Why are the LG Higher Ups getting bent over V?

[Isi]

V took morally questionable acts (making the deal with the three daemons) in order to accomplish an overwhelming "good" agenda (destroying a thread of Dragonkind, relocating a bunch of Paladins to a safehaven, attempting to destroy Xykon once and for all). Finally, after getting pwned by Xykon when he was given the option of fleeing (#657, panel 7), he risked his life to give O-Chul a fighting chance to escape.

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?

[Morty]

Because the fiends' "gift" can lead to their ultimate victory over celestials? Because if someone makes a deal with the devil to accomplish a Good goal, they may very well make another one to accomplish a non-good one?

[hamishspence]

Because the destruction of 1/4 of one dragon species was more than a little unjustified?

[Porthos]

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?

Becuase Dealing with the Forces of Evil (i.e. Selling/Renting one's soul) is never a Good Idea? At least from their point of view.:smallconfused:

PS: The whole Familicide thing is very debatably evil. But since that's been hashed and rehashed to death I'll stay away from that for now. :smalltongue:

[mikeejimbo]

Also, familicide, even on a group of evil beings, is not exactly good. You're supposed to get them to repent, not just kill them. Or something like that. I wouldn't know, I'm not good.

[Optimystik]

They're also worried about Roy's status; it's already been established (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) that the actions of Roy's underlings can impact his own chances of entering Celestia. Roy's defense was that Belkar is psychotic, so keeping him a member of the party would keep him in check; V is not, so that defense might not fly this time.

[Milskidasith]

I think the defense he was dead is more than enough to make sure that V's actions don't impact him.

[Pronounceable]

Mainly they're concerned about Roy associating with V. V's always been out of their jurisdiction but Roy is his boss like Belkar's, so what V does somewhat concerns Roy.

Ninjas, ninjas everywhere!!!

[Querzis]

V took morally questionable acts (making the deal with the three daemons) in order to accomplish an overwhelming "good" agenda (destroying a thread of Dragonkind, relocating a bunch of Paladins to a safehaven, attempting to destroy Xykon once and for all). Finally, after getting pwned by Xykon when he was given the option of fleeing (#657, panel 7), he risked his life to give O-Chul a fighting chance to escape.

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?

The dragons most definitly was an incredibly evil act. The relocating of the bunch of paladins was out of annoyance. As for O-chul, you do realize there was no way for him to escape right? Getting his only allies back on his feet was the only sound tactical decision at this point.

And of course, there is the whole deal with the devil and the fact that, even when his mate asked him too, he didnt break the deal because of his arrogance and now it could screw up things immensely.

[hamishspence]

Its a bit like Minority Report pre-crimes- killing someone for what they'll do in the future.

Or, in this case, killing thousands of beings for what they may do in the future- try and get revenge on the slayer of their kin.

Its a common trope in fiction- when a person offends against the tyrant, tyrant doesn't just kill them, but destroys whole family in case they try and get revenge on them.

[Elfich]

The higher ups may also be concerned with Roy's soul. Roy was told that he is (somewhat) responsible for Belkar's actions. They may have wanted to warn Roy that V's actions could also reflect on him as well.

[Aris Katsaris]

As for O-chul, you do realize there was no way for him to escape right?

No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong here. V had started to climb down the wall when he changed his mind and went back for O-Chul.

I'm all in favour of calling the familicide Evil, but let's not go out of our way to belittle an undeniably Good deed he did there for O-chul either.

[Snake-Aes]

V took morally questionable acts (making the deal with the three daemons) in order to accomplish an overwhelming "good" agenda (destroying a thread of Dragonkind, relocating a bunch of Paladins to a safehaven, attempting to destroy Xykon once and for all). Finally, after getting pwned by Xykon when he was given the option of fleeing (#657, panel 7), he risked his life to give O-Chul a fighting chance to escape.

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?

Mostly, wrong. The whole dragon deal was evil. The source of his powers for the rest also was evil. The price of what he has done does jeopardize the world.

[Isi]

I just saw Quentin Tarentino's trailer for his new war movie. This is a snippet of dialogue:

"We're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only: killing nazis. Members of the national socialist party conquered Europe and murdered, tortured, intimidation, and terror...and that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. We will be cruel to the Germans and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us. And the Germans will not be able to help themselves but imagine the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands and our boot-heels and the edge of our knives. The Germans will be sickened by us. The Germans will talk about us. The Germans will fear us. A nazi ain't got no humanity and they need to be destroyed."

This same sort of complete lack of quarter against EVIL is exactly how the Nazis were defeated (see: Dresden). The familicide is not an issue. Black Dragons are creatures who are posited as ESSENTIALLY evil.

Xykon threatens the existence of the universe.

Personally, I subscribe to the "by any means neccesary" philosophy. But, although V has committed WRONGS (i.e. dealing with fiends), that still would not represent (taking ALL of his actions into account) a shift to evil. Chaotic? Sure. Ignoring "rules of engagement" is definitely chaotic...but evil? Come on...

I'm with Eugene...our little androgynous elf-buddy gave it the college try and risked his life to destroy evil even until the end was upon him (without the MoTD's intervention). V doesn't need memo's from the top challenging his disposition. He needs someone from the top to recognize his initiative.

V is a go-getter.

[Random832]

As for O-chul, you do realize there was no way for him to escape right? Getting his only allies back on his feet was the only sound tactical decision at this point.

No. V had already escaped and then went back to help O-Chul.


(see: Dresden).

...really? Dresden is your example of a good act?

[hamishspence]

Fiction- the historical events were somewhat different.

Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step toward LE (Fiendish Codex 2)

(in the case of dragons, depersonalizing)

And "lack of quarter" can be Evil, at least by BoED.

[Querzis]

No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong here. V had started to climb down the wall when he changed his mind and went back for O-Chul.

Of course but I woudnt bet on the wizard ability to climb a wall without falling (there is no way he put ranks in climbing when he was supposed to fly). I said only sound tactical decision, not necessaraly only possible decision. He could have opened the door too and get a meteor swarm in the face.

[hamishspence]

on the Tarantino movie:

"He who fights monsters must take care lest they become one"
(Nietzche)
"The fascists of the future will call themeselves anti-fascists"
(Orwell)

[Mastikator]

Some of the dragons that were killed were only half-dragons, they could have been non-evil. Killing them is unquestionably evil. Killing all evil dragons is questionably not-evil.

Making a deal with fiends however, is evil. Especially when they explained to V how he could defeat the dragon without making the deal. He made it for power, and nothing else.

Roy's dad (whatever his name is again) obstruction of letting Roy know of what V did is if not evil, at least neutral. That is not good. I don't see him getting into LG afterlife after this even if he does have Xyklon killed, unless he commits some extremely good action, which is unlikely since he doesn't seem to do things for good intentions, only selfish (which again is neutal).

[Milskidasith]

The dragons most definitly was an incredibly evil act. The relocating of the bunch of paladins was out of annoyance. As for O-chul, you do realize there was no way for him to escape right? Getting his only allies back on his feet was the only sound tactical decision at this point.

And of course, there is the whole deal with the devil and the fact that, even when his mate asked him too, he didnt break the deal because of his arrogance and now it could screw up things immensely.

Killing evil creatures is technically a good act. The way he did it is definitely chaotic, and the fact he probably wound up hitting innocent half creatures that were good is very neutral, but the fact it, by the rules, he can't be considered evil for mass killing a bunch of evil creatures. If he could... well, then all of the party would be evil for slaughtering all those Goblins/Hobgoblins.

V helping them out was a good act, regardless of why he did it. Even if it's out of annoyance, it's still definitely good. And he was climbing out of the damn tower to safety when he came back to save O-Chul. It was possible for him to escape easily.

[Isi]

Fiction- the historical events were somewhat different.

Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step toward LE (Fiendish Codex 2)

(in the case of dragons, depersonalizing)

And "lack of quarter" can be Evil, at least by BoED.

I used the dialogue because it was poetic and made the point. I did offer in a parenthetical note the example of Dresden (if you don't know the story behind the firebombing "experiment" on the non-militarily significant target of the city of Dresden, you should read up).

In V's case, his enemies were not human to begin with. They were a dragon (A being that originates in the demon lord Tiamat) and a Lich that is attempting to annihilate all of creation.

This topic is interesting to me because I run a MMORPG and the question of what constitutes an evil act when heroes engage villains has come up a few times recently and I would like to hear uninvolved opinions from the larger gaming community.

[thepsyker]

I used the dialogue because it was poetic and made the point. I did offer in a parenthetical note the example of Dresden (if you don't know the story behind the firebombing "experiment" on the non-militarily significant target of the city of Dresden, you should read up).

In V's case, his enemies were not human to begin with. They were a dragon (A being that originates in the demon lord Tiamat) and a Lich that is attempting to annihilate all of creation.

This topic is interesting to me because I run a MMORPG and the question of what constitutes an evil act when heroes engage villains has come up a few times recently and I would like to hear uninvolved opinions from the larger gaming community.My memory might be faulty, but didn't Dresden eventually lead to war crime investigations into some of the higher ups involved?

[Porthos]

Personally, I subscribe to the "by any means neccesary" philosophy.

You realize that can be (and has been) interpeted as a NE philosophy, yes?

[Isi]

Dresden was approved by Eisenhower (who went on to be PoTUS), Montgomery (who was given a Peership as the Viscount of Alameine, or "lesser Count of Germany").

Sure, people gave it a second look when they realized the scope of the destruction, but the argument was that the brutality of Dresden was executed to break the will to fight of the Germans. It was much the same rationale that was used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Ramidel]

First off, remember that Familicide wasn't, in this case, evil (by the definition used by the Higher Powers). Dragons are Color Coded For Your Convenience, and killing black dragons is by definition morally justified. (Half-dragons? That I'm not clear on, but even killing "usually evils," such as goblin women and children, won't ping a Paladin's conscience.) His other actions, of course, were righteous in intent if rather misguided.

Even so, working with the Fiends is going to trigger serious warning signs on the Celestial radar. If Roy ever gets in a position to condone that, it's going to damage his alignment.

[Porthos]

Dresden was approved by Eisenhower (who went on to be PoTUS), Montgomery (who was given a Peership as the Viscount of Alameine, or "lesser Count of Germany").

Sure, people gave it a second look when they realized the scope of the destruction, but the argument was that the brutality of Dresden was executed to break the will to fight of the Germans. It was much the same rationale that was used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Real Life Morality/Political Discussions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=22&a=1) are frowned upon in these parts, just so you know. :smalltongue:

[thepsyker]

Dresden was approved by Eisenhower (who went on to be PoTUS), Montgomery (who was given a Peership as the Viscount of Alameine, or "lesser Count of Germany").

Sure, people gave it a second look when they realized the scope of the destruction, but the argument was that the brutality of Dresden was executed to break the will to fight of the Germans. It was much the same rationale that was used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Alright, I could have sworn that I remember hearing/reading something about some British commanders who were involved getting in trouble, but the WWII period isn't one I've focused on much.

[Isi]

You realize that can be (and has been) interpeted as a NE philosophy, yes?

It depends on what you accomplish by those means.

Moral judgements are not made in the moment, but in retrospect (to answer the guy above who was quoting Nietzsche to me). This is not to say that "ends justify means" so much as it is to say that moral justifications for means used are only ever made in light of the ends accomplished. In this way, success is the measure of morality ("history is written by the victors").

V's alignment is in question not because of the actions that he took, but because he failed. If V had successfully destroyed Xykon, for example, there would be no question about his overall effect on the scales of moral balance. That he tried, almost dying in the process, means nothing to those who would condemn him. In the end, it all boils down to people flocking around "winners" like Lawful Good groupies. However, if V had succeeded, I am sure there would be little cults dedicated to his adoration in Azure City.

[Raenir Salazar]

I used the dialogue because it was poetic and made the point. I did offer in a parenthetical note the example of Dresden (if you don't know the story behind the firebombing "experiment" on the non-militarily significant target of the city of Dresden, you should read up).

In V's case, his enemies were not human to begin with. They were a dragon (A being that originates in the demon lord Tiamat) and a Lich that is attempting to annihilate all of creation.

This topic is interesting to me because I run a MMORPG and the question of what constitutes an evil act when heroes engage villains has come up a few times recently and I would like to hear uninvolved opinions from the larger gaming community.

Tiamat and Bahamut are children of the over Dragongod Io. Tiamat also isn't a demon, she has a lair in the 9 Hells but it doesn't make her a devil either she just rents out the place.

[Porthos]

First off, remember that Familicide wasn't, in this case, evil (by the definition used by the Higher Powers).

<repeating the basic points for the thousandth time>

Familicide was evil because it killed dozens (if hundreds) of dragons without warning and without them having the opportunity to defend themselves. But even if you reject that idea (and a lot of people do), it was also evil because of the motivation of V.

V only slew these dragons to torment and torture the Ancient Black Dragon.

It is possible for an Evil creature to kill another Evil Creature and it still be an Evil Act. Case in point, the Blood War
</repeating the basic points for the thousandth time>

Shorter Point: Intent Matters in Alignment (though it's not the sole factor) :smallamused:

[Isi]

Tiamat and Bahamut are children of the over Dragongod Io. Tiamat also isn't a demon, she has a lair in the 9 Hells but it doesn't make her a devil either she just rents out the place.

I don't know that any of this makes Tiamat (or her brood) any less evil, essentially (that is, their ESSENCE is evil).

[Porthos]

It depends on what you accomplish by those means.

Moral judgements are not made in the moment, but in retrospect (to answer the guy above who was quoting Nietzsche to me). This is not to say that "ends justify means" so much as it is to say that moral justifications for means used are only ever made in light of the ends accomplished. In this way, success is the measure of morality ("history is written by the victors").

Errrr... If you say so.

V's alignment is in question not because of the actions that he took, but because he failed

Bwa? :smallconfused:

I think V's alignment was in question when he offed Kubota (which he was successful at, BTW), if you ask me.


In the end, it all boils down to people flocking around "winners" like Lawful Good groupies.

Wow. Nice strawman there.


However, if V had succeeded, I am sure there would be little cults dedicated to his adoration in Azure City.

Considering how many people cried foul over V's actions during the battle of the Anicent Black Dragon I think you are wrong in this regard.

[Isi]

<repeating the basic points for the thousandth time>

Familicide was evil because it killed dozens (if hundreds) of dragons without warning and without them having the opportunity to defend themselves. But even if you reject that idea (and a lot of people do), it was also evil because of the motivation of V.

V only slew these dragons to torment and torture the Ancient Black Dragon.

It is possible for an Evil creature to kill another Evil Creature and it still be an Evil Act. Case in point, the Blood War
</repeating the basic points for the thousandth time>

Shorter Point: Intent Matters in Alignment (though it's not the sole factor) :smallamused:

OK...

What if V's WORDS were spoken to torment the dragon? Ok...the object of V's action was to eliminate the threat of evil beings.

If intent matters, then V's deal with the fiends is not evil. V's intent was to rescue his family.

If intent matters, then when V refused to relinquish the power when V's mate asked him to, and he refused because he INTENDED to destroy Xykon, then that action is not evil either.

So...which is it? Does the intent matter or not?

[OracleofWuffing]

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?
Remember the terms of V's contract? For each second V spent spliced, V's soul spends three seconds controlled by an archfiend. If archfiends are as evil as I think they are, whatever V has done will look like petting a kitten compared to what they'll make V do when it's time to pay the piper. We haven't seen the evil yet.

[Fighteer]

All of V's acts since accepting the Soul Splice, with one exception, have been either Neutral or Evil.

1) Accepting a Deal with the Devil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DealWithTheDevil) is Evil by default, according to the rules of most alignment systems. It's only pushed towards Neutral if it serves a Good end, and V's deal did not -- it served as a means of self-aggrandizement.

2) Consorting deliberately with and drawing power from evil people (the Soul Splice) is again Evil by default, and for the same reasons as in 1.

3) Killing the dragon is a Neutral act -- for V. It was engaging in an act of revenge against his family, and he settled it in the most direct way possible. A Good character would have tried to negotiate, apologize, or otherwise dissuade the dragon, and only settle for killing it if there was no other option.

4) Familicide is absolutely Evil. No moral system in the world condones that kind of Disproportionate Retribution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution) - it's like dropping an atom bomb in revenge for a mugging. Especially when you consider that V's motivation was purely revenge and not, say, eradicating a great evil from the land.

5) Teleporting the Azure City fleet is a Neutral act. There's no real morality here; he didn't cause any particular harm, nor did he cause any great good, but he did it for selfish reasons -- he was sick of the plot taking forever to advance.

6) Fighting Xykon is a Neutral act. Again, he did it for selfish reasons -- to demonstrate the superiority of his arcane power. Sure, it might blip slightly Good in that Xykon is a horrible, horrible person, but intent is what counts here. Arguing that it's a Good act just because Xykon is Evil is absurd - by that argument any Dragon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDragon) who usurps his boss (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBad)'s position should instantly be redeemed instead of becoming Eviler Than Thou (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilerThanThou).

7) Saving O-Chul when he could have fled is V's one unquestionably Good act in the whole affair and may have been the only thing saving hir from an immediate alignment shift. Especially when you consider that an inability to do the exact same thing is what triggered this entire episode in the first place.

[Isi]

No. V had already escaped and then went back to help O-Chul.



...really? Dresden is your example of a good act?

Dresden is an example of a morally questionable act that has unarguable morally good results.



Remember the terms of V's contract? For each second V spent spliced, V's soul spends three seconds controlled by an archfiend. If archfiends are as evil as I think they are, whatever V has done will look like petting a kitten compared to what they'll make V do when it's time to pay the piper. We haven't seen the evil yet.

oooh...

Ok...someone with a longer view!

Excellent answer. The LG Higher-ups were concerned because the ramifications of V's actions have not been brought to bare yet which DOES put Roy in jeopardy. When the bad guys come calling to collect their due, then anyone around V is going to be in danger.

EXCELLENT ANSWER. Thank you very much!

[Porthos]

OK...

What if V's WORDS were spoken to torment the dragon? Ok...the object of V's action was to eliminate the threat of evil beings.

If intent matters, then V's deal with the fiends is not evil. V's intent was to rescue his family.

If intent matters, then when V refused to relinquish the power when V's mate asked him to, and he refused because he INTENDED to destroy Xykon, then that action is not evil either.

So...which is it? Does the intent matter or not?

*cough*

The WRONG Reasons. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html)

As for all of the other things you say, why do you take V's words at face value? Especially when it's been established that V has been lying to himself about his motivations.

V wanted to punish the Ancient Black Dragon by slaying all of her kinfolk, even though they were absolutely no threat to him or his family at the time.

V wanted to prove to himself that he could solve all of the problems of the world with More Power.

V decided that Proving That He was Correct About Power was more important than talking with his husband about their issues.

V was acting selfish and power crazed, and was convinced that he had all of the answers.

In other words, V was drunk with power and was deluding himself as to his true motivations.

A person can claim to be acting in good faith, but deep down they ain't. After all, when the IFCC forced V to examine his motivations (as opposed to ignoring them) he recolied in horror.... but went through it anyway.

Also, we now have two sources of info that are implying that V is acting in a evil way. The Forces of Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) and The Forces of Evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

Perhaps Rich is trying to tell us something. :smalltongue:

[Fighteer]

Also, we now have two sources of info that are implying that V is acting in a evil way. The Forces of Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) and THe Forces of Evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

Perhaps Rich is trying to tell us something. :smalltongue:
Yeah, really. Although this would be far from the first time that Rich's explicit statements in the comic have been ignored by someone with an opinion and an axe to grind.

[Ytaker]

How, by any rationale could those actions be considered, overall, to be evil?

The devils are going to use V to possess the gate, and thus destroy Celestia, and then the world. Also, the soul of an unbelievably strong necromancer escaped. She is skilled with death magic, and can likely find a way to manifest. She would then be able to destroy the world. While V's actions were good, the cost could be the death of everyone ever.

[snoopy13a]

In D&D, the ends do not justify the means for good characters. That's simply the way the game's philosophy is. Outside views on good and evil are irrevelant.

[Kaytara]

Of course but I woudnt bet on the wizard ability to climb a wall without falling (there is no way he put ranks in climbing when he was supposed to fly). I said only sound tactical decision, not necessaraly only possible decision. He could have opened the door too and get a meteor swarm in the face.

...Feather Fall, there's your wall climbing skill right there. Besides which, symmetry with V's flight from Azure City, which is something that has haunted him and was thus psychologically and subjectively the wrong thing to do (regardless of how reasonable it was). Besides which, the strip title: "Second Chance". Besides which, he was courteous and respectful to O-Chul after that, even though the paladin is just a combat class without a scrap of arcane magic in his bones. Even from a meta perspective, that seems to be solid indication that V coming back to save O-Chul was meant to signify something positive rather than another act of self-absorbed selfishness.

Now, as for the actual topic.... I think the most important thing to consider is how much the forces of Lawful Good are actually aware of.
I would definitely say that they are NOT aware of the exact terms of V's bargain. For one thing, the terms were discussed under a Time Stop, which probably can't be scryed on. (Although a confirmation of this by the rules would be welcome.) Besides, the deva was acting more along the lines of "You should have a look at this" rather than "OMG! That elf is a ticking time bomb! Do something NOW!". She even gave the report to Eugene to give to Roy the next time Eugene got around to manifesting to him. In other words, not urgent.

So what the Celestials actually know is probably just that V was seen opening an envelope from the Lower Planes, emerged from it Soul Spliced and did questionable things afterwards.
Now, as for why they would want to tell Roy that...

Well, Lawful Good is supposed to be altruistic, right? So if V's alignment and possibly his soul are in danger and he is Neutral with Good tendencies otherwise, it stands to reason that they wouldn't mind influencing him to be Good. Besides which, V's development is something Roy missed out on, so it's useful info for him as a leader to have, especially if they're going to hold him responsible for the behaviour of his subordinates. I don't think it goes much deeper than that. It's an alarming development for someone who may otherwise even become Good, so Roy, as one of the people closest to V in everyday life, should be made aware of it.

[Porthos]

Dresden is an example of a morally questionable act that has unarguable morally good results.




oooh...

Ok...someone with a longer view!

Excellent answer. The LG Higher-ups were concerned because the ramifications of V's actions have not been brought to bare yet which DOES put Roy in jeopardy. When the bad guys come calling to collect their due, then anyone around V is going to be in danger.

EXCELLENT ANSWER. Thank you very much!

Errr, I thought that was a given. :smalltongue:

The idea that V is going to be used by the IFCC when he is near a Gate/used for some purpose to let the IFCC gain control of a Gate has been brought up time and time and time again by forum posters.

Of course, this is a reason WHY it is NEVER a Good Idea to make a Deal With the Devil. It's because the Devil will ONLY make said deal if it disproportionality helps the side of Evil when all is said and done, even if you can't see how that is possible.

To paraphrase Robert Asprin, "If one thinks they got a good deal out of the IFCC, one should count their fingers, toes and family members and then ask themselves are you SURE you got a Good Deal?":smalltongue:

[Porthos]

that seems to be solid indication that V coming back to save O-Chul was meant to signify something positive rather than another act of self-absorbed selfishness.

I agree. :smallsmile:

As I have said from Day One, I am hoping that V is able to pull out of this tailspin. His actions immediately after losing the Soul Splice are definitely an encouraging sign (though, being honest, this latest strip is a tad ominous - though it might just foreshadowing the IFCC collecting it's due).

And this is coming from someone who was one of the biggest "What the Hell, Hero?" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatTheHellHero) posters on this board in regards to V's actions whilst under the Soul Splice.

But then I am a sucker for Redemption Stories. :smallsmile:

[Optimystik]

All of V's acts since accepting the Soul Splice, with one exception, have been either Neutral or Evil.

1) Accepting a Deal with the Devil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DealWithTheDevil) is Evil by default, according to the rules of most alignment systems. It's only pushed towards Neutral if it serves a Good end, and V's deal did not -- it served as a means of self-aggrandizement.

2) Consorting deliberately with and drawing power from evil people (the Soul Splice) is again Evil by default, and for the same reasons as in 1.

3) Killing the dragon is a Neutral act -- for V. It was engaging in an act of revenge against his family, and he settled it in the most direct way possible. A Good character would have tried to negotiate, apologize, or otherwise dissuade the dragon, and only settle for killing it if there was no other option.

4) Familicide is absolutely Evil. No moral system in the world condones that kind of Disproportionate Retribution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution) - it's like dropping an atom bomb in revenge for a mugging. Especially when you consider that V's motivation was purely revenge and not, say, eradicating a great evil from the land.

5) Teleporting the Azure City fleet is a Neutral act. There's no real morality here; he didn't cause any particular harm, nor did he cause any great good, but he did it for selfish reasons -- he was sick of the plot taking forever to advance.

6) Fighting Xykon is a Neutral act. Again, he did it for selfish reasons -- to demonstrate the superiority of his arcane power. Sure, it might blip slightly Good in that Xykon is a horrible, horrible person, but intent is what counts here. Arguing that it's a Good act just because Xykon is Evil is absurd - by that argument any Dragon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDragon) who usurps his boss (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBad)'s position should instantly be redeemed instead of becoming Eviler Than Thou (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilerThanThou).

7) Saving O-Chul when he could have fled is V's one unquestionably Good act in the whole affair and may have been the only thing saving hir from an immediate alignment shift. Especially when you consider that an inability to do the exact same thing is what triggered this entire episode in the first place.

You're on a roll, good sir. Keep it up.

(I think teleporting the fleet was Good, though. He didn't have to do it, he could have just teleported away to find Durkon and Elan.)

[Isi]

I got the answer I needed: the ends of V's chosen means have not been seen yet.

That is attempts ended in failure would draw on the dramatic convention of "nothing good coming from evil" which, while I do not personally subscribe to that belief (again, see: Dresden) I accept it as a standard literary device in folktales, mythology and its modern-day equivalent (e.g. this webcomic).

For anyone who suggests that outside views of what constitutes good and evil are irrelevant in an RPG, I suggest you consider that everyone brings their own interpretations to the gaming table. Like I said, I run a MMORP with about 25-35 regular members and discussions about what truly constitutes a "good" act and an "evil" act come up all the time.

Many of the "heroes" on my server share the views of many of you: good is altruistic, opposed to violence except as a last resort etc etc. The villains on my server are generally more nuanced about their takes on their "evil." And then, there are the vigilantes (The Dark Knight and The Watchmen were very popular movies).

Is Batman good or evil? Is Rorschach? They engage the enemy with violence and brutality. But, their enemies are literary figures of pure evil (e.g. The Joker, or the pedophile that Rorschach traps in the burning building). It is a very common notion that a person who perpetrates particularly horrible crimes can justly suffer horrible consequences.

Morality is not black and white in D&D any more than it is in real life. But, I got my answer and I appreciate everyone's comments....even the guy who accused me of asking purely to "grind my axe." :smallconfused:

[Ramidel]

4) Familicide is absolutely Evil. No moral system in the world condones that kind of Disproportionate Retribution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution) - it's like dropping an atom bomb in revenge for a mugging. Especially when you consider that V's motivation was purely revenge and not, say, eradicating a great evil from the land.

Once more, motive doesn't count with regard to the actual familicide.

No, it really doesn't. Robbing and killing the entirety of black dragonkind for XP and gold would be perfectly alignment-neutral; this is emphasized in Start of Darkness and by Miko (in one of her sane moments) as a canon of the OOtSverse. Doing it for personal vengeance, similarly? Same thing. Disproportionate retribution's irrelevant to this, since black dragons don't have a right to stay alive in the first place. They -should- be killed, for whatever reason. (A Starscream is thus acting in a Chaotic Neutral fashion. He's killing someone who has no right to live for his own gain: neutral, betraying his lord: chaotic.)

Now, reanimating the black dragon's head to watch the familicide was Evil, yes. It was torture (which doesn't fly) and animation of the dead (which is by definition evil). But genocide against something that should be destroyed anyway is alignment-null.

[Kaytara]

V only slew these dragons to torment and torture the Ancient Black Dragon.

Ahem. Since you can at best only make an educated guess at what was going on in V's head when he made that decision, and V himself provides an additional reason ("ensure that these events never happen again"), I would deem the "only" part to be completely speculative. How much of V's other reason was the truth and how much was rationalisation is up for debate, but to say that we know for certain that he did it ONLY to torment the ABD is simply wrong.

The way I read the comic, V's actions are quite muddy, alignment-wise, due to the complexity of his mental state. (Psych-analysis :smalltongue:) V killed Kubota, but did so because he perceived him to be an obstacle in saving the world. Subconsciously, maybe he was just longing to once again be able to solve a problem with a single, neat spell. He wanted to save his family, but preferred to do it in a manner that let him take the glory, even if it meant consorting with fiends. He killed all those dragons, but may have honestly believed that he was doing it to prevent future threats. Subconsciously, he was likely trying to both get a taste of his power as well as give the ABD a taste of her own medicine as far as making her enemies feel anguished and powerless goes - aka revenge, which, if I recall, is also considered morally ambiguous rather than straight-out evil in many cases. Abandoning Kyrie was done for the mixed reasons of wanting to save Haley and wanting to play around with the awesome power a little longer.

It definitely seems to me that the story is trying to portray V as a conflicted Neutral type there, with ultimately good intentions but deep personality flaws that get the better of him in certain circumstances.

The Familicide... Assuming it IS considered technically Good in OotS-verse, the devas might still be concerned about the act because of V's motivations.

[factotum]

Avoiding the alignment debate for a moment, here's a thing to ponder: maybe the LG high-ups don't give a stuff about V turning evil--I doubt he started as Lawful Good in the first place, so he's outside their remit. What they probably ARE worried about is the potential consequences of V's rash deal with the devil in future, and wanted to warn Roy that V could be taken over by the IFCC at any time.

[Prince_Selm]

Alright, returning the the original question, I have a decent theory:

Why did the devils want to give V the soul splice in the first place?

Because they wanted to test it so their superiors would give them more power to make it better.

The celestials are worried that the devils could be testing out techniqes for an attack on Celestia.

Maybe they wanted Roy to ask V if she knew anything about how it works, or just because Roy is in charge?

I'm not passionate about it, that's just my theory

[Porthos]

Yeah, really. Although this would be far from the first time that Rich's explicit statements in the comic have been ignored by someone with an opinion and an axe to grind.

Heh. :smallamused:

Let's take a Running Tally, shall we?

The IFCC: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html) A good way to get someone decent to do something horrible is to convicne them that they're not responsible for their actions.

The Anicent Black Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html): You... you MONSTER!
V: We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Etherial Fletcher.

Inkyrius: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html) YOU SOLD YOUR SOUL TO THE FIENDS?

Inkyrius: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html) If you did this to terrible thing to yourself out of no motive but to save us, then end this right now. (Heck, the entire entry of Comic 642, really)

Haley: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0645.html) Wait a minute... dark robes, glowing eyes, strange whispers in your ear... holy crap, you went evil, didn't you?

Belkar: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0645.html) Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool, pal.

Celestial Agent: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) I understand, but this colleague has taken a dramatic turn towards evil in the last few-


Hmmmm.....

I guess Rich is trying to make all of this ambigious after all. :smallamused:

[Fighteer]

(I think teleporting the fleet was Good, though. He didn't have to do it, he could have just teleported away to find Durkon and Elan.)
Eh, the AC fleet was looking for a home and presumably would have found one at some point regardless of V's efforts. He acted purely out of expediency so he didn't have to listen to the NPCs recount their woes. It may have a net Good impact on the story, but V couldn't have cared less.


Once more, motive doesn't count with regard to the actual familicide.

No, it really doesn't. Robbing and killing the entirety of black dragonkind for XP and gold would be perfectly alignment-neutral; this is emphasized in Start of Darkness and by Miko (in one of her sane moments) as a canon of the OOtSverse. Doing it for personal vengeance, similarly? Same thing. Disproportionate retribution's irrelevant to this, since black dragons don't have a right to stay alive in the first place. They -should- be killed, for whatever reason. (A Starscream is thus acting in a Chaotic Neutral fashion. He's killing someone who has no right to live for his own gain: neutral, betraying his lord: chaotic.)

Now, reanimating the black dragon's head to watch the familicide was Evil, yes. It was torture (which doesn't fly) and animation of the dead (which is by definition evil). But genocide against something that should be destroyed anyway is alignment-null.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Remember that Redcloak's main justification for his actions is based on the idea that it's wrong for adventurers to slaughter goblins because they were created by the gods solely as a vehicle for delivering easy XP. The story then goes out of its way to show the brutality of the Sapphire Guard in attacking Redcloak's tribe preemptively to quell an evil that might not even have come to pass if they hadn't.

Whether you personally agree with this or not is one thing, but certainly the author of the story is trying to convey the idea that killing creatures solely because they are Evil is not always justified, and certainly not always a Good act.

V did not kill the black dragon's family to cleanse their evil from the world. S/he did not kill them because they personally threatened V or hir family. S/he killed them to make a point in the most brutal way possible. When I first read the comic, I mentally compared it to a gang or mafia assassination, where they kill the target but not before violating and murdering his family in front of him. It's a revenge scheme writ large: don't mess with me because I won't just kill you, I'll kill everyone you love. That's not Good or Neutral by any possible definition of the terms.

[Porthos]

Ahem. Since you can at best only make an educated guess at what was going on in V's head when he made that decision

I thought an IMO was implicit in all of these discussions. :smalltongue:

But I've already gone into my reasoning in-depth on this subject many times before (as you know :smallwink:), and I really don't feel like rehashing it all over again.

As for V's mental state, I view that as an explanation, but not a defense. But that's a whole nudder topic. :smallwink:

[Tar Palantir]

Just because the black dragons are evil does not make V's genocide neutral. In most actions, intent has a far greater impact on morality than the action itself (with exceptions for such acts of ineffable evil as consorting with fiends). V did not kill those dragons to protect others (a Good act), nor for a reward or their treasure (a Neutral act). He did so for the sole purpose of vengeance and torture, making the casting of Familicide irreproachably Evil (on top of the fact that the spell almost certainly has the Evil descriptor).

Extending the same or similar arguments to all of V's recent actions, we come up with the following:

Accepting the deal: Evil (V had other options, and the consorting with fiends pushes this from borderline to strongly Evil)

Killing the dragon: Neutral

Familicide: Evil

Teleporting the fleet: Neutral

Fighting Xykon: Neutral

Saving O-Chul: Good

So, Fighteer, I am pretty much in consensus with you. And Kaytara, killing Kubota because it was more convenient for V that he be dead, so that he wouldn't have to sit through another trial scene? Unquestionably Evil. I mean, come on.

[adibobo]

Killing evil creatures is technically a good act. The way he did it is definitely chaotic, and the fact he probably wound up hitting innocent half creatures that were good is very neutral, but the fact it, by the rules, he can't be considered evil for mass killing a bunch of evil creatures. If he could... well, then all of the party would be evil for slaughtering all those Goblins/Hobgoblins.

V helping them out was a good act, regardless of why he did it. Even if it's out of annoyance, it's still definitely good. And he was climbing out of the damn tower to safety when he came back to save O-Chul. It was possible for him to escape easily.

Killing an evil creature without a motive is a good act? You know what, i don't play DnD, but i think that rich has been trying to tell us that killing an evil person is a good thing if you have motives(the party had a motive to killl the goblins-they were protecting xykon, and the hobgoblins were trying to conqouer the human city and kill them) but that killing them just because they are evil is wrong. I think that he has been trying to tell thi form the start of the comic and my proof is THIS comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html
of course belkar's opinion does not matter cuz he doesn't care if they are evil or not, but the others are clearely repulsed by the idea that they can kill the goblins because they are goblins(despite the fact that, from what i've heard, they are mostly evil and, acording to your logic, it should thus be ok with them)

[Porthos]

And Kaytara, killing Kubota because it was more convenient for V that he be dead, so that he wouldn't have to sit through another trial scene? Unquestionably Evil. I mean, come on.

The way I look at this is if V had known who Kubota was, and how slippery he might be in regards to the law, then that would be one thing. But the fact that he killed him simply because he was a waste of time...

Yeah. Major Red Flag time there. :smallwink:

But I have been saying that the first glimpses of V's attitude were seen waaaaay back when we see V thinking that Soul Binding Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) as a way of permanently dealing with the Linear Guild as in fact being a good idea.

So, IMO, V was sliding for a good long while (going from LN to borderline NE IMO). Doesn't mean he can't make a U-turn (and in fact, I hope he does). But let's not think that this is an all of a sudden development here.

[Forum Staff]

OK, I se about a half-dozen references to real-world political/historical events, which is verboten around here. This thread is locked.