Vaarsuvius and xykon speculation

[pendell]

Vaarsuvius first:

So Vaarsuvius has now given the fiends 30 minutes -- 300 rounds -- of hir life. In exchange for this, ze

A) Saved her family from a black dragon.
B) Killed 25% of the black dragons of the world. While this was a horrifying act, by *strict D&D rules* it may technically have been a 'good' act, since killing evil creatures in D&D isn't evil. See: Paladins in SOD.
C) Teleported Azure City fleet to a safe harbor and brought that side story to an end. BIG props for that. I was bored with that plot line anyway.
D) Rescued O-chul. Or made it possible for O-chul to be rescued.
E) Humiliated Xykon and stirred up team evil like a wasp nest at a picnic.

Not a bad day's work, all things considered. But that 300 rounds, especially if it involves control of the snarl, could be lethal for the universe.

I have thought of a way out.

What if we just kill V now, then wait 2 hours, then raise hir? She goes directly to the lower planes, do not pass go, do not collect $200, she serves hir time, goes back to whatever afterlife ze is destined for, then gets raised and has a clean slate. The fiends get the letter of their payment but not the control of V they so obviously desired. A perfect ending to a Fiend's bargain, wouldn't you agree?


2) Xykon is simpler. He's really ticked about the whole 'sitting on our asses in a ruined city' thing. How much does anyone want to bet that he Meteor Swarms the entire town into oblivion before he leaves, burning Redcloak's carefully laid plans and fledgling goblin nation to ash, as a reminder to Redcloak that the ONLY important thing is the gate?

And that he will then as thoroughly humiliate Redcloak as he did in SOD?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Coplantor]

I dont want to start an alignment thread here but... the dragon killing thing? Not good, at all. He even killed babies, and all for the sake of watching the already tormented undead dragon suffering even more.

Regarding the other points, yeah, it was a good day, about the devils... They probably have some sort of clause regarding that kind of things, I mean, they are fiendish lawyers, beign raised involves losing on experience lvl, and I dont think V is willing to loose part of his/her power, besides, anything could go awry, they are dealing with demons!

[Kaytara]

You are making the assumption that, if Vaarsuvius were to die, the repayment timer would just automatically start ticking. However, there is nothing in the wording of the bargain saying the fiends cannot choose exactly when and for what period they will call in their dues - most prominently, the condition of dying isn't confirmed by them at all. So the fiends can in theory call in their dues whenever they wish to and whenever they need to. If V dies, they'll have no reason to call it in immediately - rather, they would wait until V was raised and became useful again.

[Skorj]

However, there is nothing in the wording of the bargain saying the fiends cannot choose exactly when and for what period they will call in their dues - most prominently, the condition of dying isn't confirmed by them at all. So the fiends can in theory call in their dues whenever they wish to and whenever they need to.

In fact, I think this was the entire reason the fiends offered V the deal:
The fiends will take contractual control of V at the point when V has control of the gate, the Snarl, and the bargaining leverage over the gods that it represents.

[pendell]

Not good, at all. He even killed babies, and all for the sake of watching the already tormented undead dragon suffering even more.


Point of order; it wasn't to make the undead dragon suffer. It was to ensure there would be no more blood relatives springing out of the woodwork to avenge their mum/sister/whatever. He'd been ambushed by a mama because he'd killed her baby; never again. ESPECIALLY not when it involved threatening his family.

That said, I think it's fair to call what V did 'indiscriminate slaughter of creatures who had never done anything to him and didn't even know his name'. The possibility that one of them MIGHT, just possibly, down the road decide to avenge Mum's death is not sufficient grounds to kill something.

In the real world. By any standard of morality I know of.

I'm not arguing by 'real' morality (a whole can of worms). If in the real world someone went out and slaughtered an entire family, including the babies, we'd either execute him or put him in prison forever, depending on the local laws.

But there is this difference.

In the real world all sapients are humans. Tradition and thousands of years of moral code have drilled home that it is *wrong* to kill a human unless there is a really, really good reason not to.

But a black dragon .. or a goblin .. is not a human. It is a fairy tale monster. And in the fairy tales the polarities are reversed. It is wrong to kill a human without a really good reason. By contrast, traditionally it is *right* to kill a monster -- a duty, even -- without a really good reason.

In a traditional high fantasy world like Tolkien or Howard's Conan, a hero could slaughter the entire species of dragon and would receive no more opproprium than if he'd manage to burn out every wasp nest everywhere in the world.

That's the original meaning of the word 'outlaw' -- to be 'cast out from all protection of law, to be judged among the enemies-general of human kind, to be dealt with as wolves are'.

In essence, to make a human being into a monster. A creature it is legitimate to kill on sight. Nay, not just legitimate .. a *duty* to kill on sight. Some of the same old books that say 'do not kill' also say, in another section, 'cursed is the man who withholds his sword from bloodshed'.

By strict D&D rules, which are the rules of high fantasy, it is almost never wrong to kill a monster.

Why we have so many arguments is because OOTS is a hybrid of the two, combining traditional high fantasy and modern sensibilities. Orcs in OOTS are not vile, unreasoning creatures incapable of goodness. There are peaceful goblins who just want to see the local concert. There are goblins who want to live in villages and be left alone. In essence, these goblins aren't *monsters* in the traditional fairytale sense of the word; they're humans with a different skin color.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kazuma]

The question wether killing innocent evil creatures can be quite philosophical, but in this case it does not matter as much, as the question what the gods think about killing innocent evil creatures. Various passages in start of darkness, the paladin's slaughter among others, indicate they probably wouldn't mind V killing the dragons very much.
Unfortunatly for shklim he will not be evaluated by the gods who created the world, but rather by his own elvish gods who might have another view on things.
But I do not suspect that to happen anytime soon, because for this plan to be executed anyone besides V must know of the fiendish deal or it's details. And not even V knows the fiends are intending to controll him during his lifetime. And even if V died beforehand, later to be raised, the fiends could just refuse to take shklim just then. Shkle would either advance to elven afterlife, or could be stuck in limbo if they refused letting shklir in. Maybe shkle could wave over to eugene.
Though I do not see that coming it would be a potential nice way of making V wonder about the details of the fiendish deal.

[fangthane]

A few things...

1. We didn't get to read the fine print in their agreement, but I'd bet that the fiends determine the timing for their control of V's soul, rather than leaving it up to random chance or being willing to wait until after his death. It's my contention that they wanted V to survive against Xykon because they want a living puppet when they take control - not because death would affect their ability to do so but because it would affect their ability to interfere with the 'real' world in the process.
2. We have no precise measure of the time V spent spliced. We know it was at least a minute for the necromancer's soul, but things can (and did) happen quickly when a high-level teleportation-capable wizard is involved. That he was unwilling to wait 10 minutes for a resurrection does not tell us a thing about the duration of the other splices; he could have waited anywhere from 6 seconds to nearly the full 10 minutes before teleporting out, at which point it appears to have been a matter of 5-10 rounds (30-60 seconds) before the remaining splices were abolished Minimum time owed is roughly 5 minutes - 1 for Haerta and 2 each for the others. The maximum time owed might be substantially more, up to about 25 minutes or so - if V wasted nearly the full 10 minutes for resurrection, adding about 30 seconds for the fight with Xykon and a few rounds here and there for chatting. Either way it'll be ample for Rich's plot-related needs, but we have no way (at present) of knowing precisely how much debt has been incurred.
3. I don't see Xykon arbitrarily meteor swarming the city. He's willing to sacrifice any number of minions to achieve an objective (or for entertainment) but I don't see him doing it to prove a point which has already been established. I do, on the other hand, consider it likely that he may feed the entire force of hobgoblins into the sewers in a search effort, possibly to their deaths; after all, it needn't be his hands that do the searching, and beyond the 3 signs giving hints, we really don't know what's down there.

As to humiliating Redcloak, I'd say that the eye thing - especially in light of the fact that only Redcloak's forethought invalidated V's element of surprise - is all the "putting Red in his place" Xykon needs for the moment.

[Coplantor]

I was talking regarding strict DnD standards, but please, let's stop it here, we have too mant ALignment threads over the RPG forums to have another one here. If you wish to continue the argument send me a PM, I actually enjoy this kind of things. (WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME????)

[Skorj]

While this was a horrifying act, by *strict D&D rules* it may technically have been a 'good' act, since killing evil creatures in D&D isn't evil. See: Paladins in SOD.
The BD slaying is well discussed elsewhere, but isn't the entire point of Redcloak's arc that the Paladin's gobbo genocide was not a good act? After all, even if you don't value the lives of the gobbos, it resulted indirectly in the sacking of Azure city, the destruction of the gate, and thousands of good creatures killed or enslaved. (The BD slaying may have similarly evil unintended consequences, even if you accept that the immediate act was good.) If you don't take responsibility for the unintended consequences of the events you set in motion, "responsibility" becomes quite a shallow concept.

[Optimystik]

The interpretation that Rich seems to have gone with is "acts perpetrated against evil races are not themselves Evil, regardless of the specific victims' circumstances." That's not the same as saying they're Good acts - the fact that the paladins in SoD kept their powers means the gods tolerated their act, without necessarily endorsing it. This interpretation also doesn't specify whether retaliation by members of those species (Mama Dragon, Redcloak) would be evil either. In order to clarify the issue, The Giant added on additional characteristics to those two characters to make their evil unambiguous.

*Mama Dragon is evil not because she wanted revenge, but because she wanted to involve innocents.
*Redcloak is not evil because he wants revenge against paladins, but because he hates, tortures and kills ALL humans.

In other words, we're in a complex morality situation, so each act needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

[vincible]

She goes directly to the lower planes, do not pass go, do not collect $200, she serves hir time, goes back to whatever afterlife ze is destined for, then gets raised and has a clean slate.

I'd guess the Fiends would decline to collect at that point, since they know about the incoming raise dead spell, and V would go straight to her afterlife.

I'd also guess that V won't tell anyone about her deal: she seems to think the fiends only get her soul after death, so at this point the deal is no one's business but her own.

I like your idea about Xykon, it seems completely in character.




The BD slaying is well discussed elsewhere, but isn't the entire point of Redcloak's arc that the Paladin's gobbo genocide was not a good act? After all, even if you don't value the lives of the gobbos, it resulted indirectly in the sacking of Azure city, the destruction of the gate, and thousands of good creatures killed or enslaved. (The BD slaying may have similarly evil unintended consequences, even if you accept that the immediate act was good.) If you don't take responsibility for the unintended consequences of the events you set in motion, "responsibility" becomes quite a shallow concept.

Everything has a million unintended consequences and your logic would make moral judgement impossible. Arguably, the unintended consequence of inventing the cotton gin was a hundred years of slavery in the United States, but that doesn't mean that we think Eli Whitney's a bad person for inventing it.




I think it's pretty clear that we don't know enough about OOTS-world to say much about whether killing a bunch of BDs is evil or not. Familicide on a bunch of humans would clearly be evil. Familicide on a bunch of Demons would not be evil. Whether BDs are closer to humans or demons is something we don't know.

[hamishspence]

Given that both fiends and dragons have a great deal of personality in OOTS-verse, killing them in that way might be a moral event horizon anyway.

In D&D as represented by BoVD and BoED, dragons usually rate slightly above demons- killing a dragon purely for profit is "not an evil act, though its not a good act" whereas "killing a fiend is always a good act"

since then though, there has been a lot of examples of ways kiling a fiend might be an evil- act- if its a law-abiding fiend inhabitant of a more cosmopolitan city like Sigil, for example, and the killing would be murder.

[Zevox]

So Vaarsuvius has now given the fiends 30 minutes -- 300 rounds -- of hir life.
30 minutes? That seems a ridiculously high estimate. She was almost at 20 before teleporting to face Xykon, and their battle only lasted a handful of rounds - likely not even the 10 needed to have a full minute pass.


What if we just kill V now, then wait 2 hours, then raise hir?
First, as Kaytara said, you are assuming that the Fiends acquire ownership of her soul immediately upon death - and they did not say that. They said nothing of when they would take what they were owed. That is the whole reason the theory that would be able to use V's debt to temporarily control her sprang up.

Second, this wouldn't happen anyway, for many reasons. First, V would have to tell the rest of the Order about her deal, which she will almost certainly not do. She was reluctant to even tell Kyrie. Second, one of the Order would have to get this idea, which is unlikely. Belkar might, but no one would take it seriously coming from him, and nobody else is likely to even consider such an extreme action. Third, even if the former two happened, the rest of the Order - and V - would have to consent to it, which isn't likely to happen. Finally, to raise her, they'd need to somehow acquire yet another 10,000 gp diamond (or multiple diamonds totaling that value), and they seem to have exhausted their options there, with V no longer able to easily nab one from the Elemental Plane of Earth and the one from breaking the 4th wall being used on Roy.


How much does anyone want to bet that he Meteor Swarms the entire town into oblivion before he leaves, burning Redcloak's carefully laid plans and fledgling goblin nation to ash, as a reminder to Redcloak that the ONLY important thing is the gate?
Not much. Meteor Swarm is not that powerful. Even if he used all his 9th-level spell slots for a day on it (which would be stupid beyond belief), he couldn't destroy something as large as an entire city with it.


And that he will then as thoroughly humiliate Redcloak as he did in SOD?
I'm pretty sure he'll be quite content with his "more eyes than *******s" threat in that regard myself.

Zevox

[pendell]

The BD slaying is well discussed elsewhere, but isn't the entire point of Redcloak's arc that the Paladin's gobbo genocide was not a good act?


Since you ask me directly, I will answer.

Out-of-character, as in the viewpoint of us, the readers? Yes.

But we're operating in a different universe and different rules than the OOTSverse is.

'Evil' doesn't mean there what it means here. Evil is something tangible that can be detected. Evil has consequences to characters. In the case of Paladins, it means falling.
They did not fall when they did the gobbo genocide. Ergo, in the game world, it was not an evil act, although it certainly would be in ours.

It happens in different animal species. It's common among black widows, for example, for the female to kill the male during mating. Among humans, that's evil. Among spiders, that's just being a spider.

Why do we assume that what is good or evil for us in our world is also good or evil for the OOTS world?

Are you saying that the game universe -- or the gods, whatever agent causes the fall of paladins and empowers 'detect evil' -- is wrong? That some kinds of evil in the game universe are not really evil? That some good isn't really good?

Why do you believe that? Are you saying there is such a thing as objective Evil -- evil which transcends a frame of reference -- evil which is evil in all the worlds and all times?

I'm not sure I'm competent to argue that. Sounds like deep philosophy to me.

But you might not be wrong. Perhaps the OOTSverse -- or the gods -- was wrong not to punish the paladins for murdering those goblins. In that case, the entire OOTSverse has a skewed, twisted idea of good or evil? Perhaps the whole point of this story is that Good and Evil in OOTSverse ARE broke and DO need fixing?

Perhaps the entire story revolves around the universe being destroyed and being rebuilt from scratch .. but this time built *right*.

Does this mean that even the gods are fallible? Do gods have gods in D&D?

And if evil in OOTSverse is skewed and twisted from what real evil is .. then what is 'real' evil and what defines it?

Hmm .. it's at times like these I regret being a lifetime teetotaler in regards to that sort of thing, because this is the kind of question that really requires getting smashed to appreciate properly. The most *I* can do is lay off the caffeine for awhile.

Something to think about, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

One of the main reasons behind the publication of BoED was, I suspect, to discourage exactly this sort of thing- to provide a

"No, you can't genocide loads of goblins when you have no evidence of their wrongdoing, just cos you think they might be a problem later." answer.

Not everyone likes the idea though.

[Poppy Appletree]

That said, I think it's fair to call what V did 'indiscriminate slaughter of creatures who had never done anything to him and didn't even know his name'. The possibility that one of them MIGHT, just possibly, down the road decide to avenge Mum's death is not sufficient grounds to kill something.

Belkarific. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)

[SadisticFishing]

He didn't kill the black dragons to make the mother suffer. He did it to prevent the same thing from happening again. It was not EVIL. Possibly evil, but not an alignment changing act.

EDIT: Oh, and black dragons are as emphatically evil as demons. Killing all demons is also not an EVIL act. Ergo, neither is killing tons of black dragons.

[Superglucose]

I dont want to start an alignment thread here but... the dragon killing thing? Not good, at all. He even killed babies, and all for the sake of watching the already tormented undead dragon suffering even more.

Remember, dragons are color coded for your convenience!

Besides, one evil act (while under the stress and duress of many evil souls possessing your body, none the less) does not an evil person make. He's still headed towards his True Neutral afterlife.

[Optimystik]

He didn't kill the black dragons to make the mother suffer.

Oh, yes he did. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

"Now no one will avenge your death. No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife. This - and no less - is the price of threatening my family. Disintegrate."

[Bibliomancer]

Keep in mind, under basic DnD rules as stated in the PHB, V isn't going to a N afterlife: she's going to the elven afterlife because she worships the elven gods (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html) and isn't evil or lawful (yet). This does, however, assume that the elven gods are CG, as is normal for 3.5e. If the Ootsverse now runs more on 4e, then they too are true neutral unaligned.

That said, I don't think the plan will work because, as someone else mentioned, the fiends could wait until after she was raised.

The Ootsverse appears to be more shaded than Greyhawk but less shaded than Eberron, where anything can be anything unless it's an outsider (ECS says to expect good vampires and evil silver dragons to be fairly normal). As far as I can tell, the Giant is accepting specific alignments for creatures as stated in the MM, while exploring how they can to be this way and what it means. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if killing all those dragons was an evil act, because it was clearly wrong, whether or not it is labeled as such, which indicates that it's going to come back and hurt her in the future one way or another.

[pendell]

That said, I don't think the plan will work because, as someone else mentioned, the fiends could wait until after she was raised.


Ummm.. can they do that?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bibliomancer]

Well, logically, yes. The souls that they bound to V had been dead for quite a while, so by extension there is no reason why they cannot wait to redeem their coupons for chunks of V's time at the moment of their convenience.

[Optimystik]

Keep in mind, under basic DnD rules as stated in the PHB, V isn't going to a N afterlife: she's going to the elven afterlife because she worships the elven gods (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html) and isn't evil or lawful (yet). This does, however, assume that the elven gods are CG, as is normal for 3.5e. If the Ootsverse now runs more on 4e, then they too are true neutral unaligned.

Given that Stickverse has Celestia, The Abyss, and the Nine Hells as separate locations, we can assume that Rich has the cosmology intact even if he has custom deities. If that is the case, the elven gods likely live in CG heaven i.e. Arborea, which is where Elan would also end up (and maybe Haley, though that is less certain now.)

V getting into Arborea is not a sure thing at this point, especially not now that he has committed so many evil acts. Being an Elf doesn't grant him an automatic pass, particularly since we don't know what the Elven deities think of his recent moral decisions. The reverse is easily true - they might be understanding of his situation or even pleased at all the black dragons he killed. We just don't know yet.


Ummm.. can they do that?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Why not? They didn't specify that he had to be dead for them to collect.

[Bibliomancer]

Despite the fact that she doesn't have an automatic pass, Vaarsuvius worships the elven gods, and I thought that it implied in the PHB that you went to an afterlife based on the god you worshiped, with a default plane for your alignment if you worshiped no god. After all, it would be silly for an 18th level NG cleric of Heironeus to go to Elysium and not to his God's domain in Celestia. Nothing we have seen so far contradicts this: Roy received a grilling from that archon because he didn't worship any god in particular.

[hamishspence]

DMG, MoTP, and Complete Divine all say otherwise- alignment determines afterlife destination.

Clerics and exceptionally devout worshippers get a pass on this (so can be within one step), but your ordinary, not exceptionally devout guy will be judged by his alignment.

Forgotten Realms is one of the few exceptions (and even then, if you are sufficiently different in alignment from your deity, you will probably be deemed one of the False and sent to Kelemvor's City of Judgement for betraying your deity's dictates.)

[fangthane]

Oh, yes he did. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

"Now no one will avenge your death. No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife. This - and no less - is the price of threatening my family. Disintegrate."

I'd assumed that Sadistic's point was in the line of pointing out that the ABD's suffering was a side effect, rather than the sole intended or desired consequence of Familicide. In that respect, consider this a nitpick returned :smallbiggrin:

Definitely at least a 'Diet Coke of evil' act to rub salt in the wound though.

[SadisticFishing]

"This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today's events will never rise again to threaten them."

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html

It was not done as punishment - that was just an added side effect.

[hamishspence]

Comes under mental torture- not exactly Diet Coke of evil.

(Nale's action in DCF is similar but more gentle. And the immediate response from Celia is lightning bolts)

[SadisticFishing]

As an aside, using D&D rules as written, I'd have done the same. Genocide against inherently evil creatures is.. well, Good.

Remember - this Dragon was about to torture V's children.. for eternity. This is not a special evil Black Dragon - this is the norm.

Familicide is definitely an Evil spell though, so I suppose that's the.. Diet Coke of evil acts.

[Bibliomancer]

My mistake. However, couldn't Vaarsuvius count as an exceptionally devout worshipper? She did give up a coffee maker (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html), after all. Depending on which of the elven gods she worshiped, she could be within one step (if you ignore the no true neutral rule). In Races of the Wild, Vandria Gilmadrith is LN and Sehanine Moonbow is CG-NG.

[hamishspence]

Again- where does it say this is the norm?

Evil as chromatic dragons may be, the actions of this particular one were driven by the loss of its only offspring, a loss which cannot be easily reversed (True Resurrection needed)

The idea the chromatic dragons routinely torture innocent souls for all eternity is a bit of a stretch.

[SadisticFishing]

Again- where does it say this is the norm?

Evil as chromatic dragons may be, the actions of this particular one were driven by the loss of its only offspring, a loss which cannot be easily reversed (True Resurrection needed)

The idea the chromatic dragons routinely torture innocent souls for all eternity is a bit of a stretch.

I didn't mean that they always torture innocent souls - just that that is always the appropriate response to this sort of thing.

Once, someone rolled a check on Demons in one of my campaigns. They got an 11. "Demons are not nice."

Black Dragons are not nice.

[hamishspence]

Neither is Belkar, yet killing him while he's defenceless is considered wrong- by Hinjo- a paladin.

The slaughter of a quarter of the black dragon population of the world (and some half-dragons, and some draconic creatures) is excessive in the extreme.

In D&D fiction, while chromatic dragons are protrayed as malevolent, they are also portrayed as something that can be negotiated with. Mist, in Azure Bonds, and Thauglor, in Cormyr: A Novel. Hephastous, in Sojourn.

[Optimystik]

It was not done as punishment - that was just an added side effect.

I disagree - pride and vindictiveness had as much to do with V's use of the spell as any desire to preserve his family from future assault.

In other words, he was acting just like Xykon did later - the dragon's assault on V's family was akin to a challenge to his "rep."

That's the way I see it, anyway.


As an aside, using D&D rules as written, I'd have done the same. Genocide against inherently evil creatures is.. well, Good.

Remember - this Dragon was about to torture V's children.. for eternity. This is not a special evil Black Dragon - this is the norm.

This is also debatable. In the end, V ended up being just as brutal as the mother herself. Notice that eggs are destroyed by Familicide well. Without Godwinning the thread, we can't say for sure if unborn young or infants are deserving of such punishment.


My mistake. However, couldn't Vaarsuvius count as an exceptionally devout worshipper? She did give up a coffee maker (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html), after all. Depending on which of the elven gods she worshiped, she could be within one step (if you ignore the no true neutral rule). In Races of the Wild, Vandria Gilmadrith is LN and Sehanine Moonbow is CG-NG.

We don't know how devout he is, but piety only matters for Clerics anyway. Roy is anything but devout (and even admits this to his deva), and he gets into Celestia just fine. The most important thing for V, until we know otherwise, is his alignment.


Neither is Belkar, yet killing him while he's defenceless is considered wrong- by Hinjo- a paladin.

The slaughter of a quarter of the black dragon population of the world (and some half-dragons, and some draconic creatures) is excessive in the extreme.

In D&D fiction, while chromatic dragons are protrayed as malevolent, they are also portrayed as something that can be negotiated with. Mist, in Azure Bonds, and Thauglor, in Cormyr: A Novel. Hephastous, in Sojourn.

I agree - There's also that green one in Elfsong that Danilo, Elaith and company negotiated with, and the white one that the wood elves used against their enemies in Silver Shadows.

[Bibliomancer]

Ah, but to be fair, V's leaving the bodies behind. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) It's not like she's soul binding them, which means that it's no less evil than killing that young balck dragon in the first place.

Except for the fact that most of them were innocentTM.

Hmm...

The fact of the matter is that it is a complex moral question that is best left to V's sub-conscious and a few choice fiends. However, given that it cannot stay there, let me say this: It was clearly wrong (and so, possibly, evil), but given V's mental state at the time it was justifiable, if an overreaction. After all, V was clearly being subjected to overwhelming mental damage that any jury will recognize. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0576.html)

[Necr0mancer]

I think that it may come to pass that ...

Redcloak eventually gets sick of Xykon, or Xykon figures out whats really going on with the gates. Either way they break up, and Redcloak needs a new Arcane partner for the ritual. Enter possessed V, who can help out with the ritual. (Note that the fiends get 30 mins EACH, total of 90 mins). I'm not sure how the Fiends fit in with the gods, but its not a stretch that they would be on the Dark One's side

[Bibliomancer]

Wouldn't V need to gain quite a few more levels for that to happen?

[Lazy Fat Man]

I didn't think the familicide was a particularly evil act, however, I would just like to say that the imp and the IFCC seemed to think that it was pretty evil back in comic #640. I suppose they would know. :smalltongue:

Therefore, I think we can consider hir action evil, though effective and good for all civilized beings in the oots universe. Something that I got from Roy's chat with the Deva is that intention does count. And I would have to agree with those that say hir intent was to make the dragon suffer. If not, then why waste a spell slot to animate her head?

[Bibliomancer]

It seems possible that the spell would only work on a living animate target, which would be reasonable, given that it's a necromancy spell.

[shazza95]

My mistake. However, couldn't Vaarsuvius count as an exceptionally devout worshipper? She did give up a coffee maker (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html), after all. Depending on which of the elven gods she worshiped, she could be within one step (if you ignore the no true neutral rule). In Races of the Wild, Vandria Gilmadrith is LN and Sehanine Moonbow is CG-NG.

is that sarcastic?
because he was willing to worship a clown for an esspreso maker!

[Lyx]

Point of order; it wasn't to make the undead dragon suffer. It was to ensure there would be no more blood relatives springing out of the woodwork to avenge their mum/sister/whatever. He'd been ambushed by a mama because he'd killed her baby; never again. ESPECIALLY not when it involved threatening his family.

That said, I think it's fair to call what V did 'indiscriminate slaughter of creatures who had never done anything to him and didn't even know his name'. The possibility that one of them MIGHT, just possibly, down the road decide to avenge Mum's death is not sufficient grounds to kill something.

In the real world. By any standard of morality I know of.
...<awesome details following>...

Sir, you win the thread. This must have been one of the most introspective, logical and honest posts, i have seen on the boards yet.

[Dagren]

Second, this wouldn't happen anyway, for many reasons. First, V would have to tell the rest of the Order about her deal, which she will almost certainly not do. She was reluctant to even tell Kyrie. Second, one of the Order would have to get this idea, which is unlikely. Belkar might, but no one would take it seriously coming from him, and nobody else is likely to even consider such an extreme action. Third, even if the former two happened, the rest of the Order - and V - would have to consent to it, which isn't likely to happen. Finally, to raise her, they'd need to somehow acquire yet another 10,000 gp diamond (or multiple diamonds totaling that value), and they seem to have exhausted their options there, with V no longer able to easily nab one from the Elemental Plane of Earth and the one from breaking the 4th wall being used on Roy.Point: They'd only need 5,000 gp of diamonds for a Raise Dead spell.

[Red XIV]

In fact, I think this was the entire reason the fiends offered V the deal:
The fiends will take contractual control of V at the point when V has control of the gate, the Snarl, and the bargaining leverage over the gods that it represents.
This makes a lot of sense, except for one problem:
Given that "Redcloak's Plan" is really "the Dark One's Plan", the IFCC doing that would violate their non-compete clause with the evil gods.

[TheYoungKing]

V used the Familicide spell specifically to torture the dragon after death. If that hadn't been the purpose, he wouldn't have raised her head and told her what the spell would do.

He did it to make her suffer.

[Red XIV]

V used the Familicide spell specifically to torture the dragon after death. If that hadn't been the purpose, he wouldn't have raised her head and told her what the spell would do.

He did it to make her suffer.
The ABD's zombified head was the focus of the spell. He might have needed to animate it for the spell to function.

[TheYoungKing]

The ABD's zombified head was the focus of the spell. He might have needed to animate it for the spell to function.

Even if that is true, he didn't have to explain it to her. He enjoyed it.

[Kish]

I'm not surprised that there are people who think Vaarsuvius didn't do anything wrong, despite the fact that the depravity of his/her actions shocked an imp and delighted the three fiends. I am, however, surprised that there are people who actually think the excuse s/he offered for his/her actions was the real reason. "This--and no less--is the price of threatening my family." Pure unbridled ego. "The pain ended too soon." "We have only begun to bring misery." "There is still so much we can do." "I concur. Create Greater Undead!" Yes, Vaarsuvius most certainly DID do it for the exact purpose of making the undead dragon suffer.

[SadisticFishing]

Ego, and self defense. People are allowed to have more than one motivation for acts, no?

"Alignment: Always chaotic evil".

Black Dragons are as bad as Demons. They are chaos and evil incarnate. This is not nurture, this is nature. As per the SRD.

[TheYoungKing]

I can't remember the exact source book, but I know I've read that in D&D alignment, killing an evil creature isn't by itself a good act. Casting detect evil and then smiting isn't a good act.

Also "always alignment X" does not mean "always". (Isn't it like 1% can be expected not to follow it?) And we saw at least one caricatured Dragonborn among those killed.

Besides, V's reasons are what matter more than anything else. V did it for sadism. The alignment of what he killed doesn't really matter. Evil characters can just as easily kill evil creatures or other Evil characters.

[SadisticFishing]

V did NOT do it for sadism. He did it to defend his family, and because he was high with power.

It wasn't the BEST of acts, but "not Good" is not the same as "incredibly evil".

Not 1%. One. Ever. If the plot wants it.

[TheYoungKing]

V did NOT do it for sadism. He did it to defend his family, and because he was high with power.

It wasn't the BEST of acts, but "not Good" is not the same as "incredibly evil".

Not 1%. One. Ever. If the plot wants it.

He killed the ONE Black Dragon to defend his family. He wiped out everyone related to that Dragon to watch the ONE Black Dragon suffer. (And I'm pretty sure Dragonborn are free to choose on alignment, regardless of their lineage. Not sure on that.)

I'm not saying it was incredibly evil- it was certainly done at the height of passion. But it was still evil in intent. And "evil for a good cause" is still EVIL.

If V had continued succeeding as he did with the Dragon, it would have been time for an alignment shift and any thinking DM would have done so.

[SadisticFishing]

No, he did it to prevent any more "You killed her! I am her [insert family member type here] and I'm going to eat your children!" The hurting is just an added bonus.

Dragonborn are all Non-Evil, and there are no Black ones. Just platinum, ish, in 3.5.

[Coplantor]

Remember, dragons are color coded for your convenience!

Besides, one evil act (while under the stress and duress of many evil souls possessing your body, none the less) does not an evil person make. He's still headed towards his True Neutral afterlife.

Well, familicide, and enjoying it seems to be a hell of an evil spell to get a free pass to the evil afterlife, check BoVD for reference, and the fiends themselves admited that they were'nt controlling V, nor did the evil souls were possesing his/her body, they even said it was like giving somene alcohol less beer and make them think they are drunk.

[TheYoungKing]

He quite clearly wasn't doing those things *just* to protect his family. That became clear when he refused to end the splice and stay with Kyrie.

If he had ended it right there, alright. Still a reprehensible act, but I could accept the "for family" reasoning. But as it is, he abandons and frightens his family and runs off again.

Also, what is the dragon walking upright and wielding armor and weapons?

I still don't accept that killing Evil creatures is automatically Good.

[SadisticFishing]

He quite clearly wasn't doing those things *just* to protect his family. That became clear when he refused to end the splice and stay with Kyrie.

If he had ended it right there, alright. Still a reprehensible act, but I could accept the "for family" reasoning. But as it is, he abandons and frightens his family and runs off again.

Also, what is the dragon walking upright and wielding armor and weapons?

I still don't accept that killing Evil creatures is automatically Good.

I don't disagree with any of this. But you're missing several points.

We have a BBEG who wants to "end" the world, as far as the PCs know. V believed he had ultimate cosmic power. Stopping Xykon was the only option - doing anything else would just be stupid, though there's argument that he could have prepared better.

That was probably a half-dragon. ALSO Always chaotic evil.

It's not good. That was in NO way a "Good" act. But it also wasn't alignment toppling evil.

[TheYoungKing]

I believe I specified that it was not, by itself, an alignment toppling act. If he had continued in that sort of action, it would have been but one stepping stone on the way to Evil. As it was, he got smacked down from his thrill-killer high by Xykon.

Nor was I saying that leaving Kyrie behind wasn't the right thing to do- but it did show that V wasn't doing it for his family.

[SadisticFishing]

Nor was I saying that leaving Kyrie behind wasn't the right thing to do- but it did show that V wasn't doing it for his family.

I disagree.

It shows that he now has power, and wants to use it while he can.

[vincible]

Also "always alignment X" does not mean "always". (Isn't it like 1% can be expected not to follow it?) And we saw at least one caricatured Dragonborn among those killed.

Killing 99 evil killing machines for every good dragon is a pretty good tradeoff. I'd guess that that "error" rate is much, much better than that of any real-world justice system.



Vaarsuvius most certainly DID do it for the exact purpose of making the undead dragon suffer.


Ego, and self defense. People are allowed to have more than one motivation for acts, no?

Clearly V enjoyed killing the dragon, and enjoyed the Familicide spell. I'm not sure that that matters though.

Philosophy 101 question: a train is moving down track 1, where it will crash into an orphanage, killing hundreds. You have the option to flip a switch and sent the train onto track 2, where it will crush just one innocent person who is sleeping in a drunken stupor on the rails. Is flipping the switch the right thing to do?

Most people say yes--the death of the person on track 2 is regrettable but worth the lives saved. A few disagree. But whatever your answer, does it change if the person on track 2, instead of being just an innocent bystander, is your childhood nemesis, and you delight in watching him being crushed? Well, that might make you an unpleasant person, but that doesn't make the action evil. The orphanage is still saved, after all.

[Coplantor]

Power you say? Reminds me of someone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiCznGaex2c)

[TheYoungKing]

If the question asked about sacrificing yourself for the train, then fine. But otherwise, it is always going to be morally questionable. Being willing to sacrifice someone else for a good effect will always dilute the good to be found there. "For the greater good" or not. Besides, that is more Ethics than Philosophy.

I believe the Lawful Good sentiment in the real world is something like "I would rather see ten guilty men go free than see one innocent man executed wrongly."

Besides, your metaphor doesn't hold up. V had no evidence of some black dragon plot to destroy his family. There was no train about to hit an orphanage. He just blew up all the trains on the off chance that one could hit an orphanage. After all, its not like monsters showing up for blood vengeance happens all that often.

[SadisticFishing]

No, he blew up all Chaotic Evil trains that already had rails aimed at Orphanages. He just wasn't sure if one of the Orphanages was his house.

This metaphor is getting complicated :P

[TheYoungKing]

But the whole vengeance thing was RARE. They don't have rails pointed at orphanages.

Regardless of whether or not Black Dragons are always Chaotic Evil, most of them just seem to sit on treasure. They weren't seen pillaging villages and eating orphans.

They were benign, if evil. They weren't doing evil acts at the time and their future evil potential (measured in kilonazis) wasn't determined at that point.

And once again, evil characters can kill evil creatures. And such acts can still be evil.

[Coplantor]

Have you ever read Goblins? There is a guy there who goes on killing evil and possible evil creatures, because evil is a disease that spreads through the lands, he killed an orc and then proceeded to kill the orc's adopted dwarf son because he was exposed to evi and the evil seed was planted within him, so, he was to be eliminated in order to avoid him becoming evil or trying to take vengance on the guy who killed his foster father.

[Red XIV]

And once again, evil characters can kill evil creatures. And such acts can still be evil.
If that weren't the case, the Blood War would've fizzled out by now, due to all the Demons and Devils inadvertently becoming Good.

[vincible]

If the question asked about sacrificing yourself for the train, then fine. But otherwise, it is always going to be morally questionable. Being willing to sacrifice someone else for a good effect will always dilute the good to be found there. "For the greater good" or not.

Whether or not you think it's morally questionable, our society tacitly accepts killing some people so that others may live all the time. Medical care is rationed, civilians inevitably die in military actions, innocent people are inevitably wrongly convicted within the justice system, etc.


I believe the Lawful Good sentiment in the real world is something like "I would rather see ten guilty men go free than see one innocent man executed wrongly."

Well, some people think that. I wouldn't call it THE Lawful Good point of view.


Besides, your metaphor doesn't hold up. V had no evidence of some black dragon plot to destroy his family. There was no train about to hit an orphanage. He just blew up all the trains on the off chance that one could hit an orphanage. After all, its not like monsters showing up for blood vengeance happens all that often.

I wasn't saying V's actions were like the orphanage. The point was that V's *motivations* aren't necessarily important in judging the Familicide. I think I failed at making this point.


And once again, evil characters can kill evil creatures. And such acts can still be evil.

entirely agreed. But conversely, just because an evil person would do something, doesn't mean that it's an evil act. "Hitler was a vegetarian," etc.


Regardless of whether or not Black Dragons are always Chaotic Evil, most of them just seem to sit on treasure. They weren't seen pillaging villages and eating orphans.

Well, we didn't really see much about black dragons period. That's why I said that we don't know enough about dragons in the OOTS campaign to really judge the Familicide.

[TheYoungKing]

Whether or not you think it's morally questionable, our society tacitly accepts killing some people so that others may live all the time. Medical care is rationed, civilians inevitably die in military actions, innocent people are inevitably wrongly convicted within the justice system, etc.


And each one of those things is not viewed as "good." They are, at best, viewed as "necessary evils."

Medical care "rationed"- Not really much of an issue outside of the US, at least in the developed world. No one accepts the plight of the uninsured as "good" for those who are insured.

Civilians inevitably killed- Yes, but are made to keep it to a minimum. Directly targeting civilians (or even "potential" combatants) is CE. "Nits make lice" isn't a valid viewpoint nowadays.

And then we still have a problem with conscripts dying. Military men dying are people who chose to save the orphanage. So, its sacrificing yourself, not someone else.

Innocent men wrongly convicted- There is an outcry whenever an execution is found to have been wrong, and most wrong convictions end up with reparations made to the victim or family.

You certainly aren't making a case for Familicide being Good, and it wasn't Neutral. Even if V did ultimately do a Good act, that isn't what mattered. He did it for a sadistic reason, and he did it without even considering the moral implications or the chances of hurting an innocent. He killed a lot of Evil creatures, but as said, that doesn't make it good.

[vincible]

And each one of those things is not viewed as "good." They are, at best, viewed as "necessary evils."

To take the innocent people convicted example: obviously it's not good that innocent people are occasionally imprisoned. However, it IS good that we have laws. Even knowing that occasionally innocent people will be convicted, passing laws against crime is in no way "always going to be morally questionable." If you'd said "sometimes" instead of "always" :p


You certainly aren't making a case for Familicide being Good, and it wasn't Neutral.

Exactly! We don't know enough about how dragons fit into the OOTS campaign to say.

[factotum]

Exactly! We don't know enough about how dragons fit into the OOTS campaign to say.

At the risk of repeating an oft-made point, not all the creatures killed by Familicide were dragons--there were at least 3 half-dragons in the mix, and half-dragons don't even have the "Always Chaotic Evil" alignment.

[Skeppio]

Why do so many people insist on justifying GENOCIDE?! V murdered hundreds of dragons, none of whom had any connection to V. Most of them weren't even doing any wrong, just lounging or studying. That is an evil act, no ifs or buts. Even if the dragons were all evil, they did nothing to provoke V's actions. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[Rowsen]

No, he blew up all Chaotic Evil trains that already had rails aimed at Orphanages. He just wasn't sure if one of the Orphanages was his house.

This metaphor is getting complicated :P

Evil people murdering other evil people IS STILL EVIL.
What V did was evil to the core. There is no two ways with it. V took the splice so he wouldn't have to admit his magic failed, and he did the Familicide to torture the ABD.

I cannot fathom why you are justifying GENOCIDE!

[Snake-Aes]

Why do so many people insist on justifying GENOCIDE?! V murdered hundreds of dragons, none of whom had any connection to V. Most of them weren't even doing any wrong, just lounging or studying. That is an evil act, no ifs or buts. Even if the dragons were all evil, they did nothing to provoke V's actions. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

For the same reason Belkar is Lawful Neutral, :mitd: is the Snarl and Xykon will be resurrected and redeemed.

[Rowsen]

For the same reason Belkar is Lawful Neutral, :mitd: is the Snarl and Xykon will be resurrected and redeemed.
Ah. Your client is pleading insanity. Gotchya :smallwink:

[Skeppio]

For the same reason Belkar is Lawful Neutral, :mitd: is the Snarl and Xykon will be resurrected and redeemed.

Ah. Your client is pleading insanity. Gotchya :smallwink:

You guys are awesome.

[pendell]

Why do so many people insist on justifying GENOCIDE?! V murdered hundreds of dragons, none of whom had any connection to V. Most of them weren't even doing any wrong, just lounging or studying. That is an evil act, no ifs or buts. Even if the dragons were all evil, they did nothing to provoke V's actions. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I'm going to regret this, but I'll say it anyway.

Genocide is something you do to humans. Millions of cows and sheep and chickens die every day in far greater numbers, killed solely so we can eat their bodies, and few cry out about 'genocide'.

A black dragon is neither animal, nor human. It is a monster.

A monster is something that only exists in a fairy tale. A monster is the common enemy of human kind, and it is mandatory for any good creature to destroy such evil when it crosses the good's path if possible, for the sake of all other good in the world.

Someone used the words 'nits make lice' and say it doesn't work , but that is strictly incorrect; 'nits make lice' is wrong when it applies to *humans*. When applied to literal lice -- to a particular kind of insect that lives in the scalp -- it is *absolutely correct*.

Doesn't anyone remember the story of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi? It's a kipling story. It's in the public domain (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/mongoose/www/rtt.html). He was a mongoose whose job was protecting a human family from snakes. His mortal enemies were Nag and Nagaina, a mated pair of king cobras who desired to rule the garden.

During the story, Rikki finds Nagaina's clutch of eggs. And destroys all but one. The last one he saves in order to draw Nagaina into a battle to the death.

Does anyone here remember that story? Did anyone condemn Rikki for his action?

It's funny how much our moral judgement can be clouded by the narrative context the author puts into the story. Kipling obviously approved of Rikki's action, and so few readers were upset. Yet the Giant obviously has a different viewpoint, and so when Vaarsuvius does essentially the same action -- kill a lot of snakes that talk -- we condemn him. The author puts clues and other things in the story how we're supposed to react to events, and like dutiful sheep we merrily go along with whatever conclusion the author is trying to lead us to.

I think we need to choose our own reactions and not simply accept the ones we're being lead to. Open your eyes, then open your eyes again.

This is the point I'm going to hammer home again and again when we get into the whole 'genocide' debate. First, I agree wholeheartedly in condemning genocide of human beings.

I will also point out, however, that we're humanizing creatures which are not human. Like in the 'Bambi' movies when animals walk and talk and sing merrily.

'Genocide' as such can only apply to humans. In my apartment complex, an exterminator comes through every few months and does his level best to kill every last cockroach in the building with chemicals and poison. Is anyone going to call what he's doing 'genocide'?

Does it matter, in the D&D world, that a 'cockroach' is intelligent, many times larger and more powerful than a human, has a powerful breath weapon and magic abilities besides?

Is anyone here going to argue that life for humans in OOTS world is going to be worse becuase there are hundreds fewer black dragons in it?


It may be that in the Giant's world there really is no such thing as a monster ... that all intelligent creatures are 'human' whatever their shape, and deserve the same consideration homo sapiens does. That you can't kill a mind flayer or beholder on sight, simply because it's a mind flayer or beholder. No sapient creature may be killed except in self-defense or the defense of others.

That may be so. But the point is at least *debatable*. It's not like killing millions of Rwandans with machetes, or millions of Cambodians with AK-47s. It's a fairy tale world, and we're dealing with non-human creatures. In the real world, treating non-humans as if they were human results in tragedy for both sides (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/17/chimpanzee.attack/index.html). The same approach in a fairy-tale world -- treating non-human creatures as non-human -- is not entirely unreasonable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SadisticFishing]

Because this is genocide in a world of black and white!

These dragons are INHERENTLY EVIL. They are not free-willed creatures. This isn't a normal genocide, this is a wholesale slaughter - of things that DESERVE IT. BY NATURE.

Adventurers murder all the time. This is just one step up from that. Not the nicest thing V has done, to be sure, but once again will not change his alignment.

[pendell]

These dragons are INHERENTLY EVIL. They are not free-willed creatures. This isn't a normal genocide, this is a wholesale slaughter - of things that DESERVE IT. BY NATURE.


And herein lies the big difference between OOTSverse and the real world. IMO, there is nothing 'inherently evil' in *this* world by nature. As Frodo might say, evil cannot create real things of its own, only twist the good into a mockery.

But OOTSverse is not like our world. OOTSverse has gods who are willing to make creatures who are evil by nature, whose destiny is destruction, creatures which *must* be destroyed for the good to have peace and quiet.

It appears that some of those creatures -- such as the Dark One -- have become aware of that nature, and are desperate to rise above that status. To rise above their natures and become full participants in this world, not just mooks created to die for the amusement of the gods and the experience of adventurers, but 'heirs and co-heirs of the promise', as some old books put it.

In that sense, you might say the creations are better than the gods who made them. The gods made those beings evil, and what does that say about the gods? Those creatures tried to rise above their nature and become better, and what does that say about them?

Possibly the logical conclusion is that it is the gods of OOTSverse who are evil, or at least flawed, and their creations bear the burden of those mistakes. The world must be destroyed and made anew, into a world where no species is evil by nature, and where creatures are judged not by the length of their teeth or number of tentacles but by the content of their character.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Optimystik]

Because this is genocide in a world of black and white!

OotS is black and white? Are we reading the same comic here?

OotS is easily one of the morally grayest D&D-based settings I've ever laid eyes on. Recloak's backstory, the mother dragon, V's soul-splice, Haley and Crystal... this series plays morality and alignment like a finely-tuned fiddle.


These dragons are INHERENTLY EVIL. They are not free-willed creatures. This isn't a normal genocide, this is a wholesale slaughter - of things that DESERVE IT. BY NATURE.

If the mother dragon had just tried to kill V and left his family alone, we'd be debating to this very day whether it deserved to succeed or not. It was a choice that the dragon made that removed the ambiguity from its character.


Adventurers murder all the time.

Note that this is one premise the comic challenges the merits of (and not just with Celia either.)


This is just one step up from that. Not the nicest thing V has done, to be sure, but once again will not change his alignment.

You could make a case for destroying the mother dragon easily. Several of her offspring were engaged in activities that might have been all right to interrupt (the dragon threatening the nameless adventurers, the draconic wizard in red robes casting a spell, and the dragon chasing the rabbit for instance.) But there were also several children shown getting killed in that montage, including unborn eggs. Were they also deserving of death?

[SadisticFishing]

YES.

A baby Balor is still a Balor.

As I've said before, there is a huge difference between Goblins and Dragons. There are Neutral Goblins, tons. Even good ones. Lawful Neutral Hobgoblins are actually common.

ALL Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil. ALL of them. It made a choice, but it was the same choice any other Black dragon would have made - some might have been a bit milder, some more evil. But NONE would have taken the high road. It goes against their nature.

"Always Chaotic Evil" removes any ambiguity. So far the OotS world has still followed almost all the D&D rules, why assume that this is different?

[Optimystik]

YES.

A baby Balor is still a Balor.

1) Baby Balors don't exist; baby Dragons do.
2) Dragons don't measure up to Outsiders on the evil scale. You CANNOT negotiate with a Balor unless from a position of strength, but all dragons are open to flattery/negotiation.


ALL Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil. ALL of them. It made a choice, but it was the same choice any other Black dragon would have made - some might have been a bit milder, some more evil. But NONE would have taken the high road. It goes against their nature.

It is not the same choice "any other black dragon would have made." Any other black dragon isn't an angry mother.

"Ah yes, because that is what we dragons are to you, right? Monsters that hoard shiny baubles?"

"Humanoids. You think because my kind has stats for every stage of growth, it is perfectly acceptable to murder our children."

Hardly the words of a slavering killing machine. Depth of thought and emotion, maternal instinct. Those things don't make her non-evil, but they show that not all dragons are chiseled out of a mold.


"Always Chaotic Evil" removes any ambiguity. So far the OotS world has still followed almost all the D&D rules, why assume that this is different?

Yes, because Eyes of Fear and Flame are capable of feeling fear.

[SadisticFishing]

That was a pun. Puns > Story, for OotS. Edit: Does it even say anywhere that Eyes of Fire and Flame are all fearless? Because Undead aren't automatically fearless, just immune to magical fear. Like paladins.

I didn't say they were psychotic killing machines - I said they were all Chaotic Evil, and very much so. They are Bad.

The Chaotic Evil dragons also are prone to getting annoyed for no reason, or bored, and slaughtering villages. They are just as bad as demons, except... not all the time. Killing everything within a small radius once a century is not much less evil than doing it twice a year.

They ARE out of a mold though - a Chaotic Evil one. Maternal instinct is no excuse for what the Dragon did, they're all Evil, and they ALL overreact to things in such a ridiculous manner.

[Optimystik]

SRD: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typessubtypes.htm) Undead are immune to all morale effects. It does not specify "mindless."


They ARE out of a mold though - a Chaotic Evil one. Maternal instinct is no excuse for what the Dragon did, they're all Evil, and they ALL overreact to things in such a ridiculous manner.

This is where we're hitting an impasse. I'm condemning that particular dragon's actions just as much as you are. But a racial tendency to evil is not a license to be killed, particularly not for a child.

[SadisticFishing]

It's not a tendency. It's absolute and guaranteed.

Huh? That means they're immune to magic ones, not non magic ones. To claim that undead can't feel fear is to claim that they can't feel happiness, and there's no reason to believe that whatsoever. Liches are crazy, but they still feel.

[fangthane]

Well, strictly speaking undead are still susceptible to certain morale effects, but only the ones explicitly outlined as exceptions (turn undead, requiem, etc)

I have to disagree with you as to the legitimacy of killing children; when dealing with children of an Always Evil race, I usually think along the lines of Village of the Damned. Sure they might look and act pleasantly when it suits their purpose, but they're still pure evil through and through. We don't have an "always evil" classification in real life, but there're plenty of examples in literature and gaming.

As to the degree of evil evidenced by V's casting... Minor.
Evil creature slaughter - non-good, non-evil act, in and of itself.
Claimed motivation (protect family) - non-evil, arguably extremely mild good.
Ulterior motivation (return suffering, includes the act of gloating) - mildly evil
Anticipated results - non-good, arguably mild evil based on exceptions to "always evil" rule.
Unanticipated results - do not factor into judgement of the action's alignment (see WotC example of paladin on mountain for details).
Net total - mildly evil, arguably either moderate evil or neutral based on specific circumstances (some of which we know, some of which we don't).

[Optimystik]

It's not a tendency. It's absolute and guaranteed.

No, it isn't. See where this discussion gets us?


Huh? That means they're immune to magic ones, not non magic ones. To claim that undead can't feel fear is to claim that they can't feel happiness, and there's no reason to believe that whatsoever. Liches are crazy, but they still feel.

RAW does not specify "magical" or not. That is your interpretation. And Paladins can be both happy and fearless, so I fail to see why intelligent Undead have to be one or the other.


I have to disagree with you as to the legitimacy of killing children; when dealing with children of an Always Evil race, I usually think along the lines of Village of the Damned. Sure they might look and act pleasantly when it suits their purpose, but they're still pure evil through and through. We don't have an "always evil" classification in real life, but there're plenty of examples in literature and gaming.

Of course there are plenty of settings with totally evil creatures that deserve no quarter. The question is whether all "evil races" in RICH'S setting fall under that heading.


As to the degree of evil evidenced by V's casting... Minor.
Evil creature slaughter - non-good, non-evil act, in and of itself.
Claimed motivation (protect family) - non-evil, arguably extremely mild good.
Ulterior motivation (return suffering, includes the act of gloating) - mildly evil
Anticipated results - non-good, arguably mild evil based on exceptions to "always evil" rule.
Unanticipated results - do not factor into judgement of the action's alignment (see WotC example of paladin on mountain for details).
Net total - mildly evil, arguably either moderate evil or neutral based on specific circumstances (some of which we know, some of which we don't).

It didn't seem all that mild to THE FIENDS. They were speechless.

[SadisticFishing]

Speechless because it was so amazingly unexpected.

By the way, you're disagreeing flat out with a rule. "Always Chaotic Evil". I don't see where you're coming from, mind explaining?

Oh, and don't use Goblins as an example. They're usually chaotic evil. HUGE difference - it's the difference between a guarantee (which "Always Chaotic Evil" is), and a tendency.

But as is, Black Dragons are Always Chaotic Evil. You have no support for the idea that they're not.

By the way, undead aren't immune to "Fear". They're immune to "Mind-effecting."

A scared undead makes perfect sense - as does an angry one... such as, say, Xykon.

[Wikimaster]

Vaarsuvius first:

2) Xykon is simpler. He's really ticked about the whole 'sitting on our asses in a ruined city' thing. How much does anyone want to bet that he Meteor Swarms the entire town into oblivion before he leaves, burning Redcloak's carefully laid plans and fledgling goblin nation to ash, as a reminder to Redcloak that the ONLY important thing is the gate?

And that he will then as thoroughly humiliate Redcloak as he did in SOD?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

He casts a spell to protect himself from radiation, then he forces Redcloack to summon several Urainium Elementals to render the city uninhabitable and poison any Hobgoblins that he cannot take with him. Then, we start threads about whether the Hobbos deserved to have cancer or not.

[Random832]

It's not a tendency. It's absolute and guaranteed.

That they will have evil in their hearts is - that they will commit evil acts - at least on anything near this scale - is not.

[yanmaodao]

Speechless because it was so amazingly unexpected.

No. Let me break down what is actually said in the comic:

Qaar: Wow... you guys weren't kidding when you said the elf's alignment might be affected.--> V's alignment has indeed been affected.

Fiend: A good way to get a decent person to do something horrible is... --> [Emphasis mine] Yes, V has just done something horrible.

V's alignment has been substantially affected by doing something horrible, i.e. in the Evil direction. In the OotS-verse, this is Evil. Really, the guys here arguing against the gung ho, yay genocide crowd have been too generous. It's been established in the comic that it's Evil, Evil, Evil.


ALL Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil. ALL of them. It made a choice, but it was the same choice any other Black dragon would have made - some might have been a bit milder, some more evil. But NONE would have taken the high road. It goes against their nature.

"Always Chaotic Evil" removes any ambiguity. So far the OotS world has still followed almost all the D&D rules, why assume that this is different?</blockquote>

"... the simple and undeniably true premise that all evil creatures are uniformly and irredeemably evil..." - Miko Miyazaki, preface to the SoD.

Recall that the character of Miko Miyazaki was a criticism by Rich on the way Paladins (and to a lesser extent the entire Lawful Good alignment) tended to be played. What Miko's saying here is intended to be ridiculous. It's meant to be mocked. Not only does it not hold in the OotS-verse, the idea that it does is to be considered farcical. Really, I don't see how you could have read the series up to this point thinking Rich's world was otherwise.

[SadisticFishing]

That was in reference to goblins, orcs, et cetera.

Dragons are not the same. Dragons are paragons of their alignment, much like Demons and Angels.

The OotS world is very similar to the real world in most ways. Goblins are usually evil, because of the way they're treated. Black Dragons are ALWAYS. CHAOTIC. EVIL.

I don't think anyone here has understood that yet. Always. Not usually. Not 99% of the time. ALWAYS. No matter what, short of universe altering situations. Always. We could go into the definitions of the terms always, chaotic, and evil, but that would be patronizing...

Always chaotic evil.

[yanmaodao]

As for the likely consequence of the splice...

While OotS may break dramatic convention here and there for humor and lampshading purposes, I don't think "dealing your soul to the Devil will not end well for you" is one of them. I have a hard time believing that V will "win" this bout, when all's said and done. And it would make the Fiends look bumbling and ineffectual, when it really seems like they were brought in to raise the stakes of the drama, though they may crack a joke here and there.

[Zanaril]

Anyone else find it weird that the fiends - incarnates of evil - seem much more likeable than Xykon?

This worries me because that's how Xykon started out (from our point of view, anyway), and look at him now.

[pendell]

That was in reference to goblins, orcs, et cetera.

Dragons are not the same. Dragons are paragons of their alignment, much like Demons and Angels.

The OotS world is very similar to the real world in most ways. Goblins are usually evil, because of the way they're treated. Black Dragons are ALWAYS. CHAOTIC. EVIL.

I don't think anyone here has understood that yet. Always. Not usually. Not 99% of the time. ALWAYS. No matter what, short of universe altering situations. Always. We could go into the definitions of the terms always, chaotic, and evil, but that would be patronizing...

Always chaotic evil.

I don't have the appropriate documentation in front of me, but my understanding is that 'always' in the DMG alignment section does not mean the same things as 'always' in the general-purpose Oxford dictionary.

Someone check me, but always in the DMG does indeed mean 99% of the time. This allows the DMs to occasionally create a renegade NPC that breaks the mode such as Drizzt Do'urden. I believe the DMG guide to alignment specifically spells that out. The reason they spell out the definition of 'always' is because they are re-defining it away from its understood common usage.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Random832]

I don't have the appropriate documentation in front of me, but my understanding is that 'always' in the DMG alignment section does not mean the same things as 'always' in the general-purpose Oxford dictionary.

Someone check me, but always in the DMG does indeed mean 99% of the time. This allows the DMs to occasionally create a renegade NPC that breaks the mode such as Drizzt Do'urden. I believe the DMG guide to alignment specifically spells that out. The reason they spell out the definition of 'always' is because they are re-defining it away from its understood common usage.


According to tvtropes (yeah, yeah), 3e moved away from "always" for normal monsters, replacing it with qualifiers like "usually" and "often" - which would seem to imply that always means always.

I don't see it spelled out anywhere in the SRD, and I don't have a DMG at hand right now.

[Optimystik]

Speechless because it was so amazingly unexpected.

Their silence was immediately followed by a discussion of V's alignment. Put 2 and 2 together.


By the way, you're disagreeing flat out with a rule. "Always Chaotic Evil". I don't see where you're coming from, mind explaining?

But as is, Black Dragons are Always Chaotic Evil. You have no support for the idea that they're not.

"Always" does not mean what you think it does in D&D. It means that exceptions are exceedingly rare, NOT that there are zero exceptions. And the possibility that even one innocent could have been slaughtered by V's reckless act makes it evil.

As for support:

DMG: Hating solely on the basis of race is LE.

BoED pg. 8, "Redeeming Evil": "Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation..."
BoED pg. 9, "Violence": "The mere existence of evil orcs is not just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been doing no harm."


By the way, undead aren't immune to "Fear". They're immune to "Mind-effecting."

A scared undead makes perfect sense - as does an angry one... such as, say, Xykon.

I didn't say "immune to mind effecting." I said immune to MORALE EFFECTS.
Fear is a morale effect.
Anger is not.

[Zevox]

I don't have the appropriate documentation in front of me, but my understanding is that 'always' in the DMG alignment section does not mean the same things as 'always' in the general-purpose Oxford dictionary.

Someone check me, but always in the DMG does indeed mean 99% of the time. This allows the DMs to occasionally create a renegade NPC that breaks the mode such as Drizzt Do'urden. I believe the DMG guide to alignment specifically spells that out. The reason they spell out the definition of 'always' is because they are re-defining it away from its understood common usage.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Pretty much correct. The Monster Manual (not DMG) glossary entry on Alignment says this (underlining mine):


Always: A creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
Such rare exceptions would include things like Fallen Celestials and Risen Fiends, for instance.

Zevox

[SadisticFishing]

So is confidence. QED.

Dragon is NOT a race. It is a type of being that is easy definable. Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil in the same way that Mariliths are Chaotic Evil. I hate Mariliths (although I love them, they're awesome <3). Am I Lawful Evil?

ALWAYS [Alignment] means they are born that way, and exceptions are amazingly rare. I don't remember where there's an explanation, but there is one in a 3.5 book - and "Always" is quite clearly defined as: There may be an exception. One. Maybe. But probably not.

[fangthane]

Optimystik - It's been my general perspective that Rich seems to lend more weight to the "anticipated, unintended consequences" category, which - given that some of the kin slain by the spell may have been non-evil - would definitely skew things. He tends to dislike the indiscriminate angle, while I consider that more a sign of chaotic intent than evil necessarily. That being the case, I can clearly understand why he (and some readers) would feel that the Familicide was more evil than I do. And ultimately I'm not arguing against the whole thing being evil; I just feel that the maximum extent would involve an alignment shift and the minimum/average merely incur some risk of a shift later. Some people seem to be arguing that the act is pure evil, but I'd submit that the whole point of OotS as regards the interplay of good and evil is that it's not that simple; there are always nuances and shades involved.

Pendell - That's always been my understanding too - that "always" is a rule of thumb, not a literal absolute. That is, essentially, other than pre-generated specific exceptions it's true, but those special exceptions are always an option; the DM is, after all, the one "true" god in any D&D game. As to its relation to familicide, "always evil" should permit V a clear anticipation that any kin of the ABD was therefore evil, but given V's level and experience he should have had at least an inkling that exceptions do, in fact, exist. It's like the example (think it's in the PHB or DMG but it's been ages since I looked it up) with the paladin who might trigger a rock-slide by attacking goblins above the village. If he notices the risk, pushes on and causes a slide, he Falls; if he doesn't notice the risk, or manages to avoid the slide, he doesn't. In this case it'd be at least somewhat disingenuous to claim V wouldn't have noticed or understood the risk, meaning that if the risk was realised (i.e. if there were any non-evil victims of Familicide) that alone qualifies it as an evil act, and it's a question of its extent (and the other factors, effect and motivation) as to whether it causes a shift.

[Optimystik]

So is confidence. QED.

The point is that Rich took artistic license in making his EoFaF fearful. It is not representative of all such creatures. The same is possibly true about Mama Dragon.


Dragon is NOT a race.

Wrong. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)


It is a type of being that is easy definable. Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil in the same way that Mariliths are Chaotic Evil. I hate Mariliths (although I love them, they're awesome <3). Am I Lawful Evil?

Outsiders are alignments given form. Comparing them to Dragons is meaningless. They are even worse than Undead.

Dragons can be reasoned with and even redeemed. A Fiend's entire existence is to do (and convert others to) as much evil as it can. There is a substantial difference.


ALWAYS [Alignment] means they are born that way, and exceptions are amazingly rare. I don't remember where there's an explanation, but there is one in a 3.5 book - and "Always" is quite clearly defined as: There may be an exception. One. Maybe. But probably not.

The chance of that exception getting caught in "Familicide" is what makes it evil. If you blow up a terrorist camp, how many children must be caught in the blast before you consider it not to be an evil act? One? Ten? A school? Particularly if said terrorists have done nothing wrong that you are aware of, other than being labeled as such.


Optimystik - It's been my general perspective that Rich seems to lend more weight to the "anticipated, unintended consequences" category, which - given that some of the kin slain by the spell may have been non-evil - would definitely skew things. He tends to dislike the indiscriminate angle, while I consider that more a sign of chaotic intent than evil necessarily. That being the case, I can clearly understand why he (and some readers) would feel that the Familicide was more evil than I do. And ultimately I'm not arguing against the whole thing being evil; I just feel that the maximum extent would involve an alignment shift and the minimum/average merely incur some risk of a shift later. Some people seem to be arguing that the act is pure evil, but I'd submit that the whole point of OotS as regards the interplay of good and evil is that it's not that simple; there are always nuances and shades involved.

I'm not denying that there may have been good consequences of his spell (he might have saved those two adventurers' lives, for instance.)

"Might" is not enough reason to justify genocide. If we go down that road, where does it end?

[SadisticFishing]

You're still misdefining "Always". Evil dragons do not get redeemed. It happens once or twice in the history of the universe. Ever. The chance of one getting caught in the Familicide is abysmally small. It's akin to bombing a terrorist camp that you've searched, and found no children - but there might be one hiding in a box somewhere. Maybe. One. Would you assume that there was one?

Except that these terrorists are all Chaotic Evil. They've done bad things, and WILL DO bad things. It is in their nature, and it's a nature so powerful that theywill not act against it. It does not happen. The rules are quite clear.

So the Eye of Fear is afraid of stuff. I don't see how that's relevant (hint: it's not).

Edit: Oh, and the road ends when we're dealing with things that aren't inherently and.. guaranteededly Evil. That's a drawing the line fallacy - I've drawn my line.

[Snake-Aes]

The chance of that exception getting caught in "Familicide" is what makes it evil. If you blow up a terrorist camp, how many children must be caught in the blast before you consider it not to be an evil act? One? Ten? A school? Particularly if said terrorists have done nothing wrong that you are aware of, other than being labeled as such.



Bad comparison.

[Bibliomancer]

Personally, I'm on the side that it was mild-moderately evil, a step down from genocide but a step up from manslaughter.

SadisticFishing: Dragons are far closer to humanoids than they are to outsiders in the Ootsverse, based on what we've seen (maternal instincts etc.). The important thing to keep in mind is, alignment change is more common than you think. There an entire type of devils (the erinyes) who started off as fallen angels. That means that a whole army of them fell. If you assume that dragons are more flexible than outsiders (which is a reasonable assumption), then there's a good chance that of the dozens of dragons killed, several were non-evil, and the ones that were evil weren't a major threat, which means it isn't right to kill them (BoED).

[Optimystik]

Bad comparison.

Thanks for your input.


You're still misdefining "Always". Evil dragons do not get redeemed. It happens once or twice in the history of the universe. Ever. The chance of one getting caught in the Familicide is abysmally small. It's akin to bombing a terrorist camp that you've searched, and found no children - but there might be one hiding in a box somewhere. Maybe. One. Would you assume that there was one?

He bombed 25% of all black dragons (and their descendants and relatives, let's not forget) on the planet. You're claiming that every single being caught in that spell was irredeemably evil. I refuse to believe that. But more to the point, V didn't care whether any non-evils were caught in the spell; he only cared that they were related to the dragon that he had a reason to hate.

Which leads to my next point - not everything he murdered was a True Dragon. Even assuming that the pure dragon children are just as evil as their parents (Quite the feat, considering they haven't done anything yet), what makes you think you can lump in all the hybrids and half-breeds? Did their other parent's alignment have no influence at all? Last I checked, Centaurs aren't "always chaotic evil."

Finally, I'm not the one misdefining "Always." You are. Read Zevox's post again.


Except that these terrorists are all Chaotic Evil. They've done bad things, and WILL DO bad things. It is in their nature, and it's a nature so powerful that theywill not act against it. It does not happen. The rules are quite clear.

Nature is not a prophecy.


So the Eye of Fear is afraid of stuff. I don't see how that's relevant (hint: it's not).

It is relevant because it sets a precedent. It shows that even if a particular race is incapable of something by D&D standards (hint: not proven yet), that Rich can choose to make a specific member of that race behave that way if he chooses. Even if chromatic Dragons were completely incapable of not being evil, Rich can make a non-evil black dragon if he chooses.


Edit: Oh, and the road ends when we're dealing with things that aren't inherently and.. guaranteededly Evil. That's a drawing the line fallacy - I've drawn my line.

Outsiders are guaranteed evil, Dragons are not. That line needs moving.

[SadisticFishing]

Dragons ARE irredeemably evil! There is maybe one or two exceptions an EVER. Read the DMG. The babies? Just as evil. Half-dragons: "Same as the base dragon" alignment.

"I refuse to believe that." You believe wrong.

Precent for Eyes of Fear and Flame is that most are not afraid of everything. This one was. There could easily be another that loves dancing. None of these help at all counteract the words "Always Chaotic Evil".

"Outsiders are guaranteed evil, Dragons are not. That line needs moving." Wrong. Completely, and utterly wrong. The line is at the alignment section: "Always Chaotic Evil". There's a Lawful Good Succubus Paladin somewhere on the Wizard's site. There's your one Succubus. If you could kill every Succubus, and it happened to get that one - it would STILL be a Good act.

[Optimystik]

I'm sorry, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The comic will reveal what, if any, are the consequences of V's actions during the splice, and then we'll see what The Giant's take on the issue is.

[Ancalagon]

Bad comparison.

I liked it and found it fitting. Give an explanation or you do not have a point.

Expressing bare opinions without reasoning or explanation in a discussion is utterly pointless and, even worse, boring.

[SadisticFishing]

I'm sorry, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The comic will reveal what, if any, are the consequences of V's actions during the splice, and then we'll see what The Giant's take on the issue is.

Fair enough, though your disagreement of RAW is wrong :p by the book, they're as evil as Demons.

[pendell]

The chance of that exception getting caught in "Familicide" is what makes it evil. If you blow up a terrorist camp, how many children must be caught in the blast before you consider it not to be an evil act? One? Ten? A school?


I'm not sure I agree with that. Ever hear of the concept of 'collateral damage'?

In the real world, it's understood that civilian casualties are something that happens in the course of military operations. E.g., if I blow up an electrical power station, I'm going to kill civilian techies as well.

That isn't considered evil.

What is considered evil is if the collateral damage is out of all proportion to the intended military results. That's why, for example, torpedoing an enemy merchant ship without warning was not a war crime in WWII -- because A) both sides did it and B) the military result (equivalent to destroying a battalion of troops on land) was proportional to the civilian casualties inflicted on the sailors.

By contrast, the Katyn Forest was a war crime, because it involved the mass murder of thousands of prisoners without corresponding gain.

In the real world, I don't believe a military planner would refrain from bombing a known terrorist camp because of the presence of children. Of course there will always be a few on site, visiting relatives or what not. The military advantage gained from destroying an enemy center outweighs the collateral damage to women, children, visiting aid workers, and what not.

By contrast, I don't believe any military planner would consider bombing a hospital, even if 2 or 3 terrorists were known to be inside. The collateral damage is overwhelming in such a case, resulting in hundred of innocent deaths in order to kill 3 easily replaced terrorists.

So I disagree with you on this .. by that standard, V's act was not evil. The gain -- removing a threat to his family and purging the worlds of hundreds of evil creatures -- outweighs the collateral damage of one, possibly two, innocents dying.

Innocents die in war. And if people aren't willing to pay that price, they shouldn't go to war at all.

If we want to argue that V's act was evil, we must first establish that black dragons are 'humans' -- deserving of the same rights and protections as homo sapiens, innocent until proven guilty. Once that is established, it then quickly follows that V had no right to kill such beings unprovoked, even if there was a possibility one might take revenge on hir. That's a valid argument.

But the argument 'one may never kill evil creatures if even one innocent creature will suffer too' falls flat. That's the logic that underlies human shields. Hundreds of years of military history has shown that the only way to stop evil men from using innocents as human shields .. is to ignore them.

Ruthless people will always use tactics that are effective, regardless of how reprehensible they are. The only way to make the human shield tactic ineffective is to go ahead and kill the villain anyway. It causes innocent deaths in the short term, but in the long term prevents more innocent deaths when evil people realize there's nothing to be gained from hiding behind hostages.

That is precisely why the laws about collateral damage exist. I believe they are correct.

So I think you've got a valid argument that V's action was evil. But I don't think it's because some innocents might be harmed. The ratio of evil, dangerous creatures to potential innocents is so overwhelming I don't believe any real-world military commission could possibly convict on the basis of excessive collateral damage.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Optimystik]

Fair enough, though your disagreement of RAW is wrong :p by the book, they're as evil as Demons.

Nothing is as evil as Demons. That's the whole point of being a demon. :smallsigh:

Compare the difference in connotation between "demonic," "diabolical" and "draconic." The last is milder than the first two for a reason.


That isn't considered evil.

What is considered evil is if the collateral damage is out of all proportion to the intended military results. That's why, for example, torpedoing an enemy merchant ship without warning was not a war crime in WWII -- because A) both sides did it and B) the military result (equivalent to destroying a battalion of troops on land) was proportional to the civilian casualties inflicted on the sailors.

In the words of Hinjo: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile." An evil act that serves a greater good, such as killing civilians in pursuit of a dangerous objective, may be warranted in certain circumstances... but that doesn't mean it isn't evil. It just means that you have to make up for it.

(By bringing up WWII we're coming dangerously close to Godwinning the thread, btw...)

[Ancalagon]

Dragons ARE irredeemably evil! There is maybe one or two exceptions an EVER. Read the DMG. The babies? Just as evil. Half-dragons: "Same as the base dragon" alignment.

What if I DM a round tomorrow evening where I add a Black Dragon who wants to change his ways - and actually manages to do that, thus redeeming himself. What if I explain in an epilogue that this particular dragon was able to spawn a side-tribe of black dragons who are not evil, but, well lets assume neutral in some way.

That's well within my power and authority as DM - if it makes a good story that me and the players on the table enjoy. Are you going to tell me I do not have this right? Are you going to tell Rich he could not do something similar in his comic, that nothing like that *could not* (in any possible way) exist in his universe?

[Snake-Aes]

What if I DM a round tomorrow evening where I add a Black Dragon who wants to change his ways - and actually manages to do that, thus redeeming himself. What if I explain in an epilogue that this particular dragon was able to spawn a side-tribe of black dragons who are not evil, but, well lets assume neutral in some way.

That's well within my power and authority as DM - if it makes a good story that me and the players on the table enjoy. Are you going to tell me I do not have this right? Are you going to tell Rich he could not do something similar in his comic, that nothing like that *could not* (in any possible way) exist in his universe?
If you want to swing the DM rod, then do it in full, and only use it when it applies to your world.

[Wikimaster]

Nothing is as evil as Demons. That's the whole point of being a demon. :smallsigh:

Compare the difference in connotation between "demonic," "diabolical" and "draconic." The last is milder than the first two for a reason.



You'll never convince him. He's made it his life's work to spit out the same old garbage again and again without offering proof (where did it say that Dragons are just as tied to their alignment as Demons? where?) and blast those of us who don't see the same way he does.

Also, I think Xykon will try to destroy Redcloak's dream of a new Hobgoblin state before he leaves, for punishment and the evulz.

[Bibliomancer]

I agree with Wikimaster on the repetitiveness of the argument, but I think it bears mentioning that:

There is an entire race of devils descended from fallen angels.

Angels are listed as ALWAYS Good.

To produce a common race of devils, several HUNDRED eould have had to fall.

The FCII specifically says that these are the only devils that can't be created from lower forms, they only reproduce. Therefore, an aerial army of them decided to move to a plane in the ventral position. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html)

[Wikimaster]

Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Bibliomancer. Now, would you like to speculate on how Xykon would destroy Redcloak's dream? I already suggested Uranium Elementals. What about your theory?

[Snake-Aes]

You'll never convince him. He's made it his life's work to spit out the same old garbage again and again without offering proof (where did it say that Dragons are just as tied to their alignment as Demons? where?) and blast those of us who don't see the same way he does.

Also, I think Xykon will try to destroy Redcloak's dream of a new Hobgoblin state before he leaves, for punishment and the evulz.
If both are listed as always evil, and alignments don't have submeasuring, what makes an evil dragon more evil than an evil lord, or an evil demon more evil than an evil slaad?

[Snake-Aes]

Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Bibliomancer. Now, would you like to speculate on how Xykon would destroy Redcloak's dream? I already suggested Uranium Elementals. What about your theory?

Have we seen Xykon summon? I guess he's not too fond of that. Doesn't he have yet a bunch of undead? That and some good old blasting should do.

go go go widened cloudkill!
Can permanency be cast on cloudkill? O.o

[Wikimaster]

What I suggested is that Xykon force Redcloak to summon Uranium Elementals after casting a spell to protect himself from radiation. That would be his type of cruelty.

EDIT: Also, making a few jokes about the thousands of Hobbos that would get various types of cancer and other radiation related conditions would be just like him.

[Bibliomancer]

I seriously doubt that Xykon knows enough about the periodic table to bother asking about uranium elementals. Personally, I think he'll just activate the self-destruct rune (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html) when he leaves. He probably got a whole instruction manual on how to make them from Dorukan's castle. Except instead of blowing the hobgoblins up, it turns them into bunnies and summons hundreds of dire tigers. Because fire just isn't evil enough.

Or he'll just activate a huge sign saying "Actually powerful people leaving. Announcing an open hunting season on hobgoblins."

Or, he'll make a ship out of them. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

[Ancalagon]

If you want to swing the DM rod, then do it in full, and only use it when it applies to your world.

In case you have not noticed: Rich swings the Author-Rod. Often.

[pendell]

In the words of Hinjo: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile."


IMO, the reason for the atonement spell is because paladins make errors in judgement .. when they do evil instead of good. It's not for doing hideous but necessary tasks.



An evil act that serves a greater good, such as killing civilians in pursuit of a dangerous objective, may be warranted in certain circumstances... but that doesn't mean it isn't evil. It just means that you have to make up for it.


I must disagree with you at two points:

First, as someone who has suffered and agonized through a number of moral dilemmas, I do not believe it is evil to choose the least bad course of action, when all choices suck.

Good people sometimes get put into those situations. A good person who does the best they can in a bad situation is doing good, even if it is the 'least evil' (s)he can do rather than a 'good' act. Otherwise good is unattainable by mortals. Well, mortals that live on earth and not carefully sheltered liveds, anyway.

Second .. how exactly do you make up for taking an innocent life?

That can't be made up for. Not ever. Not even if you take your own life, because giving up your own life won't bring back the dead.

There are some things that can't be made up for. The most you can do is try to avoid those things, and if they happen, live with the knowledge and pray for mercy, if you believe in that sort of thing. Absent mercy, there's nothing to do but suffer the indelible stain on your karma that will never, ever go away.



(By bringing up WWII we're coming dangerously close to Godwinning the thread, btw...)

It's the last time the West has faced an existential threat and been faced with those tough choices. Since then we haven't often faced the need to, say, blow up a ferry carrying materials critical to atom bomb production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SF_Hydro), even if that also meant killing the innocent civilian passengers which were also aboard at the time. Of 12 passengers belowdecks, only 1 survived.

It was a thoroughly nasty but necessary action. I will not condemn the act as evil, nor the perpetrators. Because although the deaths of civilians was horrible, allowing Godwin to build a nuclear bomb is even more so.

Sometimes in life there are no good choices. There's only 'horrible' and 'more horrible'. Good men are not paralyzed by inaction. Good men do the least horrible thing they can, and they remain good by doing so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Optimystik]

A hideous but necessary task is still hideous, and should be treated as such. I'm not condemning anyone who has to make that unfortunate choice; what I would condemn them for is making the decision lightly, and without any feelings of remorse. Willingness to repent and atone is what proves that they truly felt there was no alternative.

Vaarsuvius displayed no such gravitas. The danger to his family had passed, and what did he say right before reviving the dragon for his Familicide? He didn't say "my family might still be in danger"; he didn't even say "now I will end the threat of black dragons everywhere." No, his exact words were "I concur," which was said in response to some very EVIL sentiments:

"The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."

Further, he refers to these depraved souls as HIS FRIENDS prior to using the spell. You simply can't tell me that he had any higher goal in mind when doing so, whatever lofty speeches he chose to make after the deed was done.

[Wikimaster]

I seriously doubt that Xykon knows enough about the periodic table to bother asking about uranium elementals. Personally, I think he'll just activate the self-destruct rune (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html) when he leaves. He probably got a whole instruction manual on how to make them from Dorukan's castle. Except instead of blowing the hobgoblins up, it turns them into bunnies and summons hundreds of dire tigers. Because fire just isn't evil enough.

Or he'll just activate a huge sign saying "Actually powerful people leaving. Announcing an open hunting season on hobgoblins."

Or, he'll make a ship out of them. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

Ooh, the last one certainly sounds like Xykon's brand of cruelty. Although you must admit, irradiated Azure City and environs looks like an interesting notion, and the tought of cancer-stricken Hobbos, former slaves (who would guard them if their slavers had cancer?), and Resistance members will give any Complete Monster an evilgasm worthy of note.

[Optimystik]

If both are listed as always evil, and alignments don't have submeasuring, what makes an evil dragon more evil than an evil lord, or an evil demon more evil than an evil slaad?

I quoted the relevant passage from BoED already. Dragons are capable of nonmagical redemption (however unlikely); Fiends are categorically not. They are alignments given form.

Further, Dragons are part of the world. You could convince a Dragon to do something that benefits other species - for example, getting a Green dragon to defend a forest from loggers. Compulsive magic aside, you will never, ever get an evil Outsider to do anything like that. They don't belong to this plane, so they could care less what happens to it. Their goal is simple: annihilate EVERYTHING (Demons) or subjugate EVERYTHING (Devils). There is no middle ground.

[pendell]

I quoted the relevant passage from BoED already.


Stupid question. BoED isn't core, is it?

I don't think it is... so if it isn't core, aren't the rules in it simply optional extras, and not applicable to all D&D worlds, even without DM intervention?

Put more simply, do the mechanics in a BoED remain in effect in a world that runs solely off the core three books? Are they a supplement the way, say, the LOTR appendices are? Or are they simply optional extras, handy if you want 'em, ignorable if they're not?

If the second ... then I would argue that it's only what the core books say about alignment that count.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

PS. Thank you, optimistik, for a lively and intelligent discussion. -- BDP.

[Optimystik]

Linking my other post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6310798&postcount=120) from the last page in case you missed it, where I explain why I think Vaarsuivius' use of Familicide is categorically evil.


Stupid question. BoED isn't core, is it?

I don't think it is... so if it isn't core, aren't the rules in it simply optional extras, and not applicable to all D&D worlds, even without DM intervention?

Put more simply, do the mechanics in a BoED remain in effect in a world that runs solely off the core three books? Are they a supplement the way, say, the LOTR appendices are? Or are they simply optional extras, handy if you want 'em, ignorable if they're not?

If the second ... then I would argue that it's only what the core books say about alignment that count.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

PS. Thank you, optimistik, for a lively and intelligent discussion. -- BDP.

You're welcome, and same to you :smallsmile:

As for core vs. non-core: that line of argument is a common one. The short answer is that the Giant can include whatever he wants, in whole or in part. The longer answer is that material from BoVD and BoED has made an appearance in the story before. The BoVD reference was explicit (namely, the Eye of Fear and Flame Redcloak created (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html) comes from it.) The BoED references are more subtle - Haley's attitude towards dealing with prisoners (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html), and Soon's incorporeal Ghost Martyrs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html) (complete with all the same weaknesses as BoED Risen Martyrs) can both be found in BoED's pages. The former example is particularly telling as it relates to morality; if Haley is acting as the author's voice in that strip, it indicates that his ideas on morality are derived at least in part from BoED. That opens the door to its use in moral discussions like this one.

[Bibliomancer]

The thought of a Azure City Chernobyl is interesting, however I think that the elemental gag got used up in the siege. Plus, Xykon ordering Redcloak to summon some uranium elementals would require Xykon paying attention to Redcloak, which he often hasn't in the past.

Unfortunately, the fact of radiation is that the line between the incidence of cancer creeping up and everyone dieing horribly is significantly smaller than WWIII books want us to believe. If Xykon did call in the Uranium elementals, there wouldn't be anything alive in Azure City afterwards.

As for non-core books, wouldn't the rules in non-core books still be a useful guideline if they haven't appeared yet, given that they are an official extension of the core books?

[Optimystik]

As for non-core books, wouldn't the rules in non-core books still be a useful guideline if they haven't appeared yet, given that they are an official extension of the core books?

Absolutely; this is particularly true in areas where the core books fall short, such as specifying what kinds of acts would make a paladin fall.

[Wikimaster]

Sigh... A missed opportunity. By the way, the rune thing also sounds cool.

EDIT: That was for Mr. Bibliomancer, by the way. Anyway, i'm sure that unless Xykon cools down once his Phylactery is found (and maybe, even then), he would find a way to make Azure City and surrounding areas uninhabitable in a way that would hurt Redcloak very, very, much.

[Bibliomancer]

Out of curiosity, is there a paladin devoted rulebook? I've read the BoED and it doesn't spend too much time on paladins. Does the Complete Divine have more information?

And I'm glad you like the modified Rune of Doom TM

[Wikimaster]

Out of curiosity, is there a paladin devoted rulebook? I've read the BoED and it doesn't spend too much time on paladins. Does the Complete Divine have more information?

And I'm glad you like the modified Rune of Doom TM

That was gold! Anyway, I'm going to quote you now, just in case the parallel debate starts up again.

[Bibliomancer]

Wha...oh, the parallel debate/grudge match/fascinating conversation between experienced posters about dragons = fiends y/n

[pendell]

As for core vs. non-core: that line of argument is a common one.
... Soon's incorporeal Ghost Martyrs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html) (complete with all the same weaknesses as BoED Risen Martyrs) can both be found in BoED's pages. The former example is particularly telling as it relates to morality; if Haley is acting as the author's voice in that strip, it indicates that his ideas on morality are derived at least in part from BoED. That opens the door to its use in moral discussions like this one.

Conceded. If The Giant is using creatures from the BoED, it follows that the rules and concepts of BoED also apply in OOTSverse.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[fangthane]

Just wanted to mention something about the Uranium elemental concept... Uranium isn't very strongly radioactive; it would take prolonged exposure to a LOT of uranium to make a difference. He'd be better picking something which can be diffused somehow (Radon) or selecting a matched pair of radionuclide elementals, one which generates alphas or neutrons and another which accepts them and becomes unstable.

[Skorj]

...
The longer answer is that material from BoVD and BoED has made an appearance in the story before. The BoVD reference was explicit (namely, the Eye of Fear and Flame Redcloak created (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html) comes from it.) The BoED references are more subtle - Haley's attitude towards dealing with prisoners (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html), and Soon's incorporeal Ghost Martyrs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html) (complete with all the same weaknesses as BoED Risen Martyrs) can both be found in BoED's pages. The former example is particularly telling as it relates to morality; if Haley is acting as the author's voice in that strip, it indicates that his ideas on morality are derived at least in part from BoED. That opens the door to its use in moral discussions like this one.

Well, the Eye of Fear and Flame was mostly a joke, so it could also be from the Fiend Folio, like the wonderful Flumphs. I certainly wouldn't assume that any one character was "the author's voice" or that Rich's ideas on morality came form a D&D book. :smallamused:

I had assumed that the Ghost Martyrs were simply a DM invention, but the similarity to the Risen Martyrs is compelling. Still, I'd balk at any OOTS character being immune to character development. If it turned out that the MitD was an outsider, and was "redeemed" thanks to O-Chul (and the MitD's future actions), I wouldn't find that particularly strange, regardless of D&D rules, as it's just good story.

[Optimystik]

Well, the Eye of Fear and Flame was mostly a joke, so it could also be from the Fiend Folio, like the wonderful Flumphs. I certainly wouldn't assume that any one character was "the author's voice" or that Rich's ideas on morality came form a D&D book. :smallamused:

Both the Fiend Folio AND BoVD are at Redcloak's feet, but the Eye is the only one of the three that is found within BoVD. (In case you were wondering, the Huecuva is the one that came from Fiend Folio.)


I had assumed that the Ghost Martyrs were simply a DM invention, but the similarity to the Risen Martyrs is compelling.

They may not be Risen Martyrs (RMs have corporeal bodies, for one thing), but it's pretty certain they are based on the Deathless template at the very least. Made of positive energy, good aligned, and able to be "turned" by evil clerics; it all fits.


If it turned out that the MitD was an outsider, and was "redeemed" thanks to O-Chul (and the MitD's future actions), I wouldn't find that particularly strange, regardless of D&D rules, as it's just good story.

If the MitD is indeed a fiend of some kind, something happened to it to make it innocent long before O-Chul got to it. In that case, it still wouldn't have been converted just through conversation - some kind of magical occurrence would have to be involved.

[hamishspence]

Savage Species (3.0) defines Always Evil as "either unique, or one in a million exceptions"

However, given the number of non-evil creatures in D&D sourcebooks of Always Evil races, it might be a bit commoner than 1 in a million.

On half dragons, "same as the base creature" is qualified in the actual sample half-dragon in the MM (half human half black dragon fighter) as "usually" rather than Always.

On Paladin sourcebooks- none by WOTC. Some third party sources do discuss The Code, and the meaning of Detect evil.

The conclusion in Quintessenial Paladin 2 is "Detect and smite" is only valid in a world where Jack the Ripper would not detect as evil unless he was doing those murders on behalf of fiends.

Which is, to say the least, not standard D&D.

On dragons- its certainly possible to raise a chromatic dragon as non-evil- its just rare. Or, a dragon might undergo a change of heart. Or simply be Affably Evil rather than a Complete Monster.

Even Dragonlance setting, which has them as the spawn of the Queen of Darkness, and is stricter than most settings on "Evil means Kill it" has exceptions- the female red dragon in the Raistlin novels- motherly and kindly thanks to being somewhat senile.

[Skorj]

Both the Fiend Folio AND BoVD are at Redcloak's feet, but the Eye is the only one of the three that is found within BoVD. (In case you were wondering, the Huecuva is the one that came from Fiend Folio.)

Well, all three skelethings: Death Knight, EFF, Hecuva, were introduced in the original Fiend Folio. I just assumed that was part of the joke. But you're right that RC does have more than the FF at his feet.


They may not be Risen Martyrs (RMs have corporeal bodies, for one thing), but it's pretty certain they are based on the Deathless template at the very least. Made of positive energy, good aligned, and able to be "turned" by evil clerics; it all fits.

Spirits of the dead fighting some last battle are a bit of a recurring theme, certianly older than D&D, and have shown up houseruled in my campaigns before. Still, if there are rules that would describe the paladin spirits, that's likely meaningful.


If the MitD is indeed a fiend of some kind, something happened to it to make it innocent long before O-Chul got to it. In that case, it still wouldn't have been converted just through conversation - some kind of magical occurrence would have to be involved.

Hmm, good point. I had assumed the MitD was innocent because captured young and untrained in evil, but some "magical event" would make this work for an inherently-evil outsider as well. Of course, that could work with any outsider as needed to service the story, so I'm still not convinced we know that fiends are irredeemably evil. It's nice to have an intelligent conversation about it, though!

[Babale]

Oh wow, when I saw this thread, I thought it was another "______ and ______ should get together" thread.

[Zanaril]

Oh wow, when I saw this thread, I thought it was another "______ and ______ should get together" thread.

Now that... that...

Words cannot fully describe the wrongness of that.



(Although I would read the fanfiction out of curiosity. (Un)fortunately Xykon isn't one of those disgusting biophiliacs.)

[Bibliomancer]

Personally, the Ghost-Martyrs remind me of the Sacred Watcher template. It fits quite well: incorporeal, deathless, sworn to protect something/someone...

[Pyron]

(Although I would read the fanfiction out of curiosity. (Un)fortunately Xykon isn't one of those disgusting biophiliacs.)

:xykon: Create Greater Undead!

Problem solved.

[SadisticFishing]

By the way, the difference between demonic, diabolical, and draconic is that there are dragons of all the alignments... It's an entirely different qualifier.

Whereas "black draconic" would just be "demonic" mixed with "draconic".

[Wikimaster]

Wha...oh, the parallel debate/grudge match/fascinating conversation between experienced posters about dragons = fiends y/n

Anyway, here are three more ways for the Azure City environs to get devestated by Xykon if he's still in "punish and spite Redcloak" mood by the time he finds his phylactery:

Water Poisoning: Xykon could put something strange in the water to kill all Hobbos and Humans who drink it. Not like him, unless the poison somehow turned them into grotesque monsters, and even then, I don't think that's likely.

Sowing the land with salt: It doesn't matter whether it was really done to Carthage or not, but Xykon may find it fun to force Hobgloblin mooks and human slaves to work in the hot sun drying salt, and then use it to render the surrounding countryside barren.

Fire: An ovious solution, and relatively cheap if the city has increased in flammability following the conquest. Xykon forces Redcloak to look, and then gloats.

EDIT: Mr. fangthane, you're right. Radon would work. But I used Uranium in my post speculating about this because it's less obscure. I planned to lead it to Radon eventually, once someone spoke of it. Anyway, I think the chance is unlikely (though amusing in a heartless way) now.

[Dagren]

Fair enough, though your disagreement of RAW is wrong :p by the book, they're as evil as Demons.Please point out where in the rules Black Dragons are given the [Evil] subtype. Last I checked, they only had the [Water] subtype. Demons, on the other hand, do have the [Evil] subtype. So your insistence that they should be held equivalent is quite clearly wrong.

Back on topic:

I don't think that Xykon will punish the hobgoblins as a whole (beyond making them search the sewers, at least). Maybe if he thought Redcloak needed forcing back into line, but he's mad with him for failing to protect the Phylactery, not because he realises that Redcloak is working against him.

[Pogogoblin]

I don't think Xykon will punish redcloak anymore.
besides, I think he's the last goblin around....


you seen any greenies around here?

Oh, and on the ressurection topics, i think
they're gonna run outta diamonds soon.

[SadisticFishing]

They are Always Chaotic Evil. They're not made of pure evil, I'll give you that - but they represent it.

[Dagren]

They are Always Chaotic Evil. They're not made of pure evil, I'll give you that - but they represent it.See, that's what we call a "claim". When you make a "claim", you are normally expected to present something we call "evidence" along with it. In what way to Dragons represent evil? I've already shown that they aren't avatars of evil like fiends are, so you can't use the fact that fiends are always good to kill to back up dragons always being good to kill. They're two different things; you can't treat them as being the same.

[Rowsen]

They are Always Chaotic Evil. They're not made of pure evil, I'll give you that - but they represent it.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

[Skeppio]

Please point out where in the rules Black Dragons are given the [Evil] subtype. Last I checked, they only had the [Water] subtype. Demons, on the other hand, do have the [Evil] subtype. So your insistence that they should be held equivalent is quite clearly wrong.

Thank you.

[Wikimaster]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

Doesn't that seem a little bit political? I'm just asking.

[Skeppio]

Doesn't that seem a little bit political? I'm just asking.

I dunno. I think it's pretty all-purpose.

[pendell]

I dunno. I think it's pretty all-purpose.

I agree.

The picture would be political if it was endorsing a political cause, or making fun of one political party or another.

This picture ... well, we know it's happening in America, but there's no slogans. You can't tell whether the person in the rostrum is whig or democrat or republican or federalist or libertarian. It could be any political rally in our nation's history.

It's not a political statement, it's just a timeless truth. For that matter, I've often wanted one in other meetings where people make up for ignorance with volume.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SadisticFishing]

www.d20srd.org

Look up Black Dragons...

"Always Chaotic Evil".

[Skeppio]

www.d20srd.org

Look up Black Dragons...

"Always Chaotic Evil".

Which totally justifies killing every last one of them, even ones who weren't doing any harm at the time, even ones who weren't born yet! Since they're guaranteed to turn out evil, according to your pathetic proto-logic, it's the greatest kind of good act to slaughter them all and shatter their unborn eggs, right?

You seem to think that alignment is some kind of steel cage, trapping the character into a set-in-stone mindset. You do realise how stupid that is, right?

[Random832]

Doesn't that seem a little bit political? I'm just asking.
Given that it doesn't reference any particular politician, it seems more like you're grasping at straws to keep your argument from being questioned.

[Rowsen]

But there were also several children shown getting killed in that montage, including unborn eggs. Were they also deserving of death?

YES.

A baby Balor is still a Balor.

That's...monstrous. You can't honestly believe that right?
Dragons are highly intelligent creatures. Probably more so than humans. They can talk, trade, deal, team up with and even breed with humans. Even the evil ones can be reasoned with and to claim otherwise is foolish.
And simply because a creature is evil does not deem it deserving of death.
Approving of genocide on a highly intelligent species/race would make you a monster.
But you'll just reply with "It's all ok because they might possibly think about maybe committing an act that might be partly evil someday." Kinda like killing a child because they could possibly grow up to be a dictator or something.

[SadisticFishing]

Yes. Yes it does.

Though it in no way makes the act Good, it just lowers it on the Evil scale.

There are no innocent Black Dragons. There are no Lawful Good ones, hiding in the cracks. There are none that care more for others than about themselves, and there are none that refuse to eat people for any reason that doesn't involve a selfish reason for doing so.

Black Dragons are EVIL. Their deaths are just and necessary, eventually. V just cut down on it a bunch.

Once again, I do not consider the act Good. I don't even consider it Neutral - it's a mildly evil act. A bit less Evil than travelling with Belkar.

[Snake-Aes]

Which totally justifies killing every last one of them, even ones who weren't doing any harm at the time, even ones who weren't born yet! Since they're guaranteed to turn out evil, according to your pathetic proto-logic, it's the greatest kind of good act to slaughter them all and shatter their unborn eggs, right?

You seem to think that alignment is some kind of steel cage, trapping the character into a set-in-stone mindset. You do realise how stupid that is, right?

An evil or neutral person dedicated to hunt evil would find no problem in that. The thing is, "always <alignment>" IS a force cage by book definitions. If you have 7 million "always <alignment>" beings, you will have..maybe...a dozen not into that alignment. If you are a hunter of <alignment> and are not good aligned, it's a negligible loss.
From a pragmatic point of view, killing the dragon egg is an act of mercy in comparison to killing the adult one.

[SadisticFishing]

That's...monstrous. You can't honestly believe that right?
Dragons are highly intelligent creatures. Probably more so than humans. They can talk, trade, deal, team up with and even breed with humans. Even the evil ones can be reasoned with and to claim otherwise is foolish.
And simply because a creature is evil does not deem it deserving of death.
Approving of genocide on a highly intelligent species/race would make you a monster.
But you'll just reply with "It's all ok because they might possibly think about maybe committing an act that might be partly evil someday." Kinda like killing a child because they could possibly grow up to be a dictator or something.

That is not what Chaotic means in this system. They can be reasoned with, as long as they win. They are MORE than humans. They do not consider us, or anything else that isn't a Dragon, as real people deserving of ANYTHING. Some can earn their respect, but never enough to shatter their beliefs.

Every Black Dragon that isn't... imprisoned from birth will commit evil acts. It is their nature.

It's similar to Devils. Yes, you can barter with them! They're intelligent, far MORE intelligent than humans. They can breed with humans.

Yet, if it weren't for the Blood War, and sane creature would press the "Kill all devils" button without a second thought.

EDIT: By the way, "If you have 7 million "always <alignment>" beings, you will have..maybe...a dozen not into that alignment" is incorrect. You will have 7 million <alignment> beings.

[Snake-Aes]

EDIT: By the way, "If you have 7 million "always <alignment>" beings, you will have..maybe...a dozen not into that alignment" is incorrect. You will have 7 million <alignment> beings.

It's because they do mention that an exception is possible. Something in the lines of "Maybe the only member of that race that isn't <alignment>" Usually it's a good excuse to create a Marilith paladin npc.

[SadisticFishing]

Yeah, and the ONLY one isn't 12 every 7 million. It's one ever EVER. That's a fair loss, even for a Good creature.

[Snake-Aes]

Yeah, and the ONLY one isn't 12 every 7 million. It's one ever EVER. That's a fair loss, even for a Good creature.

That seems irrelevant for a good creature, actually. They'd more likely feel bad for beating them all for nothing than their alignment tag, it wouldn't be fair.

[SadisticFishing]

It's not just words, guys. Chaotic Evil isn't just a stamp you randomly assign to creatures.

Chaotic Evil is BAD. Chaotic Evil people go to prison, when they get caught. Becoming Chaotic Evil requires horrible acts. The reason ALL Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil is that they commit such acts. The ones that haven't, will. Those of you who believe in free will don't understand what "Chaotic Evil" means.

You earn that tag, and the reason all Black Dragons have it already is because they are GUARANTEED to earn it.

[Coplantor]

Yeah, and the ONLY one isn't 12 every 7 million. It's one ever EVER. That's a fair loss, even for a Good creature.

So you are saying that it is OK to keill the one that wa redeemed, that could be a standard of good behaviour, that might even get a few other converts?

Have you read the post that talked about the black dragon who turned good and then reproduced and teached the ways of good to his offsprings= What about that case? Is it justified to kill those dragons if they were related to the black dragon that killed V's family?

[Skeppio]

So you are saying that it is OK to keill the one that wa redeemed, that could be a standard of good behaviour, that might even get a few other converts?

Have you read the post that talked about the black dragon who turned good and then reproduced and teached the ways of good to his offsprings= What about that case? Is it justified to kill those dragons if they were related to the black dragon that killed V's family?

As insane as it sounds, I think SadisticFishing honestly believes that would be justified. It makes me sad to think people can actually have such pathetically binary thinking.

[SadisticFishing]

Ha, the chances of that are abysmal. Utilitarian. If that Dragon happens to exist, and happens to be related to this one - that sucks. The chances are tiny, and V is okay with that. I would be too.

"Binary"? No, it's worse than that. There's only one thing in this conversation - a species of Evil. Pure, unadultered Chaotic Evil. If there happens to be one Good creature in the 7 million, that's collateral damage. It sucks. It sucks a lot. It's what causes the act to be Non-Good. But it doesn't make it really evil.

Everything you do might kill someone Good. As an adventurer, that's one thing you have to accept. People make mistakes, you further the Evil Guy's plan, and people get killed. This is less than that. This is a one in a million chance of there being a one in four chance of killing one non-evil creature. Those are odds I can respect.

[Rowsen]

So you are saying that it is OK to keill the one that wa redeemed, that could be a standard of good behaviour, that might even get a few other converts?

Have you read the post that talked about the black dragon who turned good and then reproduced and teached the ways of good to his offsprings= What about that case? Is it justified to kill those dragons if they were related to the black dragon that killed V's family?
This^

There were also a few Half-Dragons. The Half-Dragon template has a Half Black Dragon Human. His alignment is listed as OFTEN C/E. Not always. Oh crap. Maybe some of the Half-Dragons V killed were good. Which must mean that V is irredeemably evil. Because one Good aligned creature's life is worth a million Evil creatures lives, regardless if they were acting upon their alignment or not, right?
Maybe even though they were evil, a lot of them just wanted to be left alone, like a hermit.

[Coplantor]

Sadisticfishing, your pragmatic goals justify the mans way of thinking reminds me of someone in particular, but I dont want to bring up Godwin's Law.

[Wikimaster]

Given that it doesn't reference any particular politician, it seems more like you're grasping at straws to keep your argument from being questioned.

I was just asking in my post. I was also asking when I questioned where is said that Dragons are just as tied to their alignment as demons. Shortly after, I decided to create another sub-thread related to the latter part of the original post (if Xykon was going to punish Redcloak by devestating the city). And it isn't my argument. But if you want to disscuss it with me, then disscuss it with me.

Edit: But if you wish to just throw barbs at me, be my guest.

[SadisticFishing]

No, Half-Dragons have the alignment "The same as the base creature". I checked the SRD before starting this argument.

"Because one Good aligned creature's life is worth a million Evil creatures lives, regardless if they were acting upon their alignment or not, right?"

Not true. Possibly true for a paladin, or some Exalted Good creature - but for a Neutral one, which we know V is, that would be perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

In fact, that statement as a whole is completely incorrect... Even the most Good character accepts that collateral damage exists and is not preventable. You do your best to stop it, but any fighting/killing has an incredibly high risk of accidents. It's in its nature.

As for Godwin's Law, we KNOW they're all Chaotic Evil... this isn't the same at all. It's a rule of the universe, not the ravings of a madman.

[Skeppio]

Sadisticfishing, your pragmatic goals justify the mans way of thinking reminds me of someone in particular, but I dont want to bring up Godwin's Law.

Ooh, burn! I was thinking the same thing, but like you I didn't want to veer into Godwin territory.


No, Half-Dragons have the alignment "The same as the base creature". I checked the SRD before starting this argument.

"Because one Good aligned creature's life is worth a million Evil creatures lives, regardless if they were acting upon their alignment or not, right?"

Not true. Possibly true for a paladin, or some Exalted Good creature - but for a Neutral one, which we know V is, that would be perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

In fact, that statement as a whole is completely incorrect... Even the most Good character accepts that collateral damage exists and is not preventable. You do your best to stop it, but any fighting/killing has an incredibly high risk of accidents. It's in its nature.

As for Godwin's Law, we KNOW they're all Chaotic Evil... this isn't the same at all. It's a rule of the universe, not the ravings of a madman.

Kiss my construct ass. Just because a character is okay with something, doesn't automatically make it acceptable behaviour.

Also, it is the ravings of a madman. YOU are the madman.

[SadisticFishing]

Ooooh, ad hominems! Always makes arguments more interesting and worthwhile!

At this point, you're ignoring facts.

In D&D, things ARE black and white. There are evil creatures, and good creatures, and ways to tell them apart.

For most reasons, killing evil creatures isn't evil. Killing them for being evil isn't good, but it's still not evil.

That's all V did.

[Skeppio]

Ooooh, ad hominems! Always makes arguments more interesting and worthwhile!

At this point, you're ignoring facts.

In D&D, things ARE black and white. There are evil creatures, and good creatures, and ways to tell them apart.

For most reasons, killing evil creatures isn't evil. Killing them for being evil isn't good, but it's still not evil.

That's all V did.

Either you're insane, or a truly lazy DM. Nothing is black and white in D&D. That's part of the appeal. Roleplaying, decisions, thinking outside the box. I'd hate to play a campaign with you in charge. Yikes.

Oh and you seem to forget that V's motivation was revenge. If the Familicide casting was truly for a noble reason, like the dragons were massing an army or something, you could claim it as a Neutral act. But it was purely an act of malice. That's some prime cut evil there.

[SadisticFishing]

More ad hominems!

The fun thing about black and white is that it makes some incrediblely complex decisions.

Thing is, D&D is all about exceptions. To make a campaign, you make things that go against the norm. A Black Dragon who happens to be Good would be cool to have in a campaign. Once. Ever. Maybe. Because it doesn't happen more often than that, at all.

I once had two old Red dragons madly in love, and it caused them to mostly ignore their Evil tendencies. It was awesome. Your base nature can be ignored...

But the math doesn't lie. Unless plot requires a one-in-a-million chance, it's not going to happen.

And I've already said (though I can understand not flipping thorugh this entire post and reading everything :P) that I don't believe his main motivation was revenge. It was mostly to remove the chance of it ever happening again, with a bit of revenge sprinkled on top.

[pendell]

Sadisticfishing, your pragmatic goals justify the mans way of thinking reminds me of someone in particular, but I dont want to bring up Godwin's Law.

Um, more people than just Godwin's dictator believed that. In fact, just about any form of war -- which involves killing humans, often in horrible ways -- revolves around the concept of 'do some evil to achieve a greater good'.

Just because Godwin's dictator believed or did something true does not automatically make that something false. IIRC, Godwin's dictator was a vegetarian, launched anti-smoking initiatives, and was kind to his dogs. None of these things become evil just because a genocidal raving madman possessed of irrational hatred did them.

Likewise, I can't think of a single human society anywhere that doesn't make 'necessary sacrifices' in order for the community to live. The concept was taken to an extreme by madmen in the 20th century, but that doesn't mean the concept is always wrong, all the time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Wikimaster]

Mr. Bibliomancer, are you still here? If you are, any more ideas about how Xykon may destroy any of Redcloak's hopes for a new goblin state? The ones you had were...creative.

[Skeppio]

Um, more people than just Godwin's dictator believed that. In fact, just about any form of war -- which involves killing humans, often in horrible ways -- revolves around the concept of 'do some evil to achieve a greater good'.

Just because Godwin's dictator believed or did something true does not automatically make that something false. IIRC, Godwin's dictator was a vegetarian, launched anti-smoking initiatives, and was kind to his dogs. None of these things become evil just because a genocidal raving madman possessed of irrational hatred did them.

Likewise, I can't think of a single human society anywhere that doesn't make 'necessary sacrifices' in order for the community to live. The concept was taken to an extreme by madmen in the 20th century, but that doesn't mean the concept is always wrong, all the time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I agree sacrifices must be made sometimes, but feeling good about it? That's true evil and exactly what V and SadisticFishing seem to think is okay.

Thank you, and good night.


Mr. Bibliomancer, are you still here? If you are, any more ideas about how Xykon may destroy any of Redcloak's hopes for a new goblin state? The ones you had were...creative.

Xykon could order all his forces to work on getting to the next gates, leaving Azure City open for reclamation by the Azurites. Just a suggestion off my head.

[Rowsen]

And I've already said (though I can understand not flipping thorugh this entire post and reading everything :P) that I don't believe his main motivation was revenge. It was mostly to remove the chance of it ever happening again, with a bit of revenge sprinkled on top.

The dragon was dead. She couldn't call for more dragons to attack and we never saw if she did beforehand. V acted out of pure malice and spite. In fact, the fiends offered a perfect solution that would only require V to admit his magic failed. He took the other option. Sigh. What a dimwit...

[SadisticFishing]

The dragon was dead. She couldn't call for more dragons to attack and we never saw if she did beforehand. V acted out of pure malice and spite. In fact, the fiends offered a perfect solution that would only require V to admit his magic failed. He took the other option. Sigh. What a dimwit...

... The Little Black Dragon was dead too. This is a pretty useless comment, actually.

"Thank you and good night."?!?

I would not feel good about it. Feeling good about something doesn't change the inherently Morality, which in this situation is Non-Good. Possibly a little evil. But not alignment toppling.

You realize how unlikely that a sacrifice being made actually *is*? The answer is nigh impossible. You're ignoring facts.

[Coplantor]

As for Godwin's Law, we KNOW they're all Chaotic Evil... this isn't the same at all. It's a rule of the universe, not the ravings of a madman.

Maybe you know that they are evil because you've read the monster manual, but characters dont have a pokedex to read an enemy's stats block. Paladins can detect alignment, but inductivism is a wrong way to make judgment regarding a race's alignment.

The way I see alignment (so you can understand my way of thinking):

Good: Sees that there's something wrong with the world an takes an active part trying to solve it, it's willing to make personal sacrifices for others.
Typical phrase: "There must be another way"

Evil: Extremely evil sees people as resources to further their goals, regualr every day common people might not commit despicable acts of evil, but they are willing to if their well fare is threatened.
Typical phrase: Goals justify the means.

Neutral: They see that there is something wrong with the world, extremely neutral people will just not care or start an endless battle for equilibrium. Neutral people will only make sacrifices for those they really care and they dont feel comfortable with most acts described as evil.
Typical phrase: Let someone else take care of it.

Alignment is a relation between goals and means and the way the character sees it.

Regarding Mr.Godwin:
Those certain people we just talked about thought they knew that other certain people were "evil".

[Rowsen]

Mr. Bibliomancer, are you still here? If you are, any more ideas about how Xykon may destroy any of Redcloak's hopes for a new goblin state? The ones you had were...creative.

I figured it'd go like this:

:redcloak:: Hey. Uh, can we make this a full goblin state?
:xykon:: Nah.

Or something. Redcloak would probably follow Xykon, what with the plan and all.

[Coplantor]

...Just because Godwin's dictator believed or did something true does not automatically make that something false. IIRC, Godwin's dictator was a vegetarian, launched anti-smoking initiatives, and was kind to his dogs. None of these things become evil just because a genocidal raving madman possessed of irrational hatred did them...

I was talking about the systematical elimination of their enemies, how efficient and justified was in his eyes. Wich leads me too:


...I once had two old Red dragons madly in love, and it caused them to mostly ignore their Evil tendencies. It was awesome. Your base nature can be ignored...


Love is not a good/neutral only thing, evil can feel love, mother dragon was looking for revenge against V because of her love for her son.

EDIT: I just realized, you are claiming that nature can be ignored? Even by dragons? Who are ALWAYS chaotic evil?
Imagine that the dragon that attacked V was red. What if your two love stricken dragons were part of her family and got killed by familicide?

[Azura]

An act is justified if it prevents more harm than it causes. Of course, it is difficult to determine what potential future harm each slain dragon may have caused, the harm the survivors may cause in retaliation, the harm done to innocent half-dragons...not to mention the impact on the global ecosystem, economy, and countless other factors. It would require more information than we have to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Dragons (and all other beings) should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; the problem with a spell like Familicide is how indiscriminate it is on such a grand scale. An act of such magnitude should not be performed so carelessly. It may or may not have some good consequences, but it's such an uninformed gamble with so many lives at stake that no one, barring absolute knowledge of all the subjects involved, should attempt it. V certainly did not possess such knowledge, and didn't consider the big picture.

[Optimystik]

Well, all three skelethings: Death Knight, EFF, Hecuva, were introduced in the original Fiend Folio. I just assumed that was part of the joke. But you're right that RC does have more than the FF at his feet.

I knew that, but I assumed Redcloak was using the 3.0 Fiend Folio, since BoVD and MM2 are also 3.0 books.


Spirits of the dead fighting some last battle are a bit of a recurring theme, certianly older than D&D, and have shown up houseruled in my campaigns before. Still, if there are rules that would describe the paladin spirits, that's likely meaningful.

Precisely. Even a homebrew works better if based off something existing (that has hopefully been playtested, balanced etc.)


Hmm, good point. I had assumed the MitD was innocent because captured young and untrained in evil, but some "magical event" would make this work for an inherently-evil outsider as well. Of course, that could work with any outsider as needed to service the story, so I'm still not convinced we know that fiends are irredeemably evil. It's nice to have an intelligent conversation about it, though!

That's the problem - if magic is involved, nothing is irredeemable. In fact, there's a spell in BoED (Sanctify the Wicked) that can turn ANYTHING good - Liches, Illithids, Fiends, Dragons, Beholders, you name it.

The distinction I am drawing, is that it is possible to convince a dragon to perform a good act (say, sparing the life of an innocent that wanders into its lair) using judicious amounts of flattery, diplomacy, and other mundane measures. Evil Outsiders CANNOT be reasoned with in that way - they can only be turned from their nature by supernatural means, or by bullying them (which itself is rarely possible without supernatural assistance also.)


By the way, the difference between demonic, diabolical, and draconic is that there are dragons of all the alignments... It's an entirely different qualifier.

Whereas "black draconic" would just be "demonic" mixed with "draconic".

No, it wouldn't. Demons have the [Evil] subtype; Black Dragons do not. The difference is palpable.

[Wikimaster]

I figured it'd go like this:

:redcloak:: Hey. Uh, can we make this a full goblin state?
:xykon:: Nah.

Or something. Redcloak would probably follow Xykon, what with the plan and all.

That's what I assumed before He let O-chul escape. Now, it's much less likely since Xykon's in "punish and spite Redcloack" mode. After all, Xykon does know much more about Redcloak than he lets on (haven't read SoD, but it seems to be the case in that book from what heard). A blow to his dreams of a new Hobgoblin state would be almost as great a blow as the death of his brother. Perhaps more.

As to Skeppio's post:

Would Xykon really need all his forces to take Girard's Gate? It is in a desert and guarded by illusions after all, so a siege isn't very likely. He may take his Elite Mooks, Tsukiko (and perhaps Jirix), and the rest of Team Evil along; but I don't think he may see the extrataneous mooks as useful anymore since he can always get more when he has Ultimate Power.

[SadisticFishing]

As I said, Dragons are not made from pure undiluted evil. But that's what they are.

[mago]

First, clearing up logical fallacies:
Ad hominem. Ad hominem is using an insult to doubt the sourse instead of the argument. you can do both and it's not an adhominem. example:
"You got the deffintion of Always Chaotic Evil and Same As Base Creature wrong (links). And really you must be INSANE to proppose genoside as a good thing, even if they where all evil."
is not an ad hominem, while
"your spelling sucks, so STFU!"
is.
Godwins law: Godwins law is basicaly "reductum ad hitlerum" and it says that "you propose X, hitler did X, therefore you are evil." is a flawed argument, which is right. now: HITLER! There. i said it. please stop tiptoeing? Danke.

Now, DnD terms. This is where most of the comfusion comes from.
Always Chaotic Evil: This does not, really mean "Always chaotic evil" in the dictionary sense but instead something like 99%. yes, it might be in there nature, but it is not an intrinsic inseppratable part of it, not a champion or it, not a paragon of it, or anything like that, it's merely a powerfull trend. Champions, paragons, intrinsic insepperatable parts.... these are the purviews of the [<insert alignment>] subtype.

Same As Base Creature. When you apply a template to something, the something you apply it to is the base creature. if i apply the "ghost" template to a good elven warrior, then "Base Creature" is that warrior, so if an alignment is "same as base creture" then the template is irrelevant determing alignment.



However, all this is asuming rich goes by the rules.. and.. well... he doesn't. read SoD? Know miko? both of these storylines showcase his dislike of "evil, therefore i can kill it" and, furthermore, not only is one of the main themes that.. well.. you can't invade other's homes and steal there stuff becourse they are evil. There is no evidince supporting that rich belives all black dragons to be evil beyond reproach, and certainly not the children. They are persons, just like you and me and have choices just like you and me... but while yes, they are proberbly evil, that does not give you the right to murder them. if they are DOING evil, then yeah. Perhaps. But killing becourse they might, some day, in some hypothetical future harm you? preforming geneoside for that reason? oh, sir or maam, you've steped over line. prepare for dragonarmyoftimat

[pendell]

Maybe you know that they are evil because you've read the monster manual, but characters dont have a pokedex to read an enemy's stats block. Paladins can detect alignment, but inductivism is a wrong way to make judgment regarding a race's alignment.

The way I see alignment (so you can understand my way of thinking):

Good: Sees that there's something wrong with the world an takes an active part trying to solve it, it's willing to make personal sacrifices for others.
Typical phrase: "There must be another way"

Evil: Extremely evil sees people as resources to further their goals, regualr every day common people might not commit despicable acts of evil, but they are willing to if their well fare is threatened.
Typical phrase: Goals justify the means.

Neutral: They see that there is something wrong with the world, extremely neutral people will just not care or start an endless battle for equilibrium. Neutral people will only make sacrifices for those they really care and they dont feel comfortable with most acts described as evil.
Typical phrase: Let someone else take care of it.

Alignment is a relation between goals and means and the way the character sees it.


Hmm .. interesting. So I have a question: Consider two points of view (closely related):

1) There is a lot wrong with the world. Poverty, injustice, racial discrimination, genocide, thuggery, murder, prostitution. I'm only one person. So I'm going to prioritize and tackle one, perhaps two, of those things and leave the rest to someone else. I'm not God. I don't have the ability to make the world right ... just my little corner of it.

2) The universe is a rotten place. But as a rule attempts to make it better, particularly when attempted by young college students or hollywood celebrities, make things even worse. See the 90 years experiment in collectivism -- including the artificial famines in the Ukraine -- as one example. Or what happens to indigenous peoples when they are 'helped'.
Therefore, I am *not* going to try to make the world a better place. Because the world would be a much better place .. not a perfect one, but better than it now is .. if people would live and let live without interference. As one example, stone age tribes would be better left to practice their ancestral ways than being forced to wear clothes that don't fit, taught to crave Wal-mart goods they don't need, and otherwise converted from a stable way of life to marginal participants in a corporate society that ignores them.

Are both points of view neutral? Good? Is one good while the other neutral? If so, why?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SadisticFishing]

Same as base DRAGON is what it says. Sorry if I misquoted.

99% is HUGE. And this is more like 99.99%. Any known exceptions would literally be KNOWN exceptions. Heard of by everyone, special, and et cetera. Important. V has never known of one, and they probably don't exist. Ergo, not an alignment toppling act.

[Coplantor]

Hmm .. interesting. So I have a question: Consider two points of view (closely related):

1) There is a lot wrong with the world. Poverty, injustice, racial discrimination, genocide, thuggery, murder, prostitution. I'm only one person. So I'm going to prioritize and tackle one, perhaps two, of those things and leave the rest to someone else. I'm not God. I don't have the ability to make the world right ... just my little corner of it.

2) The universe is a rotten place. But as a rule attempts to make it better, particularly when attempted by young college students or hollywood celebrities, make things even worse. See the 90 years experiment in collectivism -- including the artificial famines in the Ukraine -- as one example. Or what happens to indigenous peoples when they are 'helped'.
Therefore, I am *not* going to try to make the world a better place. Because the world would be a much better place .. not a perfect one, but better than it now is .. if people would live and let live without interference. As one example, stone age tribes would be better left to practice their ancestral ways than being forced to wear clothes that don't fit, taught to crave Wal-mart goods they don't need, and otherwise converted from a stable way of life to marginal participants in a corporate society that ignores them.

Are both points of view neutral? Good? Is one good while the other neutral? If so, why?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The first one would be a good act, you had the initiative to actually do something, you will probably never solve the problem you choose, but what matters is that you are trying to solve it. Maybe you can even inspire someone else to follow after you, teach by giving the example is the best way of teaching, and good, just as evil, is like a disease, it tends to spread itself (although it seems like evil is far more contagious).

There's an old chinesse story that speaks of a dumb man that had to go around a mountain every now and then in order to get to town and buy his food. One day, tired of it he said "That's it, I'm tired of having to go around the mountain! I'm going to build a tunnel through it!" And so he started working on it.
One day, a wise man was walking near the mountains and he saw the fool building his tunnel. "What are you doing?" He asked "I'm tired of walking all arounf the mountain to get to town, that's why I'm making this tunnel!" the fool replied. "Haha! You poor man, you clearly are a fool. Dont you realize that you'll never be able to finish this tunnel in your entire life?" The fool, stopped working, turned around and said: "But if I die building this tunnel, my son will continue my work, and his son after him, and his son after him if necessary! And one day people wont have to go all around the mountain to reach the town!"

Remember, your actions will trascend you after you die.

The second case is not good at all. Remember, alignment is based around means, not ends. A noble caused carried with unjustice stops beign noble.
If your actions make the world a worse place because of your own ignorance, then you are neutral trying to become good, but you fail to find the right road. If your actions make the world a worse place because you are imposing your own believes upon the others, believing yourself superior to them, then you are evil, you might think you are good, but you are not, always remember, means, not ends.

[Coplantor]

Same as base DRAGON is what it says. Sorry if I misquoted.

99% is HUGE. And this is more like 99.99%. Any known exceptions would literally be KNOWN exceptions. Heard of by everyone, special, and et cetera. Important. V has never known of one, and they probably don't exist. Ergo, not an alignment toppling act.

What if the alignment change beign of public knowledge would bring disgrace upon them? Maybe a good black dragon chooses not to let the world know of his existance because the other black dragons will see it as a weakness and go after him. An angel that turns evil and wants to stay in heaven in order to plot from the inside will try to hide it's alignment.

[SadisticFishing]

[QUOTE=Coplantor;6316889]Remember, alignment is based around means, not ends. A noble caused carried with unjustice stops beign noble.
QUOTE]

This is totally subjective and depends on your group. I'd partially disagree. I once played a Neutral Utilitarian character for a very long time. I did some vile things, but in the end, saved the universe, not without a huge bit of self sacrifice. We agreed that by the end of the campaign, I was Neutral Good.

[mago]

Okay. now...
You're forgetting one of the fundameltal things of this comic - monsters, NPCs, mooks, random townfolk...
They aren't statistics. They are no less *real* or any less persons than NPCs and they certainly aren't statistics.... The detect-and-smite approch just doesn't work...

And regarding you argument that they would be known worldwide... well...
Let me ask you this: If you where, say by isolation or by knowing a paladin as a child or whatever, one of the few good members of an evil spicies known for cuelty, spite, anger, hate, greed and stubborn arrogance, blessed with superinteligence, magic, scales like aromor, claws like swords and the ability to breathe acid..
would you really make it known? or would you be using your wealth and powers in the most subtle way, helping the right politicians to power, killing the evil priest subtly, donating to the orphange...

[SadisticFishing]

Yes. To show that people can change. It would be huge.

Remember, OotS characters may not be statistics, but they do follow the rules.

People seriously are misunderstanding - I don't believe all Goblins are evil. At all. I DO believe that all Black Dragons are evil - because they are. The one exception is not enough to make a difference.

[Coplantor]

Yes, it does depend of groups, every one has their own aproach to ethics and morality, the way I understand alignment allows for it to be at the same time absolute and more realistic than most people seems to understand it.

Now, from my point of view, your character would be true neutral at best, vile acts deprive people from their condition of good. Now, if your character had truly repent, understood the vileness of his acts and payed for his sins, then he could be neutral good. But if there was no redeeming process he is out of the good side.

[mago]

now, you don't get it...
it's the same.
the *exact* same. sure, the ratio is screwed a bit, but it's the same. Dragons do not have alignment subtypes. they are persons just like you and me.
And no, no it does not. OoTS is doing AWAY with those tropes. doing *away* with always chaotic evil. you're just exagerationg the probabilities, bittime, schrewing them in your favor. And.. what if it's not that one? or what if say, those eggs where found by paladins - remember, these are eggs, certainly not evil yet, no actions to make them evil - and trained in the defence of a good city which then, when under attack by an epic lich and his hobgoblin army, could defend itself enough? this is the problem that the sapphire guard had - they went "detect and smite" and now there city is overun by hobgoblins.

[SadisticFishing]

Except Always is way more than Often. Training Black Dragons helps, but... even then, EXTREMELY rarely. I'm not skewing any probabilities. There are virtually no non-evil Black Dragons. Try to raise them as a Paladin, and they'll just become Chaotic Evil Mikos. It. Is. Their. Nature.

As I said, varies with group. I was in no way Exalted good, but #92 did a lot, and sacrificed a lot, for the good of the world. To make and keep people happy. That is the definition of a Good person, no?

[Coplantor]

And so does evil people sometimes to further their goals, they do sacrifice things, only that for themselves. I need to know his acts before actually beign able to know his alignment, sounds good to me, but I ask you, did he realized the wrong of his acts and repented? Did he really repented or was it a "OK, I'm sorry, but I have no problem doing it again"?

[SadisticFishing]

No repentance. "I wish I didn't have to do that" is the closest thing he felt - never any regret for the slaughter of Duergar children or lying to his friends about the Chaotic Wish Granter, Pazuzu. He did some bad, bad things, but nothing ever for himself. In the end, he sacrificed himself to save people - and not in the "die for a cause" sort of way, in a "stand vigil for eternity" sort of way. Then he solved the problem...

My favorite character that I've played, by the way. #92, the Human Binder :D Could solve any problem, and my motto was "Gimme a minute..."

[mago]

. It. Is. Their. Nature.

That's not what Always Chaotic Evil means, and you know it. And especaialy in a setting as eberronian as that of OoTS. if it was.. well, we have these things called subtypes.

[SadisticFishing]

Yeah, except Subtyped things are still Always Chaotic Evil, with a virtually non-existent but present chance of redemption. If there was supposed to be an "Almost Always Chaotic Evil" alignment, there would have been.

Dragons represent their alignment. They're born that way, and they stay that way... by D&D rules, of course.

[Coplantor]

No repentance. "I wish I didn't have to do that" is the closest thing he felt - never any regret for the slaughter of Duergar children or lying to his friends about the Chaotic Wish Granter, Pazuzu. He did some bad, bad things, but nothing ever for himself. In the end, he sacrificed himself to save people - and not in the "die for a cause" sort of way, in a "stand vigil for eternity" sort of way. Then he solved the problem...

My favorite character that I've played, by the way. #92, the Human Binder :D Could solve any problem, and my motto was "Gimme a minute..."

Well, protecting is not necessary good, St.Cuthbert is LN. Dedicated neutrals can indeed try to do something for the world, but the way they act is what ultimately defines them. And seems like your character had consorted with demons, and, as you said "slaughtered duregar children". He merciless killed "enemies" that weren't fully able to protect themselves, that's evil in my book. Maybe that final sacrifice, the "standing vigil for eternity" was his final act of redemption that end up turning him good, maybe not, I dont know the true circumstances so I cannot make a proper judgement and again, is how he acts after become that immortal guardian what will keep defining his alignment.

Also, there is no problem having EVIL written down in the alignment section of your game sheet, rememer, those are just guidelines and mechanics, your character is what you make out of him.

[SadisticFishing]

I still disagree. Your motivations and the end of your acts can also easily make you good. In fact, Self Sacrifice is pretty much the #1 "Good" act possible, and he did a lot of that.

By the way, the character did end up writing Neutral, Neutral Evil, and Neutral Good on the sheet by the end :P

[mago]

Nope. if they where evil all the way to the bones, we'd have that nifty subtype. they just have a desposition towards evil enhanced by culture and upbringing. replace that culture and upbringing with, say, O-Chul and the picture changes.

Same goes for goblins, except 70% less disposition and 30% more culture.

Also, OoTS does not always follow DnD rules, *especialy* where morals, alingment and monsters are concerned. so, now you have to extrodinary, possitive claims:
1. Pr. DnD rules, black dragons are the dictionary definiton of "always chaotic evil" and this is an inherint trait that cannot be overcome except with a 1-in-a-milion chance.
2. OoTS follows those rules to a T
..... actualy, let me ad a third.
3. OoTS does not, in the case of dragons, follow the dramatic rule of "1-in-a-mil are sure things", asuming you find proof to support the seccond proppostion

[Coplantor]

I still dont see where are we disagreeing, I told you that, by your story, it is possible for your character to have finished his adventuring career as a good character, what I'm saying is that he clearly wasn't during his entire career.

[Snake-Aes]

I remember once in a book, two elves found their way into a cave, to find out it was owned by a blue dragon, and they spent some time talking. Eventually she asked why he was treating them so well.

"Why are you showing me this? I thought you dragons were.."
"Evil, biped. We are all evil, it's part of what define our existence, don't let anyone trick you on that."
"Then why are you showing me this?"
"You interest me, and I am too old to care."

followed later by
"you know, your attitude would enrage almost every other dragon."
"How should I act then, more subservient?"
"More afraid, actually."

As I said before, if it says "Always <alignment>" it really means it, to the point that exceptions are really exceptions, not cg-drow-who-wants-to-redeem-his-race exception.
And before someone brings up the whole familicide load of crap, genociding an Always Evil race isn't a good act. But it isn't below a neutral or evil person.

[SadisticFishing]

Are there any non-Outsiders with the Evil template? There are non-Evil creatures with the Subtype, too, so your argument there is guaranteed wrong.

My premises:

OotS follows the D&D rules except where it is explicitly stated that they done.
Always <Alignment> means that exceptions are INCREDIBLY rare, as stated in the DMG.
The 1 in a million rule is not a rule except where it comes to drama. If we'd seen a dragon talking to its children and getting killed, it would probably have been Good. Many things are 1 in a million and don't happen, that's not a rule, it's humor -_-' as we've recently seen, Elan is wrong. Often.

[mago]

the only good creatures with the evil suptype are risen fiends.

Now, the central theme in this comic is that monsters are people and can be good, no matter their usual alignment. there has been goblins, hobgoblins kobolds... but not dragons? why should they be exempt? this is not the standart black and white DnD. thank you very muchl

as for the always alignment... ... ... go read your MM again.

The 1-in-a-mil thing is a rule. Proberblity is willing to serve drama as a two copper harlot... and, wow, wouldn't it be an intresting plot twist if the effect of that killing was about good dragons, not the evil ones... if we just have more revenge by evil dragons, then... well... that would be in support of V. it would udnermine the central theme, would be predictable... no, we're gonna see good dragons i think. OoTS is very eberronlike and it shows.

[Snake-Aes]

the only good creatures with the evil suptype are risen fiends.

Now, the central theme in this comic is that monsters are people and can be good, no matter their usual alignment. there has been goblins, hobgoblins kobolds... but not dragons? why should they be exempt? this is not the standart black and white DnD. thank you very muchl


I don't think that is the central point of this comic...

[SadisticFishing]

Um, I've already said the difference between Goblins and Dragons. Goblins are Usually. Dragons are always. Rich didn't even change the usually - look at the Hobgoblins, Lawful Evil if I've ever seen it. He doesn't change rules about alignment - just preconceived notions like "Goblins are ALL evil".

"Oh I just killed good dragons =(" is not a good plot point. It's pretty useless unless they want to unfairly pile guilt on V. Chances are slim, and it has almost no effect on the story either way.

Oh, and there are other creatures with the Evil subtype that aren't Evil. I just can't remember what they're called >_< MM5, the red things. I think.. Discordant Killers or something.

[mago]

i'm taking bets if you're willing... the bet is that this act will, at some point, be stated in comic or out of, to be evil. EEEEEEEEEEVIL!
also, chances are only slim from your point of view. not from where i'm sitting. sir, i hold that your popperition is.... *wrong*

[SadisticFishing]

But I'm not wrong at all, RAW. OotS normally lives on RAW. Hence, UNTIL they say it was "EEEEEEVIL", I am absolutely correct :P

And when they do, I will disagree mildly.

[Snake-Aes]

i'm taking bets if you're willing... the bet is that this act will, at some point, be stated in comic or out of, to be evil. EEEEEEEEEEVIL!
also, chances are only slim from your point of view. not from where i'm sitting. sir, i hold that your popperition is.... *wrong*

When did I call that act to be anything but evil? I said it isn't below a neutral or an evil person to do it.

[Ytaker]

now, you don't get it...
it's the same.
the *exact* same. sure, the ratio is screwed a bit, but it's the same. Dragons do not have alignment subtypes. they are persons just like you and me.

In world war 2, Hitler justified the mass murder of the Jews by saying that they were always chaotic evil. Claimed they hated Germany, that they had malign purposes for pure blood innocents. Clearly a false and evil lie, and in our world, it always will be. Genocide will be done by a stronger, highly abusive and sadistic government force to a weaker group with a very similar culture.

In contrast, these dragons, the majority of them eat and kill humans for fun. They are not people like you or me. The majority of humans don't kill, or commit crimes. In contrast, almost every single dragon will for fun murder hundreds of humans, goblins, and elves if bored, and eat your babies.

V, in murdering them, was not being especially evil. He was removing a perceived threat. Who's to say that the dragon's father/daughter/insert relative wouldn't attack? V just ended a subplot, as he did with Kubota. And to a group that regularly murders humans, many of whom are lawful good. It's a sign he's coldly calculative, and utilitarian but not that he's malevolent.



And no, no it does not. OoTS is doing AWAY with those tropes. doing *away* with always chaotic evil. you're just exagerationg the probabilities, bittime, schrewing them in your favor.


OoTS plays around with the tropes, but for the most part, goblins are evil, humans are good or neutral or evil, and groups obey the ideological constraints their race has on them. It's portrayed as a job, that reasonable, intelligent creatures do- as with the goblin children who seemingly rebelled early in the comic, but were actually doing that for evil school. They're smart, articulate, and funny, but because of the rules, they go to evil school.

Dragons aren't a common player race. If they were, the probabilities would be exaggerated. As it is, almost every black dragon is evil. Until someone writes a book with a Drizzt black dragon hero they shall just be a monster race.



And.. what if it's not that one? or what if say, those eggs where found by paladins - remember, these are eggs, certainly not evil yet, no actions to make them evil - and trained in the defence of a good city which then, when under attack by an epic lich and his hobgoblin army, could defend itself enough? this is the problem that the sapphire guard had - they went "detect and smite" and now there city is overun by hobgoblins.

Xykon has shown himself to be a powerful epic level combatant. With the support of an army, and red cloak, he could probably take out a dragon. And dragon taming is normally only done in fiction when the dragons are relatively dumb, or when psionics are common. If they did enslave a dragon to defend their city then there is a high chance it would backfire in a similar way that V's murder of a dragon backfired- the family would get revenge. Dragons may be chaotic evil, but they have very strong family bonds.

There's minimal benefit to the existence of evil dragons to humans. They can be tolerated, but a world with a dead dragon is almost always a better world for a human. A good dm might offer a quest, but you normally kill the dragon later on, anyway.

[mago]

positive claim. where's the evidence? 'Specialy on alignments. (sadistic fishing)

[Jayabalard]

I dont want to start an alignment thread here but... the dragon killing thing? Not good, at all. He even killed babies, and all for the sake of watching the already tormented undead dragon suffering even more.Keep in mind that morality doesn't work like that in the OOTS verse. It's quite possible that it was a good act by the definitions of that world.


In world war 2, Hitleryou lose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

[SadisticFishing]

Thank you, Ytake. Well phrased - these aren't people. They're monsters - the Chaotic Evil variety. Killing them is just and necessary.

I'm fairly sure saying "I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, but I'm reminded of it" is already a loss in that respect.

[Snake-Aes]

Thank you, Ytake. Well phrased - these aren't people. They're monsters - the Chaotic Evil variety. Killing them is just and necessary.

I'm fairly sure saying "I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, but I'm reminded of it" is already a loss in that respect.
But not a good act. There is this separation that many seemingly ignore.

[SadisticFishing]

Not I. I said that. I honestly believe this was an Evil act.

Less Evil than knowingly travelling with Belkar though.

V is still Lawful Neutral.

[Snake-Aes]

Not I. I said that. I honestly believe this was an Evil act.

Less Evil than knowingly travelling with Belkar though.

V is still Lawful Neutral.

I wouldn't consider traveling with Belkar evil if you are doing your best to leash him. Roy's explanation to the Deva makes a lot of sense.

[Ytaker]

you lose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

I was using an already cited example to illustrate why genocide was wrong. I could have just as easily said "Stalin killed rich people because he claimed they were always chaotic evil". I wasn't using an arbitrary comparison, or using it to end the debate.

And note in the wikipedia page.

"Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The corollaries of the law would presumably not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, or – more debatably – to discussion of other totalitarian regimes."

It does not apply to discussions involving genocide.

[Optimystik]

Same as base DRAGON is what it says. Sorry if I misquoted.

You missed Hamish's quote from the MM, where their sample Half-Dragon (Black, incidentally) was reduced from "Always" to "Usually." V's action is becoming more suspect by the minute.


99% is HUGE. And this is more like 99.99%. Any known exceptions would literally be KNOWN exceptions. Heard of by everyone, special, and et cetera. Important. V has never known of one, and they probably don't exist. Ergo, not an alignment toppling act.

Presumptions again. You don't know what percentage constitutes notoriety, and you certainly don't know what actions will "topple" V's alignment. What we do know for sure is that knowledge is not a prerequisite for restraint. You can suspect that the abandoned orphanage is empty, that there are no children left inside, but if you set it on fire or knock it down without checking then you are liable if you were incorrect.


Yeah, except Subtyped things are still Always Chaotic Evil, with a virtually non-existent but present chance of redemption. If there was supposed to be an "Almost Always Chaotic Evil" alignment, there would have been.

You acknowledge the chance of redemption for Outsiders, but not Dragons?


Dragons represent their alignment. They're born that way, and they stay that way... by D&D rules, of course.

No, Outsiders represent their alignment. Dragons are mortal creatures with a particular streak. A strong streak, to be true, but still just a streak. That is why they are not subtyped by alignment.

As for how this whole argument started, I stand by my statement that V's use of Familicide is evil. Even if you are right, and V rid the world of dozens if not hundreds of vile and disgusting excuses for dragonkind, there was no altruism or protectiveness behind his use of the spell.

"The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."
"I concur. Create Greater Undead."

No matter what speeches he gave after the deed was done, his motivations before are crystal clear.

[Snake-Aes]

Presumptions again. You don't know what percentage constitutes notoriety, and you certainly don't know what actions will "topple" V's alignment. What we do know for sure is that knowledge is not a prerequisite for restraint. You can suspect that the abandoned orphanage is empty, that there are no children left inside, but if you set it on fire or knock it down without checking then you are liable if you were incorrect.

It's not a good comparison, because you are using a safety standard that is made for humans. In a reality where there *are* Always Evil beings, I don't think any non-good character would mind. Even the place's law itself might not care.



As for how this whole argument started, I stand by my statement that V's use of Familicide is evil. Even if you are right, and V rid the world of dozens if not hundreds of vile and disgusting excuses for dragonkind, there was no altruism or protectiveness behind his use of the spell.

"The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."
"I concur. Create Greater Undead."

No matter what speeches he gave after the deed was done, his motivations before are crystal clear.

I dunno if you noticed, but Sadistic agrees with you that the familicide was evil. Killing countless beings because they exist IS evil, even if these beings are all evil and known to be evil. It WILL be the elimination of evil beings.

One can be Evil and hunt Evil, you know.
Hell, a Neutral person with a proper nudge would surely do that genocide.

[Ytaker]

You acknowledge the chance of redemption for Outsiders, but not Dragons?


Demons have a long history of being betrayed as morally ambiguous. They're a result of angels falling, in the biblical tradition, and I can think of a host of shows that use demons or partial demons as good protagonists, such as Hellboy, Angel, Raven. Dragons, on the other hand, are not normally humanized in such a way. They're generally portrayed as long term thinkers, not vulnerable to mortal logic and falling or rising.

[SadisticFishing]

He agreed, but that doesn't nullify his last statement at all. He needed a live target to Familicide, I assume.

Dragons can be redeemed. It's as rare as outsiders - almost never.

The Half-Black Dragon from the MM doesn't follow the rules for Half-Dragons. It's silly, but it's 3.5... the Template wins.

It's not just a streak. Goblins have a streak. Orcs have a streak. Dragons represent their alignment.

Outsiders are actually COMPOSED of nothing but their alignments, though. Hence the subtype.

Oh, and Belkar... travelling with Belkar and helping him spend less time in jail, and the like.. horrible.

[fangthane]

Fangthane's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
As any online discussion of ethics proceeds, the probability of someone mentioning Mike Godwin (reductio ad Godwinum) in an effort to avoid someone else mentioning Hitler approaches 1.

The reductio ad Godwinum fallacy is, of course, the presumption that because your opponent in a debate is making comments which lead you to expect a Hitler comparison, that such a comparison must necessarily be imminent. Mentioning Godwin's law in this situation is an pre-emptive insult to your enemy's ability to form a cogent argument without referring to the nutbar with the moustache and is inappropriate as a form of debate.

@Snake-Aes - according to the RAW it's actually a neutral act to slaughter helpless evil creatures by the thousand just for being evil, so long as you're right*. If you've made a fundamental mistake (i.e. Miko vs Shojo), or overridden your own concerns that such a mistake may have been made (as V may have done when casting Familicide), that's what tips the balance to evil. I agree with you in that I don't think it's strongly-enough evil to cause a shift, but I guess we'll have to see :)

*SoD Spoiler
I'd also like to point out that this is something on which Rich seems to disagree with the RAW, given the sympathetic perspective we're given on that side of Redcloak's origin. It didn't cause the paladins to Fall, certainly, but in a way it provided the background for the destruction of their city. After all, without that assault, Redcloak is a minor minion until he and Right-Eye die of old age, Xykon dies of old age without ever visiting Lirian and becoming a lich, the Scribblers have relatively uneventful lives, and Eugene gets hosed on the Oath.

If anything, it appears the Giant's perspective is that indiscriminate violence breeds indiscriminate violence.

[Snake-Aes]

@Snake-Aes - according to the RAW it's actually a neutral act to slaughter helpless evil creatures by the thousand just for being evil, so long as you're right*. If you've made a fundamental mistake (i.e. Miko vs Shojo), or overridden your own concerns that such a mistake may have been made (as V may have done when casting Familicide), that's what tips the balance to evil. I agree with you in that I don't think it's strongly-enough evil to cause a shift, but I guess we'll have to see :)

*SoD Spoiler
I'd also like to point out that this is something on which Rich seems to disagree with the RAW, given the sympathetic perspective we're given on that side of Redcloak's origin. It didn't cause the paladins to Fall, certainly, but in a way it provided the background for the destruction of their city. After all, without that assault, Redcloak is a minor minion until he and Right-Eye die of old age, Xykon dies of old age without ever visiting Lirian and becoming a lich, the Scribblers have relatively uneventful lives, and Eugene gets hosed on the Oath.

If anything, it appears the Giant's perspective is that indiscriminate violence breeds indiscriminate violence.

It's not fair, but no one said it has to be :/

[hamishspence]

And Races of the Dragon, which discusses Half-dragons (chromatic and metallic) says, again, that its Usually.

"Same as the base dragon type" is comfirmed by the sample half-dragon to be Usually, rather than Always.

Evil subtype outsiders with a Usually Evil rather than Always alignment exist (cambions- Expedition to the demonweb pits) as do Good and Lawful subtype outsiders with Usually LG (arcadian avengers- MMV)

In the context of Always evil creatures without alignment subtypes, they can vary greatly in their degree of evil, from merely malicious to downright vile. Not all chromatic dragons of the same type have the same personalities.

And its not so much "Neutral according to RAW as "RAW says nothing about it in PHB"

Possibly because the writers didn't expect people to play "kill everything that detects as evil"

RAW in other books, states very clearly that "its evil" is not enough to make a killing Not Murder- other mitigating factors have to come into play. BoED stresses this, as do several other books. Heroes of Horror. Eberron Campaign setting.

[SadisticFishing]

Hrm. I hadn't read that in Races of the Dragon, I wonder if Rich has? :P

Anything Evil enough to have the Evil alignment isn't just going to put flaming poop on people's doorsteps. You have to be BAD to be Evil. Sadly, with dragons and anything else that is ALWAYS an alignment, it kind of works the other way around.

[hamishspence]

Again- not according to several of the sourcebooks on Evil

BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, Exemplars of Evil, all of these go into some depth on how one can be evil and still not deserving of death.

Eberron Campaign Setting is virtually built around the concept that "Evil does not neccessarily mean Enemy- the scheming legal advocate and grasping landlord can be Evil- doesn't necessarily mean its OK to kill them.

[Optimystik]

He agreed, but that doesn't nullify his last statement at all. He needed a live target to Familicide, I assume.

Or more accurately, he needed her soul as a focus, since she wasn't alive.


Dragons can be redeemed. It's as rare as outsiders - almost never.

No, redeeming an Outsider is the rarer occurence. BoED makes this clear. And even just going with core, redeeming something with the [Evil] subtype means you cannot reason with them using nonmagical/noncoercive means. Period.


The Half-Black Dragon from the MM doesn't follow the rules for Half-Dragons. It's silly, but it's 3.5... the Template wins.

"Specific trumps general" in 3.5. The template is general, and the sample creature created from it is a specific application of that template. QED.

Furthermore, logically a creature created from a hybrid of two creatures with differing alignments can choose which parent's alignment to follow. Otherwise all tieflings would be evil, and we know that isn't true.


It's not just a streak. Goblins have a streak. Orcs have a streak. Dragons represent their alignment.

Outsiders are actually COMPOSED of nothing but their alignments, though. Hence the subtype.

If Dragons were meant to "represent their alignment," they would be subtyped like Outsiders are. Even Undead don't get that treatment, and they are more evil than dragons are. (I define "more evil" as the difference between just being greedy and vicious, like dragons are, and wanting to annihilate all sentient life, a la fiends and undead.)


Demons have a long history of being betrayed as morally ambiguous. They're a result of angels falling, in the biblical tradition, and I can think of a host of shows that use demons or partial demons as good protagonists, such as Hellboy, Angel, Raven. Dragons, on the other hand, are not normally humanized in such a way. They're generally portrayed as long term thinkers, not vulnerable to mortal logic and falling or rising.

Incorrect. In D&D, DEVILS are a result of angels falling. Demons are, were, and have always been pure evil. They are entropy for entropy's sake.

Not that it matters, because the difference in evil between a race that was created that way and a race that chose to sink to their level to better combat them is moot when they both enjoy it so much.

[SadisticFishing]

Heh, your definitions are off, but I can't argue with that :P

There's no reason to believe any of that except for personal opinion, which you are entitled to.

[Bibliomancer]

[QUOTE=Coplantor;6316889]Remember, alignment is based around means, not ends. A noble caused carried with unjustice stops beign noble.
QUOTE]

This is totally subjective and depends on your group. I'd partially disagree. I once played a Neutral Utilitarian character for a very long time. I did some vile things, but in the end, saved the universe, not without a huge bit of self sacrifice. We agreed that by the end of the campaign, I was Neutral Good.


SadisticFishing, this anecdote actually weakens your argument. The 'vile things' that you did were separate acts of evil that were outweighed by something unquestionably good, since you didn't benefit, saved the world, and sacrificed much. V did the opposite. V benefits from this, it probably doesn't make the world any better (since dragons isolate themselves anyways), and V sacrificed nothing for that (her payment for the soul splices was taken on for something completely different, and using evil to do good is still evil, according to BoED*).

*The book of exalted deeds specifically states that doing ONE evil act to save millions is still evil and an exalted character would not think of doing it. That's the main sticking point in this debate: you are using good to mean "beneficial to more people than it hurts" while ignoring the canon definition of good. In fact, if you had to do evil things to save the universe, you would have ended up N or NE, not NG.

Another key point here is that there are degrees of evil. Yes, the majority of dragons (say 99%) are evil. However, they are self-interested evil, not fiendish evil. They look out for themselves exclusively and don't care about others, but they don't slaughter innocents for the heck of it. Most of them are net-balance neutral to the world, because they hang out in caves, steal treasure occasionally, and probably prevent more aggressive species from dominating in the areas that they are. Black dragons could actually be beneficial due to their selfish, isolationist attitude.



Mr. Bibliomancer, are you still here? If you are, any more ideas about how Xykon may destroy any of Redcloak's hopes for a new goblin state? The ones you had were...creative.

Sorry I didn't reply before now, I had a math exam in the morning. Um...

He might order the MitD to clean up Azure City (telling it that hobgoblins have a delicious Gouda flavor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html) in their blood. Or he might send them all to the Shadow Realm (don't ask how). Or he might unleash O'chul's fangirls...or Redcloak's fangirl's...heck, even Bakura's fangirls (http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/episodes/380655/)...I'm sure someone evil out there owes him a few favours.

[Optimystik]

There's no reason to believe any of that except for personal opinion, which you are entitled to.

Personal opinion... and every sourcebook you've been quoted in this thread. But even if you refuse to read them, someone else who reads this conversation will still know where to look.

[SadisticFishing]

Exalted Good and Good are two entirely different cans of worms.

V did something possibly mildly Evil. That's it. No Alignment shift, no "OMG WTF DID V DO ZOMG!?"'

It could also very easily make the world a better place. Some Dragons isolate themselves, and do evil things without as many people to see - but others go on Rampages. Just from being bored.

[SadisticFishing]

Personal opinion... and every sourcebook you've been quoted in this thread. But even if you refuse to read them, someone else who reads this conversation will still know where to look.

... I've read everything. I've read most 3.5 books cover to cover. You, good sir, are wrong, by books. Oh well, work's over :P Heading home.

[Ytaker]

Incorrect. In D&D, DEVILS are a result of angels falling. Demons are, were, and have always been pure evil. They are entropy for entropy's sake.

Not that it matters, because the difference in evil between a race that was created that way and a race that chose to sink to their level to better combat them is moot when they both enjoy it so much.

Irrelevent. The culture states that demons or devils can be redeemed, and so the dnd manuals have to take account of that, as people enjoy playing a character who struggles with their inner evil. Do you know of any examples of a lawful good black dragon?

[Snake-Aes]

Another key point here is that there are degrees of evil. Yes, the majority of dragons (say 99%) are evil. However, they are self-interested evil, not fiendish evil. They look out for themselves exclusively and don't care about others, but they don't slaughter innocents for the heck of it. Most of them are net-balance neutral to the world, because they hang out in caves, steal treasure occasionally, and probably prevent more aggressive species from dominating in the areas that they are. Black dragons could actually be beneficial due to their selfish, isolationist attitude.

Nowhere it says they don't care about random killing. I'd say a dragon has an exquisite pleasure in tormenting those on it's path.

Sckhar, red dragon-king, once commented to his subjects: "I can't use my real form, or it'd kill all of you from fear alone. <sigh> I miss wiping out villages just by flying over them..."

[Bibliomancer]

Exalted Good and Good are two entirely different cans of worms.

V did something possibly mildly Evil. That's it. No Alignment shift, no "OMG WTF DID V DO ZOMG!?"'

It could also very easily make the world a better place. Some Dragons isolate themselves, and do evil things without as many people to see - but others go on Rampages. Just from being bored.

Actually, there aren't. Exalted Good is simply 100% Good, as opposed to 98% good.

[Optimystik]

Irrelevent. The culture states that demons or devils can be redeemed, and so the dnd manuals have to take account of that, as people enjoy playing a character who struggles with their inner evil. Do you know of any examples of a lawful good black dragon?

Fiends are only redeemable through magic, and that same magic can redeem any evil creature. You can't talk them into doing good acts without it. That makes "redeemable with magic" a useless yardstick for measuring degrees of evil.

Compare that to some dryads or pixies asking a Green dragon to protect their forest from goblin lumberjacks. With no magical coercion of any kind, who has the greater chance of success? The creatures dealing with the dragon, obviously. See the difference?

[hamishspence]

... I've read everything. I've read most 3.5 books cover to cover. You, good sir, are wrong, by books. Oh well, work's over :P Heading home.

Which books? I've listed the ones which make Evil a much complex thing that just something which is "murderous- destroy it before it destroys others"

the closest thing to "all chromatic dragons are irredeemably evil and must be destroyed" is BoVD- which is 3.0, and contradicted by numerous 3.5 books.

Same principle really applies to anything with the Evil alignment- it can be for a being which is a schemer, or a bully, a deluded fool, an overzealous extremist, etc. Its very easy for people in D&D obsessed with destroying what they see as evil to slip over the line-

Witch Slayers in Tome of Magic, for example- the guy is LE and thinks he's still a paladin and something is interfering with his ability to receive power from his god- but its nothing to do with his behaviour.

[Bibliomancer]

... I've read everything. I've read most 3.5 books cover to cover. You, good sir, are wrong, by books. Oh well, work's over :P Heading home.

Would you mind providing a specific example to support this? I'm pretty sure that Optimystik has debunked all of your evidence presented thus far.

[Ytaker]

Fiends are only redeemable through magic, and that same magic can redeem any evil creature. You can't talk them into doing good acts without it. That makes "redeemable with magic" a useless yardstick for measuring degrees of evil.

Compare that to some dryads or pixies asking a Green dragon to protect their forest from goblin lumberjacks. With no magical coercion of any kind, who has the greater chance of success? The creatures dealing with the dragon, obviously. See the difference?

Not true. There are examples, such as K'rand Vahlix, who are lawful good, due to moral crisis, and who actively work towards aiding archons, and organising other reformed fiends. Are there actually any redeemed black dragons, who of their own moral choice decided that life of any sort was worth preserving, and that it would be wrong to snuff out humanoids for food? Any whatsoever?

More likely, the green dragon will agree to help, and then attack the pixie and eat them when their guard is down. And then, if it sees the lumberjacks, attack them. Green dragons like fighting

The main difference is that a green dragon is lawful evil. If you were willing to sell your soul to a lawful evil demon, you could probably also get help to stop the lumberjacks. V's power would certainly be sufficient, if we were to take the example from a certain webcomic. The necromancer guy probably had wail of the banshee, repeated use of finger of death could take out most goblins.

[Optimystik]

... I've read everything. I've read most 3.5 books cover to cover. You, good sir, are wrong, by books. Oh well, work's over :P Heading home.

"NO U" is pretty much the extent of your arguments at this point. I do so enjoy a nice deconstruction.

[fangthane]

Sadistic - here's a question whose answer might shed some light on why many of us believe you're mistaken about "always" alignment:
My 25th level TN wizard decides to do some research on draconic interbreeding, and Dominates an adult black dragon and an adult bronze, of opposite gender, in efforts to breed them. He maintains both Domination effects for the duration, uses his friend the bard to convince them to get it on without making an additional save; and when the egg(s) hatch(es) he uses an epic spell to remove all memory of the experience from the two parents, absconding with the offspring.

Now the question is, of what alignment are their progeny?
Blacks are CE while Bronzes are LG. Always. The new generation is half of each, and must therefore (by your reasoning and interpretation of draconic nature and the half-drag template) be always MPD, right? Because they're always LG and always CE, at the same time. Either that or they vanish in a puff of logic (and Sadistic, after proving black is white, gets run over at the next zebra crossing).

When two "always" oppose one another, which prevails? Or do we perhaps need to acknowledge that "always" may not mean, in this context, what it normally would?

[Ytaker]

I don't know if there are rules on dragon breeding in dnd. It would probably be left to dm fiat. Humans who breed with demons tend to be evil, humans who breed with gods tend to have the god's alignment, though there are many exceptions.

"Always. The new generation is half of each, and must therefore (by your reasoning and interpretation of draconic nature and the half-drag template) be always MPD, right?"

Not really. They might just be like humans. A balance of potential for enormous good or enormous evil, mediated by their upbringing. If you're a brutal sadistic wizard, their evil side will come out- but they'll have a good chance of redemption.

[Optimystik]

Not true. There are examples, such as K'rand Vahlix, who are lawful good, due to moral crisis, and who actively work towards aiding archons, and organising other reformed fiends. Are there actually any redeemed black dragons, who of their own moral choice decided that life of any sort was worth preserving, and that it would be wrong to snuff out humanoids for food? Any whatsoever?

Eberron is full of non-evil chromatics and non-good metallics. Certainly they are more common than Risen Fiends and Fallen Celestials.


More likely, the green dragon will agree to help, and then attack the pixie and eat them when their guard is down. And then, if it sees the lumberjacks, attack them. Green dragons like fighting

The main difference is that a green dragon is lawful evil. If you were willing to sell your soul to a lawful evil demon, you could probably also get help to stop the lumberjacks. V's power would certainly be sufficient, if we were to take the example from a certain webcomic. The necromancer guy probably had wail of the banshee, repeated use of finger of death could take out most goblins.

You can enlist a green dragon's aid without bargaining your soul. It can be convinced to help by the simple expedient that the forest is its home too - by protecting it, it is protecting its own lair. All the forest-folk would have to do is bribe it with jewels and flatter the creature excessively. These are very acceptable tactics for dealing with dragons.

A pixie would be little more than an hors d'oeuvre for a green dragon, so I can't imagine a predator-prey relationship there. :smallconfused:

Selling one's soul to enlist a fiend's aid, aside from being a supernatural event (and thus subject to the "nonmagical" restriction I mentioned at the beginning of my example), is counterproductive because it will result in MORE evil, not less. A dragon may assist you without such a transaction; a Fiend, never.


I don't know if there are rules on dragon breeding in dnd. It would probably be left to dm fiat. Humans who breed with demons tend to be evil, humans who breed with gods tend to have the god's alignment, though there are many exceptions.

Dragons can breed with just about anything, including each other. Most can change their shape for this purpose. Note the dracocentaur that gets taken out by Familicide.


"Always. The new generation is half of each, and must therefore (by your reasoning and interpretation of draconic nature and the half-drag template) be always MPD, right?"

Not really. They might just be like humans. A balance of potential for enormous good or enormous evil, mediated by their upbringing. If you're a brutal sadistic wizard, their evil side will come out- but they'll have a good chance of redemption.

Precisely - which makes blasting their eggs as evil as blasting a baby human would. We'll never know what they could have become.

[Coplantor]

..."Always. The new generation is half of each, and must therefore (by your reasoning and interpretation of draconic nature and the half-drag template) be always MPD, right?"

Not really. They might just be like humans. A balance of potential for enormous good or enormous evil, mediated by their upbringing. If you're a brutal sadistic wizard, their evil side will come out- but they'll have a good chance of redemption.

Wasn't that his point? They are probably alignment free?

[Bibliomancer]

The main difference is that a green dragon is lawful evil. If you were willing to sell your soul to a lawful evil demon, you could probably also get help to stop the lumberjacks. V's power would certainly be sufficient, if we were to take the example from a certain webcomic. The necromancer guy probably had wail of the banshee, repeated use of finger of death could take out most goblins.

I'm confused. There are LE demons now too? If so, then that would make alignment rules less binding, not more, thus weakening your argument.

[Coplantor]

I'm confused. There are LE demons now too? If so, then that would make alignment rules less binding, not more, thus weakening your argument.

I think that was just a mistake, I call devils and demons just demons most of the time.

[Optimystik]

I think that was just a mistake, I call devils and demons just demons most of the time.

The universal term is "fiends."

The fundamental difference between dragons and Outsiders is that dragons belong to this plane; they rely on its ecosystem and conduct dealings with other races (even if primarily from positions of strength.) They thus have a vested interest in keeping it intact. Fiends have no such restriction, thus they are free to be far more evil than dragons ever could be.