Oh for crying out loud!!

[Tessa]

The question of whether or not the Adult Black Dragon is justified in killing V's family or not is just silly.

The Juvinile Black Dragon was evil. Adventurers kill evil monsters. It doesn't matter if the JBD was justified in attacking people who had invaded it's lair because ... it was evil.

This is what happens when you try to shove modern morality into a high fantasy and/or gaming world. In a world like this, it really is black and white. It really is just that simple.

The adventurers are good. The dragon is evil. Killing the dragon is morally okay.

Even if you insist on looking at it in terms of modern morality. Any moral high ground that the Adult Black Dragon gains when her(?) offspring was killed goes right out the window when she decides to kill two children over it.

If a drunk driver ran over my kid, I might kill the DD but I wouldn't shoot his tottler.

[chibibar]

actually I am not using any modern morality. This is a fantasy setting and using the fantasy rules (alignment in this case)

Just because it is evil, doesn't mean you have the right to kill it (read the SoD)

[Wanton Soup]

actually I am not using any modern morality. This is a fantasy setting and using the fantasy rules (alignment in this case)

Just because it is evil, doesn't mean you have the right to kill it (read the SoD)

And just because you killed it doesn't mean it wasn't right.

JBD attacked first. OotS tried to run away the panel before.

Who started it? Dunno. But we know who finished it.

And that doesn't change because of the SoD.

[Kish]

The question of whether or not the Adult Black Dragon is justified in killing V's family or not is just silly.
Justified? Agreed. If anyone was debating that. But no one is, and...



The Juvinile Black Dragon was evil. Adventurers kill evil monsters. It doesn't matter if the JBD was justified in attacking people who had invaded it's lair because ... it was evil.

This is what happens when you try to shove modern morality into a high fantasy and/or gaming world. In a world like this, it really is black and white. It really is just that simple.

Just like the orcs Roy met in OtOoPCs. Oh, wait.

Well, just like the goblins in Start of Darkness then, right? Oh, wait again.



The adventurers are good.

What has Belkar done to you to deserve such an insult?

Edit: I wonder, did you post this with the understanding that you were creating a new thread in which the morality of the actions of Vaarsuvius and the two dragons would be debated for a long time, or were you actually under the impression you would stop the debate by asserting your viewpoint?

[B.I.T.T.]

Well, personally I think that even if you applied modern morality to it, then the adventurers still come out looking okay. Firstly the "home" that was invaded in a lot of these examples was a cave, which is more or less public property. It's not like the dragons were living in a three bedroom condo on Main Street. Thus the party was attacked with deadly force in a public place. What, then, would anyone expect to happen?

I liken it to walking down an alleyway at night and being attacked with a knife by a man sleeping in that same alley. If you kill him in defending yourself you're not considered evil really, are you? If his family claimed that the man lived in that alleyway and thus you were invading his home, then they still wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But that's just my opinion.

[hamishspence]

in defending self, sure. When you render the guy harmless to you (as if with a tranquillisor or hypnotic drug in fiction), then kill him just as its wearing off, a little iffier.

[Wanton Soup]

The adventurers are good

What has Belkar done to you to deserve such an insult?

I'm sure she meant "good in bed" in Belkar's case...

[Surfing HalfOrc]

True, you don't have to kill it, just because it's evil. But the dragon did attack the OotS as soon as they came out of the magical darkness. Didn't give them a chance to leave peacefully, didn't give them a chance to negociate some sort of trade or protection pact.

But this is one of the unfortunate side-effects of this comic, and these boards. Rich posts someting, then gets ill or for whatever reason doesn't post the next strip fast enough. People get bored, read WAY too much into something, drag out books and supplements, and other items to "win" an argument on the internet, because they are sure someone else is wrong!

Eventually, the next strip gets posted, everyone goes, "That was GREAT! Best Strip EVAH!" or some variation on that theme. If the next few strips show up semi-quickly, the arguments fade as th story progresses. Otherwise, people quickly return to the trenches, attempting to prove that this light and funny strip is somehow deeper and darker, more philosophical and dense, than what it really is!

This is a story about six somewhat dysfunctional friends trying to save the world from a lich and a goblin cleric who want to take it over by controlling the most powerful and deadly "THING" to ever exist. It's not a deep study into good and evil, right and wrong, or even peanut butter and jelly! It's a comic strip! COMIC!!!! As in funny, haha! Stop sucking the life out of it with your endless arguments about the deep meaning on this or that! Just enjoy the damn thing! SHEESH!

[Shatteredtower]

The Juvinile Black Dragon was evil.

Prove it.


Adventurers kill evil monsters.

Such as mass murderers, like Belkar, Nale, and Thog.


It doesn't matter if the JBD was justified in attacking people who had invaded it's lair because ... it was evil.

That is a tautological argument. It's also a classic bigot's argument, though the word "evil" is often replaced by some other synonym for "inferior".


In a world like this, it really is black and white. It really is just that simple.

This claim is refuted by what we know of both Miko and Redcloak.


Even if you insist on looking at it in terms of modern morality. Any moral high ground that the Adult Black Dragon gains when her(?) offspring was killed goes right out the window when she decides to kill two children over it.

Why the question mark? Since the dragon's mate is referred to as the son's father in strip #628, the most likely gender is female. I suppose this could be a case of two gay dragons that adopted an egg, but adoption doesn't sound very evil either, does it?

And moral high ground be damned. No one's arguing it's right -- it's downright abominable -- but there's still justice to it. It's not fair to the kids, but justice seldom is. You think locking a parent up for a few months or years doesn't put a burden on children either?

[Wanton Soup]

Prove it.

Uh, we call lethal force against an intruder murder in the civilised world.

And Murder == Evil.

Q E D

[hamishspence]

Or manslaughter, if the attacker attacked because they feared for their own safety.

[Kaytara]

And thus, yet another thread was birthed on the very subject the original poster had expressed his impatience with. :smallbiggrin:

[Wanton Soup]

The difference being what? The person is only slightly dead? Mostly dead?

If the police shoot to kill (even if they don't kill) without a warning, they are in trouble.

And rightly so.

[Wanton Soup]

And thus, yet another thread was birthed on the very subject the original poster had expressed his impatience with. :smallbiggrin:

Yup, pain in the bum innit.

At least the poor woman had the good sense to get the heck out of here...

[Warren Dew]

This claim is refuted by what we know of both Miko and Redcloak.

No it isn't.


No one's arguing it's right -- it's downright abominable -- but there's still justice to it.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Shatteredtower]

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Miko demonstrates that the black and white view isn't adequate within this setting. Not to Roy, nor Hinjo, nor even Elan.

And Redcloak is a product of wrongs done to his people. He's evil, but some of that is a product of a twisted sense of responsibility. Nothing black or white about him.


I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Well, that's because you don't understand what the word means. It isn't required to have mercy or compassion, whether or not we believe it should. Like it or not, all that's required is that wrongs are punished.

Even if that punishment is monstrous.

[Wanton Soup]

d means. It isn't required to have mercy or compassion, whether or not we believe it should. Like it or not, all that's required is that wrongs are punished.

Tell us what it is, then Mr Wordsmith. Enlighten us with your brilliance.

And a note in case you stuff this up.

A lot of words have different meanings. These different meanings are disambiguated by what we call "context" so you had better explain what context you were using too.

[Shatteredtower]

Uh, we call lethal force against an intruder murder in the civilised world.

Uh, we call lethal force delivered by an intruder murder in the civilized world, which is why Roy Greenhilt is currently sitting in some chaotic evil afterlife. We certainly call it murder when you hold someone prisoner for half a day and then destroy their body.

Got any real proof that the dragon is evil?

[enarch3t]

Prove it.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon

Well that's easy. Fortunately we are talking about a fictional universe with pretty much rules that govern everything.

[teratorn]

There is a point in the OP's thread. Depends on how intrinsically evil the creature is. Depending on the nature of the evil creature, if it's living near "innocents," and is powerful enough to do a lot of harm, then it may be justified to proactively eliminate it.

Should one wait until it kills innocents if there is a 100% chance of it happening? You don't wait until the lion sleeping in your porch kills someone to do something about it (tough there the best option is to relocate it if possible, not kill it). If my PC sees a black dragon should he wait until it kills an entire village before going after him? The fact the they're intelligent doesn't mean that they should be given some slack, if it sees humans as prey it's fair game. It's a question of the DM defining the 100% value or something less. If in OOTSblack dragons can live in relative harmony with humans, even if only a few times, then one could argue that V should have used something else than disintegrate.

It's different from goblins, even if always evil, since in OOTS world they tend to keep to themselves in their own villages.

[Gamiress]

Tell us what it is, then Mr Wordsmith. Enlighten us with your brilliance.

And a note in case you stuff this up.

A lot of words have different meanings. These different meanings are disambiguated by what we call "context" so you had better explain what context you were using too.

There's no need for nastiness. Calm down.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Just like the orcs Roy met in OtOoPCs. Oh, wait.

Well, just like the goblins in Start of Darkness then, right? Oh, wait again.


QFT. One of the reasons it's being discussed so much is that the morality (or lack thereof) of see Evil Thing, kill Evil Thing is a major part of the story. Putting that modern morality into a world where it is considered "just that simple" is one of the things that makes this comic interesting.

[Shatteredtower]

Tell us what it is, then Mr Wordsmith.

I already have. I don't see why I should waste time repeating myself when it's already there for anyone to read. Being obnoxious about it isn't going to give me much incentive either.

[hamishspence]

D&D can be very variable. "Always Evil" creatures like dragons can run the gamut from Affably Evil to Complete Monster- some taking up professions like mercenary or thief, some devastating huge areas, some preying mostly on local wildlife in wilderness areas.

While "preys on other intelligent creatures" is strongly correlated to Evil, there are exceptions within Dragonkind, such as the SandFang Dragon (Always CN) which "particularly enjoys the flesh of intelligent mammals" and "plays with its food in a cruel way"

[Kish]

Well that's easy. Fortunately we are talking about a fictional universe with pretty much rules that govern everything.
If you used the Monster Manual rather than the SRD based on it, you'd see that even "Always" doesn't mean "Always" in our real-world English sense.

WotC actually published a succubus paladin. She gives a positive reading when any alignment detection spell is cast on her, because her planar origin is strongly Chaotic and Evil, while she personally is strongly Lawful and Good. More importantly, though, the questions are 1) would the author of Start of Darkness and On the Origin of PCs really take the "evil just because" approach with any character who wasn't a joke or a one-strip throwaway character, and 2) is Vaarsuvius' situation meant to be a completely karma-free "sometimes life just slams you even if your actions are above reproach"? I would say no to both. You evidently disagree.

There is a point in the OP's thread. Depends on how intrinsically evil the creature is. Depending on the nature of the evil creature, if it's living near "innocents," and is powerful enough to do a lot of harm, then it may be justified to proactively eliminate it.

Do you think this was any part of Vaarsuvius' reasoning when s/he killed the young black dragon?

[Shatteredtower]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon

Well that's easy. Fortunately we are talking about a fictional universe with pretty much rules that govern everything.

Apparently, you are unaware of the definition of "always evil" within those game rules. It doesn't mean that the dragon can't be anything but chaotic evil. It only means that it was born that way.

Now then, show actual proof that this specific black dragon is evil.

[Wanton Soup]

Apparently, you are unaware of the definition of "always evil" within those game rules. It doesn't mean that the dragon can't be anything but chaotic evil. It only means that it was born that way.

Now then, show actual proof that this specific black dragon is evil.

He attacked without provocation. In Hamishpence's attempt to make an issue of a good dragon who attacked first, there were a few panes of "I see you won't leave so I will have to kill you". So hardly a "kill on sight".

And to kill someone (which swallowing them whole WILL do) is murder and it's evil.

Ergo, this dragon is evil.

Or, alternatively, prove this one dragon, unlike all the others was a good one.

That's what "Always" means. Only very few exceptions. Why was it this one and why was it so eager to kill if it was a good boy. It should expect some initial problems because it's not like its race is. But instead of clearing up the confusion: Nom Nom Nom.

[MorelHighground]

OK I ran into this same situation one of my first really games.
My DM had me as a... Gnome? it was one of the smaller races. We were attacking kobolds and I decided hey, My druid is all about the natural racial enemy's going down. So I killed all the ones attacking us and moved on to the next room full of Praying Kobolds. Rather deaf ones I might add since my fighter buddy failed her moves silently check and all of them got Nat ones. So my rather enthusiastic druid killed all the rather nicely praying kobolds.
I went from neutral to neutral evil in 2 seconds flat.
I had to do a purification and pray for like three days straight.
So I asked the dm what that was about, they were Monsters, they were praying to the Icky god of the evil race they were part of, wasn't I right in killing them?
he put it like this, Unless I was a paladin or cleric, most people can't tell evil from good unless they are being attacked so I didn't know they were evil.
Also he said they were "innocent" evil, they didn't do anything to me and I shouldn't attack unless they attacked first.
So how does this play into the disscussion
Well I look at it this way, V was both in the right and the wrong.
V killed the dragon to save ... its... friends no question that is a good thing because one dead fighter is enough in this strip for me. The dragon had attacked and there was significant reason for this to be justified on V's part.
On the same token if I remembering the strip right did something that made his action a rather grey one. The dragon was well held down by a suggestion spell and could have been made to stay that way with a relitive amount of ease.
In other words he did not HAVE to be killed, and was shot Twice to disinigrate it.
Thats where I begain to wonder about V's alignment.

[hamishspence]

Have never said Dragon was Good. I consider it at best Neutral with evil tendencies, but moe likely evil with Neutral tendencies. With a parent who thinks it "important to understand other cultures" its not as arrogant as your typical Dragon though. And its relative forbearance with V (three spellcasting attempts before it attacks ) would also point to atypical dragon.

when we know now what we didn't know then (the dragon lost it's father to adventurers) the dragon's prompt attack doesn't seem so reprehensible.

Would still have been at best manslaughter though.

[Wanton Soup]

Have never said Dragon was Good.


Yes you did, you said here's an example of a good dragon that immediately attacks.

Then failed to give a link. Meh. Expecting you to actually work at this is a lost cause.

[Wanton Soup]

OK I ran into this same situation one of my first really games. ....

Well, to forgive the pun, your DM was draconian.

As far as you know, they were chanting for their overlodr demon to pop through. Else why not say "please stop killing us" at the least? Or if that was too much to ask, look at you, frown, put finger to lips and continue praying.

The restoration was all game-generated. I suspect your DM didn't think you'd do it that way and didn't have a proper consequence (e.g. you look at the dead bodies and find they are different. Later on you research and find out they were trying to keep the goddess held in check and now YOU had to go back and fix it, requiring lots of expense and a few quests (with the profit being used up making the tools) to make it possible to win.

[hamishspence]

you mean the Good Silver Dragon? That was No Cure for the Paladin Blues bonus strip- example of how Good Dragon is much quicker than Good Celestials to attack, and attack first.

Haven't said anything about the Black Dragon being Good though- I have citied example of the Fang Dragon from Draconomicon earlier. (erroneusly referred to as Sand dragon in this thread, correctly named in earlier threads- CN, Eats people.)

[MorelHighground]

yeah he was but he was dealing with my paladin team mate trying to off me every two minutes for the rest of the game so I think he was trying to get rid of a headache with a quick fix.
still I learned in his games its better to waste a round talking than to shoot first ask questions later.

[teratorn]

Do you think this was any part of Vaarsuvius' reasoning when s/he killed the young black dragon?

It may explain why V didn't even consider another kind of action. Ok, V is trigger happy and probably would always do it, but in Origins Roy is quite open in the way he deals with evil races. Maybe black dragons are the kind of thing you will always kill on sight if you can.

Without knowing Rich's views on these guys I can't say if OOTS did something reproachable.

[Warren Dew]

Miko demonstrates that the black and white view isn't adequate within this setting.

Sure it is. Miko was good until she killed her liege lord; then she fell. Nothing more black and white than that.


And Redcloak is a product of wrongs done to his people.

So his excuse is that he thinks other people wronged yet other people, and that justifies his being evil? Sorry, the fact that Redcloak has weaselly hypocritical excuses doesn't make him any less evil. It just makes him a weasel and hypocritical in addition to being plain old black evil.


Well, that's because you don't understand what the word means. It isn't required to have mercy or compassion, whether or not we believe it should. Like it or not, all that's required is that wrongs are punished.

So, I see someone drop some litter on the sidewalk. I blow him away, along with all the bystanders, no mercy or compassion. Justice, eh?

As I said, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Wanton Soup]

Well the Good dragon DIDN'T attack straight off. The black one did.

And if it's neutral but attacked first ANYWAY then what's the difference? You're not allowed to hit back at the big bully unless he's got "I'm The Big Bully" written in his schoolbook?

Junior attacked, most likely first (since the last we saw before the fight was Haley trying to get everyone back in hiding and nobody else visible) and so they defended themselves.

And if you are going to say "they invaded his house!"

a) it wasn't his house.
b) nothing ever said it was his house
c) Eating someone who just walks onto your property is murder and as you like to parrot so often, murder is evil

so this one is evil or there's no way to tell the difference from evil (so as per quantum reality, no difference in reality).

[Silverraptor]

Wow! This reminds me of my first thread where people yell at me for my original post. Then they actually post things on that I didn't want. Anyways, this is funny to me how everyone is in hot debate, so keep it up!

I fully expect to get yelled for this post so don't even bother replying to me. It's not going to make me feel bad or anything. I only post this just to let you guys know how silly you are being. Well most of you anyway.

[hamishspence]

actually, I'm not offended- debate was getting a little heated anyway.

I consider V's attack on the dragon more excusable than on Kubota anyway- my view was that attack on dragon was "only technically murder"

[Wanton Soup]

{Scrubbed}

[Rotipher]

when we know now what we didn't know then (the dragon lost it's father to adventurers) the dragon's prompt attack doesn't seem so reprehensible.

Not to mention that Black Dragon Jr. had been specifically entrusted with the task of guarding the cave by his mother. Fighting intruders could have been proof of taking a responsibility seriously, rather than proof of an Evil nature.

[Wanton Soup]

Not to mention that Black Dragon Jr. had been specifically entrusted with the task of guarding the cave by his mother. Fighting intruders could have been proof of taking a responsibility seriously, rather than proof of an Evil nature.

So "Get OUT!" wouldn't work to guard the place from intruders if you then kept the option of killing the intruders if they didn't?

How?

That's how I get most intruders out. I tell them to leave.

Don't have to kill a single one of them.

Even when I was looking after my parents house while they were away.

[The Extinguisher]

I think in a world where dragons of that sort are magically and objectively marked as always evil, it should be up to the dragon to prove he's good, and not assume others will assume he's good.

Because you know what they say about assuming. It makes armor out of you for me.

[Trizap]

The question of whether or not the Adult Black Dragon is justified in killing V's family or not is just silly.

The Juvinile Black Dragon was evil. Adventurers kill evil monsters. It doesn't matter if the JBD was justified in attacking people who had invaded it's lair because ... it was evil.

This is what happens when you try to shove modern morality into a high fantasy and/or gaming world. In a world like this, it really is black and white. It really is just that simple.

The adventurers are good. The dragon is evil. Killing the dragon is morally okay.

Even if you insist on looking at it in terms of modern morality. Any moral high ground that the Adult Black Dragon gains when her(?) offspring was killed goes right out the window when she decides to kill two children over it.

If a drunk driver ran over my kid, I might kill the DD but I wouldn't shoot his tottler.

wow. you completely ignored the message that was trying to be sent here.

the message was:
"it is not justified to attack people just because they are evil or because they are a certain race whose alignment is evil, they have families and lives to you know, they are not just people to kill because of their morality, they also have lives too"

guess what? Redcloak wouldn't even be the way he is if the paladins from Azure city hadn't gone on crusades to kill all his people, good people killing evil people causes a guy who cares about his people to attack in revenge because they killed his people, that could easily be a backstory for a hero
who's people got killed for no real reason and is trying to fix that.

the black dragon? the same.
OOTS wouldn't even have to deal with the mother dragon if they didn't kill the little dragon.

think. the little dragon was just obeying what his mother told him to do (defend the cave) and they killed her son just for treasure and a valuable rock, that doesn't sound heroic or good to me, it seems a little justified for the mother dragon to seek revenge.

notice how in both scenarios the good guys attack the bad guys for no reason other than them being evil, which in reality is a flimsy reason as I could a kill person I hate or a jerk, but that is no real excuse, I still killed him, and that the villains are attacking for very very good reasons: because the good guys killed their people for no good reason.

[Trizap]

True, you don't have to kill it, just because it's evil. But the dragon did attack the OotS as soon as they came out of the magical darkness. Didn't give them a chance to leave peacefully, didn't give them a chance to negociate some sort of trade or protection pact.

But this is one of the unfortunate side-effects of this comic, and these boards. Rich posts someting, then gets ill or for whatever reason doesn't post the next strip fast enough. People get bored, read WAY too much into something, drag out books and supplements, and other items to "win" an argument on the internet, because they are sure someone else is wrong!

Eventually, the next strip gets posted, everyone goes, "That was GREAT! Best Strip EVAH!" or some variation on that theme. If the next few strips show up semi-quickly, the arguments fade as th story progresses. Otherwise, people quickly return to the trenches, attempting to prove that this light and funny strip is somehow deeper and darker, more philosophical and dense, than what it really is!

This is a story about six somewhat dysfunctional friends trying to save the world from a lich and a goblin cleric who want to take it over by controlling the most powerful and deadly "THING" to ever exist. It's not a deep study into good and evil, right and wrong, or even peanut butter and jelly! It's a comic strip! COMIC!!!! As in funny, haha! Stop sucking the life out of it with your endless arguments about the deep meaning on this or that! Just enjoy the damn thing! SHEESH!

I know, I totally agree with this, why can't everyone else just enjoy it?

[Reverent-One]

guess what? Redcloak wouldn't even be the way he is if the paladins from Azure city hadn't gone on crusades to kill all his people, good people killing evil people causes a guy who cares about his people to attack in revenge because they killed his people, that could easily be a backstory for a hero
who's people got killed for no real reason and is trying to fix that.

the black dragon? the same.


Incorrect. A goblin is merely usually evil, while a black dragon is always evil. Makes a difference.


think. the little dragon was just obeying what his mother told him to do (defend the cave) and they killed her son just for treasure and a valuable rock, that doesn't sound heroic or good to me, it seems a little justified for the mother dragon to seek revenge.

Most likely also incorrect. If the young dragon never gave them a chance to leave, then they were fighting in self-defense, not for treasure or a rock. Don't blame the adventurers for the monsters actions.

EDIT: Granted, I feel somewhat bad for defending the killing of a creature, any creature, since my avatar is of Vash the Stampede.

[Nimrod's Son]

The question of whether or not the Adult Black Dragon is justified in killing V's family or not is just silly.
Agreed.


The adventurers are good. The dragon is evil. Killing the dragon is morally okay.
Again, agreed. But the other side of the coin is that, by her own morality, the dragon killing Vaarsuvius' family is also morally okay. It is evil after all. Whether or not either of these actions are "justified" in the eyes of the afflicted party seems like a moot point.

[Donald]

He attacked without provocation.

Give this man a cigar. Or croûtons & crackers.

The OotS was not looking for the Dragon. They were looking for the star metal, which Roy deduced was in a cave that turned out to be the Dragons unmarked lair. The Dragon attacked first, justifiably or not doesn't play into it, and the OotS defended themselves. The Dragon tried to swallow one member of the party and did swallow another, making lethal force on the OotS part perfectly justifiable. As the Suggestion spell was about to wear off, V said she thought the Dragon would resume trying to eat them so killing it was the only way to save their lives. Good & Evil are moot here, it's self defense.



And moral high ground be damned. No one's arguing it's right -- it's downright abominable -- but there's still justice to it. It's not fair to the kids, but justice seldom is. You think locking a parent up for a few months or years doesn't put a burden on children either?

Justice is meted out by a balanced system of laws with impartial judges and representation for all involved. This is revenge. If you think V's kids being eaten is justice, you are one of the worst human beings I've ever encountered.

[Tessa]

Wow!
I was just pointing out how silly I thought it was that people seemed to be getting heated over a debate like that. I figured that I might get a few responses on both sides, mostly things like, "Attagirl." or "Shut up, Stupid."
I didn't expect to come back to almost fifty responses.
I do enjoy a good debate and I think that it would be kind of nasty to put out that first post and then just vanish so I am going to try to respond to each of the responses that I got which disagreed with me or asked for clarification.
Some of the questions were more or less repeated so instead of quoting, I'll just summarize the point.

Just because the Dragon was evil, that doesn't give you the right to kill it.

I disagree. In the real world, things are seldom as simple as good and evil but in a fictional world, where absolute good and evil are everyday facts of life, I belive that you do have the right to kill an evil monster. More than that, I would say that if are capable of doing so, you have a duty to.

Roy did not kill the orcs in start of darkness.

Well, good for Roy. :)
But again, this is a fictional world and it would not have been considered an evil act if Roy had killed them. Besides that, Orcs are often Player Character Races which does give you a bit more latitude in treating them as people rather than monsters.

You called adventurers good but Belkar, Nale and Throg are clearly evil.

I beg your pardon. I was generalizing. I meant that, in general, player character adventurers are either good or, if neutral, are usually acting in the name of good.

Prove the dragon was evil.

Okay, that is just silly. Again, a D&D world is not as complex as the real world. Black Dragons are evil. Unless it performs some immediate and incredible act of good, the adventurers are justified in the assuption that it is evil and acting accordingly.

Evil is the classic bigot's argument.

In the real world, yes. This is not a gay man who was murdered in New York City by a crazed serial killer who thought that homosexuality is evil.
It's a black dragon in a fictional world where black dragons are not only evil, but higher on the food chain than the player character races.

Why the question mark after "her" when she had stated the father's cause of death and was therefore easily defined as the mother.

Because it slipped my mind and I honestly forgot for a moment whether or not the gender was established.

Miko saw things as black and white and look where that got her.

Yes but Miko was dumb.
Okay, seriously. Just because good and evil exist in this world in a more tangible way doesn't mean that the good guys are infallable. Fanaticism has often been the pitfall to good in fictional worlds.

Redcloak was a product of the wrongs done to his people.

Okay ... so what?
I am not trying to be a smart mouth but I am seriously not sure what your point is. That he had reasons for being evil? Big deal. Jack the Ripper had reasons for being evil. Hitler had reasons for being evil. Ted Bundy had reasons for being evil. What difference do the reasons make if a being is evil?

Justice isn't required to have mercy or compassion ... all that is required is that wrongs are punished.

I believe that you are incorrect.
justice comes from the word just, meaning right or fair.
I think that the word you are looking for is vengence. They are two different concepts that are easy to confuse.

The young dragon was justified on the use of deadly force to defend it's home and because of how it's father died.

Again, in a fictional world like this, I don't think that it's motives really matter.
On a D&D world, it is sort of like there is a constant war going on between good and evil. The two sides don't really need to worry that much about the motives of the foe that is attacking them.
During World War II, Allied forces didn't have to stop and ask themselves if every Nazi they came across was evil or if, in their hearts, they really supported Hitler. They just had to kill the Nazis before the Nazis killed them.

Wow, that was long. I hope that none of that sounded like flaming. I tried to approach each point dispassionately and logically.

Thanks.

[Gamiress]

I don't think any sane person here is arguing that the dragon is in the right here. They are arguing, however, that V isn't exactly in the right either. Wrongs have been done on all sides, and because an Ancient Black Dragon got involved innocents are going to suffer. This is one of those horrible situations that life sometimes metes out to the careless, where no one can win because there is nothing to win.

The young dragon was careless in its actions. It attacked an entire party of mid-high level adventurers, and was killed for it. Unsurprising, anyone who is NOT surprised has probably never met the average 18 year old boy.

V was careless in hir actions, s/he put hir own needs/wants first and put the party in a precarious position where killing the dragon was the only option. Also unsurprising, V has a well established tendency to cater to hir vanity. It's a valid character flaw that has been played for laughs in the past.

Now the mama dragon's son is dead, and she feels Wronged with every bit of that capital W. So, in accordance with what she is, she is exacting revenge in the most brutal, ruthless way she can imagine.

V did have a hand in the current situation, and I might go as far as to say s/he brought it on hirself (though that seems a bit harsh). V doesn't deserve this kind of revenge, but unfortunately s/he managed to P.O. a creature that does not care. All that can be done now is damage control.

[pearl jam]

Justice isn't required to have mercy or compassion ... all that is required is that wrongs are punished.

I believe that you are incorrect.
justice comes from the word just, meaning right or fair.
I think that the word you are looking for is vengence. They are two different concepts that are easy to confuse.


Justice requires true wrongs to be punished according to the law.

Vengeance attempts to punish wrongs, be they real or merely perceived, according to the judgment of the one seeking revenge.

Mercy and compassion may be dispensed in situations where justice demands punishment, but that is at the discretion of the party in authority and not a requirement of justice itself.

[Tessa]

Justice requires true wrongs to be punished according to the law.

Vengeance attempts to punish wrongs, be they real or merely perceived, according to the judgment of the one seeking revenge.

Mercy and compassion may be dispensed in situations where justice demands punishment, but that is at the discretion of the party in authority and not a requirement of justice itself.

I suppose that is as good a definition as most.

For me though, it is more that justice is about making things right (or as right as is possible) so that society as a whole or the wronged person individually can move forward as undamaged as possible.

Vengence doesn't concern itself with moving forward at all. It is simply concerned with causing damage in response to damage that has been suffered.

That is more of a personal point of view though, not a textbook definition.

[The Extinguisher]

guess what? Redcloak wouldn't even be the way he is if the paladins from Azure city hadn't gone on crusades to kill all his people, good people killing evil people causes a guy who cares about his people to attack in revenge because they killed his people, that could easily be a backstory for a hero
who's people got killed for no real reason and is trying to fix that.


I can agree with this. Had the Sapphire Guard never attacked any goblins at all, Redcloak wouldn't be what he is today. He'd be sitting pretty in the goblin Empire while his god threatened the world with a soul eating abomination.

But I suppose since children died, that must make the whole Guard evil. Surely no young goblin surivor would ever be evil enough and want to unleash the Snarl.

...oh wait.

[Serebii]

Not to agree with anyone, but just as an aside I would like to point out that in OotS #282, Celia states this: "We live in a world of black and white morality; this is something we all know." This may have been posted already, sorry if it has.:smalltongue:
EDIT: Then again, in #285 Roy says that not everything is about good and evil... Not taking a side, just pointing out facts.

[Code Black]

Not to agree with anyone, but just as an aside I would like to point out that in OotS #282, Celia states this: "We live in a world of black and white morality; this is something we all know." This may have been posted already, sorry if it has.:smalltongue:

Same, not to agree with anyone, but I will note that that seems like a lampshade hanging, which Brian does on that morality often.

If this strip were anywhere near as black in white in it's plotlines and character types as some of the people on this thread seem to think, it'd be much, much less interesting.

[Rutskarn]

I think it's a mistake to assume black-and-white morality is the only kind we can apply here.

Rich has always raised the question: is it okay to kill something just because it's evil? In his setting, the answer isn't as simple as "yes" or "no." People have different perspectives--Roy and Miko were both Lawful Good, but they had very different takes on the issue.

Ultimately, the only morality that matters when evaluating the actions of the characters is the morality the reader applies to it. Since no two readers have exactly identical moral systems, this invites debate.

[Trizap]

I think it's a mistake to assume black-and-white morality is the only kind we can apply here.

Rich has always raised the question: is it okay to kill something just because it's evil? In his setting, the answer isn't as simple as "yes" or "no." People have different perspectives--Roy and Miko were both Lawful Good, but they had very different takes on the issue.

Ultimately, the only morality that matters when evaluating the actions of the characters is the morality the reader applies to it. Since no two readers have exactly identical moral systems, this invites debate.

yea and we get this mess of a thread because of it.

arguably, the question Rich raises can count as a deconstruction of what?
I dunno but that question deconstructs something.

[TheSummoner]

I would like to rephrase a question that many have asked into a much more persuasive form...

What evil acts did the young black dragon commit? Can you prove the young black dragon comitted a single evil act?

Attacking the Order can be seen as a neutral act. The young black dragon was protecting his home/trying to get a meal out of it. If a pizza walks into your house with the intent of robbing you blind, and your father was killed by a walking pizza, and you were hungry, eating that pizza would make alot more sence than there being a walking pizza in the first place...

Theres no proof that the young black dragon stole any of the treasure or murdered anyone for it. Likely his parents acquired most of it, and theres still no proof that they stole any of it.

So I ask you again, what evil acts did the young black dragon commit?

[Gamiress]

I would like to rephrase a question that many have asked into a much more persuasive form...

What evil acts did the young black dragon commit? Can you prove the young black dragon comitted a single evil act?

Attacking the Order can be seen as a neutral act. The young black dragon was protecting his home/trying to get a meal out of it. If a pizza walks into your house with the intent of robbing you blind, and your father was killed by a walking pizza, and you were hungry, eating that pizza would make alot more sence than there being a walking pizza in the first place...

Theres no proof that the young black dragon stole any of the treasure or murdered anyone for it. Likely his parents acquired most of it, and theres still no proof that they stole any of it.

So I ask you again, what evil acts did the young black dragon commit?

This is an unstated part of my post above. The young dragon didn't do anything particularly evil on screen, just very, very dumb. Which is understandable, he was an adolescent. What teenage boy hasn't got himself injured doing something egotistical? Unfortunately, this time the shenanigans got him killed. A wiser dragon likely wouldn't have immediately attacked a party of high level adventurers.

It's a bad situation no matter which way you slice it, which I imagine is the point. No one is right, no one has the moral high ground, everyone is responsible, and V needs to get his ass in gear immediately to A) attempt to save his family, B) make up for being such a pillock, and C) control the fallout, and there will be fallout. The nasty kind that leaves things rotting from the inside out for years to come, in the way that makes for fantastic storytelling.

[RebelT]

Uh, we call lethal force against an intruder murder in the civilised world.

And Murder == Evil.

Q E D



I'm not sure where you get your information that "lethal force against an INTRUDER" is murder, but it's wrong. Any intruder into my home will be met with lethal force above and beyond what is necessary as far as I'm concerned, and I'd be 100% justified by the law in doing it.

[Donald]

I
So I ask you again, what evil acts did the young black dragon commit?

At the risk of repeating myself....

The OotS was not looking for the Dragon. They were looking for the star metal, which Roy deduced was in a cave that turned out to be the Dragons unmarked lair. The Dragon attacked first, justifiably or not doesn't play into it, and the OotS defended themselves. The Dragon tried to swallow one member of the party and did swallow another, making lethal force on the OotS part perfectly justifiable. As the Suggestion spell was about to wear off, V said she thought the Dragon would resume trying to eat them so killing it was the only way to save their lives. Good & Evil are moot here, it's self defense.

[Tessa]

I would like to rephrase a question that many have asked into a much more persuasive form...

What evil acts did the young black dragon commit? Can you prove the young black dragon comitted a single evil act?

Attacking the Order can be seen as a neutral act. The young black dragon was protecting his home/trying to get a meal out of it. If a pizza walks into your house with the intent of robbing you blind, and your father was killed by a walking pizza, and you were hungry, eating that pizza would make alot more sence than there being a walking pizza in the first place...

Theres no proof that the young black dragon stole any of the treasure or murdered anyone for it. Likely his parents acquired most of it, and theres still no proof that they stole any of it.

So I ask you again, what evil acts did the young black dragon commit?


As bad as this is going to sound, the evil act that the young black dragon committed was existing.

We're talking about a world where sentient creatures hold different positions on the food chain. Alignment may be a big cosmic thing but it is usually defined from the point of view of the player character races.

Let me run this scenario by you:
A herd of deer come across a young wolf that has strayed from his pack. The young wolf unwisely attacks the deer. The stag lowers his antlers and charges, killing the wolf.

The deer and the wolf are natural enemies, just like the adventurers and the black dragon. They don't need the elaborate reasoning that we use in the human/ real world to justify a killing.

From the POV of the species lower on the food chain, the predator is evil just because the predator is what it is. That may not sound very enlightened but it the only way that it makes sense if you are living on a world where some sentient species eat other sentient species.

[Sholos]

As bad as this is going to sound, the evil act that the young black dragon committed was existing.

We're talking about a world where sentient creatures hold different positions on the food chain. Alignment may be a big cosmic thing but it is usually defined from the point of view of the player character races.

Let me run this scenario by you:
A herd of deer come across a young wolf that has strayed from his pack. The young wolf unwisely attacks the deer. The stag lowers his antlers and charges, killing the wolf.

The deer and the wolf are natural enemies, just like the adventurers and the black dragon. They don't need the elaborate reasoning that we use in the human/ real world to justify a killing.

From the POV of the species lower on the food chain, the predator is evil just because the predator is what it is. That may not sound very enlightened but it the only way that it makes sense if you are living on a world where some sentient species eat other sentient species.

Uh-huh. Because racism is now okay? I could have sworn racism was considered evil by most people.

[Tessa]

Uh-huh. Because racism is now okay? I could have sworn racism was considered evil by most people.

Racism is being bigotted against members of your own species who are of a different race.

I don't think that it is racist if you come across a fifty foot long lizard that is known for eating people and kill it.

[Z-dan]

*wonders hwo on earth racism comes into it :smalleek:*

Anyway, just popping my face in here to say go pixies! You're fighting a losing battle, trying to stop pointless arguments, but you're doing an admirable job anyway :smallwink:
I cant see how people can think you need justification for killing a black dragon, unless you've actually seen it do something good... even then it's 90% likely to be doing the good deed just so it can do something even more evil later- that's just how black dragons are. And as has been said elsewhere, a dragon's diet consists of eating meat- which is generally gathered from the local populace. I'm kinda surprised noone's started an argument about whether it was right for Smaug to be killed... And a final point, I liked the bit about how Hitler had his reasons for being evil, as did many other historical 'villains'- but it doesnt change the fact that they were evil. And not everyone is like Drizzt, fighting to overcome the reputation of their race...

[Morty]

Everyone arguing that "applying complex moralty to D&D makes no sense": way to miss the point. The way I see it, it was never about whether killing the dragon is justified or not. OoTS, both in the online comic and in the books, pokes fun and/or deconstructs the notion that Evil creatures are walking bags of XP that have no feelings or purpose. Hence why we see a dragon who is angry about her son getting killed. Or "evil races" being purposedly created as XP fodder. And that's why the very author of the comic has written an article about realistic villains. Yes, D&D "moralty" is stupidly black and white. But did it ever occur to you that OoTS is, you know, a parody rather than simply another horribly cliched story about Good heroes fighting Evil villains?

[TheSummoner]

At the risk of repeating myself....

The OotS was not looking for the Dragon. They were looking for the star metal, which Roy deduced was in a cave that turned out to be the Dragons unmarked lair. The Dragon attacked first, justifiably or not doesn't play into it, and the OotS defended themselves. The Dragon tried to swallow one member of the party and did swallow another, making lethal force on the OotS part perfectly justifiable. As the Suggestion spell was about to wear off, V said she thought the Dragon would resume trying to eat them so killing it was the only way to save their lives. Good & Evil are moot here, it's self defense.

So now it is evil to try to defend your home and property from armed invaders? Now it is evil to eat the hostile invading walking pizza?

Also, prove the dragon attacked first. All we saw was Haley trying to back away into the darkness and then combat. Prove Roy (or Belkar) didn't push her out of the way and make the first move.


As bad as this is going to sound, the evil act that the young black dragon committed was existing.

I see, existance is a terrible crime. I find you guilty and sentence you to be turned into dust by an androgynes man or woman with a lazer!


Let me run this scenario by you:
A herd of deer come across a young wolf that has strayed from his pack. The young wolf unwisely attacks the deer. The stag lowers his antlers and charges, killing the wolf.

I don't think many wolves would be stupid enough to attack a herd of anything alone... They're pack hunters for one, and even if for some reason there was a lone wolf, it would likely target a lone deer...


The deer and the wolf are natural enemies, just like the adventurers and the black dragon. They don't need the elaborate reasoning that we use in the human/ real world to justify a killing.

No, the deer and wolf are predator and prey. The wolf kills to eat and the deer does what is necessary to survive. Thats the way the food chain works.

The dragon on the other hand was not hunting food or razing a village for shinies, he was sitting in his territory when armed food invaded his home. (I'm not denying dragons will attack humans for shiny things, but prove that this particular black dragon did).


From the POV of the species lower on the food chain, the predator is evil just because the predator is what it is. That may not sound very enlightened but it the only way that it makes sense if you are living on a world where some sentient species eat other sentient species.

So now eating is evil? GUILTY! I sentence you to be eaten by an enormous lizard with a bad case of stomach acid!


*wonders hwo on earth racism comes into it :smalleek:*

Anyway, just popping my face in here to say go pixies! You're fighting a losing battle, trying to stop pointless arguments, but you're doing an admirable job anyway :smallwink:
I cant see how people can think you need justification for killing a black dragon, unless you've actually seen it do something good... even then it's 90% likely to be doing the good deed just so it can do something even more evil later- that's just how black dragons are. And as has been said elsewhere, a dragon's diet consists of eating meat- which is generally gathered from the local populace. I'm kinda surprised noone's started an argument about whether it was right for Smaug to be killed... And a final point, I liked the bit about how Hitler had his reasons for being evil, as did many other historical 'villains'- but it doesnt change the fact that they were evil. And not everyone is like Drizzt, fighting to overcome the reputation of their race...

Not every German was like Hitler, fighting to exterminate a group of innocent people.

IF the dragon was attacking local villages, terrorizing the populace, and being a menace to humanity, of course it would be ok for the people who were aware of the dragon's acts to kill the dragon.

However, the Order stumbled into the dragon's lair, the dragon tried to defend his terrirory, the Order tried to defend their lives... theres nothing wrong with any of this... And then... V eliminated the threat in a non-lethal way, also fine. Then V killed a dragon who was, at that moment, harmless. Rather than using the oppertunity to escape, V acted in a selfish way that caused pointless death.

THATS what was wrong.

[Delaney Gale]

Then V killed a dragon who was, at that moment, harmless. Rather than using the oppertunity to escape, V acted in a selfish way that caused pointless death.

THATS what was wrong.

Escape probably wouldn't have been a viable option without a teleport. You try outrunning a dragon with twice your move speed and a line breath weapon with a 6 second head start.

If you want to be a paladin about it, sure, give it the six seconds to cover you in acid. However, to be consistent you'll also have to forfeit all surprise rounds from now until eternity because evidently being 6 seconds away from killing you horribly is "harmless", and acting on your one possibility for tactical advantage is wrong.

[Code Black]

Not to agree with anyone, but just as an aside I would like to point out that in OotS #282, Celia states this: "We live in a world of black and white morality; this is something we all know." This may have been posted already, sorry if it has.:smalltongue:

Same, not to agree with anyone, but I will note that that seems like a lampshade hanging (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging), which Brian does on that morality often, not a true agreement to it.

If this strip were anywhere near as black in white in it's plotlines and character types as some of the people on this thread seem to think, it'd be much, much less interesting.

In any case, I was under the impression that neither V nor the Dragon is supposed to be completely justified. It's intentionally morally ambiguous.

[TheSummoner]

Escape probably wouldn't have been a viable option without a teleport. You try outrunning a dragon with twice your move speed and a line breath weapon with a 6 second head start.

If you want to be a paladin about it, sure, give it the six seconds to cover you in acid. However, to be consistent you'll also have to forfeit all surprise rounds from now until eternity because evidently being 6 seconds away from killing you horribly is "harmless", and acting on your one possibility for tactical advantage is wrong.

And the reason that they didn't have hours to escape was because of V as well.

[Tessa]

Yikes, all I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with killing an evil monster.

I realize that we live in a world with fanboys who love vampires and whatnot but there is no moral ambiguity in killing an evil monster. This strip is good about looking at things like that and sometimes seeing them from the monster's point of view. Just because the monster is a three dimensional character doesn't mean that it is not evil and doesn't need killing.

The black dragon was an evil monster. Period. There is no need for a big show of proof and "Maybe if it did this" or "The heroes could have done that."

The dragon was born evil. It is okay for things to work that way in a fantasy world.

By the way, YES!!!! Eating is evil if you eat people and existing is evil if you are a fifty foot long black lizard that eats people.

[Donald]

So now it is evil to try to defend your home and property from armed invaders? Now it is evil to eat the hostile invading walking pizza?

Also, prove the dragon attacked first. Rather than using the oppertunity to escape, V acted in a selfish way that caused pointless death.

THATS what was wrong.

You're stuck on good & evil. As I said good & evil has nothing to do with it. Read my post, read, not glance over for the gist.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0182.html

As the dragon is blasting them with acid Roy has no weapon out, Durkon has no weapon, Belkar hasn't reached the dragon yet, Elan is under the dragons foot. Now, what makes you think the OotS attacked first?

The dragon was coming out of the suggestion spell in 10 seconds. How far away from a winged monster with a long range weapon will that get you? Not far enough. Reread the strip, the dragon had the upper hand until V stepped in. With no way to restrain or escape a known hostile & superior force, killing it was the only way to save their lives.

At least try to come up with evidence to support your view.

[Delaney Gale]

And the reason that they didn't have hours to escape was because of V as well.

Then there are two ways of interpreting this- either V's inherently selfish action was waiting, or that action was the best possible strategic plan. The goal of the expedition into the cave was to retrieve the starmetal. The dragon was in the way of that goal, and it was not an insurmountable obstacle. What was of more concern was the unknown area between the dragon and the starmetal. The party nearly died entering the cave, if not for V's feather fall, and V couldn't communicate that to them. Given that, it seems plausible that there would be an obstacle between the dragon and the starmetal that could be deadly but would be easily bypassed with arcane magic. This basically stalled the party to keep them from getting themselves killed in some other encounter, while allowing Durkon and V to restore their spells to be optimally useful.

It's not squeaky-clean lawful good, but it's solid strategy wrapped up in character interaction fluffiness.

[Gamiress]

Is it because I'm intelligent and reasonable? Is that why I'm being ignored? This isn't a debate thread, this is just a bunch of people who completely missed the point who are bound and determined to bicker.

Whether either side was good or evil does not matter in this case. What matters is that both sides did something dumb, and now a wronged third party is out for horrible, brutal revenge. There's no justice here at all, for anyone.

[TheSummoner]

Yikes, all I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with killing an evil monster.

I realize that we live in a world with fanboys who love vampires and whatnot but there is no moral ambiguity in killing an evil monster. This strip is good about looking at things like that and sometimes seeing them from the monster's point of view. Just because the monster is a three dimensional character doesn't mean that it is not evil and doesn't need killing.

The black dragon was an evil monster. Period. There is no need for a big show of proof and "Maybe if it did this" or "The heroes could have done that."

The dragon was born evil. It is okay for things to work that way in a fantasy world.

By the way, YES!!!! Eating is evil if you eat people and existing is evil if you are a fifty foot long black lizard that eats people.


At least try to come up with evidence to support your view.

What. Did. The. Dragon. Do. That. Was. Evil?

The dragon eating his natural prey is no more evil than you eating a steak. I bet the cow didn't want to be slaughtered and eaten either, but you sure aren't going to go hungry just so a cow can survive. The cow has every right to try to survive, but no one has any obligation to starve.


At least try to come up with evidence to support your view.

Its called a presumption of innocence, I don't need to prove a thing. The burden of proof is with the ones saying the dragon was evil.


As the dragon is blasting them with acid Roy has no weapon out, Durkon has no weapon, Belkar hasn't reached the dragon yet, Elan is under the dragons foot. Now, what makes you think the OotS attacked first?

I honestly don't care who attacked first. My point is you can't PROVE the dragon attacked first. Roy's sword was broken, and from what we saw of the battle, he didn't even try to take the club out. For all we know, Belkar was dodging the breath attack, the dragon has disarmed Durkon, and Elan... well, how hard is it to incapicitate Elan? We clearly aren't seeing the beginning of the battle, Elan was third in line or further back before the battle started and somehow got under the Dragon's foot with no sign of the magical darkness... In the worse case scenerio, in which the dragon did attack first, he was simply defending his home from armed invaders.


The dragon was coming out of the suggestion spell in 10 seconds. How far away from a winged monster with a long range weapon will that get you? Not far enough. Reread the strip, the dragon had the upper hand until V stepped in. With no way to restrain or escape a known hostile & superior force, killing it was the only way to save their lives.

I don't play D&D, so I'm not familiar with how long suggestion lasts, but V ordered the dragon to not let them leave until dawn. We don't exactly how long that is, but its much more than the 12 seconds they had after V was back to his elfish self. Had V been less... selfish, they would've had plenty of time to find the starmetal and escape instead of playing several rounds of "I spy a Black Dragon."

Also, they ALREADY restrained it once, and the fact that they killed it without a timely deus ex machina proves it wasn't a superior force.


Then there are two ways of interpreting this- either V's inherently selfish action was waiting, or that action was the best possible strategic plan. The goal of the expedition into the cave was to retrieve the starmetal. The dragon was in the way of that goal, and it was not an insurmountable obstacle. What was of more concern was the unknown area between the dragon and the starmetal. The party nearly died entering the cave, if not for V's feather fall, and V couldn't communicate that to them. Given that, it seems plausible that there would be an obstacle between the dragon and the starmetal that could be deadly but would be easily bypassed with arcane magic. This basically stalled the party to keep them from getting themselves killed in some other encounter, while allowing Durkon and V to restore their spells to be optimally useful.

It's not squeaky-clean lawful good, but it's solid strategy wrapped up in character interaction fluffiness.

I would say the best possible strategic plan would be to order the dragon to stop attacking the Order and then use the oppertunity to find the starmetal and get out of there. As soon as it was under suggestion, V was able to, and DID use the dragon to communicate to the Order. V could've ordered the dragon to tell them where the starmetal was, saving search time and speeding their escape. After V played puppet with the dragon, he made it pretty clear that he was the lizard who had been following them around, and Durkon isn't the kind that would leave V in lizard-form after he had the power to change it.

So no, it wasn't the best possible strategic plan. It was a selfish and pointless way to assure something that would've happened anyways, being turned back into an elf.

[Sholos]

Yikes, all I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with killing an evil monster.

I realize that we live in a world with fanboys who love vampires and whatnot but there is no moral ambiguity in killing an evil monster. This strip is good about looking at things like that and sometimes seeing them from the monster's point of view. Just because the monster is a three dimensional character doesn't mean that it is not evil and doesn't need killing.

The black dragon was an evil monster. Period. There is no need for a big show of proof and "Maybe if it did this" or "The heroes could have done that."

The dragon was born evil. It is okay for things to work that way in a fantasy world.

By the way, YES!!!! Eating is evil if you eat people and existing is evil if you are a fifty foot long black lizard that eats people.

However, you have yet to prove that this fifty foot long black dragon (not a lizard) eats people on a regular basis.

Also, killing an evil creature isn't automatically good. It matters why you're killing it. If you're killing it to get it's treasure, that's neutral, at best.


Racism is being bigotted against members of your own species who are of a different race.

I don't think that it is racist if you come across a fifty foot long lizard that is known for eating people and kill it.

Fine, specieism. Is that better? My point was that hating something for the color of it's skin/fur/scales isn't something normally associated with "good".

[Snake-Aes]

Fine, specieism. Is that better? My point was that hating something for the color of it's skin/fur/scales isn't something normally associated with "good".

Yes it's what happens today, at all times.
It just doesn't happen that beings of different species here are all, from a d&d PoV, non-sentient beings.

In D&D, "speciecism" is actually a reliable measure for some things. Dragons for example. All chromatic dragons are "Always Evil". You can expect dragons with non-shiny scales to be evil and be accurate as many times as people are willing to list before bringing up exceptions and expecting the rules to adapt to said exceptions.

[Reverent-One]

However, you have yet to prove that this fifty foot long black dragon (not a lizard) eats people on a regular basis.

The speed at which it went to eating the Order heavily implies that such a thing is not unusual for it.


Also, killing an evil creature isn't automatically good. It matters why you're killing it. If you're killing it to get it's treasure, that's neutral, at best.

Than it's a good thing they were fighting it in self-defense, isn't it?

[TheSummoner]

The speed at which it went to eating the Order heavily implies that such a thing is not unusual for it.

The dragon didn't try to eat V until after he tried to cast suggestion on it 3 times. It didn't try to eat Haley until after she shot him in the eye.


Than it's a good thing they were fighting it in self-defense, isn't it?

Its a good thing the dragon was fighting to defend his home from armed invaders, isn't it?

[Reverent-One]

Its a good thing the dragon was fighting to defend his home from armed invaders, isn't it?

And the fact that the dragons lived here was clearly marked wasn't it? Warning signs and everything, that the Order just ignored because they were gung-ho to fight a dragon, right? I mean, it's not like the dragon set a trap for them with a darkness spell or that the Order tried to run once they saw that a dragon was there or anything. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html)


The dragon didn't try to eat V until after he tried to cast suggestion on it 3 times. It didn't try to eat Haley until after she shot him in the eye.

Which they did since the dragon was breathing acid and all in all trying to kill them.

[Volkov]

The question of whether or not the Adult Black Dragon is justified in killing V's family or not is just silly.

The Juvinile Black Dragon was evil. Adventurers kill evil monsters. It doesn't matter if the JBD was justified in attacking people who had invaded it's lair because ... it was evil.

This is what happens when you try to shove modern morality into a high fantasy and/or gaming world. In a world like this, it really is black and white. It really is just that simple.

The adventurers are good. The dragon is evil. Killing the dragon is morally okay.

Even if you insist on looking at it in terms of modern morality. Any moral high ground that the Adult Black Dragon gains when her(?) offspring was killed goes right out the window when she decides to kill two children over it.

If a drunk driver ran over my kid, I might kill the DD but I wouldn't shoot his tottler.

So by your logic it is o.k to kill a Man just because he was a devout member of the Nazi party thus making him evil?

[hamishspence]

Heroes of Horror goes out of its way to point out that Evil characters, especially Lawful Evil ones, can be law abiding- and Detect-Smite in town can lead to paladin being up on murder charges.

[Tessa]

What. Did. The. Dragon. Do. That. Was. Evil?

It existed. You may not like it but when you are a black dragon, that really is enough.

The dragon eating his natural prey is no more evil than you eating a steak. I bet the cow didn't want to be slaughtered and eaten either, but you sure aren't going to go hungry just so a cow can survive. The cow has every right to try to survive, but no one has any obligation to starve.

If the game/ story was from the point of view of a cow then I would be evil for the purposes of the game/ story.
On top of that, cows are not sentient, intelligent beings. If you eat sentient, intelligent beings then that is evil.

However, you have yet to prove that this fifty foot long black dragon (not a lizard) eats people on a regular basis.

Don't have to. IT'S EVIL! Black dragons are evil. That is how D&D worlds (usually) work. If you have some wierd DM that makes you gab with black dragons to make sure that "this one isn't cuddly" then I am sorry.

Also, killing an evil creature isn't automatically good. It matters why you're killing it. If you're killing it to get it's treasure, that's neutral, at best.

Killing an evil creature might not always be an act of good but I would be hard pressed to ever call it an act of evil.

Fine, specieism. Is that better? My point was that hating something for the color of it's skin/fur/scales isn't something normally associated with "good".

Yes, it is much better because we don't live in a world with multiple intelligent species. However, if there was a race of giantic dragons that (usually) ate people then I would feel perfectly comfortable hating them.

Its a good thing the dragon was fighting to defend his home from armed invaders, isn't it?

I think that I am finally understanding you. You are one of those people that watches a vampire movie and roots for the vampire, aren't you?

[Tessa]

So by your logic it is o.k to kill a Man just because he was a devout member of the Nazi party thus making him evil?

If my country was still at war with the Nazis, yes.

That is only the simplest scenario though. Keep in mind that dealing with a real evil human in the real world is a very different thing than dealing with a monster in a fantasy world.

[Volkov]

What. Did. The. Dragon. Do. That. Was. Evil?

It existed. You may not like it but when you are a black dragon, that really is enough.

The dragon eating his natural prey is no more evil than you eating a steak. I bet the cow didn't want to be slaughtered and eaten either, but you sure aren't going to go hungry just so a cow can survive. The cow has every right to try to survive, but no one has any obligation to starve.

If the game/ story was from the point of view of a cow then I would be evil for the purposes of the game/ story.
On top of that, cows are not sentient, intelligent beings. If you eat sentient, intelligent beings then that is evil.

However, you have yet to prove that this fifty foot long black dragon (not a lizard) eats people on a regular basis.

Don't have to. IT'S EVIL! Black dragons are evil. That is how D&D worlds (usually) work. If you have some wierd DM that makes you gab with black dragons to make sure that "this one isn't cuddly" then I am sorry.

Also, killing an evil creature isn't automatically good. It matters why you're killing it. If you're killing it to get it's treasure, that's neutral, at best.

Killing an evil creature might not always be an act of good but I would be hard pressed to ever call it an act of evil.

Fine, specieism. Is that better? My point was that hating something for the color of it's skin/fur/scales isn't something normally associated with "good".

Yes, it is much better because we don't live in a world with multiple intelligent species. However, if there was a race of giantic dragons that (usually) ate people then I would feel perfectly comfortable hating them.

Its a good thing the dragon was fighting to defend his home from armed invaders, isn't it?

I think that I am finally understanding you. You are one of those people that watches a vampire movie and roots for the vampire, aren't you?

And you must be one of those people who wish that Indiana Jones would to go into Germany and kill everyone wearing a uniform there with the justification that since joining the Nazi party was mandatory and joining the Nazi party is an inherently evil act, it is not a moral crime to kill them.

[Winterwind]

@Tessa: Question - why do you assume that, just because you and your group choose to play with a black and white morality, the same holds true for every other roleplaying group? Please don't take this as attack on your preferences - I completely understand and respect that other people may have other tastes - but me, all players in my group and most of the players of other groups I played with in the past would be bored to tears by such an approach.

[hamishspence]

thing is though, monsters in D&D have changed a lot over time- we get much more detail on the personalities of dragons, and their political interactions with the humanoid world in 3.5, than we do in first edition.

Which leads to their being "humanised"- black dragons who run thieves guilds, blues who run mining concerns, greens who make deals with the local logging company and actually ally with the party against evil druids. All these are in Draconomicon.

They have, in effect, gone from "evil monster" to "evil NPC" in usage.

[Volkov]

If my country was still at war with the Nazis, yes.

That is only the simplest scenario though. Keep in mind that dealing with a real evil human in the real world is a very different thing than dealing with a monster in a fantasy world.

So if you were an adventurer you would kill a Red Dragon's newly hatched wyrmling the second it got out of the egg and say it was o.k, they're born Chaotic evil if no one attempts to raise them differently.

[TheSummoner]

And the fact that the dragons lived here was clearly marked wasn't it? Warning signs and everything, that the Order just ignored because they were gung-ho to fight a dragon, right? I mean, it's not like the dragon set a trap for them with a darkness spell or that the Order tried to run once they saw that a dragon was there or anything. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html)

Once again, since I don't play, I'm not sure of the particulars, and I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like a big space of darkness is very fatal... more of a way to keep intruders from being able to find their way into the lair... Or a ledge that would be fatal to creatures who can't fly that most wouldn't be stupid enough to climb/fall down.


Which they did since the dragon was breathing acid and all in all trying to kill them.

Which he did because despite the traps and whatnot meant to keep his lair safe and prevent him from being disturbed, they walked right into his territory armed to the teeth.

[Bayar]

So by your logic it is o.k to kill a Man just because he was a devout member of the Nazi party thus making him evil?

D20 Past says they are :shrug:

Anyway, back on subject: Ever seen signs reading "Trespassers will be shot" ? This is the same thing. Adventurers enter the dragons lair -> they better be ready for a fight. It is never a good idea to encroach on dragon turf because you might get killed. And the dragon can say it was in self defense.

[Tessa]

And you must be one of those people who wish that Indiana Jones would to go into Germany and kill everyone wearing a uniform there with the justification that since joining the Nazi party was mandatory and joining the Nazi party is an inherently evil act, it is not a moral crime to kill them.

No, I just don't whine about it when he does. Part of the problem I am having with this debate is the need to go to extremes. I don't see anything wrong with killing an enemy soldier in time of war, therefore I am in support of committing genicide on that enemy? I would call that a radical interpretation.

@Tessa: Question - why do you assume that, just because you and your group choose to play with a black and white morality, the same holds true for every other roleplaying group? Please don't take this as attack on your preferences - I completely understand and respect that other people may have other tastes - but me, all players in my group and most of the players of other groups I played with in the past would be bored to tears by such an approach.

I don't think that I was assuming that. I am not actually all that gung ho about the whole good/evil thing. In debating with Summoner, amoung others, I have taken a harder line than usual because I seem to be repeating myself. I'll make a statement, they'll respond with a somewhat silly non-point, I'll try to clarify and they repeat themselves.

So if you were an adventurer you would kill a Red Dragon's newly hatched wyrmling the second it got out and say it was o.k, they're born Chaotic evil if no one attempts to raise them differently.

This doesn't have any real bearing on what we were discussing but okay.
I am not sure what I would do. There are extremes to every position. If the wyrmling attacked my character, I'd probably kill it with no regrets but I might let it live if it seemed harmless.
Of course, the question then is; am I then responsible for all of the people that Red eventually kills? Even in a fantasy world, there are grey areas.

[Winterwind]

I don't think that I was assuming that. I am not actually all that gung ho about the whole good/evil thing. In debating with Summoner, amoung others, I have taken a harder line than usual because I seem to be repeating myself. I'll make a statement, they'll respond with a somewhat silly non-point, I'll try to clarify and they repeat themselves. Fair enough - but in that case, why do you find it strange that people approach the whole situation with a more "real-world" morality, or find it doubtful that, just on account of it being a black dragon, it can be dismissed as evil and hence meant to be killed, or that being evil does not instantly merit a death sentence? If they play with such more complex moralities in their groups, it seems natural they would approach a comic showing what amounts to playing a roleplaying game with the same kind of complex morality.
Furthermore, you say "killing a dragon just because it exists is what adventurers do" - but in fact, it is merely what players in your group would do (or so I would assume, considering you seem to take adventurers killing a dragon just because it is one as a given), and not necessarily true for other groups, including a hypothetical, non-existant group on which OotS might be based.

[Tessa]

I don't actually find it strange. Obviously, people can play however they want.
While I enjoy a good debate, the original point of the post was that trying to apply real world morality to an elf that killed a dragon is kind of silly. There was a lot of back and forth on the subject and while I did a bad job of it, the point I was trying to make was that there is no way to come to a consesus because the situation is too far from one that would be encountered in the real world.
After that, I just got caught up in the debate because I don't really have a problem with fighting something that is evil.
In a game, evil is easy to identify and there is little if any ambiguity about it. That is, in my opinion, part of the appeal.

[hamishspence]

D&D novels go with "eay to identify" but frequently are heavy on the ambiguity and odd teamings. Especially when the novel taps into settings like Planescape.

When a paladin is teaming up with an evil cleric of evil deity and her army of demons, you know its not exactly Smite On Sight any more.

Good + Evil vs Worse Problem is an interesting setup, and its common in D&D novels.

[Reverent-One]

Once again, since I don't play, I'm not sure of the particulars, and I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like a big space of darkness is very fatal... more of a way to keep intruders from being able to find their way into the lair... Or a ledge that would be fatal to creatures who can't fly that most wouldn't be stupid enough to climb/fall down.

Or maybe it could do exactly what the dragon used it for, to trick a group of unwitting adventurers into getting in close proximity to a dragon they would otherwise avoid.


Which he did because despite the traps and whatnot meant to keep his lair safe and prevent him from being disturbed, they walked right into his territory armed to the teeth.

Riiiight, and what warnings and traps did the dragons have up? The darkness spell? As you said, the spell itself is not fatal, and could be simply be from an old, automated defense system. Did the black dragon even roar once to scare them away? Did it make any attempt to reason to with them? No, it did not. It got them in close and started a fight when they tried to run away.

If someone is hunting in the woods and unknowing crosses an unmarked boundary into someone's land, it is all right for the owner of the land to shoot to kill with no real warnings?

[Donald]

What. Did. The. Dragon. Do. That. Was. Evil?


It. Doesn't. Matter. It. Was. Self. Defense.



The dragon eating his natural prey is no more evil than you eating a steak. I bet the cow didn't want to be slaughtered and eaten either...The cow has every right to try to survive,
So cows fighting back is perfectly fine but the OotS fighting back after the dragon tried to eat two of them is not? The CLF will be gratified to hear their human oppressor cannot retaliate.



Its called a presumption of innocence, I don't need to prove a thing. The burden of proof is with the ones saying the dragon was evil.

No, the question here is momma Black Dragon justified. That means proving the OotS is evil. You're skating away from that because you got nothin'! :smallsmile:




I honestly don't care who attacked first.
My point is you can't PROVE the dragon attacked first.
Roy's sword was broken, and from what we saw of the battle, he didn't even try to take the club out.
he was simply defending his home from armed invaders.

Then why'd you ask? :smallconfused:
And you can't prove it didn't. My examples point toward the dragon being the aggressor.
So, an evil, aggressive fighter charged the poor dragon without a weapon?
A home that the gang didn't know was his home, using lethal force. Discussion could have avoided the whole wacky mess, but the only thing that came out of the dragon's mouth was acid.



I don't play D&D, so I'm not familiar with how long suggestion lasts, but V ordered the dragon to not let them leave until dawn. We don't exactly how long that is, but its much more than the 12 seconds they had after V was back to his elfish self. Had V been less... selfish,

And your argument suffers for your lack of knowledge.:smallyuk:
Durkon didn't have the spell to turn V back so he had to wait to pray for it the next morning. Since they already tried adventuring without turning V back, V decided to keep them confined until she was restored. The spell would have run out at the same point no matter when V told the dragon to do something.



Also, they ALREADY restrained it once, and the fact that they killed it without a timely deus ex machina proves it wasn't a superior force.

I would say the best possible strategic plan would be to order the dragon to stop attacking the Order and then use the oppertunity to find the starmetal and get out of there. So no, it wasn't the best possible strategic plan. It was a selfish and pointless

restrained after several attempts. There are no guarantees the dragon would be brought back under control before it killed someone.
No, it wasn't the best. How many of your snap decisions work out fine? Seeing a dragon's tonsils close up and having a friend swallowed could effect your finer judgment.

[Kish]

No, the question here is momma Black Dragon justified.

There are multiple questions here. That's (just) one of them, and an easy one to dispense with. Justified in killing uninvolved children? Of course not. No need to bring racial morality into it.

Are black dragons always evil? By the Monster Manual, no--it says that even "Always" doesn't mean "Always" in our real-world terms. Was the younger black dragon evil? Unknowable from the available evidence. Is the ancient black dragon evil? Yes. Are black dragons likely to be always evil without further analysis needed in the world created by the author of Start of Darkness and On the Origin of PCs? I would say no, but that's just my opinion. Just as if you say yes, it's just your opinion. Tessa made a very extreme assertion--that all black dragons are evil and deserve killing and there's nothing else to discuss--and then stated that her problem with the debate was people going to extremes, as well as backing her viewpoint up by painting people who disagree with her as "fanboys who love vampires." I'm not impressed. Really, I get that people can chant "all black dragons are evil and should be killed." I know that simply chanting back "not all black dragons should be killed" wouldn't make an impression on them--when has that approach ever convinced anyone of anything? What I don't get is why some people on this board--all on the "all black dragons are evil" side, unless I've missed posts--seem not to realize that they can't conquer all disagreement by repetitive assertion.

[Forum Staff]

We have a "One Topic, One Thread" policy on this message board, meaning that any discussion of the morality of the current situation should be kept to the existing thread about it.

Starting a new thread for the purpose of saying "We should stop talking about topic X!" is a terrible idea, because it increases the number of places people can talk about topic X. The OP of this thread could easily have been posted to the existing thread, but then I guess it wouldn't have gotten as much attention. The bad news is, getting more attention is not a good enough reason to start a new thread.

This thread is locked.