V fact confirmed

[Thant]

I don't know if someone noticed this before, I didn't saw it in any of the latest threads, so just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of this.

In the last strip, 1st panel, the "purpule fiend" confirms V-mans neutrality.

V-man is now officialy CHAOTIC NEUTRAL...one step closer to the dark side :smallwink:

[magic9mushroom]

I don't know if someone noticed this before, I didn't saw it in any of the latest threads, so just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of this.

In the last strip, 1st panel, the "purpule fiend" confirms V-mans neutrality.

V-man is now officialy CHAOTIC NEUTRAL...one step closer to the dark side :smallwink:

Incorrectness!

It is unknown whether V is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Situational ethics such as she's been displaying do point to chaos, however we must remember that conversation with Elan in which her opinions on wizardry are of a solidly Lawful bent. True Neutral seems the best fit.

And it's been known for some time that V isn't Good. For instance, the OOTS Adventure Game lists her as "Arrogant Neutral". And the antics she pulled on Belkar, her suggestions for disposal of Nale, her vapourisation of Kubota for time reasons, etc all are not the acts of a Good person.

[RMS Oceanic]

I agree that we still can't confirm where V sits on the ethical (Lawful-Chaotic) axis, but I think the fiend's use of neutral indicates that on the moral (Good-Evil) axis, V is currently neutral. I think outsiders such as these fiends and the being of Law and Good in #489 can pretty much discern a mortal's alignment.

[Tempest Fennac]

Considering how Nale had murdered over 400 people in order to get revenge on Elan, I'd say that stopping him frim being revived would class as good based on how dangerous he is. I'd say the dirt farmer incident as well as V blowing up the guy who was looking after his/her house as better regarding evidence that s/he isn't good.

[magic9mushroom]

Considering how Nale had murdered over 400 people in order to get revenge on Elan, I'd say that stopping him frim being revived would class as good based on how dangerous he is. I'd say the dirt farmer incident as well as V blowing up the guy who was looking after his/her house as better regarding evidence that s/he isn't good.

Soul binding is inherently an evil act. There has been a 6 page debate over this and I don't want to restart it. Suffice it to say that Haley called it evil, the BoVD says it's evil, and both the new soulbinding spells in BoVD and HoH have the [Evil] descriptor.

I agree that V is X-neutral though.

[Haruki-kun]

I'm not sure if it serves as confirmation... but I think V is Chaotic Neutral anyway. Sorry, but to me it seems like s/he is just too obviously CN.

[Tempest Fennac]

I was going with the PHB which doesn't list SB as anything. Why do HOH and BoVD claim the spell is evil anyway? I can't see any justification for it having that descriptor due to how the spell could be used for good.

[BRC]

I was going with the PHB which doesn't list SB as anything. Why do HOH and BoVD claim the spell is evil anyway? I can't see any justification for it having that descriptor due to how the spell could be used for good.
Pretty much any spell can be used for good, Most alignment descriptors on spells are arbitrary. You could raise an army of undead to defend innocents against evil so living people don't have to die, but Animate Dead still has the evil descriptor.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is an excellent point, BRC (I should probably drop alignment descriptors from my games all things considered).

[magic9mushroom]

Animate Dead is Evil because creating Undead decreases the amount of Positive Energy and hence the amount of happiness in the world.

Soul Bind is Evil because you're screwing around with and torturing people's souls.

The justification for a spell having an alignment descriptor is that it does either of the following:

a) utilises that alignment in its power (e.g. Dictum or Order's Wrath)
b) has an inevitable result that matches that alignment.

Channeling negative energy is always evil and channeling positive energy is always good because positive energy brings life and happiness. Casting spells that necessarily cause pain is likewise evil. Casting spells that do weird things to reality is often Chaotic.

[factotum]

I was going with the PHB which doesn't list SB as anything. Why do HOH and BoVD claim the spell is evil anyway? I can't see any justification for it having that descriptor due to how the spell could be used for good.

You're essentially saying "the ends justify the means", which is not something a truly Good character in D&D would say--it's actually a far more Neutral sort of attitude. Binding someone's soul for eternity is pretty much the nastiest thing you can do to them short of destroying their soul entirely (which is something only a god could do anyway).

[Thanatos 51-50]

Channeling negative energy is always evil and channeling positive energy is always good because positive energy brings life and happiness. Casting spells that necessarily cause pain is likewise evil. Casting spells that do weird things to reality is often Chaotic.

You have got to be kidding. Its not even much of a streach to take this and call the following spells (to name a few) Evil.

Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Magic Missile
Ray of Frost

And the following are obviously chaotic (Again, to name but a few):

Presdignitation
Disguise Self
Eternal Flame
Minor Image

[The Minx]

You have got to be kidding. Its not even much of a streach to take this and call the following spells (to name a few) Evil.

Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Magic Missile
Ray of Frost

And the following are obviously chaotic (Again, to name but a few):

Presdignitation
Disguise Self
Eternal Flame
Minor Image

I'm not sure how Prestigitation is Chaotic: it can be used for all sorts of utilitarian things, like cleaning for instance. :smallwink: Fireball can be used for non-lethal demolitions, and so on. It's supposedly all how you use it, and some spells have only evil uses, like many BoVD ones.

OTOH, one seldom sees Fireball actually used except for killing people. Same with swords, including "Holy" ones, so...

In general, alignment descriptors are pretty odd for spells... and other things. For instance, using poison is considered evil, even if it is a nonlethal poison like for instance Drow poison, which is nothing more than a knock out drug. However, it is apparently OK to dissolve a living creature's flesh with acid... :smallconfused:

[Thanatos 51-50]

Removal of and alteration of matter four an hour (and THATs by the most apprentice of mages) at will seems pretty chaotic to me. Its not on a large scale, but it absurdly violates laws of physcs and thermodynamics and even energy. All magic "messes" with reality in some jarring way. Thats why its magic.

Magic is simply a weapon, like a sword.

Unless the spell channels the very elemental matter of Evil, it shouldn't be considered an Evil spell.

[magic9mushroom]

Binding someone's soul for eternity is pretty much the nastiest thing you can do to them short of destroying their soul entirely (which is something only a god could do anyway).

Correction: A 9th level Ur-Priest or 15th level Wizard. Trap the soul is 8th level, Imprison Soul and Soul Bind are 9th level. Once you have a trapped soul, it's quite easy to use it as a material component for a spell or item, snuffing it out forever. Said item will, of course, come up like a Christmas tree if someone casts Detect Evil.

[The Minx]

Removal of and alteration of matter four an hour (and THATs by the most apprentice of mages) at will seems pretty chaotic to me. Its not on a large scale, but it absurdly violates laws of physcs and thermodynamics and even energy. All magic "messes" with reality in some jarring way. Thats why its magic.

Magic is simply a weapon, like a sword.

Unless the spell channels the very elemental matter of Evil, it shouldn't be considered an Evil spell.

Um, going by that argument, all magic is Chaotic, which clearly isn't the case. And Prestigitation can be used to increase order just as well as reduce it.

I agree that magic is simply a weapon, like a sword: that was my point. Shoehorning spells into alignment descriptors can be pretty shaky.:smallsmile:

[magic9mushroom]

You have got to be kidding. Its not even much of a streach to take this and call the following spells (to name a few) Evil.

Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Magic Missile
Ray of Frost

And the following are obviously chaotic (Again, to name but a few):

Presdignitation
Disguise Self
Eternal Flame
Minor Image

Ok, that's just LOL.


WHAT’S EVIL?
Some would point out that a fireball spell is likely to cause
undue suffering, and it could be used to kill a group of
orphans. Does that make fireball an evil spell?
Fireball, by itself, simply creates a blast of fire. Fire can be
used for evil purposes, but it is not inherently evil. Contrasted
with a spell such as shriveling, whose only purpose
and only possible use is to wither the flesh of another
living creature in a painful and debilitating fashion, it
becomes easier to see why shriveling is an evil spell.
The judgment cannot be based solely on effect.
Your campaign could, for example, have a spell
called vitality leech that calls upon a demon that
drains Strength points from a target for a short
time. The spell’s effect is only slightly different
from ray of enfeeblement, but the approach and execution
are very different. Vitality leech is an evil
spell, while ray of enfeeblement is not. Although the
ultimate game effect is the same, the character in
the game world faced with the two spells
undoubtedly regards them differently. Tapping
into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no
matter what the effects or the reason for using
the power might be.
By this definition, as a variant rule, the following
spells from the Player’s Handbook should
be considered evil and have the evil descriptor:
contagion, deathwatch, desecrate, doom, and trap
the soul.

I don't really think I need to add much to that.

Except that by "weird" I mostly meant "random", ie Rod of Wonder sort of weirdness.

[magic9mushroom]

Removal of and alteration of matter four an hour (and THATs by the most apprentice of mages) at will seems pretty chaotic to me. Its not on a large scale, but it absurdly violates laws of physcs and thermodynamics and even energy. All magic "messes" with reality in some jarring way. Thats why its magic.

Magic is simply a weapon, like a sword.

Unless the spell channels the very elemental matter of Evil, it shouldn't be considered an Evil spell.

Animate Dead does just that.

Trapping people's souls and destroying them is what Asmodeus got chucked out of heaven for in D&D cosmology. Serious stuff.

[Tempest Fennac]

I tend to go with real life ethics rather then D&D ethics due to how messed up they are (eg: it was obvious to Haley that Sabine would probably try to rescue Thog and Nale from gaol and that the guards wouldn'd stand a chance against Sabine due to being low-level Warriors with cheap equipment, but this didn't stop them from letting someone they had just met who had already jobbed to one of Nale's allys from taking them to the nearest town. In that case, I'd say the Order's actions (except for Belkars) classed as evil through stupidty due to how killing Name and Thog and cutting them up for the monsters to eat would have dramatically reduced the chances of Sabine being able to get them both back, whcih would have also been good for the Order's longterm wellbeing).

Going back to Animate Dead, I'm a Reiki Master, so I'm obviously opposed to anything to do with negative energy. On the other hand, if animating some corpses would save people who are still alive, I wouldn't have any problems with doing it at all due to how the end result would be good. As far as destroying someone's soul to stop them from causing death and destruction, I'd say it would be the fault of the person on the recieving end of it (it's not as if anyone was forcing them to be evil. I agree with thanatos5150 about offensive spells being evil based on the argument in favour of evil spells being fluff-based.

Also, the ironic thing about suggesting that my attitude is more neutral then good is that most SMBG posters seem to class me as the personification of everything Good.:smalltongue:

Regarding V, someone suggested in another thread that V was only pretending to not know who Elan was talking about after disintegrating Kubota in order to illustrate how pointless s/he found the subplot. If this was the case (I'm not sure whether I agree with the theory or not), I'd class killing Kubota as a chaotic action due to how he was clearly guilty, and the trial probably wouldn;t have done Hinjo any favours. Assuming that V really didn;t know anything about why Kubota was tied up, I would class it as evil due to V not having enough information to decide that killing him there and then was a good idea.

[magic9mushroom]

I tend to go with real life ethics rather then D&D ethics due to how messed up they are (eg: it was obvious to Haley that Sabine would probably try to rescue Thog and Nale from gaol and that the guards wouldn'd stand a chance against Sabine due to being low-level Warriors with cheap equipment, but this didn't stop them from letting someone they had just met who had already jobbed to one of Nale's allys from taking them to the nearest town. In that case, I'd say the Order's actions (except for Belkars) classed as evil through stupidty due to how killing Name and Thog and cutting them up for the monsters to eat would have dramatically reduced the chances of Sabine being able to get them both back, whcih would have also been good for the Order's longterm wellbeing).

Celia wasn't working for Xykon.

And arguing that "ends justify the means" is more morally correct than a more idealistic perspective is just dumb.


Going back to Animate Dead, I'm a Reiki Master, so I'm obviously opposed to anything to do with negative energy. On the other hand, if animating some corpses would save people who are still alive, I wouldn't have any problems with doing it at all due to how the end result would be good. As far as destroying someone's soul to stop them from causing death and destruction, I'd say it would be the fault of the person on the recieving end of it (it's not as if anyone was forcing them to be evil. I agree with thanatos5150 about offensive spells being evil based on the argument in favour of evil spells being fluff-based.

You're saying it's the Soul bindee's fault? Um... I'm having trouble avoiding Godwining here. Or making any number of ad hominem comparisons. I will reply when I have something more productive to reply with.


Also, the ironic thing about suggesting that my attitude is more neutral then good is that most SMBG posters seem to class me as the personification of everything Good.:smalltongue:

Regarding V, someone suggested in another thread that V was only pretending to not know who Elan was talking about after disintegrating Kubota in order to illustrate how pointless s/he found the subplot. If this was the case (I'm not sure whether I agree with the theory or not), I'd class killing Kubota as a chaotic action due to how he was clearly guilty, and the trial probably wouldn;t have done Hinjo any favours. Assuming that V really didn;t know anything about why Kubota was tied up, I would class it as evil due to V not having enough information to decide that killing him there and then was a good idea.

V was secluded in her room the whole time, of course she wouldn't know what's going on. And the act being Chaotic is sorta obvious.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Um, going by that argument, all magic is Chaotic, which clearly isn't the case. And Prestigitation can be used to increase order just as well as reduce it.

That was the point I was trying to make.


Ok, that's just LOL.

I don't really think I need to add much to that.

Except that by "weird" I mostly meant "random", ie Rod of Wonder sort of weirdness.

Thank you. I intentionally chose ludicrous examples. Again, that was the point.

Setting aside your BoVD quote (And why are we injecting D&D morality into w real-life morality discussion?), I'd like to request that you say what you mean, please.
I'd like to agree that a Rod of Wonder is, indeed, Chaotic.


Animate Dead does just that.

Trapping people's souls and destroying them is what Asmodeus got chucked out of heaven for in D&D cosmology. Serious stuff.

I never said Animate Dead wasn't Evil by that definiton. The spell itself, for channeling elemntal Evil, is, indeed, Evil. Thats not to say it can't be used for good, but don't let a Paladin see you casting it.

The important part is Asmodeus destroyed the souls. I'm just saying we trap the soul for a few dozen millenia, sushing up stories about the Ancient Evil (even in Ancient Texts, scrub that Evil guy's name from history) and place the trapped soul under the protection of some ultra-secret Cabal of Good Guys. It is to be released exactly one millenium after hardcore sources (such as the Big Head of Ultra-Secret Good Guy Order, or some diety) have decreed that there are no remaining people who would see the soul resurrected. Then it is released to its proper afterlife. This "countdown" is to be reset at first suspicion that someone wants to ressurect the Evil.

Alternately, the soul could just remained trapped for Eternity, but never destroyed.


Going back to Animate Dead, I'm a Reiki Master, so I'm obviously opposed to anything to do with negative energy. On the other hand, if animating some corpses would save people who are still alive, I wouldn't have any problems with doing it at all due to how the end result would be good. As far as destroying someone's soul to stop them from causing death and destruction, I'd say it would be the fault of the person on the recieving end of it (it's not as if anyone was forcing them to be evil. I agree with thanatos5150 about offensive spells being evil based on the argument in favour of evil spells being fluff-based.)

Agree with you on all points (including the doing of Evil unto Evil, but only as long as its restricted to the Evil. I support the Death penalty :smallbiggrin:)

Poster's Note:
The death penalty line used above was intended to serve as an example. If you want to open that can of worms with me, send me a PM and I'll get to you on MSN messanger. Please do not turn this into a politicking thread.\

EDIT:
A Second Poster's Note, on a different subject than the first:
Also, please use the edit button in the future or use copy-paste to multiquote. Also - proper English grammar dictates that when reffering to on unknown gender, one is to use the masculine, therefore "He." in lieu of "She." Sorry ~ Pet Peeve.

[Tempest Fennac]

I know Celia wasn't working for Xykon. I was just saying that putting 2 people who are known to be dangerous in her custardy (especially when you look at what they knew about her) was a bad move, especially considering how much chance the people Celia was taking Nale and Thog to had if Sabine decided to rescue them, which was adistincy possibility considering how Haley knew she was Nale's concubine/advisor. I am argueing that "ends justifying the means" is more good then the sort of idealistic ideas that WotC appear to have based on how real life works (admittedly, real life is different due to being a low-to-no magic world with the millitary containing most of the best fighters, but D&D games typically have the police equivalents as severely underpowered compared to people with PC classes (I find the idea of taking someone to the guards if they will probably be executed rather then killing them yourself to be ironic as well).

There is a possibility that V heard about what was happening dispite being locked in his/her room (also, s/he was present when Therka was arrested, so s/he must have known about her feelings for Elan dispite pleading ignorance).

[Thanatos 51-50]

I(admittedly, real life is different due to being a low-to-no magic world with the millitary containing most of the best fighters, but D&D games typically have the police equivalents as severely underpowered compared to people with PC classes (I find the idea of taking someone to the guards if they will probably be executed rather then killing them yourself to be ironic as well).

We also have the best Rogues, Rangers, and Warlords. :smalltongue:

I liek to mkae my police forces when I DM relativly strong, and definatly not something your average U-2-C would tnagle with.
But PCs are special. They're the guys who go out and hunt down dragons slaughtering towns. The Powers that Be decreed them to be more powerful than everyone else.
I don't see any gameplay/story segregation (To steal mercilessly from TVTropes) in making Police 'mooks'/'redshirts', as long as commoners are even more expendable.

[Morty]

But PCs are special. They're the guys who go out and hunt down dragons slaughtering towns. The Powers that Be decreed them to be more powerful than everyone else.

Right... unless they're under 10th level. Because then they're just strong people.


I don't see any gameplay/story segregation (To steal mercilessly from TVTropes) in making Police 'mooks'/'redshirts', as long as commoners are even more expendable.

Then what happens if PCs aren't around or they decide to take advantage of commoners?

[Thanatos 51-50]

Not everyone with Power is Good, you know. :smallsmile:

I like to think of *my* PCs as a multiversal/supernatural 'balance'. They act in 'counterweight' to the ebb and flow of the world. If they do Evil, they will draw Heroes to them, if they do Good, the people will hold them up as Heroes. It comes down to whether they want Power or Love.

The Player Characters, are, quite literally, the center of the multiverse the game occurs in, that doesn't mean the peripherary is homeostatic, though.

[Morty]

Not everyone with Power is Good, you know. :smallsmile:

I like to think of *my* PCs as a multiversal/supernatural 'balance'. They act in 'counterweight' to the ebb and flow of the world. If they do Evil, they will draw Heroes to them, if they do Good, the people will hold them up as Heroes. It comes down to whether they want Power or Love.

The Player Characters, are, quite literally, the center of the multiverse the game occurs in, that doesn't mean the peripherary is homeostatic, though.

Huh. Well, suffice to say that my approach is diametrally different, even in D&D, so there's nothing left to say on the subject. I prefer PCs to be simply strong individuals, but ones that have to actually do something really spectacular to be more than just a band of powerful vagabonds.

[truemane]

...that doesn't mean the peripherary is homeostatic, though.

First off, that's some funny stuff. Seriously. Quoted for humour.

Secondly, I just wanted to add that this thread just proves, once again, that it is impossible to have a debate about alignment in any form without it quickly devolving into an argument about absolute morality.

[Thanatos 51-50]

First off, that's some funny stuff. Seriously. Quoted for humour.

Secondly, I just wanted to add that this thread just proves, once again, that it is impossible to have a debate about alignment in any form without it quickly devolving into an argument about absolute morality.

:smallconfused: I'm sorry. I don't see it. Glad you got some humour out of it, though.

And yeah, this thread has kinda de-railed a tiny it, hasn't it?
I'm sorry.

[truemane]

It was funny because it was like saying 'decant the nascent precipitate' instead of 'put the stuff in the bottle.' The language was entertaining.

And it's not your fault. Whenever someone says the word 'aligment' anywhere on the internet (or heaven forbid, Paladin) then I watch for the inevitable slide into ethics debate.

[magic9mushroom]

I consider this thread sick and probably half dead, so let me just say:

Ethical relativism FTW.

[truemane]

Well... that really depends on how you define the word 'sick.'

Epistemological relativism, FTW.

:smallcool:

[David Argall]

Soul binding is inherently an evil act. There has been a 6 page debate over this and I don't want to restart it.
If you don't want to restart debates, you don't make statements like this.



Suffice it to say that Haley called it evil, the BoVD says it's evil, and both the new soulbinding spells in BoVD and HoH have the [Evil] descriptor.
Haley's role as moral guide is rather suspicious given her thievery. The BoVD does not say Soul binding is evil, merely that it can be part of evil, which is true of just about everything. And since soulbinding spells in PH do not have the evil descriptor, the labeling in lesser books merely describe that spell, not that type of spell.



WHAT’S EVIL?
The judgment cannot be based solely on effect.
Your campaign could, for example, have a spell
called vitality leech that calls upon a demon that
drains Strength points from a target for a short
time. The spell’s effect is only slightly different
from ray of enfeeblement, but the approach and execution
are very different. Vitality leech is an evil
spell, while ray of enfeeblement is not. Although the
ultimate game effect is the same, the character in
the game world faced with the two spells
undoubtedly regards them differently. Tapping
into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no
matter what the effects or the reason for using
the power might be.
By this definition, as a variant rule, the following
spells from the Player’s Handbook should
be considered evil and have the evil descriptor:
contagion, deathwatch, desecrate, doom, and trap
the soul.
"As a variant rule" means it is not the normal rule. The actual rule is to be found elsewhere, in this case in PH, which labels some of these spells as evil and does not label other as such. So BoVD is saying here that no, Trap the Soul is not evil by standard D&D rules.
Even by its own standards, BoVD has little reason for calling Trap the Soul evil. It is simply a conjuration spell and no different than any spell that keeps one a prisoner. It lacks any apparent evil source for its power.


I agree that V is X-neutral though.
All of V's actions can fit in CG. Whether that is where she is officially at or where he will end up is another matter.



You're essentially saying "the ends justify the means", which is not something a truly Good character in D&D would say--it's actually a far more Neutral sort of attitude.
"Ends justify the means" is pretty much alignment-any. An evil character might rescue people for the sake of some evil scheme. A good one kills to reach a good goal. We judge the action on the basis of how likely the means is to achieve the end. "Ends justify" has a bad reputation because it frequently turns out there was little hope of reaching the end. A mere hope you will reach your goal justifies very little. [By contrast, a solid belief justifies quite a bit. Essentially self defense is based on results justifying means.]

[The Minx]

That was the point I was trying to make.

Dictum
Dispel Chaos
Magic Circle against Chaos
Order's Wrath
Protection from Chaos
Shield of Law

Not all spells are Chaotic, some are Lawful and most are Neutral.

I think you are basing your assumptions on Warhammer or the Elric cycle or similar. Alignment in D&D does not use the same assumptions and here, magic =/= Chaos intrinsically (even though some magic can be Chaotic).

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone can be certain about anything regard V's alignment anymore.

We certainly don't know that he/she is not Good aligned, although hir decision to blast Kubota certainly hints against such an alignment. But hir acts have been generally good-oriented if often unwise.

Lawful-Chaotic axis has always, perhaps unavoidably, been even harder to measure. But in V's case I would generally say that hints indicate a Lawful tendency - V values hierarchy, protocol and duty, albeit not always consistently.

That one of the Fiends made a point to recognize the possibility of a Neutral alignment isn't confirmation of anything. It is barely a hint even. One may easily explain that under at least three possibilities: 1) that was the daemon speaking and making sure not to neglect mentioning the existence of its own alignment; 2) that was some other fiend being PC; 3) the fiend just wanted to keep the ambiguity theme that V displays regarding hir gender and extend it to his alignment.

[magic9mushroom]

Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone can be certain about anything regard V's alignment anymore.

We certainly don't know that he/she is not Good aligned, although hir decision to blast Kubota certainly hints against such an alignment. But hir acts have been generally good-oriented if often unwise.

Lawful-Chaotic axis has always, perhaps unavoidably, been even harder to measure. But in V's case I would generally say that hints indicate a Lawful tendency - V values hierarchy, protocol and duty, albeit not always consistently.

That one of the Fiends made a point to recognize the possibility of a Neutral alignment isn't confirmation of anything. It is barely a hint even. One may easily explain that under at least three possibilities: 1) that was the daemon speaking and making sure not to neglect mentioning the existence of its own alignment; 2) that was some other fiend being PC; 3) the fiend just wanted to keep the ambiguity theme that V displays regarding hir gender and extend it to his alignment.

Word of God says V ain't Good. "Arrogant Neutral"

[Optimystik]

Haley's role as moral guide is rather suspicious given her thievery.

But her role as metagame analyst is not.


The BoVD does not say Soul binding is evil, merely that it can be part of evil, which is true of just about everything. And since soulbinding spells in PH do not have the evil descriptor, the labeling in lesser books merely describe that spell, not that type of spell.

BoVD recommends the [Evil] tag for other spells in core that don't have it as well, such as Crushing Despair.

I won't bother reviving the Soul Bind argument with you, we agreed to disagree on that.


All of V's actions can fit in CG. Whether that is where she is officially at or where he will end up is another matter.

They can fit in CE as well, which is why he'd be decidedly neutral. Both Elan and V himself lampshade this by likening his outlook to Belkar's on two separate occasions.]


Removal of and alteration of matter four an hour (and THATs by the most apprentice of mages) at will seems pretty chaotic to me. Its not on a large scale, but it absurdly violates laws of physcs and thermodynamics and even energy. All magic "messes" with reality in some jarring way. Thats why its magic.

At first blush your example may make all magic seem Chaotic - but a moment more of thought reveals it isn't. It is true that even the most basic arcane spells violate natural rules, but the spells take an omnipresent, directionless force and channel it to a specific end. In other words, you are taking a completely amorphous entity and shaping it with exceeding precision. Many people would consider that a Lawful act; Magic, therefore, makes use of both Law and Chaos and is therefore largely neutral.

[LuisDantas]

Word of God says V ain't Good. "Arrogant Neutral"

Where did it happen? As I pointed out, #633 is a hint at most - and V attracts hints as often as he dispels them. Are you perhaps making a card game reference?

[Tempest Fennac]

That's a reference from the OotS boardgame, so it may or may not be relevant to V's slignment (I'm inclined to assume it is, but it could easily just be a throwaway joke).

[Fishman]

We certainly don't know that he/she is not Good aligned, although hir decision to blast Kubota certainly hints against such an alignment. But hir acts have been generally good-oriented if often unwise.This does not necessarily mean one is "Good". As a rule, most people, good, neutral, or even evil, are more likely to do actions which might be considered "good" than "evil", if only because being unwaveringly evil at every turn is not a path to extended survival unless you are somehow extremely powerful. A dragon has the luxury of maiming and killing arbitrarily on sight, ordinarily people do not. Neutral isn't necessarily "doing good things and doing evil things in equal measure", as if to maintain some kind of balance sheet. Neutral is just "has no particular personal commitment to upholding good". While V generally behaves in a "good" way, it is clear that he not philosophically committed to upholding "good" as an ideal. He is entirely willing to do some dubious things, but cannot really be considered to be malevolent. Therefore, he is neutral, occasionally leaning towards good or evil, but not strongly enough to be considered either. Even those who are considered "good" may occasionally do a bad thing.


Lawful-Chaotic axis has always, perhaps unavoidably, been even harder to measure. But in V's case I would generally say that hints indicate a Lawful tendency - V values hierarchy, protocol and duty, albeit not always consistently.I would say he qualifies as lawful. He doesn't have to be ironclad about it to be lawful: One does not need to be paragon representation of a category to be a member of it.

[Felixaar]

I don't know if someone noticed this before, I didn't saw it in any of the latest threads, so just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of this.

In the last strip, 1st panel, the "purpule fiend" confirms V-mans neutrality.

V-man is now officialy CHAOTIC NEUTRAL...one step closer to the dark side :smallwink:

Nope!

The purple fiend says "Or Neutral, as the case may be." While this implies that V is neutral, it does not me that he or she is. There's a subtle difference, but it's there. The best we know is that V is a non-evil, non-lawful allignment.

[David Argall]

BoVD recommends the [Evil] tag for other spells in core that don't have it as well, such as Crushing Despair.
And I recommend a host of things. Neither my nor BoVD recommendations are binding. Quite the reverse. They tell us of a presumption against these positions. BoVD is recommending that these spells be made evil, which is agreeing they are not deemed evil [not always correctly since some are labeled evil, but that is merely redundancy. The point remains that BoVD suggestions are only suggestions, not rules we must abide by.]


I won't bother reviving the Soul Bind argument with you, we agreed to disagree on that.
We stopped talking about it. I certainly made no agreement not to talk about it again.


They can fit in CE as well, which is why he'd be decidedly neutral.
Being unsure where to put somebody is not the same as being sure he goes in the middle.

[Balgus]

I would say that V is Neutral.. or chaotic - considering V really doesnt care about how things get done - as long as it gets done.

At the very least - she is not Lawful. She killed Kabuto. Lawful would have captured him and let the courts make a decision.

I am actually leaning towards Chaos considering the all the grief V puts Belkar through on a normal basis.

[Kaytara]

At the very least - she is not Lawful. She killed Kabuto. Lawful would have captured him and let the courts make a decision.


That is a very narrow view of Lawfulness.

Being Lawful doesn't necessarily mean obeying the local law. It means, as already mentioned, that the individual values order, duty and protocol. Vaarsuvius has been fairly consistent in that, since he's the one who complains when physical laws get tossed out the window for drama and such. And don't forget that the seemingly Chaotic action of executing Kubota was, in V's eyes, a means of advancing in his duty of finding Roy and Haley. Vaarsuvius is very, very dedicated, which can easily be considered an unambiguously lawful trait. And he certainly values authority, he simply has very high standards for it.
At worst, Vaarsuvius is like Roy, with a strict sense of duty yet a tendency to use Chaotic means to fulfil that duty.

But saying that Vaarsuvius is flat out Chaotic would imply a mindset and general outlook that Vaarsuvius simply doesn't have.

[hamishspence]

remember, a person can believe themselves to be Good, and be attempting to work for the Cause of Good, and still be evil- if, and only if, they do Evil on a regular basis.

V has been doing lots of arguably Evil acts, from when they came out of the Dungeon of Dorukan onward.

"pay evil unto evil" is not a moral principle in the D&D verse- evil acts don't suddenly become Good or Neutral just because the target is Evil, or the intended result Good.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Pet peeve 1 : People who view CN as closer to LN or NN. (There are as many Knights Templar who went of the deep end as there are nutcases)
Pet peeve 7 : People think that Lawful = obeys the law. (What are the traditional TV/Film mafia other than Lawful criminals?)
Pet peeve 14: People who think that non-good acts or a lack of Good acts make an evil character. (Neutral is neutral, it has as much of a portion of the system as good or evil guys.)

Excuse me, I don't think it was healthy for me to read this thread.

[hamishspence]

Agreed on the first two, slight dispute on the third:

Lack of good acts doesn't make one evil, minor non-good to evil acts don't make one Evil, but, in the context of D&D according to Champions of Ruin, doing Evil acts on a regular basis is a symptom of an evil alignment, no matter the reasons.

Neutral to Good guys can do evil, but it can't be common, routine, standard operating procedure.

How common, and how serious evil acts have do be to make a character evil, is tricky. Minor evils can still lead to Evil character- this type is common enough- the cruel, grasping landlord type. Major evils on a less frequent but still regular basis- the Dexter type.

DMs may vary on how evil a characters behaviour and/or personality have to be for him to be deemed Evil alignment.

[Optimystik]

And I recommend a host of things.

Ah, so you write branded supplements for WotC then? Please, show me some.


We stopped talking about it. I certainly made no agreement not to talk about it again.

Agreeing to disagree means we've both realized the futility of trying to convince each of the other's point of view. I didn't say anything about not speaking either.

Unless you haven't given up convincing me of Soul Bind's neutrality, in which case I'll tell you not to waste your keystrokes.


Being unsure where to put somebody is not the same as being sure he goes in the middle.

But it does mean that his actions are not definitively good or evil. Hint: there are only three moral options.

[Flickerdart]

"pay evil unto evil" is not a moral principle in the D&D verse- evil acts don't suddenly become Good or Neutral just because the target is Evil, or the intended result Good.
Murder is evil. Murdering Orcs and Goblins is not evil because they are Evil monsters. A Paladin will not fall for cutting a swathe through an Orcish settlement (possibly if he killed the women and children, but that's because they're women and children, not because killing Orcs is bad).

[Reisender]

ethical (Lawful-Chaotic) axis, moral (Good-Evil) [axis]
I've lurked around the forums for quite a few years now, but reading this, i can't hold back any longer. I just have to ask:
Seriously? Is ethical/ moral a distinction people use?

By the way: Hello world! =)

[Kish]

Murder is evil. Murdering Orcs and Goblins is not evil because they are Evil monsters.

How do I put this delicately...

Look, run your own games however you please as long as you're up front with the players about the lack of moral tone, but don't try and push it as if it were official D&D rules, much less as if the webcomic this forum is for ever expressed any sympathy for the sentiment. The D&D books are clear: Judging races rather than individuals is a Lawful Evil attitude. Orcs are no more automatically evil than elves and dwarves are automatically good. Cutting a swathe through an orcish settlement because they're orcs and for no other reason will, by the book, make a paladin Fall like a rock. I see you know that, even. You just handwave "because they're women and children" as a reason in and of itself, as though it didn't indicate something inherently wrong with orc genocide.


I've lurked around the forums for quite a few years now, but reading this, i can't hold back any longer. I just have to ask:
Seriously? Is ethical/ moral a distinction people use?

By the way: Hello world! =)
Hi. :smalltongue:

It's official D&D terminology. The Player's Handbook (and probably lots of other sourcebooks too) refers to the Lawful-Chaotic axis as the "Ethical" axis and the Good-Evil axis as the "Moral" axis.