot further than others.

(also, there is a Wallbanger moment- the caption for the class reads: "Scream. Scream like you made me scream.": Peck, the Swan Street Slicer : except, in the description of the guy, he's mute. Maybe he holds up a little card in front of his victims?")

EDIT: merging posts
Since BoVD/BoED came out, D&D sourcebooks have tended to back away from "revenge is evil" and more toward "revenge is non-good"

the Avenging Executioner character in Complete Scoundrel- abused by a rich family, taking it out on them and every other rich person who crosses their path- with a straight razor- CN.

Yes, the revenge-fuelled person is doing evil things, but in this case, they haven't quite changed alignment, yet, into full-blown Evil.

Noam
2009-02-08, 09:12 AM
I thought the same- but the phrase was "Taking it out on the rich but morally bankrupt people of his city, beginning with his abusers"

Maybe the writers took it a little too far the other way, with a badly abused person snapping and going into "Kill everybody vaguely like my abusers" mode being not quite evil.

Point to be made is, in the context of D&D, some writers take "what a non-evil person/monster can do" a lot further than others.

(also, there is a Wallbanger moment- the caption for the class reads: Scream. Scream like you made me scream.": Peck, the Swan Street Slicer : except, in the description of the guy, he's mute. Maybe he holds up a little card in front of his victims?")

Hehe...The last part about writers is true, but what I really hate about it is that they tend to make them chaotic, as if chaotic = evilish.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:23 AM
yes, given the choice between Heroes of Horror "if the serial killer is completely insane, one could make an argument he's not evil at all, in the strictest sense of the term" and Champions of Ruin's:

"Mad I Tell You," where the insane person who is "driven to acts that would horrify a demon" is considered evil in D&D terms, I prefer the latter- it places more importance on acts, and less on being able to understand the meaning of the acts.

(it could be long-standing from 2nd ed where CN = usual alignment for lunatic)

EDIT: Merging posts
Tome of Magic follows the "you don't have to believe you're evil to be so" approach- the LE witch Hunting ex-paladin has levels in blackguard, yet still thinks the fact that his god is not speaking to him is just an oddity, and he's still in the right.

(could be a case of not having to be aware, in game, you have levels in that prestige class)

Noam
2009-02-08, 09:30 AM
yess, given the choice between heroes of horror "if the serial killer is completely insane, one could make an argument he's not evil at all, in the strictest sense of the term" and Champions of Ruin's:

"Mad I Tell You," where the insane person who is "driven to acts that would horrify a demon" is considered evil in D&D terms, I prefer the latter- it places more importance on acts, and less on being able to understand the meaning of the acts.

(it could be long-standing from 2nd ed where CN = usual alignment for lunatic)

Maybe. The ability to understand the meaning of the acts still has big importance - animals are always netural because they are too stupid to be anything else. I do think insane people should be Evil, so insanity won't be a shield against the forces of good, But shouldn't go to the evil afterlife. Maybe get a second chance in life, as a sane person.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:33 AM
Fiendish Codex 2 handles "get a second chance after lifetime of evil acts" quite well.

the person does have to be repentant, and gets reincarnated as a hellbred, and the second chance is HARD to achieve- they must do acts of great good in their second life. Also, its only for those going to Nine Hells.

Noam
2009-02-08, 09:36 AM
Tome of Magic follows the "you don't have to believe you're evil to be so" approach- the LE witch Hunting ex-paladin has levels in blackguard, yet still thinks the fact that his god is not speaking to him is just an oddity, and he's still in the right.

(could be a case of not having to be aware, in game, you have levels in that prestige class)

Most people believe - or would like to believe - that they are good. Even those who serve evil deities probably believe that they are in the right. Take Redcloack for example: he is well aware that he is serving an evil god, but he still thinks he is doing the right thing.


Fiendish Codex 2 handles "get a second chance after lifetime of evil acts" quite well.

the person does have to be repentant, and gets reincarnated as a hellbred, and the second chance is HARD to achieve- they must do acts of great good in their second life. Also, its only for those going to Nine Hells.

I dunno - the insane person still has a harder time getting to the good afterlife than a sane person.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:43 AM
there is also the suggestion in DMG that an evil guy can have an epiphany and become Neutral.

there is still room for Evil and proud of it, AKA Better To Reign In Hell, in Champions of Ruin. I do think, however, that this particular black dragon is less this, and more Redcloakish.

If character becomes sane before they die, their alignment should change, and with it, their afterlife destination, unless they are Lawful.

in D&D FC2, Lawful characters with a big karmic debt are stuck working it off- possibly because of the Pact Primeval.

if not, depends on the setting. Pandemonium rather than the Abyss is associated with mad evil rather than malevolent evil.

Noam
2009-02-08, 09:53 AM
there is also the suggestion in DMG that an evil guy can have an epiphany and become Neutral.

Well, that seems pretty obvious to me. Characters from all alignments can have an aligment shift.


there is still room for Evil and proud of it, AKA Better To Reign In Hell, in Champions of Ruin. I do think, however, that this particular black dragon is less this, and more Redcloakish.

Are you talking about the dragon mother or the dragon junior?

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:58 AM
dragon mother- painfully killing the relatives of person who has upset you is pretty monstrous, but not much more monstrous than some of Redcloak's deeds.

Biggest difference is Redcloak thinks his evil deeds are justified by his altruistic motives, whereas the dragon thinks hers are punishment for V's "Crimes"

- perhaps Nale-ish would be closer.

Disproportionate retribution for minor offences is a common trait of Evil characters: "It even says so on our calling cards!"

and to the dragon, whether her son struck first or not doesn't enter into it.

Noam
2009-02-08, 10:05 AM
dragon mother- painfully killing the relatives of person who has upset you is pretty monstrous, but not much more monstrous than some of Redcloak's deeds.

Biggest difference is Redcloak thinks his evil deeds are justified by his altruistic motives, whereas the dragon thinks hers are punishment for V's "Crimes"

- perhaps Nale-ish would be closer.

Disproportionate retribution for minor offences is a common trait of Evil characters: "It even says so on our calling cards!"

and to the dragon, whether her son struck first or not doesn't enter into it.

Redcloack is 'the end justifies the means' type, which is only one of the types of evil people who think they are right. The black dragon mother seems to belong the the 'doing evil things is fine - unless you do it to me' type.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 10:09 AM
we haven't seen as much evidence for the first bit yet. Other than it being a dragon. No casual references to returning from snacking on a village, or similar.

Nale we have gotten to see what he's done- a serial killer spree involving hundreds. and the Cliffport police still took him (Elan disguised as him involuntarily) alive, and thog, even though they were armed (and thog killed several of the people trying to arrest him)

We have much more evidence for offscreen villainy from Thog and Nale (murder of hundreds) than either dragon.

derfenrirwolv
2009-02-08, 10:20 AM
Most people believe - or would like to believe - that they are good. Even those who serve evil deities probably believe that they are in the right. Take Redcloack for example: he is well aware that he is serving an evil god, but he still thinks he is doing the right thing

Only in the sense that "evil" is in opposition to those calling themselves good to justify the oppression of his people.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

We don't have any indication that "the dark one" did anything more evil than raise up an army to stop the oppression of his people as an easy source of xp. Leaders have gone to war for much worse reasons without being evil.

Noam
2009-02-08, 10:30 AM
we haven't seen as much evidence for the first bit yet. Other than it being a dragon. No casual references to returning from snacking on a village, or similar.

Nale we have gotten to see what he's done- a serial killer spree involving hundreds. and the Cliffport police still took him (Elan disguised as him involuntarily) alive, and thog, even though they were armed (and thog killed several of the people trying to arrest him)

We have much more evidence for offscreen villainy from Thog and Nale (murder of hundreds) than either dragon.

True, but we need to remember the dragon's hoard, which indicates that she did commit some evil acts.
Nale and Thog were taken alive because that's how the police (a lawful force) works, and because they can get a trial. The dragon will probably not surrnder and go quietly. Even if it would, it cannot be contained - it's a frigging dragon, with spellcasting and shapeshifting.


Only in the sense that "evil" is in opposition to those calling themselves good to justify the oppression of his people.

Redcloack says that, but azure city doesn't seem like a dictatorship. Yes, some paladins are jerks.


We don't have any indication that "the dark one" did anything more evil than raise up an army to stop the oppression of his people as an easy source of xp. Leaders have gone to war for much worse reasons without being evil.

Before he became a god he was a great guy. After that:

The dark one is going to use the snarl to make the gods do his bidding. Now, that in itself isn't bad - as the gods are basterds - but his plan has a chance to backfire and kill everyone in the world. In fact, it will be a fate worse than death. But the dark one feels that he has the right to take that risk because it's the only way to make a better world for his people. Oh, and we have evidence in SoD that goblins can get in good realtions with humans without using violence.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 10:47 AM
thing is though, dragons "surrendering and going quietly" is a trope in D&D going right back to the days of Basic. Including evil ones. Render a dragon "out of action" without killing it, and it will surrender. Even CE dragons.

While this may have changed a little in 3.5, the "code of subdual" is a concept of long standing. its cropped up in numerous D&D novels.

and all dragons in D&D, from CE to LG, have hoards. said hoard could have been passed down from generation to generation, won off another dragon, been donated by kobolds, been paid by townsfolk as protection money, etc.

All of these have been used in D&D for chromatic dragons.

Shadowbane
2009-02-08, 10:54 AM
I love this thread. Thank you, O.P.

I don't understand why so many people abruptly hate V because of this, even though he followed your basic D&D morality. AT worst, he was morally neutral in his actions. Why does everyone think he dserves it?

Sure, he brought on himself, but he does not deserve it.

Noam
2009-02-08, 10:55 AM
thing is though, dragons "surrendering and going quietly" is a trope in D&D going right back to the days of Basic. Including evil ones. Render a dragon "out of action" without killing it, and it will surrender. Even CE dragons.

While this may have changed a little in 3.5, the "code of subdual" is a concept of long standing. its cropped up in numerous D&D novels.

Even so, the matter of containing said dragon remains: you will have to take the dragons word that it won't escape prison, because it easily can.


and all dragons in D&D, from CE to LG, have hoards. said hoard could have been passed down from generation to generation, won off another dragon, been donated by kobolds, been paid by townsfolk as protection money, etc.

All of these have been used in D&D for chromatic dragons.

True, but just one word on the last one.
Protection money is usually really 'give me money or I will kill you' money, and that's still pretty evil.

Other than that, no, we didn't see the dragon doing something evil other than planning to murder V's children - isn't that evil enough?

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 11:00 AM
Also protection in a more literal sense- monster wreaking havoc on any other threat to the people. Yes, its a bit tyrannical, but there are a lot of tyrants in D&D fiction.

and was referring to younger dragon in this case. going by Paladin Blues, the whole of Wooden Forest is considered a no-go zone full of monsters and bandits.

Not so much hate V as "are aware that V can be significantly more ruthless and callous than the rest of the party, excepting Belkar"

There is a lot of evidence through the strip for V behaving in a fashion that balances on the borderline between Neutral and Evil, toward NPCs and party members.

But yes, V doesn't deserve it. In practice, even Belkar wouldn't deserve that kind of vengeance.

Noam
2009-02-08, 11:06 AM
Also protection in a more literal sense- monster wreaking havoc on any other threat to the people. Yes, its a bit tyrannical, but there are a lot of tyrants in D&D fiction.

Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right :smallwink:. And as I said, do we really need any evidence that the dragon is evil beyond the fact that it's willing to kill some innocent children just to make someone suffer?

Kish
2009-02-08, 11:13 AM
Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right :smallwink:. And as I said, do we really need any evidence that the dragon is evil beyond the fact that it's willing to kill some innocent children just to make someone suffer?
I don't believe anyone has questioned that the ancient black dragon is evil.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 11:15 AM
Not right, sure, but also, not grounds for Kill All Tyrants.

Celia seems to view the Greysky Thieves Guild as the lesser of two evils- better to leave them in power than to risk the upheaval, and the damage that could be caused by even worse rivals.

Given the number of fictional human characters who react a bit like that female dragon, one could certainly make the case that the dragon may have gone from mildly evil to strongly evil on the loss of her child:

who, going by D&D rules, didn't act all that differently from one of the non-evil (but predatory) dragon types.

The Giant seems to do most evil or antagonistic characters in the strip as more nuanced than Xykon- not every evil being is a Complete Monster. So, I'm inclined to think the dragon is, at least, not as petty as Nale.

Noam
2009-02-08, 11:20 AM
I don't believe anyone has questioned that the ancient black dragon is evil.

No, but we are trying to establish evidence that reinforces that.


Not right, sure, but also, not grounds for Kill All Tyrants.

Celia seems to view the Greysky Thieves Guild as the lesser of two evils- better to leave them in power than to risk the upheaval, and the damage that could be caused by even worse rivals.

True. In some cases killing the dragon is fine, such as in the case that the dragon is protecting the village from himself. In others letting him live may indeed be the lesser evil.


Given the number of fictional human characters who react a bit like that female dragon, one could certainly make the case that the dragon may have gone from mildly evil to strongly evil on the loss of her child:

who, going by D&D rules, didn't act all that differently from one of the non-evil (but predatory) dragon types.

The Giant seems to do most evil or antagonistic characters in the strip as more nuanced than Xykon- not every evil being is a Complete Monster. So, I'm inclined to think the dragon is, at least, not as petty as Nale.

Never said the mother dragon was as evil as Nale - but she is evil.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 11:27 AM
yup. Unless Mama dragon chooses to renounce her vengeance, the combination of Evil + Out to Commit Atrocity means V will be entirely justified in killing her- even if he manages to immobilize her first.

If she was to have a Change of Heart and, while not neccessarily becoming neutral, at least resolve not to harm people, V would lose that justification.

Noam
2009-02-08, 11:34 AM
If she was to have a Change of Heart and, while not neccessarily becoming neutral, at least resolve not to harm people, V would lose that justification.

If she will prove that she really had a change of heart, you're right. Nothing stops the dragon from saying "I won't do it, promise" once V has the upper hand, and V has every right not to believe her.

Kish
2009-02-08, 11:36 AM
No, but we are trying to establish evidence that reinforces that.
...why? I can think of few more singularly pointless activities than accruing evidence for a proposition which no one questions.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 11:46 AM
i think its more a matter of scale- Evil like a cruel landlord, or even Evil like a Ruthless Prince, is rather less justifiable of "kill on sight" or "torture for info" than, say, a fiend, which in many D&D novels "crams more evil into its small frame than a dozen tyrants"

BoVD calls them and dragons "irredeemably evil, always ok to kill, even if sole motive is profit"

Subsequent books have steered away slightly from this portrayal of chromatic dragons.

One of the more morally dissonant moments in the Drizzt series is when the Good cleric Cadderly summons up demons in order to torture them for information.

Noam
2009-02-08, 11:47 AM
...why? I can think of few more singularly pointless activities than accruing evidence for a proposition which no one questions.

Because we want to be sure that we are right, and because some people think that the dragon is at least partly justified (and thus maybe netural).

Edit: also, what hamishspence said.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 11:55 AM
the dragons justification for its acts, such as it is, is even thinner than Redcloaks, though maybe not as thin as Nale's.

in D&D- the dragon fits into slightly (very slightly) Sympathetic Villain.

Noam
2009-02-08, 11:56 AM
the dragons justification for its acts, such as it is, is even thinner than Redcloaks, though maybe not as thin as Nale's.

in D&D- the dragon fits into slightly (very slightly) Sympathetic Villain.

I agree, I am just saying that it's one of the opinions.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 12:01 PM
I think the main reason to raise an eyebrow at V's behaviour with the party and the dragon, is the number of D&D sources that suggest this is stretching Good/Neutral behaviour a bit.

From BoED, Champions of Ruin, Champions of Valor, Exemplars of Evil, Dragon Magic, Heroes of Horror, etc, there is a theme of "ends don't justify means" and "evil, even evil dragon, doesn't necesserily equate to Always Killable with no moral repercussions."

Kish
2009-02-08, 12:07 PM
Because we want to be sure that we are right, and because some people think that the dragon is at least partly justified (and thus maybe netural).
Really, what people? I haven't seen anyone on this board suggest the ancient black dragon could be anything but evil--at least, without also suggesting that she's bluffing.

Noam
2009-02-08, 12:16 PM
Really, what people? I haven't seen anyone on this board suggest the ancient black dragon could be anything but evil--at least, without also suggesting that she's bluffing.

In 'The demise of V's mate and children will be well deserved', this is argued by the OP.

...No, wait, he later said that he only thinks that the death of dragon junior was wrong, not that the kids deserve to die. Never mind.

Ancalagon
2009-02-08, 12:58 PM
The dragon is going a bit over the top with that soul-bind-thing...

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 01:08 PM
possibly as a hint that the dragon and V are Not So Different:

Haley: "We could bind their souls with some kind of ubermagic, but thats kinda on the Evil side of the street"

V: "and exactly what would the problem with that be?"

(though V does claim to be representing the halfling's side.) Maybe more foreshadowing.

Optimystik
2009-02-08, 01:26 PM
possibly as a hint that the dragon and V are Not So Different:

Haley: "We could bind their souls with some kind of ubermagic, but thats kinda on the Evil side of the street"

V: "and exactly what would the problem with that be?"

(though V does claim to be representing the halfling's side.) Maybe more foreshadowing.

While I still see Soul Bind as completely vile, these are two very different situations. Binding V's kids is 100% spite, and has nothing to do with an attempt to prevent a future evil. V's children are highly unlikely to swing a rez from the lower planes and return to wreak havoc. :smalltongue:

It is disproportionate revenge besides. If BDM is killed, she can see her child again in whatever afterlife chromatics go to. But if her plan succeeds, V will never see his children again, ever, even if he dies himself.

Spoomeister
2009-02-08, 01:41 PM
That the dragon wants justice for the murder of her son is not evil.

The the dragon's method of getting said justice is to harm people who had no involvement in said murder, is evil.

How hard is it to understand this?

Optimystik
2009-02-08, 01:55 PM
That the dragon wants justice for the murder of her son is not evil.

The the dragon's method of getting said justice is to harm people who had no involvement in said murder, is evil.

How hard is it to understand this?

I agree! Although I will add that BoED has strong ideas about the validity of revenge as an excuse for anything, so hunting V down even without involving his family would still be a grey area... albeit not much of one for a chromatic dragon.