Familicide = Evil. (Capital E) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 10:08 AM

Isn't

Just as two-dimensional?

The key thing is that the world doesn't operate in black and white and the morality of actions must be debated. So when V's potential fate is considered 50-50 is it not likely that it is the action itself that causes the debatability and not the good things that V did to balance it out?

I don't think so. Nobody can argue that his subsequent actions were on the fence. Rescuing O-Chul and teleporting the fleet were unquestionably Good acts (though he was more than a little acerbic after the last one.) If Familicide's morality had a shot of being non-evil, his chances of going to the Lower Planes would not be 50-50.

Mathematically, the possibilities are thus:

Familicide Evil: -2 + 2 = 0 (50-50)
Familicide Neutral: 0 + 2 = 2 (Good)
Familicide Good: 2 + 2 = 4 (Very Good)

Note that if Familicide gets an even greater weight than his good acts did, the first proof still holds. Only if Familicide is Evil (and strongly so) does the Fiend's comment make any sense.

The Pink Ninja

2009-07-09, 10:24 AM

She doesn't get anything for teleporting the fleet because she didn't do it for good reasons.

The Paladin helps but saving one person doesn;t make up for mass murder.

Consider that V is still Good or Neutral, but is carrying enough bad karma and sin to got to hell anyway.

fangthane

2009-07-09, 10:25 AM

A few things spring to mind... :)

1. Mild evil is still enough to put the soul of a neutral character in jeopardy. That's certainly the lowball estimate, but it's still valid. The "Familicide is not evil" concept is obviously shot to hell though. So those of us who were in the middle-ground of that rigmarole are still potentially correct, as are those who saw the act as a significant blot on V's soul. It's only affected those who believed that always evil means in OotS what it means in mathematics, and that's patently never been true.

2. It's nice to see that fiends meant to be highly intelligent actually are intelligent. I mean it didn't take a precognitive genius to realise what V was likely to do with the power, and it's nice to see that the fiends are at least up there with the brighter folks on the forum, most of whom realised the same even back when V was hemming and hawing about taking the deal. Having planned it in the first place, I'd hope they'd be bright enough to work the odds, and so they were.

3. Jahk/Opti - Frankly I wouldn't want to see a 3-dimensional alignment matrix; it'd unnecessarily complicate something with which people have enough difficulty seeing eye-to-eye; it's hard to forge agreement on what good/evil and law/chaos mean, let alone how they actually work in a specific scenario. Two dimensions are just fine, as long as the Giant persists in pushing, and adhering to the philosophy that alignment's a continuum.

Skorj

2009-07-09, 10:34 AM

You'd think so, but hamish, Kish and I still ended up being argued into the ground by all the broken records in the V-Xykon thread.

"Always Chaotic Evil!"
"Always Chaotic Evil!"
"Always Chaotic Evil!"

My heartfelt thanks to the Giant for not being pigeonholed by the Monster Manual's 2-dimensional view of alignment.

I do love a good Jossing. Of course, some fans will still keep arguing even after being shot in the face with canon, but what can you do?

I would say the primary theme of OOTS (and much of the Giant's other writing) was that neither characters nor monsters should be pigeonholed by alignment, that alignment is a place for the GM to start from in developing creature motivation, not somehting that chains you down.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 10:38 AM

She doesn't get anything for teleporting the fleet because she didn't do it for good reasons.

But he got no personal benefit out of it either. He could have abandoned them, destroyed them all, any number of responses to silence their chatter besides bringing them to basically the perfect spot for them to start rebuilding.That he got a bit snippy after doing it doesn't subsume those positive effects.

When you yell at a child after pulling it away from the path of an oncoming car, you rattle him but you've still done a good deed.

The Paladin helps but saving one person doesn;t make up for mass murder.

That was my point. Familicide is so evil it completely overcame the good karma from saving O-Chul.

Consider that V is still Good or Neutral, but is carrying enough bad karma and sin to got to hell anyway.

That... makes no sense. You can't be Good or Neutral and go to hell, period.

spargel

2009-07-09, 10:38 AM

Mr. Scaly

2009-07-09, 10:38 AM

Not to mention that now all those poor evil dragons will be avenged... It brings a warm glow to my cold reptilian heart.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 10:40 AM

It doesn't help that Tiamat wanted them to kill five good dragons for every black one that died, which implies that the black dragons are not good.

What? :smallconfused:
That says nothing about the dragons, only Tiamat, and we already know she's a *****.

spargel

2009-07-09, 10:43 AM

What? :smallconfused:
That says nothing about the dragons, only Tiamat, and we already know she's a *****.

If Tiamat was angry at V for killing those black dragons, and Tiamat is supposed to be the deity of evil dragons, then it's easy to see how people are going to assume that most if not all of the black dragons V killed were evil.

Kish

2009-07-09, 10:43 AM

And I'm starting to think the soul splice may have lowered V's intelligence and wisdom by 50 points or something, so I guess you could try arguing that it was the soul splice's fault.
You could, but the fiends spelled out right after the Familicide that the splice doesn't actually influence Vaarsuvius' actions except indirectly in making him/her think there s/he's not responsible for his/her actions, so the argument wouldn't stick.

If Tiamat was angry at V for killing those black dragons, and Tiamat is supposed to be the deity of evil dragons, then it's easy to see how people are going to assume that most if not all of the black dragons V killed were evil.
Oh, it's easy to see people doing that anyway. Just click on the board posts...:smallsigh:

Jahkaivah

2009-07-09, 10:44 AM

I don't think so. Nobody can argue that his subsequent actions were on the fence. Rescuing O-Chul and teleporting the fleet were unquestionably Good acts (though he was more than a little acerbic after the last one.) If Familicide's morality had a shot of being non-evil, his chances of going to the Lower Planes would not be 50-50.

Mathematically, the possibilities are thus:

Familicide Evil: -2 + 2 = 0 (50-50)
Familicide Neutral: 0 + 2 = 2 (Good)
Familicide Good: 2 + 2 = 4 (Very Good)

Note that if Familicide gets an even greater weight than his good acts did, the first proof still holds. Only if Familicide is Evil (and strongly so) does the Fiend's comment make any sense.

Using mathematic is in itself, also two-dimensional, but I appreciate that it's a simplification that the OOTS universe may actually use.

That said, the key thing here is the Dealer may not neccissarily know the morality of V's action there. He's possibly saying 50-50 not because some maths balance it out (which I believe creates a neutral alignment which has it's own afterlife anyway), but because he doesn't know what the value of the familicide is.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 10:44 AM

That... makes no sense. You can't be Good or Neutral and go to hell, period.

According to WotC, you can! Ask me how!

I'm glad you asked. According to Fiendish Codex II, there is an amount of evil actions that makes sure that no matter what you do later in life, you go to hell.

Yes, that entire multiverse you just saved through mortal sacrifice? Its little hellish corner is waiting for you for the two poor souls you murdered before your great redemption.

Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life.

fangthane

2009-07-09, 10:45 AM

The alignment system is so contradictory.

It doesn't help that Tiamat wanted them to kill five good dragons for every black one that died, which implies that the black dragons are not good. And I'm starting to think the soul splice may have lowered V's intelligence and wisdom by 50 points or something, so I guess you could try arguing that it was the soul splice's fault.

Frankly, I don't think she cared whether they were good, neutral or evil; she knows most were evil, as do we, and she wants blood for her lost followers. I would too. :)

PS, arguing it was the soul splice's fault is exactly what the fiends wanted V to believe, to enable his worser nature to express itself with a plausible excuse. Call it a failed Sense Motive prior to the Splice, if anything.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 10:47 AM

I'm glad you asked. According to Fiendish Codex II, there is an amount of evil actions that makes sure that no matter what you do later in life, you go to hell.

Yes, that entire multiverse you just saved through mortal sacrifice? Its little hellish corner is waiting for you for the two poor souls you murdered before your great redemption.

Your alignment still changes though, so that doesn't count. Obesiance Score + Corruption Score of 9 each = Lawful Evil, no matter what else you did in life, but they have to change your alignment before they can condemn you.

Using mathematic is in itself, also two-dimensional, but I appreciate that it's a simplification that the OOTS universe may actually uses.

When I used the term "2-dimensional" I was referring to the foolish argument that "Always Evil = 100% of the race deserve death" despite every moral source in the game contradicting that sentiment.

That said, the key thing here is the Dealer may not neccissarily know the morality of V's action there. He's possibly saying 50-50 not because some maths balance it out (which I believe creates a neutral alignment which has it's own afterlife anyway), but because he doesn't know what the value of the familicide is.

Incorrect. He knows Familicide is Bad, or he wouldn't have referred to it specifically. What he doesn't know is HOW Bad.

spargel

2009-07-09, 10:48 AM

You could, but the fiends spelled out right after the Familicide that the splice doesn't actually influence Vaarsuvius' actions except indirectly in making him/her think there s/he's not responsible for his/her actions, so the argument wouldn't stick.

There's a difference between what the fiends say and what actually happened in the comic.

Before she got the soul splice, she was being an idiot, but that was probably because she didn't trance. After the soul splice, she basically got rejuvenated as if she had rested, but she still made unwise and stupid decisions. As soon as the soul splice wore off, she became more effective and managed to inconvenience Xykon. And there is also that speech she made in 667 that shows that she's thinking a lot more clearly than before.

See how easily I can come up with these theories?

Zanaril

2009-07-09, 10:49 AM

Well she did seem to lose her Headband of Intellect.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 10:50 AM

Hrm? I thought in FC2, your alignment didn't have to be LE for you to go to hell - your corruption score just has to be at least 7.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 10:52 AM

Hrm? I thought in FC2, your alignment didn't have to be LE for you to go to hell - your corruption score just has to be at least 7.

Getting your Corruption score to 7+ locks you in to Evil. That's why Atonement, Sanctify etc. is necessary to reduce it.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 10:52 AM

Your alignment still changes though, so that doesn't count. Obesiance Score + Corruption Score of 9 each = Lawful Evil, no matter what else you did in life, but they have to change your alignment before they can condemn you.

Nowhere in the book does it say such a thing. It simply says it sends you to hell if you have a lawful alignment.

I'm not arguing against your point about Vaarsuvius; I'm simply saying that according to WotC's D&D morality, that exact thing can happen. Good people can go to hell.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 10:54 AM

Nowhere in the book does it say such a thing. It simply says it sends you to hell if you have a lawful alignment.

I'm not arguing against your point about Vaarsuvius; I'm simply saying that according to WotC's D&D morality, that exact thing can happen. Good people can go to hell.

I'm fairly sure this is absolutely accurate, and what the IFCC is talking about.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 10:56 AM

I'm fairly sure this is absolutely accurate, and what the IFCC is talking about.

Just to make it clear: yours is a perfectly valid interpretation that makes more sense than what WotC wrote, but it's still an interpretation, not how things are written.

Did I mention that I hate WotC?

Jahkaivah

2009-07-09, 10:56 AM

Incorrect. He knows Familicide is Bad, or he wouldn't have referred to it specifically. What he doesn't know is HOW Bad.

He may have referred to it because he only action V did which may have tipped the balance, hence the 50-50 comment. He isn't sure however becuase it's morally grey.

It's possible he is 100% sure, but that isn't garunteed which means the dragon killing may still be potentially good.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:01 AM

He may have referred to it because he only action V did which may have tipped the balance, hence the 50-50 comment. He isn't sure however becuase it's morally grey.

If it "tipped the balance" then it can't be neutral. QED.

@ Rose: I don't have my FC2 in front of me at the moment, but I'm sure your alignment automatically changes once you get a certain score. I'll get a quote or cede the point later.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 11:01 AM

Urgh are people still arguing that it was GOOD?

No, it was an Evil act. Just HOW evil is the question. I still believe not particularly, compared to other things.

Obviously the IFCC agree, as if it was that evil, it'd be more than 50-50.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 11:03 AM

@ Rose: I don't have my FC2 in front of me at the moment, but I'm sure your alignment automatically changes once you get a certain score. I'll get a quote or cede the point later.

I do, and no, you don't.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:04 AM

Obviously the IFCC agree, as if it was that evil, it'd be more than 50-50.

I already explained why V would still be on the fence. He's done good deeds since Familicide - Durkon says so explicitly. "Ye've helped these people more than tha' rest of us who were tryin' combined." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) The question now is whether those good deeds outweigh the serious crime of genocide, not whether the crime of genocide was serious or not.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 11:06 AM

Real genocide, committed by one person, is abhorrent in a way I can't even describe.

Every person in history who killed millions of people (look at history, I won't mention any but there are several) also got many good things done for their country. That doesn't even come CLOSE to pardoning them for it.

Killing black dragons isn't as bad, or it would be 100%, not 50-50. No Good God would ever condone the Atonement of someone who'd committed genocide alone. Ever.

spargel

2009-07-09, 11:08 AM

I already explained why V would still be on the fence. He's done good deeds since Familicide - Durkon says so explicitly. "Ye've helped these people more than tha' rest of us who were tryin' combined." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) The question now is whether those good deeds outweigh the serious crime of genocide, not whether the crime of genocide was serious or not.

Urk, why are people still calling it genocide? If I killed an entire family of dogs, would you call it genocide?

Killing black dragons isn't as bad, or it would be 100%, not 50-50. No Good God would ever condone the Atonement of someone who'd committed genocide alone. Ever.

^See above

The gods of OOTS aren't exactly what I would consider good.

Moriarty

2009-07-09, 11:08 AM

i still don't think the murder of hundresds of black dragon would be an evil act. at least not in oots rules, when paladins can kill goblin children without falling then killing black dragons would be ok too. (not a good act, but still not evil)

however, V's casting of familicide was evil, because of his reasons. he used it primarily to torture an already beaten foe (and possibly killed some non-evil dragons).

the epic teleport spell doesn't count as a good act in my book, because V didn't want to help these people. he wanted to show off and use an epic spell, not help those in need,

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:20 AM

Urk, why are people still calling it genocide? If I killed an entire family of dogs, would you call it genocide?

Decimation, then. Do you have a better word for 25% of a species being snuffed out? I'm not all that interested in semantics, to be honest.

Killing black dragons isn't as bad, or it would be 100%, not 50-50. No Good God would ever condone the Atonement of someone who'd committed genocide alone. Ever.

And my position is that It can't BE 100%, because the good he's done mitigates the evil.

the epic teleport spell doesn't count as a good act in my book, because V didn't want to help these people. he wanted to show off and use an epic spell, not help those in need,

It wasn't the spell itself that made teleporting the fleet Good; it was the destination. He could have 'shown off' as you put it, by sending them anywhere, but he chose to send them to the most beneficial place possible instead.

Jahkaivah

2009-07-09, 11:20 AM

If it "tipped the balance" then it can't be neutral. QED.

I said "potentially tipped the balance". When I said "morally grey" I meant it could be potentially concieved as good, evil or neutral, not that it is definatly neutral.

(To be fair though I probably meant to say "turned evil" instead of "tipped the balance" as "tipped the balance" implies she was neutral beforehand)

Urgh are people still arguing that it was GOOD?

I'm not arguing that it was good.

Just arguing that Optimisktic's argument doesn't garuntee it an Evil label.

Can't speak for others of course.

spargel

2009-07-09, 11:26 AM

Decimation, then. Do you have a better word for 25% of a species being snuffed out? I'm not all that interested in semantics, to be honest.

If there were four dragons in the world and I killed one of them, would you say that was genocide?

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 11:26 AM

If there were four dragons in the world and I killed one of them, would you say that was genocide?

Depends. Was it the only female one?

Zanaril

2009-07-09, 11:27 AM

If the other three were all the the same sex.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:31 AM

If there were four dragons in the world and I killed one of them, would you say that was genocide?

So you don't have a better term then? Guess I'll stick with the one we've been using.

I said "potentially tipped the balance". When I said "morally grey" I meant it could be potentially concieved as good, evil or neutral, not that it is definatly neutral.

(To be fair though I probably meant to say "turned evil" instead of "tipped the balance" as "tipped the balance" implies she was neutral beforehand)

If it was neutral on its own, then the Fiend's judgment is completely ignoring acts which he himself witnessed - rescuing a paladin and saving the innocents in the fleet. I find this highly unlikely.

spargel

2009-07-09, 11:33 AM

So you don't have a better term then? Guess I'll stick with the one we've been using.

Didn't I already tell you it's "Familicide"?

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:34 AM

Didn't I already tell you it's "Familicide"?

To compare it to. I can't compare bananas to bananas. :smallsigh:

Jahkaivah

2009-07-09, 11:36 AM

If it was neutral on its own, then the Fiend's judgment is completely ignoring acts which he himself witnessed - rescuing a paladin and saving the innocents in the fleet. I find this highly unlikely.

....

No offense, but I think you've pulled a strawman, or your just stating random facts that have nothing to do with what i'm saying for the heck of it.

spargel

2009-07-09, 11:37 AM

To compare it to. I can't compare bananas to bananas. :smallsigh:

If you only want to compare, use "Mini genocider".
If you want to be more accurate, use "Mass murderer".

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 11:37 AM

To compare it to. I can't compare bananas to bananas. :smallsigh:

Why not? I do it all the time. Some bananas are better than others. And some are just rotten. Some are greener, while others are more yellow.

See? It's easy! :smalltongue:

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 11:43 AM

No offense, but I think you've pulled a strawman.

Do you even know what that means? What argument of yours have I deliberately overstated?

See? It's easy! :smalltongue:

All right, you got me :smalltongue:

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 12:00 PM

Hey, Optimistyk, today I get to be on your side!

It was GENOCIDE. Killing 25% of a race is one of the definitions of genocide - though there are several, oddly enough.

This was an evil act. Familicide definitely had the [Evil] label. His motivations are also questionable. By the way, even as revenge, this seems like an Eye for an eye to me.

Now for against you - nothing minor, such as saving a few lives, can EVER hope to counteract killing off 25% of a regular race.

If I killed 1.5 billion humans tomorrow, nothing could ever remove that "Evil" from my alignment. Evil, evil, evil. Not 50-50.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 12:02 PM

From Wikipedia:

Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide):

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

The idea that one has to kill every last person of a group to commit genocide is simply not correct. I'd give RL examples (some of them, sadly, quite recent), but alas, I cannot.

Basically any systematic, large number of killing purely based on Group Idenity with the intent to Wipe Them Out is genocide.

Where the line between regular ol Mass Murder and Genocide is, is an exercize left for the reader.

PS: If killing large numbers of evil critters is Good, because of the evil that the slain evil people might do, then all of Yugoloths that egg on the BLood War from behind the scenes are the most Good Creatures in the entire mulitverse.

And that's just stooopid. :smallwink:

PPS: FC2 is just wrong. On so many levels. But I just successfully made a Will Save on that subject, so I shant say anymore about the subject. :smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 12:04 PM

PPS: FC2 is just wrong. On so many levels. But I just successfully made a Will Save on that subject, so I shant say anymore about the subject. :smalltongue:

Well, it's written by WotC. What were you expecting, quality and thoughtfulness?

FlawedParadigm

2009-07-09, 12:04 PM

No, it was an Evil act. Just HOW evil is the question. I still believe not particularly, compared to other things.

Obviously Rich is going to need to break out the kilonazi scale for this argument to ever see any hope of abatement.

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 12:05 PM

I already explained why V would still be on the fence. He's done good deeds since Familicide - Durkon says so explicitly. "Ye've helped these people more than tha' rest of us who were tryin' combined." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) The question now is whether those good deeds outweigh the serious crime of genocide, not whether the crime of genocide was serious or not.
For it to be genocide, V would have to have either:
A) Actually wiped out all black dragons (she didn't)
B) Acted with the intent of wiping out all black dragons (she didn't)
She was just trying to piss off one dragon, and she might not even be aware that she just blasted a massive whole in the upper levels of the foodchain. It is fitting that her Disintegration-spells kept missing earlier, as she has spent most of this arc shooting from the hip.

Jahkaivah

2009-07-09, 12:07 PM

Do you even know what that means?

Yes, or atleast I think I do.

What argument of yours have I deliberately overstated?

As far as I know a strawman can just be a minsintrpretation, not specifically a overstatement and does not neccissarily have to be deliberate. I do not know what argument you are attcking, I do not think it is my own.

So let's just take a step backwards and restate my argument:

The dealer does not know whether the dragon killing is good or evil.

The dealer mentions the dragon becuase it is possibly the one action that is potentially most evil.

Therefore the dealer considers the action being evil as a possiblity.

Therefore the dealer considers obtaining V's soul as a possilibility, a 50/50 possiblity to be exact which is what the dealer states.

Have to go now, I will be back tomorrow.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 12:09 PM

"attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a group"

This group comprised a quarter of black dragonkind- one very big family. And it was destroyed in whole.

I personally like Fiendish Codex 2 for the concept that actions have to be atoned for- changing your personality is just not enough.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 12:10 PM

I personally like Fiendish Codex 2 for the concept that actions have to be atoned for- changing your personality is just not enough.

Through magic, which is the problem. A man with no access to high level clerics cannot atone from his evil deeds ever.

FlawedParadigm

2009-07-09, 12:13 PM

If I killed 1.5 billion humans tomorrow, nothing could ever remove that "Evil" from my alignment. Evil, evil, evil. Not 50-50.

See, this would seem to be the easiest way to be instantly right ever, except for one thing.

Humans aren't Always Chaotic Evil. Black Dragons? Are.

That's *exactly* what makes this entire argument go 'round in the first place. There's two things wrong here; first off, the term "always" should be omitted from any discussion of alignment of beings that have *any* kind of free will. Wizards screwed that pooch hard. The only things that should have ever been classified as "always" should have been infernals, celestials, avatars, golems, and other beings with absolutely no free will. Note not even all undead make that list.

Second, since we're stuck with the definition we were given, the fact is that these beings are "always" evil...at least by RAW. In Rich's world, I doubt this is the case. All the same, I doubt any of them are super cuddly puppies, and that's why this is morally grey. He killed a large amount of evil creatures, but he also did it by evil means for selfish reasons. It single-handledly put V's body count on par with Xykon's. The *only* reason this wasn't a Hells-worthy trepass automatically was because of that "Always Chaotic Evil." You just can't compare killing humans, goblins, or most other races, because it isn't the same.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 12:14 PM

The only things that should have ever been classified as "always" should have been infernals, celestials, avatars, golems, and other beings with absolutely no free will. Note not even all undead make that list.

Except Infernals and Celestials do have free will.

Also, "Always (Alignment)" in D&D means "most of the time of the (Alignment) alignment, with the odd exception".

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 12:14 PM

*nods* FC2's alignment thing makes a lot of sense to me.

It's like.. some real world religions. For true evil, you must atone to a cleric, not just alone. That part may be silly, in a way, but DON'T DO EVIL THINGS.

hamispence has the correct definition of Genocide.

Hey, Flawed, read my argument. I never said it was a horrible act - it was definitely Evil. It was definitely "Genocide". But it wasn't... True genocide. It wasn't a horrible unredeemable act, which genocide normally should be.

I wish I had a word for "semi-permissable genocide", but I don't.

Another thing - Free Will is something all those things have... BUT! Free will does not mean what you want it to, in D&D or real life. It's free will to act within your personality - which is always Chaotic Evil for dragons.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 12:16 PM

Well, it's written by WotC. What were you expecting, quality and thoughtfulness?

I actually like a lot of WotC product. And there were... elements of FC 1 + 2 that had at last some good ideas. But most of the other elements set my teeth on edge ("'Hell' Points"? Seriously?). Throw in the execution, glibness and tone of the books... Well, it's not one of my favorites, let's just say that. :smalltongue:

Shorter Porthos:

FC I/II. Taking everything I disliked about Planescape* and ramping it up to 11. :smalltongue:

* Mind you, I absolutey adore Planescape. But there's a lot in there that annoys me. And FC did those things no favors. :smallamused:

Porthos

2009-07-09, 12:18 PM

Second, since we're stuck with the definition we were given, the fact is that these beings are "always" evil...at least by RAW.

You do know that, per RAW, Always Doesn't Always Equal Always, yes? :smallwink:

Second, again, Blood War.

Simply put Evil can destroy Evil without becoming Good. Intent (real, not what your self-deluded stated intentions might be) PLUS Actions matter, alignment wise.

In this case, V intended to tortue and cause Massive Disporportionate Revenge. Which, last time I checked, ain't exactly Good. :smalltongue:

mcl01

2009-07-09, 12:21 PM

Through magic, which is the problem. A man with no access to high level clerics cannot atone from his evil deeds ever.

A common man without any means to some powerful magic or some vast sum of non-magical resources wouldn't be able to perpetrate something so non-equivocally evil on such a massive scale anyway, so the point should be moot.

Commoners don't need atonement spells to avoid hell since it's near impossible for them to perpetrate something so heinous that it would require an atonement spell at all.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 12:25 PM

Commoners don't need atonement spells to avoid hell since it's near impossible for them to perpetrate something so heinous that it would require an atonement spell at all.

Two murders. A commoner can definitely commit two murders.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 12:25 PM

Champions of Valor had much to say on this-

that the atonement spell is designed to simplify things for DMs who don't have time or inclination for extended roleplaying, and that sincerely penitent PCs should be able to do it on their own.

Hard part is fixing damage done.

Even if character dies without successful atonement (magic or otherwise) there is the Hellbred thing- designed for characters who died sincerely repentant but without achieving redemption.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 12:34 PM

The full book text- Champions of Valor page 13:

When a hero falls morally, that hero can avail himself of a chance to prove himself over again to those who have come to doubt his commitment, strength, and ability. In stories, these are usually special tasks, quests, or rituals. In the D&D game, the obvious method is the atonement spell, which could require some sort of quest. However it is important ot note that the atonement spell isn't always required.

A suitably remorseful hero can atone for the misdeed without the intervention of a spellcasting priest; there is nothing particularly special about a 9th level spellcaster's ability to forgive transgressions other than his access to the spell, and a lower level priest could use the spell from a scroll or a want, so clearly the priest and the spell aren't the key factors. The D&D game simplifies many things for Dungeon Masters who don't have the time or inclination to require extended roleplaying for a character's penance- and the atonement spell serves that purpose.

In campaigns where magic is more than what spells you have prepared, and faith is more than what deity you have written on your character sheet, any sincerely penitent person should be able to atone for a transgression on his own through appropriate acts.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 12:35 PM

For it to be genocide, V would have to have either:
A) Actually wiped out all black dragons (she didn't)
B) Acted with the intent of wiping out all black dragons (she didn't)

As others have stated, you are categorically incorrect.

Flawed and Jahk: I do understand your position. It's possible that the targets of V's atrocity mitigated the act itself, just as the targets of the paladins slaughter caused them to keep their powers in SoD. The act would thus be 50-50 by itself.

My argument is that this view is shortsighted. It requires the Fiend to deliberately ignore the Good deeds that V did while under the splice - deeds that were described as Good by an in-comic authority on morality, Durkon. For Familicide to be 50-50 on its own would mean that V's chances of getting into hell are less that 50%, because he would have mitigated that 50% even more with his subsequent good deeds. Familicide must therefore be more than 50% evil. I never said it was 100% evil; rather, it's evil enough that the good deeds he did since then only managed to bring his soul to 50%. Whether that puts it at 70%, 80%, 6 Corruption points, 5, is irrelevant. On the "moral hue" scale, it must have been darker than gray.

spargel

2009-07-09, 12:49 PM

hamispence has the correct definition of Genocide.

-–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Does anyone else find it ridiculous that something would be labeled genocide because that species doesn't reproduce often enough?

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 12:55 PM

Two murders. A commoner can definitely commit two murders.
I think that's more a problem with applying heroic morality to definitely non-heroic people. A lot of the harder aspects of alignment probably shouldn't be applied to commoners. Do the forces of the Abyss really care that much about getting the soul of Dave the Dirt Farmer who killed his wife and her lover on a drunken night? He's not really that significant. He might be fun to kick around for a while, but if he escapes there's millions of others like him.
But when they've sunk their claws into Dave the Hero, they're not going to just let go because Dave starts saving kittens from trees. Dave the Hero will need the help of the gods themselves to escape his fate.

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 12:57 PM

I think that's more a problem with applying heroic morality to definitely non-heroic people. A lot of the harder aspects of alignment probably shouldn't be applied to commoners. Do the forces of the Abyss really care that much about getting the soul of Dave the Dirt Farmer who killed his wife and her lover on a drunken night? He's not really that significant. He might be fun to kick around for a while, but if he escapes there's millions of others like him.
But when they've sunk their claws into Dave the Hero, they're not going to just let go because Dave starts saving kittens from trees. Dave the Hero will need the help of the gods themselves to escape his fate.

Yes, but D&D rules make no non-class based distinctions between a commoner and a hero. Anyone who commits two murders and does not magically repent goes to hell, no matter what they do.

Ancalagon

2009-07-09, 01:02 PM

Yes, but D&D rules make no non-class based distinctions between a commoner and a hero. Anyone who commits two murders and does not magically repent goes to hell, no matter what they do.

Do not focus too much on the "magic" repenting. It's a just a game-mechanical mean of you going to some high-cleric of some deity who then says "I believe you are repenting honestly, you are forgiven".

The "casting a spell of atonement" is not just "some fireball you throw around". It's the process of a god, in person of his high cleric, forgives someone who honestly seeks forgiveness. It's one of the cruder things you can glue into "rules" (and I think Rich pointed that out very nicely on the example of "Miko").

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:03 PM

As others have stated, you are categorically incorrect.
Those others are using a conventional definition that is too broad. The UN definition (Spargel quoted it) is much better, and emphasizes that the effort must include Intent. V didn't intend to commit genocide she intended to commit Familicide (remarkably enough, that's the name of the spell too).
If V had committed genocide (probably the second worst crime imaginable, second only to just blowing up the whole planet), that would have put her right into the fiends' lap. There would be no 50/50 shot, there would just be a pitchfork being shot straight up her butt the moment she stopped breathing.

fangthane

2009-07-09, 01:06 PM

the term "always" should be omitted from any discussion of alignment of beings that have *any* kind of free will. Wizards screwed that pooch hard.

This part, you've got completely correct. If Wizards went and made a major alignment situation out of it, everybody steps in; realism steps in, and there's no exclusive alignments for anybody, nobody wins! So they made a decision, and it was... wrong. It was a bad call.

I have to admit, that was quite possibly the best part Reiser ever had. :smallbiggrin: And he handled it beautifully - everybody I know wanted Burke dead.

Ancalagon

2009-07-09, 01:08 PM

Those others are using a conventional definition that is too broad. The UN definition (Spargel quoted it) is much better, and emphasizes that the effort must include Intent. V didn't intend to commit genocide she intended to commit Familicide (remarkably enough, that's the name of the spell too).
If V had committed genocide (probably the second worst crime imaginable, second only to just blowing up the whole planet), that would have put her right into the fiends' lap. There would be no 50/50 shot, there would just be a pitchfork being shot straight up her butt the moment she stopped breathing.

Tell me: If a large group of people consists of two (large and widespread) families and you kill one of it, thus 50% of a population... is that not "genocide" in some way?
For a killing to qualify as "genocide" you do not need to eradicate ALL possible subjects - if that were so, there had be no, zero, none genocide happend at all in RL. But they did. 100% of death is not a needed criterium.

And I feel dumber actually discussing this. You simply are wrong and you are actually so far wrong that it's mind boggling and confusing.

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:09 PM

Yes, but D&D rules make no non-class based distinctions between a commoner and a hero. Anyone who commits two murders and does not magically repent goes to hell, no matter what they do.
The rules are written for PCs, heroes in other words. The whole "commoners can be killed by housecats"-thing is pretty clear proof that no one at WoTC was thinking about the little guy when they wrote the rules.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 01:12 PM

Depends how you define genocide. He's definining it differently.

From now on, in the context of this argument, we are using the definition of "genocide" which makes it correct. If you can give us a better word to use, do so and we will use it. Otherwise, we will continue to use our 100% accurate definition of genocide. And we'll like it.

Actually FC2 is quite clear about regular people's alignments. The devils DO care. Every soul is worth a decent chunk of divine energy.

Weird, I felt like spoilering that :P damn SoD.

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:17 PM

Tell me: If a large group of people consists of two (large and widespread) families and you kill one of it, thus 50% of a population... is that not "genocide" in some way?
First of all, I like how you doubled the number of dead. That isn't disingeuous or arbitrary at all. No, sir.
Second of all, that depends. Did I know that this group only consisted of two families? V had no way of knowing (and probably still doesn't know) how many black dragons there were in the world and how many of those she was about to kill.

For a killing to qualify as "genocide" you do not need to eradicate ALL possible subjects - if that were so, there had be no, zero, none genocide happend at all in RL. But they did. 100% of death is not a needed criterium.
Well, duh. I'm not arguing effect, I'm arguing intent. Genocide is like murder, it requires deliberate intent.
V did not intend to wipe out the black dragon race, she just wanted to kill a handful of them to make her point. If she had cast familicide on a human, and so killed a couple hundred people, would that have been genocide?

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 01:19 PM

Urm.. you're horribly misinformed.

Genocide includes killing a portion of a group.

V was the one that said 25% of Black Dragons. She knows EXACTLY what she's done.

Also: As for doubling things, the best way to test a hypothesis is to take it to its logical conclusion. Kant understood this.

Let's think it through: What if he killed 90% of black dragons in this family? Or if he killed them all except for three? You're claiming that someone has to want to end an entire race to commit genocide - but that's clearly untrue.

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:21 PM

Depends how you define genocide. He's definining it differently.
I'm not defining anything. The UN quite handily defined genocide after the Holocaust (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html).
Note, "intent to destroy." Not, "killing a whole bunch with complete ignorance about the most recent global census."

spargel

2009-07-09, 01:21 PM

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:24 PM

Note, "intent to destroy." Not, "killing a whole bunch with complete ignorance about the most recent global census."

But V was the one who said that he killed (approximately) 25% of all black dragons. :smallconfused:

V certainly had intent here. :smallconfused:

The Rose Dragon

2009-07-09, 01:25 PM

The whole "commoners can be killed by housecats"-thing is pretty clear proof that no one at WoTC was thinking about the little guy when they wrote the rules.

The bolded parts are the only relevant parts. The rest is just so much chaff.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 01:25 PM

Except that the definition IS CORRECT.

He was not clueless. He said EXACTLY how many he'd kill. 25%. Genocide.

spargel

2009-07-09, 01:27 PM

Except that the definition IS CORRECT.

He was not clueless. He said EXACTLY how many he'd kill. 25%. Genocide.

So if dragons reproduced a lot more, it wouldn't be genocide?

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:27 PM

Urm.. you're horribly misinformed.

Genocide includes killing a portion of a group.

V was the one that said 25% of Black Dragons. She knows EXACTLY what she's done.
2 is a portion. So killing two people makes a genocide too? Dear God, what a depressing world you all must inhabit.
The fact is, it is genocide when the killer decides to make it that way. There is no threshold of genocide based upon numbers. If V had set out to kill every black dragon on the Southern continent (or in the world, or who worship Tiamat), that would be genocide.

Worira

2009-07-09, 01:30 PM

Remember kids, doubling a number is disingenuous and bad, but reducing it from 25% of an entire population to 2 individuals is just dandy.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-09, 01:30 PM

What? Of course the reproduction rate is relevant, in a way. It means there were less, and so he killed more.

If you killed 25% of rabbits, you'd still have killed 25% of an entire species.

2 is not a significant portion. You're now arguing semantics.

The entire thread of the conversation has been lost, we are now arguing the definition of a word that by any stretch of the imagination is the best we've got for what he did.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:30 PM

So if dragons reproduced a lot more, it wouldn't be genocide?

Short answer: Yes.
Longer Answer: If I slaughtered 65 California Condors, I think the term Genocide might be tossed around.

(NOTE: I hope that talking about the plight of the California Condors is sufficiently non-RL for this board. :smallsmile:)

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:31 PM

So if dragons reproduced a lot more, it wouldn't be genocide?
Apparently not. I guess if you're gonna pick a fight with someone, you'd better make sure they belong to a race that has lots of babies.
Or maybe not, since if that was genocide, and genocide only puts you on the fence between good and evil, OotS-Universe must have the easiest morality system ever. Hell, Xykon could probably get out of the fires below just by building a couple orphanages and sorting his recycling.

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:36 PM

Remember kids, doubling a number is disingenuous and bad, but reducing it from 25% of an entire population to 2 individuals is just dandy.
I didn't say V only killed two, I just pointed out that "portion" is a vague term that can mean anything from 1 in 10,000 to 99 out of 100. There is apparently a hard and fast numerical threshold for genocide, and I'd like to know it for future reference.
All this time I'd thought that genocide was a process of deliberate and systematic destruction, but apparently it is like a video game's completion score.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:37 PM

Or maybe not, since if that was genocide, and genocide only puts you on the fence between good and evil, OotS-Universe must have the easiest morality system ever. Hell, Xykon could probably get out of the fires below just by building a couple orphanages and sorting his recycling.

And people wonder why some other people are sick to death of alignment debates. :smallsigh:

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 01:46 PM

spargel

2009-07-09, 01:51 PM

Lint, just stop. Your argument is growing more ridiculous by the post. V satisfied the definition of genocide to the letter, and there is no UN in D&D, much less OotS-land.

Back on topic: Familicide is bad, mmkay?

Yes, ignore the dictionary and use your own definitions to make your argument true. Must be wonderful.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:52 PM

All this time I'd thought that genocide was a process of deliberate and systematic destruction, but apparently it is like a video game's completion score.

The real problem here is that I (and others) really can't debate with you about this subject without getting into Real Life Political discussion. Which is not welcome in these parts. :smallwink:

So while I would love to point to (and discuss about) all of the Real Life instances/charges of genocide in the last fifty years (some of them very recent), I can't.

So perhaps we can all let the whole discussion about what genocide is and isn't drop. Hmmm? :smallsmile:

Back on topic: Familicide is bad, mmkay?

Exactly what I was going to say. :smalltongue:

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:54 PM

Yes, ignore the dictionary and use your own definitions to make your argument true. Must be wonderful.

It would be if that was what Optimystik was doing. :smallsigh:

Look, you don't like the common political defintion of genocide. You're not alone in that regards, BTW. It is a somewhat controversial definition. But, again, aren't we at a point where we really can't discuss this any further?

73 Bits of Lint

2009-07-09, 01:55 PM

Lint, just stop. Your argument is growing more ridiculous by the post. V satisfied the definition of genocide to the letter, and there is no UN in D&D, much less OotS-land.
The UN provides a working, usable definition of genocide. One that I trust a whole lot more than the collective wisdom of a few other forum-goers.
Especially since V's actions apparently only put her at risk for eternal damnation, rather than guaranteeing it (as genocide should).

Back on topic: Familicide is bad, mmkay?
Familicide is bad, genocide would be substantially worse.

spargel

2009-07-09, 01:56 PM

It would be if that was what Optimystik was doing. :smallsigh:

Look, you don't like the common political defintion of genocide. You're not alone in that regards, BTW. It is a somewhat controversial definition. But, again, aren't we at a point where we really can't discuss this any further?

Sorry, I have a problem with people who can't differentiate familicide from genocide.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 01:58 PM

Sorry, I have a problem with people who can't differentiate familicide from genocide.

Sometimes they can be equivilent, given how races work in DnD. That's all some people are saying.

Anyway, with that, I think I will take leave of this thread.

Ta.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 02:01 PM

Yes, ignore the dictionary and use your own definitions to make your argument true. Must be wonderful.

If it helps you sleep at night, mentally substitute "mass murder" for "genocide" where I use it in my posts. Alignment-wise, a kitten could starve on the difference, so I couldn't care less.

@ Rose: FC2 has obeisant acts shifting the actor's alignment towards lawful, and corrupt acts towards evil, but the scores remain if the user doesn't atone properly even if their alignment otherwise shifts, so you are correct.

soj

2009-07-09, 02:01 PM

The spell wasn't called genocide. V killed a large amount of evil creatures, saved an entire fleet of innocent people and rescued a paladin. Talk about evil!

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 02:04 PM

The spell wasn't called genocide. V killed a large amount of evil creatures, saved an entire fleet of innocent people and rescued a paladin. Talk about evil!

And yet he is on the fence, by Word of God (Fiend in this case.) So which one was evil? The murder, saving the innocent people, or rescuing the paladin? The answer can't be "none of the above."

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 02:07 PM

Plus, they make no reference to the original Splice- the words used are "after that stunt with the dragons"

Strongly implying its that which is responsible.

Ancalagon

2009-07-09, 02:09 PM

Strongly implying its that which is responsible.

You call that "strong implication"? I'd call it "plain proof"...

Even if this part is not considered to be a Word of God, you still can assume that the fiend is "an Expert in Evil" and as such, we really should follow his estimation on this issue.

Roland St. Jude

2009-07-09, 02:11 PM

The real problem here is that I (and others) really can't debate with you about this subject without getting into Real Life Political discussion. Which is not welcome in these parts. :smallwink:

Sheriff of Moddingham: Indeed. Also, the sniping and passive-aggressive stuff should stop, too. Be nice in here please.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 02:12 PM

I assumed that the deva was Word of God too on Evil and Good- and what I get is "probably has poor moral judgement" and "A "real" deva would judge more severely"

So I tend to be a little cautious in wording.

EmperorSarda

2009-07-09, 02:21 PM

And yet he is on the fence, by Word of God (Fiend in this case.) So which one was evil? The murder, saving the innocent people, or rescuing the paladin? The answer can't be "none of the above."

No, Familicide was evil enough to get V. to the 50% chance of landing V.'s self in the abyss. It's not concrete because they don't know. V. isn't dead, so his fate isn't decided. It may not be enough to get V. into hell, but it certainly is causing alarms to go off in the heavens, (As per 664 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html)) so it is an evil act.

Or we can compare V.'s slaughter of the dragons to all the unstated commoners that Nale killed in Cliffport. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html) Nale killed all those commoners to get back at Elan for not joining his team, disproportionate revenge. V. killed every dragon that was related to the Mother Dragon, even distantly related 6th cousins thrice removed, so no dragon would threaten V. or V.'s family.

Somewhat different motives, but it's still evil, unless you want to argue that Nale was completely justified in killing unstated commoners.

Also; V. still has a chance to make up for it, to atone for his actions. Which means on this scale, something big. Something far more than teleporting a fleet of people looking for land and rescuing a paladin.

So hence familicide was an evil act.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 02:23 PM

Sarda, methinks you're agreeing with me. :smallsmile:

Mr. Scaly

2009-07-09, 02:32 PM

So after four pages of derailment, it's back to the topic at hand.

I wonder, since V is indirectly responsible for the (pending) deaths of five times as many good dragons as were killed by the Familicide spell, if he/she lives long enough for it to happen will they be added to his/her list of Reasons to be Damned?

Ancalagon

2009-07-09, 02:34 PM

Unlikely. He did not cause that on purpose. It MIGHT be on Vaarsuvius' list if he wanted to go into the LG afterlife (or even any good) but that was never the question for him.

For the neutral one that was his original destination that has to get debated now it won't matter.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 02:35 PM

no, I don't think so. Indirect responsibility, in this case, is a bit far removed- and its not V but the 3 fiends that will carry out the reprisal.

Unless, just For The Evulz :smallwink: the three fiends make V do this, when they have V under control, with another splice.

Unlikely.

To give an example- the Sapphire Guard didn't all go to Nine Hells because they provoked Redcloak into taking reprisals against their city (as far as we know)- the moral responsibility for Redcloak's acts rests with him.

Kish

2009-07-09, 02:36 PM

The Familicide was plainly evil. I say that, but I did as soon as it happened. As far as I can tell, the most recent comic hasn't seriously shifted anyone's opinion in either direction. Such is life on the OotS board. :smalltongue:

That said, what the fiend said was that he estimates they have a 50% chance of getting Vaarsuvius' soul eventually. That doesn't mean Vaarsuvius is on the fence between Neutral and Evil right now. It means that their predictive formula (the same one which predicted an 84% chance of Vaarsuvius trying to beat up Xykon) gives Vaarsuvius a 50% chance of being evil at death, because of what happened with the dragons.

That could theoretically mean, "S/he is Neutral now but has a good chance of being evil in the future." That strikes me as implausible, considering that the future acts that would damn Vaarsuvius would have to be directly traceable to the Familicide for what the fiend said to make any sense, but it's not impossible. However, and much more plausibly, it could also mean, "If the elf died right this second s/he would drop into Director Nero's domain like a spiritual lead weight, but from that conversation with the dwarf, she unfortunately seems to be on the road to redemption. Oh well. I calculate that he has a fifty percent chance of getting back into Neutral territory before dying."

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 02:37 PM

I wonder, since V is indirectly responsible for the (pending) deaths of five times as many good dragons as were killed by the Familicide spell, if he/she lives long enough for it to happen will they be added to his/her list of Reasons to be Damned?

That one can't be appended to him; it was Lee who made that promise to get out of being burninated/meltified/freezy death.

In addition, I doubt the Fiends will be able to deliver on their promise, as doing so would require their plans for the Snarl succeeding.

EmperorSarda

2009-07-09, 02:38 PM

I wonder, since V is indirectly responsible for the (pending) deaths of five times as many good dragons as were killed by the Familicide spell, if he/she lives long enough for it to happen will they be added to his/her list of Reasons to be Damned?

Yes. But not how you're thinking. If that were to happen, that means the IFCC got a hold of the snarl and turned it upon Arcadia and the other realms of good. Possibly the neutral afterlife planes as well.

Which means that even if V. fully tries to redeem werf-self, that there is no good/neutral afterlife to go to, because they no longer exist. It means that there is no longer any good gods that grant spells to their clerics and that that evil rules all.

Heck, just because they could, the IFCC would probably place a bunch of statues of V around because, through V, they defeated the forces of good.

Mr. Scaly

2009-07-09, 02:41 PM

In addition, I doubt the Fiends will be able to deliver on their promise, as doing so would require their plans for the Snarl succeeding.

Well I didn't hear any time limit for this deal, so they may be working on it for the next couple hundred years.

Either way I consider my question answered.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 02:47 PM

To give an example- the Sapphire Guard didn't all go to Nine Hells because they provoked Redcloak into taking reprisals against their city (as far as we know)- the moral responsibility for Redcloak's acts rests with him.

<since the genocide thing is subsiding, I think I can safely return to this thread :smalltongue:>

There's also an "in-comic" reference for the whole "not responsible for the actions of others" thing.

Specifically when O-Chul points out that Redcloak would be responsible for the Unmaking of the prisoners thrown to the Snarl, not he (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html) should Redcloak go through with his threat.

As you say, the moral authority lies with the person who does the deed, not someone up the chain of events. Consider this tought experiment. I pass someone on the street and flip them off. This causes this person to wig out and kill a bunch of inncoent bystanders. Am I going to the Lower Planes?

Well, I would say no. It's not my fault that the other guy decided to act way out of proportion of the situation.

Now in V's case it's mitigated a bit due to the initial act. But at some point, one has to be responsible for one's own actions. And unless one has direct (or exceedingly sufficient indirect) control over someone else's actions, then under no real means could one be responsible for their actions.

See the Roy/Belkar dynamic and the Celestial Deva for further proof, in-comic. In Roy's case, he was in trouble because he did have (more or less) direct control over Belkar. But since he was mitigating Belkar's evil, was directing Belkar's violence to a good goal, and because there were very few other good options, Roy had no taint on his soul due to Belkar's actions.

And since V is even futher removed from the IFCC than Roy was to Belkar, I don't see much room for connection.

Besides, V is in enough hot water as it is already. No need to pile on. :smalltongue:

Timberboar

2009-07-09, 03:09 PM

So if dragons reproduced a lot more, it wouldn't be genocide?

Sure it would.

A bigger family (more reproduction) just means more targets for the Familicide to seek out and destroy.

Edit: *reaches the end of the thread, starts erasing his comment with his sleeve*

Alex Star

2009-07-09, 03:41 PM

In all actuality I'd have to say that use of the spell is not an Evil action in and of itself. For two main reasons.

__________________________________________________ _______

1.) All Black Dragons are Inherently Evil by nature.

They are Intelligent creatures, however, they are still creatures. At best a Dragon qualifies as an NPC, and is thusly bound to the very strict definitions of alignment. At most the argument could be made that the ABD that attacked V's family was worthy of a deeper alignment defintion, however, the actions taken by the ABD are clearly Evil in nature.

The question to pose for this purpose is this.

If any good aligned adventuring party in the world were to come in contact with a Black Dragon that it was capable of defeating in combat would it proceed to do so?

The answer is Yes. This would not cause an alignment change, nor would this be seen as an Evil act.

2.) V's actions lack the motivation for Evil.

Given the circumstances at best V's activites could be considered Chaotic Good. V clearly states the reasoning behind the use of Familicide as to prevent any of the ABD's kin from ever trying to seek revenge ever again. Had the action been used solely as a punishment or as a revenge killing itself then the argument could be made that the motivation in itself was evil.

However, V, Knowing that Black Dragons are inherently evil decided that putting his/her family at risk by allowing any more "vengence" seeking members of the ABD's family to live was an unacceptable risk.

__________________________________________________ ____

As far as other arguments go that require more detail the following should be stated.

1.) Vigilante Justice is a legally and divinely accepted course of action.

2.) 19 out of the 20 people I surveyed (12 parents and 8 non-parents) said that they would kill to protect their children/significant other. 7 of them said they would use "Whatever Means Necessary" to ensure their safety.

3.) Who is going to punish V? The Legal System? The Good Gods of the Realm?

There is no "Geneva" Convention between Good and Evil defining the rules of war. The most likely scenario is that while the Lawful Good Gods will frown upon her methods the Chaotic Good Gods will celebrate her success, but the Gods in general will view her actions as a positive step forward in the battle between good and evil.

In conclusing the defining act which determines the alignment of V's actions is what she did after the "tipping point" so to speak. Did she continue doing great evil. No. Did she at any time indicate that she was focused on doing anything other than stopping evil? No.

I would like someone to give me one instance which shows V's motivations after the splice to be directly EVIL in nature.

The 50/50 Shot that the Fiends are speaking about is V's choice to use the Splice instead of take the Martyrs path.

David Argall

2009-07-09, 03:44 PM

And not "mildly evil" or "evil for a Good cause" either.
That settles it, for this strip, that is. Whether it should be an evil act in reality, a generic D&D setting, or even in the strip itself, is still an open question. The strip only has the standing of the typical poster on such subjects.

Even within the strip, we have to ask if this was not just an arbitrary ruling rather than a reasoned decision. The paladins attacking the goblins do not fall [and thus the attack is not evil] despite the goblins being far less inclined to evil, and far less able to do evil. One can point to other differences, but at first look, there is little reason to insist one was evil and the other not.

That's right - even after rescuing a paladin and saving an entire fleet of innocents with his splice power, Familicide was still bad enough by itself to put V squarely back on the alignment fence.

We have had people calling V evil for a very long time. The Kubota case is just one of the better known reasons, and there have been claims that dealing with the fiends at all was evil. So if one has been saying V was evil, the math seems to make Familicide a good deed. Evil V does Familicide and is now only maybe-evil V. So Familicide has move V in a good direction?
We can say the rescue of O-Chul, and finding a home for the fleet helps out here, and gives enough room for Familicide to be evil, but we still have a problem for those deeming V evil. The strip puts V at a presumed 33rd percentile in goodness. That means there is a definite limit on how much evil we can accuse V of. Either we have to decide some past deeds were good, or at least non-evil, or we have to make Familicide less or not evil.

That could theoretically mean, "S/he is Neutral now but has a good chance of being evil in the future." That strikes me as implausible, considering that the future acts that would damn Vaarsuvius would have to be directly traceable to the Familicide for what the fiend said to make any sense, but it's not impossible. However, and much more plausibly, it could also mean, "If the elf died right this second s/he would drop into Director Nero's domain like a spiritual lead weight, but from that conversation with the dwarf, she unfortunately seems to be on the road to redemption. Oh well. I calculate that he has a fifty percent chance of getting back into Neutral territory before dying."
True, but another, related, reading would be "The elf has shown a tendency to make major alignment decisions at the drop of a hat. Accordingly her soul's destination will be determined by the last of these almost random decisions, and it is 50-50 whether that will be an evil or good action, and thus whether he will go to a good or evil plane."

Timberboar

2009-07-09, 03:56 PM

soj

2009-07-09, 04:01 PM

Alex Star

2009-07-09, 04:02 PM

True, but another, related, reading would be "The elf has shown a tendency to make major alignment decisions at the drop of a hat. Accordingly her soul's destination will be determined by the last of these almost random decisions, and it is 50-50 whether that will be an evil or good action, and thus whether he will go to a good or evil plane."

I would disagree V's actions have always been clearly Good, while almost certainly Chaotic. Even killing Kubato was a clearly Chatoic Good action. Good in as such as he was Evil, and Chatoic in as such as she felt the legal process would be ineffectual compared to what s/he could accomplish with a single spell.

V has shown to be of the following school of thought.

Power is meant to be wielded by those who have it.

And while V definitely shows no restraint in wielding power, s/he has also only done so when s/he felt it was in the best interests of herself AND others.

The only action V has taken thusfar in the comic that could be seen as CLEARLY selfish, was the choice between the Red and Blue orbs.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 04:02 PM

Even within the strip, we have to ask if this was not just an arbitrary ruling rather than a reasoned decision. The paladins attacking the goblins do not fall [and thus the attack is not evil] despite the goblins being far less inclined to evil, and far less able to do evil. One can point to other differences, but at first look, there is little reason to insist one was evil and the other not.

I agree that they should be treated consistently. Your guess is as good as mine why this wasn't so.

We have had people calling V evil for a very long time. The Kubota case is just one of the better known reasons, and there have been claims that dealing with the fiends at all was evil. So if one has been saying V was evil, the math seems to make Familicide a good deed. Evil V does Familicide and is now only maybe-evil V. So Familicide has move V in a good direction?

I'd put it more accurately as "Maybe-Evil V does Familicide, follows up with a couple of very Good acts and remains Maybe-Evil V." He was not damned before the splice.

We can say the rescue of O-Chul, and finding a home for the fleet helps out here, and gives enough room for Familicide to be evil, but we still have a problem for those deeming V evil. The strip puts V at a presumed 33rd percentile in goodness. That means there is a definite limit on how much evil we can accuse V of. Either we have to decide some past deeds were good, or at least non-evil, or we have to make Familicide less or not evil.

Past deeds are not considered here. The Fiend specifically says "after that stunt with the dragons," so he is not rating V's entire moral career - we are looking at a very specific time frame: namely, everything he did after that stunt with the dragons.

Making a deal with fiends when another option was available?

The fiend's use of "anyway" suggests that the deal by itself wasn't enough to doom V. Other evil deeds were needed, specifically Familicide in this case.

Alex Star

2009-07-09, 04:08 PM

Past deeds are not considered here. The Fiend specifically says "after that stunt with the dragons," so he is not rating V's entire moral career - we are looking at a very specific time frame: namely, everything he did after that stunt with the dragons.

At this point don't you have to examine the Fiends qualifications to make this determination?

What do we know about the Fiends?

1.) They are Low Ranking

2.) They are Outcasts

3.) They are largely insignificant before their encounter with V

None of this points to the group of them having any real inside information on how Damnation works.

In all honestly I would find it hard to see a situation where the Good Gods, the Chaotic Good gods in general would ever see a reason not to reward V for her actions as her motivation for the use of power was not selfish.

CliveStaples

2009-07-09, 04:17 PM

At this point don't you have to examine the Fiends qualifications to make this determination?

What do we know about the Fiends?

1.) They are Low Ranking

2.) They are Outcasts

3.) They are largely insignificant before their encounter with V

None of this points to the group of them having any real inside information on how Damnation works.

In all honestly I would find it hard to see a situation where the Good Gods, the Chaotic Good gods in general would ever see a reason not to reward V for her actions as her motivation for the use of power was not selfish.

Oh, right, because as long as you have Good Intentions, your actions aren't Evil!

That's f'n brilliant.

You know that Hitler was just trying to cleanse the world of the Jewish plague, right? By your analysis, the Good Gods and the Chaotic Good gods in general would never see a reason not to reward Hitler for his actions as his motivation for the use of power was not selfish--he was just trying to purify the world, make it a better place.

The point I'm driving at is that you must also consider the consequences of an act as well as the intentions of the actor.

The Catholics have a moral doctrine--oh noes, stupid ignorant Christianists flailing about at philosophy roflmaolololol!1!--called the Doctrine of Double Effect: (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/)

The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

An alternative formulation proceeds thus:

A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;

that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;

that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;

that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect” (1949, p. 43).

But, hey, instead of considering the philosophical implications, or any existing moral philosophy that conflicts with what you personally believe, why not just say "it's cool" and be done with it, eh?

Timberboar

2009-07-09, 04:28 PM

Further proof of Godwin's Law, I suppose.

waterpenguin43

2009-07-09, 04:31 PM

I believe familicide was a lawful act, for one, it was a very St. Cuthbert-ish thing to do, if V had done in self-defense and had not sadistically enjoyed the misery of the dragon knowing her family was slaughtered it would have been a good act, however, V killed the dragons whole family as revenge for trying to kill V's children, as V said: Preventive retribution. V also killed a species that was almost all Chaotic Evil, the few exceptions were likely neutral evil or lawful evil anyway. V's act was out of rage, partial fiendish influence, and protection of her family from all the evil dragons, it was out of loyalty and retribution V did it. So I think that while it probably wasn't a good act, familicide was not evil.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 04:33 PM

At this point don't you have to examine the Fiends qualifications to make this determination?

What do we know about the Fiends?

This angle has been tried before. All evidence suggests the Fiends know what they are talking about. For beings whose very business is the collection of damned souls to know nothing about the process of damnation is illogical.

1.) They are Low Ranking

They can grant Faustian Pacts and control the souls epic-level casters. That puts them pretty far up the fiendish hierarchy, actually.

2.) They are Outcasts

Their attitudes are not mainstream for the Lower Planes, but they are still Fiends. They know how to tempt mortals and damn souls.

3.) They are largely insignificant before their encounter with V

That proves nothing. The MitD was largely insignificant before he demonstrated the ability to teleport V and O-Chul. Storylines are not static.

None of this points to the group of them having any real inside information on how Damnation works.

Despite... having large stables of damned souls? Repeatedly discussing the nature of sin and damnation? Being praised and served by lower-level fiends for their temptation skills? What are you basing that determination on?

In all honestly I would find it hard to see a situation where the Good Gods, the Chaotic Good gods in general would ever see a reason not to reward V for her actions as her motivation for the use of power was not selfish.

Not only was it selfish, it was highly excessive. What Chaotic Good god do you know that would sanction mass murder?

CliveStaples

2009-07-09, 04:38 PM

If you want to get into the nuts and bolts of it:

It is stipulated that V killed an intelligent, self-aware entity.

(i) Under what conditions is such an action justified?
(ii) Were such conditions present in this particular circumstance?

The general argument made for (i) vis-a-vis "Familicide" is the defense of others--V was merely anticipating and foiling a future plot to kill or injure his/her own family.

But clearly the mere possibility of a future plot to injure or kill someone is not justification to kill that person; it is possible that at some future point, Roy might attempt to kill or injure V's family, but that would not justify V killing Roy.

Was V's fear for the life and safety of his/her family reasonable?

Let's assume that V's killing of the mother dragon was perfectly justified. Is V therefore justified in killing the mother dragon's family based on the notion of lethal reprisal?

Consider this factual:

A man attempts to rob me on the street. I refuse to hand over my money. He attacks me with a knife. Fearing for my life, I act in self-defense and kill the man.

Am I justified in killing this man's family?

The argument is made that the reprisal is more accurately predictable because of the alignment of the mother dragon's family.

This raises the question: If it is reasonable to expect an evil person to commit acts that are sufficiently evil to justify killing them, isn't it always justified to kill an evil person?

Is the presumption that Evil entities will always commit evil acts at every opportunity? Or is the presumption that Evil entities will commit evil acts with sufficient stimuli, such as the justified killing of a loved one?

If the latter, assume there exists a family of evil people--mother, father, son, daughter, all Chaotic Evil. If the father is convicted of murder, mustn't the authorities also execute his family on the assumption that they will attempt to kill the people responsible for executing the father?

Which brings us back to (i): I do not think V's fear is 'reasonable' insofar as it is predicated on facts that he does not possess--whether or not the children are pursuing revenge. V has no evidence that they are, other than their alignment--which, even presuming perfect versimilitude, does not obligate any entity to any particular course of action. A Chaotic Evil entity can perform Good acts--even Good Acts in accordance with the Law!

V's actions may have been pragmatic. V's actions may have been intelligent. The mafia's actions are frequently pragmatic and intelligent as well; I see no reason to consider V's actions justified.

If V knew that the family was plotting revenge, he could reasonably act to prevent it. The question is: Can V know the future actions of an agent based solely on the agent's alignment?

Consider this factual:

I observe a woman being kidnapped. I follow her kidnapper back to his hideout. I know that the kidnapper is Chaotic Evil. I wait until nightfall, when I know the kidnapper is asleep, and enter his hideout without being detected.

Am I justified in killing the kidnapper in his sleep, based on the expectation that if he awakes, he will react to my justified entrance to rescue a kidnapping victim by trying to kill me?

CliveStaples

2009-07-09, 04:44 PM

Further proof of Godwin's Law, I suppose.

More of a negative proof:

(i) [x] is always true. (Premise)
(ii) Under conditions {a,b,c}, [x] is not true.
(iii) Therefore, [x] is not always true.

Or:

~[∀ x: P(y)] = ∃ x: P(~y)

x = immoral acts
y = agent acted with selfish intentions

soj

2009-07-09, 05:15 PM

A man attempts to rob me on the street. I refuse to hand over my money. He attacks me with a knife. Fearing for my life, I act in self-defense and kill the man.That isn't even the point. The issue is that a "good-aligned" adventuring party killed an "evil-aligned" enemy over the course of adventuring. A relative of the evil they had slain returned to kill V's family. V killed him and his relatives to prevent repercussion like last time.

Which brings us back to (i): I do not think V's fear is 'reasonable' insofar as it is predicated on facts that he does not possess--whether or not the children are pursuing revenge. V has no evidence that they are, other than their alignment--which, even presuming perfect versimilitude, does not obligate any entity to any particular course of action. A Chaotic Evil entity can perform Good acts--even Good Acts in accordance with the Law!Verisimilitude*
You're neglecting all empirical evidence to the contrary.

V's actions may have been pragmatic. V's actions may have been intelligent. The mafia's actions are frequently pragmatic and intelligent as well; I see no reason to consider V's actions justified.So are the CIA's or Apple's or [any successful thing ever]. The comparison is silly.

If V knew that the family was plotting revenge, he could reasonably act to prevent it. The question is: Can V know the future actions of an agent based solely on the agent's alignment?Except he didn't base it SOLELY on the alignment of the creatures, he based it on the fact that IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

You are making something significantly more intricate into an overtly simple real-world analogy.
If I kill a bad person in real life, I will be a murderer. If I were an adventuring party that killed and evil creature in OotS, I would not be. Comparison of the ABD to a human person is completely silly.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 05:20 PM

Yes- characters in OoTS sometimes come for revenege on the people who killed family members.

Does that make it OK to kill every member of a family to ensure no revenges?

Its a common trope that the Evil Overlord murders everyone who might take revenge on him- and he always misses one.

V has just acted like an Evil Overlord. Not a good sign.

pflare

2009-07-09, 05:20 PM

Look. Killing a quarter (a third?) of an entire population of anything just becaus ethey may at some point want to take revenge for a murder you committed is Evil. Period. But V's chances are still 50/50 meaning that saving the Paladin and the Azurites do count for something. One would think that V would have been condemed for hir actions.

Mugen Nightgale

2009-07-09, 05:29 PM

geez just because the she screwed up once really badly doesnt mean he is the new villain. Not everyone is Miko you know?

V regrets all stuff she did while in the splice. Regret is not a very evil thing.

PS: sorry about the bad writing before. Just typed too fast.

Kish

2009-07-09, 05:32 PM

geez just because the guy screwed up once really badly doesnt mean he is the new villain. Not everyone is Miko u know?

"U" is not a word.

V regrets all stuff it did while in the splice.
Vaarsuvius has yet to indicate any regret for casting Familicide. For the specific action the fiend says makes him/her liable to go to the Lower Planes upon dying.

Worira

2009-07-09, 05:38 PM

This is ridiculous. If the next strip was entitled "Familicide Was Evil", and consisted of every single character in the strip, including every god seen so far, saying "That sure was evil, that casting of Familicide", there'd still be people arguing that it was just dandy.

FlawedParadigm

2009-07-09, 05:43 PM

It's threads like this that satisfy my curiosity as to why many authours in different mediums don't host forums on their own sites, and instead let fans handle it. True, there's no "official" forum then, but then Rich doesn't have to trouble with moderators or banality or worry about adjusting the comic based on the perceptions or predictions of us fools.

Kudos to your saintly patience, Rich. I could never deal with a forum like this on any website I ran.

Porthos

2009-07-09, 06:12 PM

In all honestly I would find it hard to see a situation where the Good Gods, the Chaotic Good gods in general would ever see a reason not to reward V for her actions as her motivation for the use of power was not selfish.

You might want to send Rich a memo about this. He seems to have not gotten the point about V's actions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) :smalltongue:

Unless, as I strongly suspect, you are joking/taking the mickey about all of this.

In that case:

<Slow Clap>
Well done.
</Slow Clap>

waterpenguin43

2009-07-09, 06:17 PM

[url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html]You might want to send Rich a memo about this.

Actually, I think that was the fact that V accepted the Soul Splice in the first place. Plus V had thought she was going to be evil and sub-conciously acted evil, Roy left Elan to die for a bit, definetely an evil act, and he realized his mistake and went back for him. V also realized the unethical (or maybe not) way he dealt with the black dragons and he was sorry about how he used the soul splice, so if Roy can still get into the 7 heavens, then V probably won't go to the Lower Planes.

Ninja

2009-07-09, 06:19 PM

Familicide = Evil

Yes. Yes it does. Not so much because of the act itself (killing black dragons), but of the reasons for doing it and how it was done. Had he done it to free the world of evil, because he could not see the good people suffering, or something like that it would have been a good act, but he did it out of revenge, and stuff, you know.... and that's what makes Familicide = Evil....

Porthos

2009-07-09, 06:24 PM

V probably won't go to the Lower Planes.

Well, presuming that he doesn't continue to get better, a 50/50 chance at any rate. :smallwink:

JonestheSpy

2009-07-09, 06:49 PM

Making a deal with fiends when another option was available?

Can't help throwing in about this: the idea that there was another option is ludicrous. The fiends' plan was full of holes, and they said themselves that they only brought it up to mess with V's mind.

waterpenguin43

2009-07-09, 06:51 PM

Well, presuming that he doesn't continue to get better, a 50/50 chance at any rate. :smallwink:

You are right about that, but I think he will get better and go to Arcadia or the Outlands.

spargel

2009-07-09, 07:40 PM

You know, if it wasn't taught that black dragons must be killed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) in OOTS, there really wouldn't be as much of a debate over this.

Kish

2009-07-09, 07:52 PM

You know, if it wasn't taught that black dragons must be killed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) in OOTS, there really wouldn't be as much of a debate over this.
1) That strip doesn't say "black dragons must be killed."
2) Never read the Goblins webcomic, I take it? Thunt had to make it incredibly obvious who the good guys are before people stopped posting their hopes for Kore's glorious victory on the forum (and moved on to complaining that the goblins shouldn't be treated as the heroes, instead of asserting that they are not).

Porthos

2009-07-09, 07:53 PM

You know, if it wasn't taught that black dragons must be killed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) in OOTS, there really wouldn't be as much of a debate over this.

If only all of us had the Moral Clarity of Miko Miyazaki, then the world would be a calmer place. :smallsmile:

Of course, in my Morally Unclear state, I tend to see a bit of a difference between a clear combat situation and one where Fire Rains Down From the Heavens Upon The Unwary.

For this, I must submit myself to the cleansing righteousness of Miss Miko Miyazaki...

*SLASH*
*SLASH*
*SLASH*

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 07:55 PM

More of a negative proof:

(i) [x] is always true. (Premise)
(ii) Under conditions {a,b,c}, [x] is not true.
(iii) Therefore, [x] is not always true.

Or:

~[∀ x: P(y)] = ∃ x: P(~y)

x = immoral acts
y = agent acted with selfish intentions

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

You know, if it wasn't taught that black dragons must be killed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) in OOTS, there really wouldn't be as much of a debate over this.

You'll forgive me if I don't consider Miko "SlashSlashSlash!" Miyazaki's endorsement very indicative of... well... normality.

darktalon

2009-07-09, 07:57 PM

I work on the assumptions that a. important characters aren't introduced and killed in the space of one frame and b. "always CE" means that non-CE specimens are important characters by definition. That said, the "always CE" argument is something of a red herring because the spell itself is very likely to be inherently evil ([Evil] descriptor? I'm rusty on 3.x but I've heard such a thing mentioned.)

spargel

2009-07-09, 08:01 PM

1) That strip doesn't say "black dragons must be killed."
2) Never read the Goblins webcomic, I take it? Thunt had to make it incredibly obvious who the good guys are before people stopped posting their hopes for Kore's glorious victory on the forum (and moved on to complaining that the goblins shouldn't be treated as the heroes, instead of asserting that they are not).

1. "Then destruction is just and necessary."
2. Your point? We're using the in-universe morality system here.

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 08:02 PM

1. "Then destruction is just and necessary."

You keep glossing over the source of that quote, and it's really hurting your position. Psychopaths are generally not known for their moral high ground.

Reverent-One

2009-07-09, 08:09 PM

You keep glossing over the source of that quote, and it's really hurting your position. Psychopaths are generally not known for their moral high ground.

On the other hand, as her class abilities depend on non-evil actions, she should be able to make general statements about what things she can and cannot kill accurately. And the statement is then confirmed by Elan.

Kish

2009-07-09, 08:11 PM

On the other hand, as her class abilities depend on non-evil actions, she should be able to make general statements about what things she can and cannot kill accurately.
Yeah, like her statement that she could and should kill Lord Shojo.

Oh, wait...

Carnivorous M.

2009-07-09, 08:11 PM

My guess is that V is going to walk the fence for the rest of the comic, and near the climax shi has to choose to do something that will save the world, but be so incredibly and monstrously evil that it will act as the straw that breaks the camel's back; shi'll have saved everyone, but something will have been utterly, horribly and irreversibly changed, and shi'll die in the process, giving hir no time to try and swing the scale back around and save hirself from eternal damnation. GAH RUN-ON SENTENCE -head asplodes-

Reverent-One

2009-07-09, 08:13 PM

Yeah, like her statement that she could and should kill Lord Shojo.

Oh, wait...

Note the use of the word "general".

Kish

2009-07-09, 08:17 PM

2. Your point? We're using the in-universe morality system here.
That, contrary to your statement, the people who insist Familicide is not evil would still be doing so without the strip you linked. Even if it actually, as you seem to think, featured Rich leaning out of the strip and saying, "In my universe, black dragons must be killed."

Note the use of the word "general".
Why? Miko is the one person in the strip who provably thought a paladin should not fall for something a paladin fell for. Why would that make her an authority at all?

Porthos

2009-07-09, 08:17 PM

On the other hand, as her class abilities depend on non-evil actions, she should be able to make general statements about what things she can and cannot kill accurately. And the statement is then confirmed by Elan.

And yet just seven strips earlier, she attacked Roy for no justification whatsoever.

Strange that. :smallwink:

Let's go to the recap, shall we:

(condensed actions, with a slightly snarky tone added):

Miko: I arrest you for crimes that carry the death penalty.
Roy starts to say: Hang on. We aren't going with you until you tell us who you are and what we have supposed to have done.
Miko interrupts Roy before he can finish the above sentence.
Miko: What! You resist arrest? Then die!
SLASH SLASH SLASH.

Yes, she thought Roy was evil due to the crown he was wearing. But interrupting someone and attacking them just because they want to know what the heck is a going on ain't the sign of a completely stable personality.

It really is strange that some people, when discussing Miko, gloss over the whole "Interrupt and Attack Roy Who Is Asking Very Justifiable Questions" thing. :smallwink:

Makes me wonder if Miko would have Fallen if she had succeeded in killing Roy at that time. :smalltongue:

spargel

2009-07-09, 08:29 PM

Yeah, like her statement that she could and should kill Lord Shojo.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, and then she lost her powers in the next strip. Your point?

Forget about Miko. The point is: This universe allows paladins to kill defenseless goblins without falling. It would be strange if the good gods disapproved of killing black dragons in a similar fashion.

Reverent-One

2009-07-09, 08:30 PM

On re-reading the discussion again, it's not what I thought it was, which was that black dragons probably fall under the Always Chaotic Evil classification as is the default in 3.5, but that they "must" be killed. Such is my fault for coming in middle of the debate.

Skeppio

2009-07-09, 08:32 PM

Kish

2009-07-09, 08:33 PM

Yeah, and then she lost her powers in the next strip. Your point?

Why yes, that is my point. :smalltongue:

Forget about Miko. The point is: This universe allows paladins to kill defenseless goblins without falling. It would be strange if the good gods disapproved of killing black dragons in a similar fashion.
Yes, it would. What of it? The gods--all the gods--of OotS are childish and petty. What does it matter what they do and don't approve of?

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 08:35 PM

Forget about Miko.

Smart move.

This universe allows paladins to kill defenseless goblins without falling. It would be strange if the good gods disapproved of killing black dragons in a similar fashion.

It would be even stranger if an archfiend has no clue what kind of acts can land a soul in hot water.

spargel

2009-07-09, 08:41 PM

Yes, it would. What of it? The gods--all the gods--of OotS are childish and petty. What does it matter what they do and don't approve of?

Don't the gods of OOTS define good and evil?

It would be even stranger if an archfiend has no clue what kind of acts can land a soul in hot water.

Which is why I find the alignment system screwed up.

Mean_Fighting_Guy

2009-07-09, 08:49 PM

Hum.

About familicide = genocide...

Looks as if we have a Sorite’s Paradox here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox).
If V would have killed 1 million individuals out of 4 million out of sheer wantonness, then very few people would argue wether this would qualify as genocide or not. I for myself am somewhat at odds with myself. On the one hand, two-digit casualties are hardly genocide, but on the other hand, 25% casualties are serious stuff.

The other factor is the evilness of familicide, and here I’d say it is in itself a sheer and utter evil act (unless, of course, “always chaotic evil” non-humanoids aren’t subject to common ethics – or, as the saying goes “if it isn’t a man it isn’t a murder”). Familicide as a spell would be designed in a way that it already includes the conscious and deliberate killing of innocents (the exception would be you knowing for sure that a whole family of utterly evil beings and all their relatives – with no exceptions – are out there to wreak havoc on the planes of the living, and using the spell on one member of said family would remove the threat once and for all; a rather unambigous situation that does clearly *not* apply to V) because of the indiscriminate killing of an entire kin.
To make it worse, familicide in the hands of a so-called good character is archetypical for a “fight fire with fire”-mentality. Some measures are simply evil beyond justification, but are instead the first step down the road (I can see why the fiends offered a splice with such an ability to a not-that-humble wizard). One may of course argue that killing dragons is less severe since they are not just evil by cultural upbringing but by nature, but as we have seen, the familicide – even if used for purely “good” reasons – would most probably include collateral damage: I am quite confident the Giant threw in a centaur, a hatch of eggs and 2 humanoids to illustrate that point.
Ask yourself: let’s assume you were playing a neutral or good half-dragon (chromatic of course) in your campaign. And suddenly, out of the blue, you got shot (no saving throws, sucker) with the simple explanation “some wizard on the other and of the world instagibbed the whole family of your maternal uncle twice removed to cleanse the world of the dragons” – wouldn’t you value the fact that he’d pay for it?

And V’s intent don’t make it any better, since it wasn’t for a greater fight against evil.
Let’s go back to the black dragon: mommy dragon came home, seeing her hoard was gone and (worse) her son was slaughtered. As a mother, she was pissed (maternal instinct), and planned on enacting a rather disproportionate revenge against V’s family. Clearly an act in accordance with her utterly evil alignment.
But THEN V get his grips on ultimate arcane power and suddenly, he strikes back and subdues mommy dragon. And then, as a sort of preemptive strike, his retribution for an act that has been just averted is far more disproportionate than the dragon’s. So who’s the good guy here?
I can understand that most people have a problem that an action with an outcome not so different from the work of a good-aligned adventuring party could possibly constitute an act of evil – but simply stating that “killing evil = good” is far too Miko-ish and, to be honest, rather primitive. I don’t want to deny that a familicide against, for example, a bunch of gold dragons wouldn’t have been worse, but some seem to confuse “not as evil as another evil deed” with “negligibly evil”.

Kish

2009-07-09, 08:49 PM

Don't the gods of OOTS define good and evil?
For whom? They manifestly don't for Rich, or he wouldn't be able to paint them as childish and petty, or talk about karma biting them. They certainly don't for me. Do they for you?

spargel

2009-07-09, 08:55 PM

For whom? They manifestly don't for Rich, or he wouldn't be able to paint them as childish and petty, or talk about karma biting them. They certainly don't for me. Do they for you?

For when they decide who goes into which afterlife?

Conuly

2009-07-09, 08:57 PM

You know, if it wasn't taught that black dragons must be killed in OOTS, there really wouldn't be as much of a debate over this.

You're accepting as credible a statement that came out of Miko's mouth? Seriously? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html)

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 08:58 PM

Don't the gods of OOTS define good and evil?

Not really. We see the devas that enforce such moral standards as having very different (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html) outlooks to the deities they serve. We also see those same deities being quite chummy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html) with their "evil" counterparts. Third, their clerics don't appear to adhere to the one-step rule (Durkon + Thor). Finally, we don't see the deities anywhere near the actual judging process - only angels. OotS gods are little more than comic relief.

For when they decide who goes into which afterlife?

They don't.

spargel

2009-07-09, 09:05 PM

Not really. We see the devas that enforce such moral standards as having very different (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html) outlooks to the deities they serve. We also see those same deities being quite chummy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html) with their "evil" counterparts. Third, their clerics don't appear to adhere to the one-step rule (Durkon + Thor). Finally, we don't see the deities anywhere near the actual judging process - only angels. OotS gods are little more than comic relief.

So the people who worship these deities are supposed to be judged by others who have different standards by these deities?

Optimystik

2009-07-09, 09:08 PM

So the people who worship these deities are supposed to be judged by others who have different standards by these deities?

"Stricter standards than those deities" to be precise.

I don't see any deities on the Cloud, do you?

Kish

2009-07-09, 09:10 PM

For when they decide who goes into which afterlife?
I'll answer this question if you explain why it matters. :smalltongue:

spargel

2009-07-09, 09:22 PM

I'll answer this question if you explain why it matters. :smalltongue:

Because, good people are supposed to go into the good afterlives, and evil people are supposed to go into the evil afterlives?

Because genocide has never been used, in the real world, to denote the killing of all humans. Every case of genocide involves attempts to eliminate one segment of the population, defined in certain terms (ethnic and religious as well as others). The act of killing 1/4 of all the black dragons in the world, is, comparatively speaking and setting aside the fact that it's fiction, a much greater act of genocide than any genocide actually undertaken in the real world.

Would you say the same thing if black dragons reproduced a lot more and V only ended up killing about 1/5395 of all black dragons?

Kish

2009-07-09, 09:23 PM

Because, good people are supposed to go into the good afterlives, and evil people are supposed to go into the evil afterlives?
What does "supposed to" mean here? There is no indication in the strip that the gods determine which afterlives people go into, and there is no indication that everyone goes to the afterlife they deserve. Using the gods' supposed infallibility in sorting people into afterlives to support a claim of their overall moral infallibility is the logical fallacy of begging the question--in essence, asserting, "A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C," without first establishing that A=B or B=C. Beyond that, the gods have been shown as thoroughly fallible, so that, continuing the preceding example, it's like the one bit of knowledge you have about the value of A, B, or C is "C does not equal A," and you're asserting from there, "A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C."

spargel

2009-07-09, 10:08 PM

What does "supposed to" mean here? There is no indication in the strip that the gods determine which afterlives people go into, and there is no indication that everyone goes to the afterlife they deserve. Using the gods' supposed infallibility in sorting people into afterlives to support a claim of their overall moral infallibility is the logical fallacy of begging the question--in essence, asserting, "A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C," without first establishing that A=B or B=C. Beyond that, the gods have been shown as thoroughly fallible, so that, continuing the preceding example, it's like the one bit of knowledge you have about the value of A, B, or C is "C does not equal A," and you're asserting from there, "A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C."

Good and Evil in OOTS and D&D is pretty objective. I just assumed that the gods are the ones who determine what's good and evil.

The Anti Hero

2009-07-09, 10:18 PM

Good and Evil in OOTS and D&D is pretty objective. I just assumed that the gods are the ones who determine what's good and evil.

Oh Geez. Well, that can get messy, can't it? If the good gods determine that killing human babies and raping elven women is good, and not doing that is evil... then does that make those things automatically good? Having the gods simply arbitrarily call some things good and other things evil seems like a great way to create a nonsensical world.

Faleldir

2009-07-09, 10:28 PM

If the good gods determine that killing human babies and raping elven women is good, and not doing that is evil... then does that make those things automatically good?
Isn't that how most religions work?

Almaseti

2009-07-09, 10:38 PM

Could I interject something there? The fiends weren't actually saying anything about whatever measure of goodness/evilness V has currently. They were talking about the future. Familicide could be considered a "good" act by them, but then they think that it sets a bad precedent (excessive retribution, enjoying power too much, etc) that could lead V to becoming evil. They've shown a talent to extrapolate, y'know. If they had been watching Miko, they might have guessed that her need to divide the world into black and white would mean she'd do her side more harm than good, without her doing anything actually evil. By virtue of her being a paladin, we know that she never did anything that was capital E Evil. But it fully fit her character that she lost it like she did.

tl;dr: They're not saying V is evil now. They're saying V might become evil.

CliveStaples

2009-07-10, 12:14 AM

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

Actually, I'm familiar with what the term was. I just demonstrated that using the Nazis as an example was actually logical, not just an appeal to emotion.

But, hey, you're the Clever Internet-Savvy Guy, so who am I to question you?

That isn't even the point. The issue is that a "good-aligned" adventuring party killed an "evil-aligned" enemy over the course of adventuring. A relative of the evil they had slain returned to kill V's family. V killed him and his relatives to prevent repercussion like last time.

You're assuming all parts of the whole share the same characteristics. That's a fallacy.

Except he didn't base it SOLELY on the alignment of the creatures, he based it on the fact that IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

If he was dealing with clones of the mother, I'd agree. But he wasn't, was he?

You are making something significantly more intricate into an overtly simple real-world analogy.
If I kill a bad person in real life, I will be a murderer. If I were an adventuring party that killed and evil creature in OotS, I would not be. Comparison of the ABD to a human person is completely silly.

Ah, so versimilitude is only appropriate insofar as it supports your arguments, and inappropriate insofar as it supports mine. How marvelously convenient for you.

If you were an adventuring wizard who cast a spell that killed the nearest 1000 evil-aligned creatures, regardless of whether they were currently or had in the past threatened to take someone's life, then your action would be just as evil as V's.

But that's just another mistaken analogy, since you disagree with the conclusion, right?

CliveStaples

2009-07-10, 12:15 AM

Oh Geez. Well, that can get messy, can't it? If the good gods determine that killing human babies and raping elven women is good, and not doing that is evil... then does that make those things automatically good? Having the gods simply arbitrarily call some things good and other things evil seems like a great way to create a nonsensical world.

Gee, it's almost like there should be an objective, unchanging definition of terms like "Good", "Evil", "Lawful", and "Chaotic", am I right?

Zevox

2009-07-10, 01:01 AM

Just to interject an observation I came across recently and found amusing about Familicide:

You've been adventuring with a Chaotic Evil Halfling who is constantly trying to murder anyone who gets in his way!

Or looks like they might possibly be thinking about getting anywhere sort of near his way at some unspecified point in the future, just to be sure.
(Comic link.) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)
Change a few words of that second sentence and it describes what V did with Familicide perfectly. Mass murder of a bunch of Dragons who might possibly at some unknown point in the future become a threat to her family.

Yeah, when your actions are comparable to Belkar's, they're evil. Not that I needed this observation to convince me of that - I formed my subjective opinion of the matter the moment I read the strip where she cast it - but just felt I'd toss that out there for the amusement of those who agree with me and for whatever it might be worth to those who disagree/insist on trying to use D&D's mess of an alignment system to come up with an "objective" label for it.

Zevox

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 01:55 AM

Actually, I'm familiar with what the term was. I just demonstrated that using the Nazis as an example was actually logical, not just an appeal to emotion.

But, hey, you're the Clever Internet-Savvy Guy, so who am I to question you?

Uh-huh.

Yeah, when your actions are comparable to Belkar's, they're evil. Not that I needed this observation to convince me of that - I formed my subjective opinion of the matter the moment I read the strip where she cast it - but just felt I'd toss that out there for the amusement of those who agree with me and for whatever it might be worth to those who disagree/insist on trying to use D&D's mess of an alignment system to come up with an "objective" label for it.

Zevox

Put me down in the "amused" category. :smallamused:

Kalbron

2009-07-10, 02:18 AM

Ozymandias9

2009-07-10, 04:22 AM

Ain't it just grand to argue on the subject of moral philosophy without actually examining the structure?

If you can't agree on the subjective elements, you can't use an objective delineation system (like D&D's bi-axial alignment system) to arbitrate. This whole argument is like a less efficient opinion survey.

Aside

No Good God would ever condone the Atonement of someone who'd committed genocide alone. Ever.

Actually, I think you would find that several GMs would have their deities do just that if you constructed the circumstances well enough. Forgiveness, after all reflects far more on the person giving it than the one receiving it.

The act of denying contrition to a character seeking it in good faith would fit better with the characterization of most Lawful Neutral deities than with most Good Deities (at least within the default 3/3.5 pantheon). It's important that St. Cuthbert isn't good: the ideas of retribution and vengeance have gradually shifted away from the (real world) western idea of goodness for some time now. Several branches of Christianity would tell you that all that would be required would be sincere remorse, open confession, and a desire for contrition. Some don't even require all three.

Of course, if you happen to follow the Helotopian Pantheon, it doesn't really matter. You just need a really good spell to make your heart weigh less.

spargel

2009-07-10, 05:20 AM

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 06:42 AM

Given that it's only a 50-50 chance of claiming V's soul, I'd personally have to say that Familicide is not Evil with a capital E.

It is rather simply evil, without a capital E, as otherwise it would be a guaranteed claim of the soul.

:smallbiggrin:

Never mind that V is trying to help to save the world? Or that the IFCC itself finds that act noteworthy enough to make his destiny uncertain all by itself?

To each its own, I suppose.

Kalbron

2009-07-10, 07:01 AM

It was primarily a joke on the title, as well as a sort of "good god, not this discussion again, again" comment. :smalltongue:

yanmaodao

2009-07-10, 08:16 AM

Just to be clear, I totally buy the argument that because the black dragons are almost always malevolent, killing 25% of Black Dragons is not as Evil as killing 25% of, say, dwarves, or even ogres. That said, I've always maintained that it was still substantially Evil in the Stickverse. #640 already cleared that up - only those determined to see it otherwise could have argued differently. (#639 was the Familicide. #640 refers to V having just done "something horrible". Geez, there's not putting two and two together, and then there's willful blindness.)

I understand the argument about the goblins. In a world of adventurers, relatively innocent goblins get slaughtered all the time. Rich Burlew, as well as most other fantasy writers, try to cram in a believable moral system into their universe all the same, even if it ends up contradicting itself at times*. But, of course, those who used the "paladins didn't Fall in SoD" are also somewhat missing the point. Get one of your friends who know nothing of D&D to read those 5-10 pages and ask them who they think author is trying to portray sympathetically. Sure, it's taking place from the perspective of Redcloak's family, but why would anyone take the trouble to flesh out that perspective in the first place if they wanted to create a world in which slaughtering lots of (usually) Evil creatures was okay? Let along actively Good. I've always taken that segment of SoD as arguing the exact opposite, given obvious authorial intent and all, which supersedes intra-D&D mechanical questions of Falling vs. not Falling.

*My diagnosis? There's a slight "the Gods are officious and uncaring" theme running throughout the Stickverse, but we'll have to see more of the A-plot before coming to more solid judgments.

Alex Star

2009-07-10, 08:30 AM

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 08:50 AM

Tiamat agreed for the deaths of 5 Good Dragons for every black that was killed.

This means unequivically that all Black Dragons are Evil. Otherwise the statement would make no logical sense.

Evil is not very logical.

More to the point, Tiamat (and evil in general) does not make a point of getting its due and nothing more, now does it?

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 09:09 AM

Just to point out something..

The best argument that all Black Dragons are Evil was just made in the last strip.

Tiamat agreed for the deaths of 5 Good Dragons for every black that was killed.

This means unequivically that all Black Dragons are Evil. Otherwise the statement would make no logical sense.

That Tiamat wants Good Dragons killed as restitution means only that she hates Good Dragons. This is not news.

In any case, whether they are ALL evil or not was never the point. Pre-emptive strikes are immoral, and V's status has just proven that this axiom holds true in Stickverse as well.

It was primarily a joke on the title, as well as a sort of "good god, not this discussion again, again" comment. :smalltongue:

When the author himself sheds light on a subject (e.g. by speaking through an authoritative character) then that is more than sufficient grounds for discussion... particularly when he has settled an ongoing debate by doing so.

Warren Dew

2009-07-10, 09:34 AM

That settles it, for this strip, that is.

It doesn't even settle the question for this strip. The logic is flawed because it assumes that nothing Vaarsuvius does in the future will affect Vaarsuvius's judgement in the afterlife.

A much more reasonable reading is that it indicates some sort of trend as to where Vaarsuvius will end up. In this case it could be "evil, but in a good cause" if that indicated a downward trend from previous good behavior, or even neutral or good tending to neutral if those would indicate trends.

Heck, the logic doesn't even work if one does assume that none of Vaarsuvius's future actions will have an effect, since if that were true, it would be possible to determine the result with close to 100% certainty now rather than being reduced to a 50/50 chance.

Basically, the original poster's theory only works as a rationalization; once logic is applied, it falls apart.

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 09:43 AM

It doesn't even settle the question for this strip. The logic is flawed because it assumes that nothing Vaarsuvius does in the future will affect Vaarsuvius's judgement in the afterlife.

What? The Fiend is making a judgment about the current state of V's soul. In other words, if he were to die right at that moment, he'd have a 50-50 chance of ending up in hell for what he did to the dragons. No mention is made of future acts not being able to change that situation.

Obviously what he does in the future can change his alignment further, for good or for ill. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. :smallconfused:

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 09:48 AM

"We'll end up getting him" ... I think it's 50-50, ever.

This whole discussion is silly at this point Dx

Pre-emptive strikes are NOT immoral. At all, ever. That is a terrible way to look at it, and may end up getting you killed. Though it's highly unlikely.

Pre-emptive strikes are NECESSARY.

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 09:58 AM

"We'll end up getting him" ... I think it's 50-50, ever.

That is optimism on the Fiend's part. They are not omniscient. Even their predictions of what he would use their power for weren't 100% certain.

This whole discussion is silly at this point Dx

Pre-emptive strikes are NOT immoral. At all, ever. That is a terrible way to look at it, and may end up getting you killed. Though it's highly unlikely.

Pre-emptive strikes are NECESSARY.

"Necessary" is not the same as "moral." There may be situations where striking first is called for, but you are still attacking a foe that has done nothing to you - making the act neutral at best. In this case, V has murdered dragons he has never seen, who have never heard of him, and have a slight chance of maybe at some unspecified point in the future wanting to take revenge on his family for a horrible act that he himself perpetrated as revenge for yet another horrible act by their matriarch. There are too many degrees of separation here for the notion of "preventing imminent harm" to apply. Thus Familicide is shunted from neutrality to evil, and one of the best characters in the comic to make that judgment confirms it.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 10:08 AM

Actually, I doubt it was optimism more than a throwaway comment as an attempt to end the arguing on the forum :P he said it too casually for it to be real math. It's just a "teehee. that was unexpected."

Pre-emptive strikes, by definition are not non-Good in the slightest. If someone begins to pull a knife, shoot him.

Now, this is a slightly different thing than pre-emptive, in that none of them were even pretending to pull knives.

By the, "Eye for an eye". Evil concept? Or Neutral? I'm not sure - fair punishment (which is what that speaks of) seems far more LN than anything. And this was LESS than fair punishment, imho.

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 10:18 AM

Pre-emptive strikes, by definition are not non-Good in the slightest. If someone begins to pull a knife, shoot him.

I hope I never have to peel an apple in your presence. Neither you nor anyone else has the precognitive clarity to know exactly what someone will do every time they pull a knife out, and if we did then morality would be meaningless.

Now, this is a slightly different thing than pre-emptive, in that none of them were even pretending to pull knives.

A pre-emptive strike is the only defense V has for such a heinous action, and even THAT is flimsy. If you take that away, he just had a psychotic episode.

By the, "Eye for an eye". Evil concept? Or Neutral? I'm not sure - fair punishment (which is what that speaks of) seems far more LN than anything. And this was LESS than fair punishment, imho.

It wasn't "punishment" at all. It was murder. What did all those dragons do to V?

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 10:24 AM

Xapi

2009-07-10, 10:28 AM

Mean_Fighting_Guy

2009-07-10, 10:35 AM

@Optimistyk: I guess you're confusing preventive and preemptive here (as I did in my earlier posts, sorry for that). Preemptive means that you strike first because if you don't, the other will. Preventive - and that is what V's action was - means striking before a threat may even *materialize*.
So, for example: finishing a black dragon (in his lair, where she was preparing to raid some peasants) would be preemptive, smashing all dragon's eggs would be preventive.

But then again, familicide *is* an evil action, apart from an evanescent number of exceptions.

Kish

2009-07-10, 10:42 AM

What? The Fiend is making a judgment about the current state of V's soul.

I have to disagree. The fiend said "I think we have a 50-50 chance of ending up with [Vaarsuvius' soul]." He knows Vaarsuvius is not about to die, and the fiends are able to figure the odds on future events (the 84% chance of Vaarsuvius going after Xykon is Exhibit A). So I think the fiend is saying that, based on the Familicide and his projections of Vaarsuvius' future actions, he estimates a 50% chance of Vaarsuvius going to a lower plane when s/he finally dies. (So either Vaarsuvius is neutral now, but because of the Familicide, the fiend thinks s/he has a 50% chance of becoming evil before dying, or Vaarsuvius is evil now, and the fiend thinks s/he has a 50% chance of becoming neutral again before dying.)

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 10:46 AM

You're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying -_-' it makes conversation mildly meaningless. Let's try again.

@Optimistyk: I guess you're confusing preventive and preemptive here (as I did in my earlier posts, sorry for that). Preemptive means that you strike first because if you don't, the other will. Preventive - and that is what V's action was - means striking before a threat may even *materialize*.

I assure you, I am not. Unless you're psychic, or your assailant announces his intentions, there's no way of knowing for certain what anyone else will do.

I already allowed that there are instances where jumping the gun is necessary. If a thug pulls a knife on you in an alley, he's probably going to harm you in some way; shooting him dead is not Evil. But neither is it Good. Self-defense is neutral.

In my opinion this was a perfectly valid form of justice. Torturing two souls for eternity is a very bad thing to do. Very bad.

Did I ever dispute that? She was dead (and her threat to his children ended) BEFORE he cast Familicide.

This is more.. pre-pre-emptive. I hope there's a word for it, though I don't know it.

Murder.

EDIT:

I have to disagree. The fiend said "I think we have a 50-50 chance of ending up with [Vaarsuvius' soul]." He knows Vaarsuvius is not about to die, and the fiends are able to figure the odds on future events (the 84% chance of Vaarsuvius going after Xykon is Exhibit A). So I think the fiend is saying that, based on the Familicide and his projections of Vaarsuvius' future actions, he estimates a 50% chance of Vaarsuvius going to a lower plane when s/he finally dies. (So either Vaarsuvius is neutral now, but because of the Familicide, the fiend thinks s/he has a 50% chance of becoming evil before dying, or Vaarsuvius is evil now, and the fiend thinks s/he has a 50% chance of becoming neutral again before dying.)

I don't see much difference here. Either way Familicide has thrown V's moral state into jeopardy by itself, which was my original assertion. :smallconfused:

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 11:13 AM

You're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying -_-' it makes conversation mildly meaningless. Let's try again.

If someone begings to pull a knife in a threatening manner in a context in which you truly believe yourself (or someone else) at risk, shoot him.

In my opinion this was a perfectly valid form of justice. Torturing two souls for eternity is a very bad thing to do. Very bad.

This is more.. pre-pre-emptive. I hope there's a word for it, though I don't know it.

Well, it turns out that in OOtS as well as in real life (TM) pre-emptive strikes are all-out evil, for two very good reasons.

1) they harm the innocent (and the not-so-guilty)
2) they create the desire to cause further harm

Justice won't touch pre-emptive strikes with a two-feet pole.

Kish

2009-07-10, 11:48 AM

I don't see much difference here. Either way Familicide has thrown V's moral state into jeopardy by itself, which was my original assertion. :smallconfused:
Well, the difference isn't good news for Vaarsuvius, let's put it that way. (Either his/her future is likely to include more damning actions, or the Familicide was bad enough that s/he could try for redemption for the rest of his/her life and have only a 50% chance of getting it...or the fiends who have thus far played Vaarsuvius like a fiddle mysteriously became bad at their jobs.)

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 11:52 AM

Well, it turns out that in OOtS as well as in real life (TM) pre-emptive strikes are all-out evil, for two very good reasons.

1) they harm the innocent (and the not-so-guilty)
2) they create the desire to cause further harm

Justice won't touch pre-emptive strikes with a two-feet pole.

BoED dislikes them too. "Attacking orcs that have been doing no harm is wrong, because the resulting conflict will provoke the orcs into performing evil deeds." In other words, let sleeping dogs (and dragons) lie.

Well, the difference isn't good news for Vaarsuvius, let's put it that way. (Either his/her future is likely to include more damning actions, or the Familicide was bad enough that s/he could try for redemption for the rest of his/her life and have only a 50% chance of getting it...or the fiends who have thus far played Vaarsuvius like a fiddle mysteriously became bad at their jobs.)

Ah, I see. Well, the number of advocates for the third possibility has thankfully dwindled. :smallsigh:

kpenguin

2009-07-10, 11:54 AM

Evil, oh we got Evil
Right here in Azure City
With a capital 'E'
That rhymes with 'V'
And that stands for Vaarsuvius!

...

Am I the only one who thought of that upon reading the title?

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 11:57 AM

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 12:02 PM

This is completely incorrect and silly.

Preventative is indeed the correct word.

Merely saying something is incorrect, especially when BoED contradicts you, does not make it so.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:03 PM

Those, once again, are not preemptive strikes, but preventative. Also, read the sentence.

"Attacking orcs that have been doing no harm is wrong, because the resulting conflict will provoke the orcs into performing evil deeds."

Not if you kill all of them, then. No risk of provoking.

Familicide, short of the Evil tag, was not Evil.

CliveStaples

2009-07-10, 12:11 PM

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:12 PM

Attacking orcs that have been doing no harm is wrong, because there is no justification for the attack.

Not even remotely what the BoED says.

Optimystik

2009-07-10, 12:17 PM

Not if you kill all of them, then. No risk of provoking.

Familicide, short of the Evil tag, was not Evil.

Wow. Just, wow. I think I'm done talking to you.

(FYI: Even by that "standard" you just established, Familicide would still be evil - it didn't kill every black dragon in existence.)

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:19 PM

Killed every one that was at all likely to cause any related problems.

It would be like killing an entire clan of orcs. Who said anything about "every one in existence"? The BoED (per that line) is clearly not against this.

If we're unwilling to annoy Evil gods, the world will never become a better place!

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 12:19 PM

Page 15:

"Violence must have just cause"

"Launching a war on a nearby tribe is of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation"

"the mere existance of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them"

Intentional killing without just cause- murder- evil (Fiendish Codex 2).

EDIT:
The hard question is- how far does the Just Cause principle apply?

A particularly extreme view would hold that it applies all the way up to fiends- chuck out the BoVD "letting fiends live is an evil act" entirely, on the grounds that an evil, law abiding fiend who commits no crimes and is a resident of, or visitor to, a city such as Sigil, has the same protection as any other resident or visitor- and killing him without just cause other than his alignment and subtype, is murder.

A less extreme view would draw the line below evil fiends but above dragons- and only apply it to ones with the alignment- subtype is not enough- and if you can distinguish somehow that alignment is non-evil, you have no right to kill them, even if they are a fiend. This would cover Cambions, and Fall-From-Grace, in Planescape Torment.

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 12:25 PM

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:26 PM

Killing every Demon would be preventative (yes, Blood War problems, blah blah.. killing every "fiend" then).

Dragons are in much the same boat.

Mean_Fighting_Guy

2009-07-10, 12:28 PM

Concerning the familicide:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotSoDifferent
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution

Concerning the absolute legitimity of killing an evil without any moral guidelines whatsoever:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans

Oh, yeah, nearly forgot that one:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom
(searching for "order of the stick" offers an additionally goodie)

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 12:31 PM

Dragons are in much the same boat.

Not IMO. They are much easier to redeem than fiends for one thing.

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 12:33 PM

Killed every one that was at all likely to cause any related problems.

By that meter, killing all retired people in order to balance the retirement budget would not be evil either?

It would be like killing an entire clan of orcs. Who said anything about "every one in existence"? The BoED (per that line) is clearly not against this.

In your mind, perhaps. By any reasonable standard (and by the BoED too, I would guess) killing entire clans is a textbook example of evil unless it is in some way self-defense. Pre-emptive strikes are utterly evil, more so when the goal is to kill the most possible people.

By a similar token: assault followed by murder is in a sense safer than assault by itself. But it is certainly not less evil.

If we're unwilling to annoy Evil gods, the world will never become a better place!

Of course, the whole idea of Evil Gods is somewhat silly in the face of it...

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:38 PM

If all retired people were Chaotic Evil, why not.

Preemptive strikes are not evil. That's an incredibly silly way to look at life, and fighting. There is a reason people say "Good is dumb" - it's not the concept of Good itself, it's the ridiculous belief that anything an evil person would do is inherently bad. No. Being willing to kill him does NOT make you as bad as he is, and preemptive strikes against inherently evil creatures is not evil.

Surprise rounds are preemptive strikes. Have any of your Good PCs ever taken surprise rounds? Worse, WINNING INITIATIVE makes your attacks preemptive strikes.

Preemptive strikes are not evil.

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 12:41 PM

the difference between immediate danger (the threat is there, in front of you, armed) and danger in the future (the distant future, in the case of hatchlings) is a big one.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:58 PM

That would also remove all GOOD life. Unacceptable, it would be pointless.

Conflict > nothing.

Now, if there was a big "kill all evil creatures" button, someone should probably push it.

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 01:00 PM

Except- doing so would kill numerous antiheroes as well. (and millions of ordinary people who, while nasty, don't deserve death)

If by "evil creatures" you mean "creatures which MM's define as always evil", even then, dubious.

EmperorSarda

2009-07-10, 02:38 PM

In all actuality I'd have to say that use of the spell is not an Evil action in and of itself. For two main reasons.

__________________________________________________ _______

1.) All Black Dragons are Inherently Evil by nature.

So you can go and kill all evil, sentient things that haven't done a thing to you and you wouldn't call it an evil act? Especially when unhatched dragons were killed too.

So basically if there was a five year old bully that never listened to his parents and went around kicking other kids in the legs and ruling the playground with an iron fist, and if the five year old registered as evil, whoever killed that kid would be justified in doing so because the kid is evil?

If any good aligned adventuring party in the world were to come in contact with a Black Dragon that it was capable of defeating in combat would it proceed to do so?

The answer is Yes. This would not cause an alignment change, nor would this be seen as an Evil act.

The difference is that V. didn't come into contact with them, he came up behind them and shot them in the back of head. The black dragons had no chance to defend themselves, no warning, nothing. It is completely different than when an adventuring party kills a dragon.

2.) V's actions lack the motivation for Evil.

Given the circumstances at best V's activites could be considered Chaotic Good. V clearly states the reasoning behind the use of Familicide as to prevent any of the ABD's kin from ever trying to seek revenge ever again. Had the action been used solely as a punishment or as a revenge killing itself then the argument could be made that the motivation in itself was evil.

That is what V.'s actions were, a manner of punishing Mama Dragon, revenge and ensuring that what Mama Dragon did would not happen again.
But look at V.'s motivation, he didn't kill the dragons because they were evil, he killed them because Mother Dragon slighted him (well more than slighted) and they happened to be related to her. Even 6th cousins thrice removed were killed. None of them, except the uncle that Mother Dragon went to visit so long ago, even knew of the conflict. I doubt that most would seek out their revenge. Hence it was an evil act.

__________________________________________________ ____

As far as other arguments go that require more detail the following should be stated.

1.) Vigilante Justice is a legally and divinely accepted course of action.
V killing an extended family of dragons is not vigilante justice. They did not nothing wrong. Mother Dragon did. Killing all those dragons was in no sense of the word 'just'

2.) 19 out of the 20 people I surveyed (12 parents and 8 non-parents) said that they would kill to protect their children/significant other. 7 of them said they would use "Whatever Means Necessary" to ensure their safety.

I agree, if I were V., I would have attacked Mother Dragon too. But her death ends the "by whatever means necessary" clause, as the family is safe now. Unless you decide that because someone in Mother Dragon's family might be put out that Mother Dragon died after initiating aggression that your family would be safer if you killed everyone remotely related to Mother Dragon, just to be sure.

3.) Who is going to punish V? The Legal System? The Good Gods of the Realm?

His punishment comes mainly when he dies. The celestial deva #664 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) claimed that those in charge in Arcadia were alarmed concerning V.'s dealings with evil. The directors even stated that V. has a 50% chance to end up in the abyss. V. is punished by not going to the after life of his choosing.

In conclusing the defining act which determines the alignment of V's actions is what she did after the "tipping point" so to speak. Did she continue doing great evil. No. Did she at any time indicate that she was focused on doing anything other than stopping evil? No.

You're right, what V. does now will help redeem V. self's soul. But teleporting a fleet to land and rescuing a paladin is merely a pittance in compared to indiscriminately killing 60+ unaware, defenseless dragons.

The 50/50 Shot that the Fiends are speaking about is V's choice to use the Splice instead of take the Martyrs path.

The fiends said "After that stunt with the dragons, I think we have a 50-50 of ending up with it anyway."

They aren't talking about the probability of V. taking the deal, they're saying that considering familicide, V.'s indiscriminate dragon slaughter, that they have a 50% of getting V.'s soul. If it was a good act, then they wouldn't have so high a probability of getting V.'s soul.

Which means that familicide, and the reasons for casting is, was an evil act.

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 08:10 PM

If all retired people were Chaotic Evil, why not.

See, there is this funny thing about Chaotic Evil people and mass slayings: they tend to be among the attackers as opposed to the victims, for some weird reason. Must be a coincidence. Or not.

Parlity

2009-07-10, 09:12 PM

See, there is this funny thing about Chaotic Evil people and mass slayings: they tend to be among the attackers as opposed to the victims, for some weird reason. Must be a coincidence. Or not.

On this tangent, in my opinion Lawful Evil people would be more frequently among the attackers than Chaotic Evil people. Lawful state-organized mass murders could kill far more people than the mass murders of a chaotic evil person killing the friends, family, and neighbors of an enemy.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 11:40 PM

See, there is this funny thing about Chaotic Evil people and mass slayings: they tend to be among the attackers as opposed to the victims, for some weird reason. Must be a coincidence. Or not.

Hrm, funny thing, 100% of chaotic evil people like to eat.

No one should eat! Eating bad!

Evil people kill more than Good ones, too. Killing is not inherently Evil, we know this.

More Evil people have ambition than non-Evil. Ambition is not Evil.

Et cetera.

multilis

2009-07-10, 11:48 PM

And not "mildly evil" or "evil for a Good cause" either
And V is either male or female if you completely trust opinions of characters. It is in the nature of salesman to see "success" in their cause.

Meanwhile a certain group of paladins slaughtered a large group of goblins including children without apparently falling. How is that so different than killing bunch of "evil" dragons?

Were the goblin babies more of a future risk to the good side then the black dragons?

IMO this business is not as "certain" as you claim.

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 11:54 PM

Hrm, funny thing, 100% of chaotic evil people like to eat.

No one should eat! Eating bad!

Evil people kill more than Good ones, too. Killing is not inherently Evil, we know this.

More Evil people have ambition than non-Evil. Ambition is not Evil.

Et cetera.

Do you really fail to see that genocide is heinous in itself, regardless of who the victims happen to be?

I rest my case.

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 11:56 PM

And V is either male or female if you completely trust opinions of characters. It is in the nature of salesman to see "success" in their cause.

Meanwhile a certain group of paladins slaughtered a large group of goblins including children without apparently falling. How is that so different than killing bunch of "evil" dragons?

Were the goblin babies more of a future risk to the good side then the black dragons?

IMO this business is not as "certain" as you claim.

The judgment of the 12 gods may be less than certain. The morality of familicide, however, is crystal clear.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-11, 12:11 AM

You rest your case with a question? Excuse me?

What about Fiend genocide? Is that Evil?

Optimystik

2009-07-11, 01:27 AM

And V is either male or female if you completely trust opinions of characters. It is in the nature of salesman to see "success" in their cause.

V's gender and the state of V's soul are two entirely different and incomparable concepts. One is a running gag, the other is a topic with which the Fiends are thoroughly versed.

Optimistic or not, the Fiend did not just pull this judgment out of thin air. He has good reason to believe that Familicide specifically has tipped the scales, and he is in the position of Word of God on this issue.

Meanwhile a certain group of paladins slaughtered a large group of goblins including children without apparently falling. How is that so different than killing bunch of "evil" dragons?

Were the goblin babies more of a future risk to the good side then the black dragons?

Paladin powers in OotS are dependent upon the approval of gods who have been proven on numerous occasions to be childish and petty. It is hardly the same situation.

And while we're on the subject, the 12's ranks include evil and chaotic gods, yet they are included in the group that passes judgment on Miko. Not your typical paladin situation, is it?

IMO this business is not as "certain" as you claim.

The nature of V's soul was never certain. The nature of Familicide, however, is crystal clear.

What about Fiend genocide? Is that Evil?

Apples and oranges. Fiends are not dragons.

Mugen Nightgale

2009-07-11, 01:35 AM

It's pretty obvious that Familicide is an evil spell. It's friggin necromancy most of it is evil.

You are trying to say that YOU want V to be evil. Ok cool. So what? Belkar has been evil since day 1. Geez this moral topics are tiring.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-11, 01:37 AM

Then don't read them o.O

Not most of Necromancy is evil, at all. Very little of it is, actually.

EmperorSarda

2009-07-11, 01:49 AM

Meanwhile a certain group of paladins slaughtered a large group of goblins including children without apparently falling. How is that so different than killing bunch of "evil" dragons?

Were the goblin babies more of a future risk to the good side then the black dragons?

V. killed the black dragons to enact disproportionate revenge against Mama Dragon.

The paladins, fearing for the safety of the world, slaughtered goblins to keep the gates safe. Of course because they did so, it only caused Redcloak to hate them more.

But what counts toward it being evil is the motive. I will say that the paladins killing the goblins was an evil act, but probably a justifiably evil act that they viewed, and haven't fallen for, was necessary for the protection of the world.

So clearly motive counts.

Level20Commoner

2009-07-11, 02:54 AM

I don't think so. Nobody can argue that his subsequent actions were on the fence. Rescuing O-Chul and teleporting the fleet were unquestionably Good acts (though he was more than a little acerbic after the last one.) If Familicide's morality had a shot of being non-evil, his chances of going to the Lower Planes would not be 50-50.

Mathematically, the possibilities are thus:

Familicide Evil: -2 + 2 = 0 (50-50)
Familicide Neutral: 0 + 2 = 2 (Good)
Familicide Good: 2 + 2 = 4 (Very Good)

Note that if Familicide gets an even greater weight than his good acts did, the first proof still holds. Only if Familicide is Evil (and strongly so) does the Fiend's comment make any sense.

Your logic is sound, but I would ask what good a mathematical representation is if you don't know for certain what V's alignment was prior to entering into the contract with Huey, Dewey and Louie. I seem to remember V murdering someone in cold blood with a green laser beam long before the three amigos showed up.

Hard to evaluate the virtuosity or heinousness of V's actions if you don't know where he was to begin with is where I'm at.

LuisDantas

2009-07-11, 08:36 AM

Your logic is sound, but I would ask what good a mathematical representation is if you don't know for certain what V's alignment was prior to entering into the contract with Huey, Dewey and Louie. I seem to remember V murdering someone in cold blood with a green laser beam long before the three amigos showed up.

Hard to evaluate the virtuosity or heinousness of V's actions if you don't know where he was to begin with is where I'm at.

The context of the Fiend's comment in #668 makes it very clear that he considers the Familicide to have significantly tipped the scales in favor of V ending up in one of the Evil afterlives. And even then he calls it a coin toss.

So the clear implications are that

1) Familicide is very evil
2) Pre-Familicide V was solidly non-Evil.

Interestingly, he does not mention accepting the pact itself. Apparently,for the purpose of obtaining Souls, such pacts work as bait rather than damning acts proper.

snafu

2009-07-11, 01:20 PM

The context of the Fiend's comment in #668 makes it very clear that he considers the Familicide to have significantly tipped the scales in favor of V ending up in one of the Evil afterlives. And even then he calls it a coin toss.

So the clear implications are that

1) Familicide is very evil
2) Pre-Familicide V was solidly non-Evil.

Not necessarily. The fiends go in for statistical forecasts: they anticipated V's attack on Xykon, for instance. Similarly the heavenly host run projections of the likely future moral trajectories of subjects of interest in various scenarios, calibrated IIRC relative to Sauron and Cruella de Vil.

I tend to read this as: V was neutral, maybe inclining towards evil, but currently working for good, and would probably not go to hell. V then committed a spectacular atrocity which put her firmly in the EVIL EVIL EVIL camp. Were she to die right now she would be damned - but given V's long life expectancy (elves are a nightmare for actuaries) and her current regretful and repentant attitude expressed towards a high-level cleric of good, there's about a 50% chance she'll be able to atone before her soul finally falls due.

Point being, I think V was a borderline case before, is currently nailed on for a one-way trip down the hot hole, but she is likely to seek absolution for the rest of her life and she might just achieve it.