Deep End of the Alignment Pool [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

LurkerInPlayground

2009-09-12, 02:49 AM

Okay so, V was evil best as we can tell, but is V still evil?
No. V is "neutral." Again. He was never a especially sadistic or malicious person to start with, even if the only reason for that is that V can't be bothered expending the energy to be either of those things.

I'm guessing yes judging by that outburst in 677, but V is definately attempting to redeem (her/him-self).
Not even. V only cares about being the paragon of logic. Losing his temper would not allow him to be in control of the situation, which is what he really cares about.

If V could screw over the other wizard for his own personal gain, with a minimum of consequence and no blood on his hands, he'd probably do it.

Or at least he was trying to before he blasted the other guy.

Also is V going to successfully return to (her/his) orginal alignment, or continue floundering about in Belkars area of "expertise".
Considering that soul binding had an effect that specifically changed his mood and personality, I'd say no.

If V becomes evil, it's not because he enjoys hurting people but because he'd be severely tempted to trade anybody else off for just the right knowledge.

Chances are that the opportunity for another such temptation probably won't come up. It's not exactly a common real-life situation since being good to thy neighbor and cooperating with others is usually the best way of achieving things like knowledge.

In this case, the Order of the Stick isn't worthy betraying. He wouldn't do it out of sadism and it's more likely he'll achieve his goals sticking with the group. Additionally, he has two friends in the Order that aren't worth betraying.

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 02:49 AM

If someone gives you something that's not supposed to change your alignment, but makes you so incredibly stupid that you end up doing evil things anyways, who's fault is that?

Your own (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

And V was also tricked into thinking his alignment wouldn't be affected.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-09-12, 02:54 AM

Your own (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

And V was also tricked into thinking his alignment wouldn't be affected.
Well, in that case, V still had a modicum of free will, which is about the only reason that he might be held responsible at all. The spell just pushed him into doing what he kind of wanted to do already.

In any case, free will isn't a sacred and inviolable thing. And responsibility is sometimes just a fancy way of saying, "somebody else's problem."

armourer eric

2009-09-12, 02:58 AM

V's Dangerous Unstable, bordering on Violent Magical Sociopath.

V's also practicing for next ear's Jim Rome smack off, "self-insert fan-fic" dang, you go guyl

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 03:21 AM

Well, in that case, V still had a modicum of free will, which is about the only reason that he might be held responsible at all. The spell just pushed him into doing what he kind of wanted to do already.

In any case, free will isn't a sacred and inviolable thing. And responsibility is sometimes just a fancy way of saying, "somebody else's problem."

Lemme just find the "someone else's problem" folder, it should be right here next to my towel...

The comparison to being drunk while not aware while you are drinking alcohol is rather interesting, and to some extent you can be in control but think you can just do anything. There's also after effects if you remember what you did.

Iranon

2009-09-12, 04:59 AM

I for one would argue that V was Neutral throughout - I'd be careful with assigning alignment changes if the underlying outlook didn't change. I also don't believe 'evil for 30 minutes, then back to normal' is a good way of doing things.

V never shied away from questionable deeds if they seemed like a good idea. Whether disproportional violence to mostly-innocent bystanders or being quick to execute & prevent the resurrection of antagonists or dealing with fiends... all of this is consistent with V as we know him from strip one.

I'm aware of the celestial messenger... but that happened during/immediately after V's splice and the wording does not make it certain that V would be considered Evil at that time.
Now, some time after the splice, V doesn't seem any more evil than before... possibly less, possibly just a little more mature.

Kaytara

2009-09-12, 05:44 AM

Alignment thread?

Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

On a serious note, what's the big deal? How is this substantially worse than blasting a horse-ticket-guy with Explosive Runes? Or trying to blow Miko up? Or using that Tentacles spell on a chimera? Or blasting Belkar with Explosive Runes? Nineteen times?

Just keep in mind that this particular incident is not in any way inconsistent with the way V was before his obsession arc. And somehow, I strongly doubt that the aforementioned incidents drew much of anything other than cheering.

I think the strip may actually be sending the message that Vaarsuvius IS back to his old ways. V trying to change sets up for some nice character development to become BETTER than he was before, or fail miserably and hilariously in doing so.

Just something I think you guys should keep in mind. :smalltongue: If you think V is evil now, then he was evil during the whole comic - which is impossible, as we saw that he scanned as Not Evil during the first encounter with Miko. Now, IMO V is still very emotionally on-edge after the whole Splice thing, but having a short fuse by itself is not evil. It depends on what you do when the fuse runs out, and what V does isn't different to what he's been doing all this time.

I also agree with everything Iranon said, particularly the first bit about outlook. That's what I see alignment to be as well, and the main reason I've been sceptical of the idea that Vaarsuvius just poof and went evil at any time during the obsession arc. It's kind of difficult to talk about outlook changes when a person has simply completely lost it after months of having their emotional and mental state hammered into peculiar shapes.

That's all I'm going to say on this one. XD I'll give this thread more than an even chance of devolving into a 30-page-debate about black dragons or expediency vs. morality, so I'm out of here.

Zanaril

2009-09-12, 05:54 AM

Kaytara

2009-09-12, 06:00 AM

Zanaril

2009-09-12, 06:04 AM

Oooh, good point. It explains the general reader response, but I don't see how it matters for alignment. Impulsive violence is generally considered to be far more forgiveable than calculated violence. (Both legally and in pretty much any other way, as well. If your friend insults you in the heat of the moment, you dismiss it a whole lot more easily than if they do so while thinking clearly.) So we're discussing personality and mental state changes rather than alignment changes. Which is an important distinction to make, I think.

I agree, it proves nothing about alignment.:smalltongue: The most it could possibly indicate is that V no longer cares about trying to stay Neutral, but even that is grasping at straws.

I think a lot of people are just mixing up 'alignment' with 'personality'.

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 06:11 AM

And who doesn't?

Zanaril

2009-09-12, 06:15 AM

And who doesn't?

It's already been shown that, while influenced by it (or is it the other way around?) personality is not the same an alignment.

Compare, for example, Belkar and Xykon.

Or V (probably TN) and Julia.

...Actually, now I do see similarities. :smallsigh:

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 06:22 AM

And how many players use "Chaotic Neutral" to be an uncaring nitwit?

Zanaril

2009-09-12, 06:26 AM

And how many players use "Chaotic Neutral" to be an uncaring nitwit?

Currently? V's hypothetical player.

You know what's annoying me? This is the one topic where a "morally justified?" thread would be appropriate.

Trobby

2009-09-12, 11:35 AM

Wait...isn't that exactly what we're talking about anyway?

I mean, on the grand scheme of things, we're trying to determine if V's actions are "morally justified", based on how we see "morality". So it's not explicitly stated, but this is, in fact, a discussion on whether V's actions are morally justified or not.

But semantics aside, I would have to say that the are not, in fact, entirely justified. V's willingness to admit that his actions are wrong Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html) means that she may be on the way to repentance, but I still hold that he could've resolved his situation with better judgment.

Then again, Roy could've resolved Miko's fall from paladinhood a bit more sagely, rather than just chargin' in to attack. But I think in both cases, we can chalk at least a part of that up to an emotional response. Sure, it wasn't wise, and it wasn't the best reaction they could've had, but at the time, they weren't so much thinking about wisdom as they were thinking about justice. Miko screwed up the only thing the Order had going for it, and this guy is a jerk who's insulting V's decades of research. It's not so much an "Is this the right thing to do?" reaction as it is a "this is the only thing that makes sense" reaction. An impulse, if you will. And anybody who says they have never given into an impulse when they should've thought things through is a liar. Humans (and elves) make mistakes, even at the worst possible time. Especially at the worst possible time. All you can do after the fact is try to make up for it, and be wiser for the experience of knowing the consequences.

In short, V's actions were not justified, but they aren't as reprehensible as you might think. This is, after all, a world where people regularly survive things like quickened lightning and fireballs, and this other Wizard, by pushing V past the breaking point, really should've known better.

Though I'd be remiss if I didn't see V getting kicked out of the store shortly after this event. He did, after all, break the rules.

JonahFalcon

2009-09-12, 05:21 PM

(sigh) As the Three Demons of the Beaurocracy stated: it's like someone thinking they're drunk and behaving in a drunk manner even though they're not drunk. They behave in the way they THINK they should.

V's alignment was not changed. V thought he was now evil, so committed evil acts, even though the soul splices didn't actually force a new alignment. So V betrayed his alignment unwittingly, thinking he was temporarily CE or NE or LE, whatever. Betraying your alignment has an effect on a PC in AD&D. This isn't like being affected by a Change Alignment spell. This is voluntary alignment betrayal.

V may not be stripped of powers like a paladin, but there will be an effect.

Zanaril

2009-09-12, 05:24 PM

V's alignment was not changed. V thought he was now evil, so committed evil acts, even though the soul splices didn't actually force a new alignment.

V didn't even think she was evil: V only thought she was behaving evilly, and that the soul splice excused it.

JonahFalcon

2009-09-12, 05:38 PM

Nice avatar. :smallwink:

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 06:03 PM

V didn't even think she was evil: V only thought she was behaving evilly, and that the soul splice excused it.

V refused to give up the soul splices, remember?

Trobby

2009-09-12, 07:42 PM

Oh I'm sure that V at least dipped into the evil end of the alignment pool during his trip with the Soul Splice. After all, she went out of her way to destroy an entire lineage of black dragons just for his own personal convenience.

Still, I doubt that alignment is a permanent or personality-altering essence. Sure, V was doing terrible things while using the Soul Splice, but has since then seen that his ways were wrong, and has since been performing acts that have, mostly, been pushing towards redemption.

We'll see how far she can go with that...it might take much more than simply saving a Paladin's life to bring him back up to True Neutral in the eyes of the Gods.

JonahFalcon

2009-09-12, 08:02 PM

You're forgetting the warning about V's evil slide from the CH angel.

Trobby

2009-09-12, 08:26 PM

Oh yeah...but you know, that doesn't necessarily mean that V's destiny is Hell. Heck, it could just be a warning to let Roy know that he needs to bear down on V a bit more, lest he DOES get declared a Chaotic Evil force of the Universe.

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 08:56 PM

I seem to recall what a wise old Jedi Master said about what happens when you once start on the dark path...:smallcool:

spargel

2009-09-12, 09:03 PM

The only evil thing V did during the soul splice was familicide, and she's never talked about that again yet, so who knows.

JonahFalcon

2009-09-12, 09:18 PM

The only evil thing V did during the soul splice was familicide, and she's never talked about that again yet, so who knows.

Selling your soul qualifies.

spargel

2009-09-12, 09:23 PM

Selling your soul qualifies.

That was before the soul splice, not during.

teratorn

2009-09-12, 09:28 PM

Selling your soul qualifies.

How is that evil?

spargel

2009-09-12, 09:31 PM

How is that evil?

Because the universe says it is.

Aldrakan

2009-09-12, 10:14 PM

How is that evil?

Selling your soul to fiends is something so incredibly universally accepted as Evil in fiction that I'm almost at a loss as to how to answer that, it's like asking "What's so bad about child murder then?"

But well. Firstly it gives more power, in the afterlife or whatever metaphysical plane the forces of Good and Evil fight, to the most evil beings in existence. By having your soul under their command they gain power in a cosmic sense.

Secondly it invites them to manifest their power on the material plane, which they can't usually do, at least in anything like so unrestrained a fashion, without invitation.

Thirdly whatever gift they give you is generally designed to be as self-destructive as possible, whether directly by corrupting you or by manipulating events to their advantage. That can be clearly seen here as their gift prompted Xykon to action, thus bringing the world closer to destruction or Xykon's domination.

Overall, the reason is because they're demons. Or fiends, whatever. They don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts. If they're willing to take your soul, it's because they will benefit from it, and that is not good.

Bargaining with creatures that are purely evil, extremely intelligent and manipulative, and which will always be setting the terms of your agreement is an act such recklessness that it becomes immoral by the sheer amount of negligent disregard for the possible consequences that it entails.

That's my take on it anyway.

spargel

2009-09-12, 10:30 PM

But well. Firstly it gives more power, in the afterlife or whatever metaphysical plane the forces of Good and Evil fight, to the most evil beings in existence. By having your soul under their command they gain power in a cosmic sense.

That can be fixed by making sure you use your power for good.

Secondly it invites them to manifest their power on the material plane, which they can't usually do, at least anything like so unrestrained a fashion, without invitation.

The power that you're controlling.

Thirdly whatever gift they give you is generally designed to be as self-destructive as possible, whether directly by corrupting you or by manipulating events to their advantage. That can be clearly seen here as their gift prompted Xykon to action, thus bringing the world closer to destruction or Xykon's domination.

Their gift had a very high chance of either not doing anything, or causing Xykon to be killed.

Overall, the reason is because they're demons. Or fiends, whatever. They don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts. If they're willing to take your soul, it's because they will benefit from it, and that is not good.

Which can be fixed by using your new powers to do good.

Bargaining with creatures that are purely evil, extremely intelligent and manipulative, and which will always be setting the terms of your agreement is an act such recklessness that it becomes immoral by the sheer amount of negligent disregard for the possible consequences that it entails.

Those creatures are rarely intelligent. It's just that the plot somehow makes their plans work anyways.

Katana_Geldar

2009-09-12, 10:47 PM

Of you did this terrible thing out of no motive but concern for us, then end this right now. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html)

And even Xykon knew it was stupid to sell your soul to fiends.

Aldrakan

2009-09-12, 10:51 PM

That can be fixed by making sure you use your power for good.

I think you missed the point there. They get power from having your soul after you are dead. You have no power to control what happens after that point. You get power for a little while, they get power for eternity. Not what happened here, but I'm speaking more generally.

The power that you're controlling.

That varies. In many cases summoning them up like this gives them greater access to earth directly (As the generally accepted fan theory says is the case here. It lets them control V directly). In others, their power is warped or corrupting (which means you don't always get to just decide to do the right thing with the power, even leaving aside the natural corrupting nature of power). Again, I'm speaking as to why demonic bargaining is generally considered evil.

Their gift had a very high chance of either not doing anything, or causing Xykon to be killed.

Except that it didn't. It did exactly what they predicted and wanted to happen. There is a reason for that. I don't know how your counterargument here is supposed to work. "So it played out to their advantage, as they predicted. But it might not have. Y'know, if they were morons who didn't know what to expect".

Which can be fixed by using your new powers to do good.

Again, you are assuming that you have total control over the situation. That is completely counter intuitive, not to mention against how these scenarios usually play out. The demons decide whether or not to give you the power, they generally know what you're likely to do with it.

Those creatures are rarely intelligent. It's just that the plot somehow makes their plans work anyways.

The reason their plans work is because they know what they're doing, not because they just blunder along and it all works out.
I mean yes, it works because the plot says so, but you can say that for anything.

Your argument seems to be that demons are stupid and so give out powers willy-nilly , but for some inexplicable reason it always works out like they want, instead of the explicitly stated reason why things work out that way: because they're smart, manipulative, and in many cases prescient or at least possessed of knowledge beyond human capacity to comprehend.

spargel

2009-09-12, 11:16 PM

I think you missed the point there. They get power from having your soul after you are dead. You have no power to control what happens after that point. You get power for a little while, they get power for eternity. Not what happened here, but I'm speaking more generally.

The power they get from your soul is usually insignificant compared to what you would be able to accomplish. I still barely get what's going on.

That varies. In many cases summoning them up like this gives them greater access to earth directly (As the generally accepted fan theory says is the case here. It lets them control V directly). In others, their power is warped or corrupting (which means you don't always get to just decide to do the right thing with the power, even leaving aside the natural corrupting nature of power). Again, I'm speaking as to why demonic bargaining is generally considered evil.

If demonic bargaining always corrupted you or changed you to a different person, there would be very few people willing to do it.

Except that it didn't. It did exactly what they predicted and wanted to happen. There is a reason for that. I don't know how your counterargument here is supposed to work. "So it played out to their advantage, as they predicted. But it might not have. Y'know, if they were morons who didn't know what to expect".

The fiends themselves admitted that they took a gamble.

Since the only reason Xykon was knocked out of his comfort zone was because O-Chul came to help, I really don't consider that a good plan.

Again, you are assuming that you have total control over the situation. That is completely counter intuitive, not to mention against how these scenarios usually play out. The demons decide whether or not to give you the power, they generally know what you're likely to do with it.

Unless the demons can read your mind, or the power itself has some kind of corruption problems attached to it, yes, you should have control over the situation.

The reason their plans work is because they know what they're doing, not because they just blunder along and it all works out.
I mean yes, it works because the plot says so, but you can say that for anything.

Your argument seems to be that demons are stupid and so give out powers willy-nilly , but for some inexplicable reason it always works out like they want, instead of the explicitly stated reason why things work out that way: because they're smart, manipulative, and in many cases prescient or at least possessed of knowledge beyond human capacity to comprehend.

The demons are written by humans, so whatever knowledge they have is not beyond human capacity.

They gave V huge amounts of power and expected him to go and attack Xykon with the result being that V would lose, but live, and Xykon would be rocked out of his comfort zone.

If V killed Xykon, the plan would fail. Maybe the demons used their super mind reading powers to predict that V would be a total moron and lose miserably, although losing that easily would have problems with getting Xykon to go into action. The only reason their plan worked was because O-Chul came to help and dropped Xykon's phylactery into the sewers.

Maybe the demons had the power to see into the future. That's the only way I can think of for them to do what they did and still be considered intelligent.

Aldrakan

2009-09-12, 11:43 PM

If demonic bargaining always corrupted you or changed you to a different person, there would be very few people willing to do it.

Well? There are very few. The people who make demonic bargains are always either evil, in which case being corrupted is not a concern, desperate, in which case they aren't thinking about the consequences, or both. I can't think of a single person in any work of fiction who sold their soul neither under duress nor in selfish pursuit of power or gratification.

Unless the demons can read your mind, or the power itself has some kind of corruption problems attached to it, yes, you should have control over the situation.

I've already given that most popular theory for why V does not have control over the situation. And the power very frequently does have "corruption problems", so you can't discount that. In this very instance V was clearly acting with much more sadism and arrogance than he would under normal circumstances due to the manipulation of the demons and the prompting of the souls.

The demons are written by humans, so whatever knowledge they have is not beyond human capacity.

They gave V huge amounts of power and expected him to go and attack Xykon with the result being that V would lose, but live, and Xykon would be rocked out of his comfort zone.

If V killed Xykon, the plan would fail. Maybe the demons used their super mind reading powers to predict that V would be a total moron and lose miserably, although losing that easily would have problems with getting Xykon to go into action. The only reason their plan worked was because O-Chul came to help and dropped Xykon's phylactery into the sewers.

Maybe the demons had the power to see into the future. That's the only way I can think of for them to do what they did and still be considered intelligent.

Generally speaking, people with greater psychological insight are more capable of predicting people's behavior. Demons explicitly have incredible, superhuman understanding of how humans work, it is not unreasonable in the slightest to consider that they predicted V's performance. Nor is it impossible that they predicted O'chul's involvement given that they have been monitoring the situation carefully.

As a (non-demonic, but the same principle) example of this I'll point to The King of the Silver River, from one of Terry Brooks' Shannara books. In it he predicted events and manipulated events in ways that humans would be unable to, because he had greater knowledge, understanding, and capabilities than humans are capable of. Obviously, the author does not, but he constructed the narrative so that the King did.

You can call it sloppy writing if you must, but authors are perfectly capable of presenting characters with greater than human powers of prediction simply by not showing every single step of their reasoning. It shows up a lot actually. Good Omens, the Chronicles of Riddick, any work with someone of greater than human intelligence manipulating events (and there are a lot of them) will use this.

Because you don't know everything they knew, you can't just call them stupid and say it's a coincidence that things worked out the way they say they did.

spargel

2009-09-13, 12:02 AM

Well? There are very few. The people who make demonic bargains are always either evil, in which case being corrupted is not a concern, desperate, in which case they aren't thinking about the consequences, or both. I can't think of a single person in any work of fiction who sold their soul neither under duress nor in selfish pursuit of power or gratification.

Hypothetically, if there was a good person who made a deal with demons for power that doesn't have the magical problems attached to it and is simply a soul exchange, it shouldn't be evil.

I've already given that most popular theory for why V does not have control over the situation. And the power very frequently does have "corruption problems", so you can't discount that. In this very instance V was clearly acting with much more sadism and arrogance than he would under normal circumstances due to the manipulation of the demons and the prompting of the souls.

V was acting with the same arrogance that he had between the Azure City battle and the Soul Splice. The only time she displayed any sadism was with the ABD, who targeted her family, so she probably would have done the same unspliced, if she had the power. Other than that, she managed to not blow up anyone else who annoyed her.

Generally speaking, people with greater psychological insight are more capable of predicting people's behavior. Demons explicitly have incredible, superhuman understanding of how humans work, it is not unreasonable in the slightest to consider that they predicted V's performance. Nor is it impossible that they predicted O'chul's involvement given that they have been monitoring the situation carefully.

And they even managed to predict that O-Chul would be successful?

As a (non-demonic, but the same principle) example of this I'll point to The King of the Silver River, from one of Terry Brooks' Shannara books. In it he predicted events and manipulated events in ways that humans would be unable to, because he had greater knowledge, understanding, and capabilities than humans are capable of. Obviously, the author does not, but he constructed the narrative so that the King did.

You can call it sloppy writing if you must, but authors are perfectly capable of presenting characters with greater than human powers of prediction simply by not showing every single step of their reasoning. It shows up a lot actually. Good Omens, the Chronicles of Riddick, any work with someone of greater than human intelligence manipulating events (and there are a lot of them) will use this.

Because you don't know everything they knew, you can't just call them stupid and say it's a coincidence that things worked out the way they say they did.

I'll just go with the simple explanation and say that they can read minds, are omniscient, and can see into the future. It's not intelligence, just supernatural knowledge. The demons obviously had precognition and mind reader.

Aldrakan

2009-09-13, 12:21 AM

Hypothetically, if there was a good person who made a deal with demons for power that doesn't have the magical problems attached to it and is simply a soul exchange, it shouldn't be evil.

Well yes that is theoretically possible, though I find it extremely unlikely that any demon would agree to such an exchange. That is I feel one of the main reasons why deals with the devil are considered evil, they generally don't have to agree to terms that don't suit them.
In situations where they do, such as in the Bartimaeus trilogy, the nature of demons tends to be different enough to render it irrelevant to this topic.

Personally I and many others on the forums strongly disbelieve with you that V's attitude didn't change under the soul splice, but I'd rather not resurrect that discussion, so I think we'd better just disagree there.

I'll just go with the simple explanation and say that they can read minds, are omniscient, and can see into the future. It's not intelligence, just supernatural knowledge. The demons obviously had precognition and mind reader.

The difference is not a significant one, overall, nor are the two mutually exclusive. Either way it means demons are more capable of predicting the outcomes of their bargains than the other party, and so making a deal with them is much more likely to work to their favor.

Thus making entering into such a bargain immorally reckless - a legal equivalent would be "criminal negligence".

spargel

2009-09-13, 12:40 AM

Well yes that is theoretically possible, though I find it extremely unlikely that any demon would agree to such an exchange. That is I feel one of the main reasons why deals with the devil are considered evil, they generally don't have to agree to terms that don't suit them.
In situations where they do, such as in the Bartimaeus trilogy, the nature of demons tends to be different enough to render it irrelevant to this topic.

I've rarely seen any deals where the person selling his/her soul has to use his/her powers for evil as part of the deal.

The difference is not a significant one, overall, nor are the two mutually exclusive. Either way it means demons are more capable of predicting the outcomes of their bargains than the other party, and so making a deal with them is much more likely to work to their favor.

Thus making entering into such a bargain immorally reckless - a legal equivalent would be "criminal negligence".

Um, no, the fiends do not actually have precognition or mind reading abilities.

Everything that happened in Xykon's tower had too low of a chance for anyone to predict without magical future sight powers (Like the oracle's), and there was a pretty high chance that things wouldn't have worked out the way the fiends wanted it to. They simply got lucky with the plot.

rewinn

2009-09-13, 01:13 AM

.... demons are more capable of predicting the outcomes of their bargains than the other party, and so making a deal with them is much more likely to work to their favor.

Thus making entering into such a bargain immorally reckless - a legal equivalent would be "criminal negligence".

It's not as if V sought out the demons to make the deal. It's very clear that this was an overstressed V, more than half crazy with fear for the family who would be not merely killed, but soul-tortured for the rest of the life of an Ancient Black Dragon.

There is not a parent alive who would not risk his or her soul to spare their child that (not even considering the torture planned for the spouse.) Not to have accepted the risks of the bargain would have been evil in itself.

That's why it was such a master-class temptation.

teratorn

2009-09-13, 07:48 AM

Selling your soul to fiends is something so incredibly universally accepted as Evil in fiction that I'm almost at a loss as to how to answer that, it's like asking "What's so bad about child murder then?"

???? Do you always feel the need to insult people before answering their questions?

Go and read Goethe's Faust story, then talk about what's universally accepted as evil in fiction. Faust sold his soul because he craved knowledge, although not for absolute power like V, but to understand the true essence of life. In the end his soul is saved by divine intervention -- meaning that he was viewed as good and worthy of paradise, not like the equivalent of child murderer.

Turkish Delight

2009-09-13, 07:57 AM

It depends on whether the OotS world runs on the Darth Vader scale of morality, in which you can destroy thousands or millions of lives and still have the slate wiped clean by one good act.

In other words, it depends on whether his going back to help O'Chul makes up for Familicide.

Aldrakan

2009-09-13, 11:47 AM

Go and read Goethe's Faust story, then talk about what's universally accepted as evil in fiction. Faust sold his soul because he craved knowledge, although not for absolute power like V, but to understand the true essence of life. In the end his soul is saved by divine intervention -- meaning that he was viewed as good and worthy of paradise, not like the equivalent of child murderer.

Incidentally I wasn't actually comparing it to child murder in terms of severity, but in terms of obviousness to explain my confusion. Given that this is the internet, the analogy was ill-chosen.

I am familiar with Faust, and in a great many versions of his story, he goes to Hell at the end for making a deal with Mephistopheles and because of the sins he committed as a result of that pact.

Even in the Goethe version the pact he made was clearly presented as evil. The reason for his salvation is debatable, but a common reading is that his attempt to save Gretchen and giving up magic made him worthy enough to overcome the evil he'd done. Also, Heaven doesn't require that much to get into in a lot of stories. I recall a woman who they tried to let in because she once gave a man a turnip, only to mess it up through her continued selfishness. "He who strives on and lives to strive/ Can earn redemption still." (Act 5). The operative word being redemption. He would have been damned to Hell if he hadn't done enough good to redeem himself for his sins.

I'm not claiming that the pact makes him beyond saving, I'm simply stating that the pact was an act of evil.

Dixieboy

2009-09-13, 12:24 PM

Your own (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

And V was also tricked into thinking his alignment wouldn't be affected.

No he wasn't.

The Soul splice did nothing to affect his alignments.

Kish

2009-09-13, 12:30 PM

Well, in that case, V still had a modicum of free will

Still had all his/her free will. "The truth is, those three souls have absolutely no power to alter the elf's alignment or actions at all." "They have about as much effect on what the elf does as a cheerleader has on the final score of a game." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

And the fiends told Vaarsuvius up front that s/he would have complete control of the Splice. S/he assumed that they were lying, that s/he was not in control and therefore couldn't be held responsible and had no reason not to indulge all his/her most sadistic impulses. Of course the fiends knew s/he would.

Ironwolf172

2009-09-13, 12:52 PM

In my personal opinion the "deep end" is refering to being chaotic and not quite so much evil, but that conversation is for another day.

On topic: I don't believe that alignment had anything to do with anything. V soul spliced as a last minute action to save her family. While dealing with devils is evil (only because it says so in some rule book), doing so to save your family is not. Is it in fact noble. The familicide was, to some extent, an over-reaction but V does this so that this same instance would never happen again. V was only looking after the future care of her offspring (leading me to believe that V is a girl, but again that's for another day).

So why didn't she surrender her power when her mate asked her to?

Simple. V has always bragged about being an incredibly powerful wizard and being able to harness arcane power (bla bla bla, you guys know what I'm talking about). So when she was in Azure city, invisible, and all of those soldiers died because she couldn't help them (personally I don't think it was her fault, I would'nt have stopped running), and her power was useless, she was ashamed to no end. This shame that she bottled up inside (whch is never good) ate at her, so when she finally got her arcan power she NEEDED to save the fleet and destroy Xykon so she could once again feel powerful. Surrendering her power would have made her feel weak, and nobody wants to be what they look down upon.

Porthos

2009-09-13, 01:05 PM

While dealing with devils is evil (only because it says so in some rule book), doing so to save your family is not. Is it in fact noble.

<Said for what seems like the trillionth time>

And what if the motivations aren't quite as noble as the person claims them to be?

People have been known to lie about motivations, even to themselves, from time to time, you know. :smallsmile:

</Said for what seems like the trillionth time>

EDIT:: By the by, while many stories like to subvert the idea when they have the protagonist pull a fast one (and succeed) on the devil, usually the idea of consorting with the forces of darkness isn't exactly in the Apporved List of Actions for Goody Two Shoes.:smallwink:

Ironwolf172

2009-09-13, 06:43 PM

<Said for what seems like the trillionth time>

And what if the motivations aren't quite as noble as the person claims them to be?

People have been known to lie about motivations, even to themselves, from time to time, you know. :smallsmile:

</Said for what seems like the trillionth time>

EDIT:: By the by, while many stories like to subvert the idea when they have the protagonist pull a fast one (and succeed) on the devil, usually the idea of consorting with the forces of darkness isn't exactly in the Apporved List of Actions for Goody Two Shoes.:smallwink:

Wheather or not the person lies to themselves or others we, as the reader, look on from an objective point of view. Even if V did it for the the wrong reasons the right ones are still there.

Porthos

2009-09-13, 06:58 PM

Wheather or not the person lies to themselves or others we, as the reader, look on from an objective point of view. Even if V did it for the the wrong reasons the right ones are still there.

Then the question one has to ask is this:

Do the good motivations that he had outweigh the undeniable bad motivations that V had (which were the whole points of strips #634 and #642 - and arguably the entire V Loses It Arc)?

They may for you. But as one look at this board will show, they don't for everyone. :smallwink:

spargel

2009-09-13, 07:14 PM

Then the question one has to ask is this:

Do the good motivations that he had outweigh the undeniable bad motivations that V had (which were the whole points of strips #634 and #642 - and arguably the entire V Loses It Arc)?

They may for you. But as one look at this board will show, they don't for everyone. :smallwink:

Since when was wanting power and wanting to be useful a bad motivation?

Porthos

2009-09-13, 07:20 PM

Since when was wanting power and wanting to be useful a bad motivation?

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
- Lord Acton

...

Really, if you have gotten this far in life without running into the idea that some (and I emphasize some) people find a thirst for power distasteful and/or haven't read/seen much fiction where it is shown that an insatiable thrist for power might not be the best attribute for one to have...

Well, I don't really know what to say here. :smalltongue:

spargel

2009-09-13, 07:26 PM

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
- Lord Acton

That's false. It depends on the person, situation, how much power, the kind of power, and how long they've had the power.

Really, if you have gotten this far in life without running into the idea that some (and I emphasize some) people find a thirst for power distasteful and/or haven't read/seen much fiction where it is shown that an insatiable thrist for power might not be the best attribute for one to have...

Well, I don't really know what to say here. :smalltongue:

Fiction really isn't the best place to teach Aesops that would apply to real life unless written extremely well. In real life, people don't just want power for the sake of having it. Usually, they want to gain power so they can use it for good things.

Porthos

2009-09-13, 07:40 PM

Usually, they want to gain power so they can use it for good things.

Change that to "things that they want to happen" and I'd almost agree with you. :smallwink:

BTW: I'm not stating MY feelings about the pursuit of power. I'm simply answering the question you asked. Which was (paraphrasing) "since when was the pursuit of power viewed as a bad thing"?

Well, the answer is: Since forever. :smallwink:

Of course, not everyone agrees that the pursuit of power is a bad thing. Hence conflict. Both in works of art, philosophy, religion and in the real world in general.

==============

BTW: I would take issue with one thing you did say. V already was plenty useful. And he's demonstrated time and time again that he is useful. No, IMO, what V wanted to become was indispensable. He wanted, basically, to be able to solve all problems that came before him.

And that is very much NOT a healthy attitude to have. No matter how much Raw Power one has. One has to learn that there are some things that you just can't fix/solve with the tools/abilities at hand. And if one is unable to accept that on a basic level...

... Well V kinda just showed what might happen to people like that in those situations.

A famous line about knowing ones limitations, having the courage to change what one can, and having the wisdom to tell the two situations apart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer) comes to mind here. :smallwink:

spargel

2009-09-13, 07:54 PM

Change that to "things that they want to happen" and I'd almost agree with you. :smallwink:

BTW: I'm not stating MY feelings about the pursuit of power. I'm simply answering the question you asked. Which was (paraphrasing) "since when was the pursuit of power viewed as a bad thing"?

Well, the answer is: Since forever. :smallwink:

Of course, not everyone agrees that the pursuit of power is a bad thing. Hence conflict. Both in works of art, philosophy, religion and in the real world in general.

Pursuit for power is what gets things done. Although it can also cause bad things to happen.

BTW: I would take issue with one thing you did say. V already was plenty useful. And he's demonstrated time and time again that he is useful. No, IMO, what V wanted to become was indispensable. He wanted, basically, to be able to solve all problems that came before him.

And that is very much NOT a healthy attitude to have. No matter how much Raw Power one has. One has to learn that there are some things that you just can't fix/solve with the tools/abilities at hand. ANd if one is unable to accept that on a basic level...

... Well V kinda just showed what might happen to people like that in those situations.

A famous quote about knowing ones limitations, having the courage to change what one can, and having the wisdom to tell the two situations apart comes to mind here. :smallwink:

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be more useful and to be able to solve all of your problems. If it's possible to attain enough power to solve your problems, go ahead and try to attain it, although you shouldn't screw over everything else in the process.

All V showed was that she's a total idiot who can't accomplish anything. Her months of researching got nothing accomplished, and she needed three fiends to give her the powers she needed. And even when she got the power she needed to solve all of her major current problems, she still screwed up. If V was just a little less of a moron, she could have killed Xykon and 80% of the plot would be resolved.

veti

2009-09-13, 08:39 PM

That's false. It depends on the person, situation, how much power, the kind of power, and how long they've had the power.

Really? You can point to a counter-example in which power demonstrably has no corrupting effect? (Of course "corrupting" is a hard thing to define objectively, but I find it hard to think of any historical figure who wielded any significant power without being at least arguably "corrupted" by it.)

Fiction really isn't the best place to teach Aesops that would apply to real life unless written extremely well. In real life, people don't just want power for the sake of having it. Usually, they want to gain power so they can use it for good things.

Unfortunately, in real life, the process of acquiring power is not morally neutral. And different people's ideas of "good things" may also be at variance.

spargel

2009-09-13, 08:49 PM

Really? You can point to a counter-example in which power demonstrably has no corrupting effect? (Of course "corrupting" is a hard thing to define objectively, but I find it hard to think of any historical figure who wielded any significant power without being at least arguably "corrupted" by it.)

Can you point out the logical reasoning of why there would be a rule that says "Power will always corrupt you"?

Unfortunately, in real life, the process of acquiring power is not morally neutral. And different people's ideas of "good things" may also be at variance.

You can't be corrupted by power if you're doing what you were planning to do with that power before you got it.

veti

2009-09-13, 09:09 PM

Can you point out the logical reasoning of why there would be a rule that says "Power will always corrupt you"?

You can't be corrupted by power if you're doing what you were planning to do with that power before you got it.

Who needs logical reasoning, when the observed evidence is overwhelming? There's no "logical reason" for the Second Law of Thermodynamics either, but it's still regarded as pretty much golden.

As for your second point: I think that's probably impossible, for a number of reasons.

There's no way of telling, after the event, what a person originally planned to do with their "power". Even for the person in question.
Power is multi-dimensional: the power to do one specific thing carries with it, indivisibly, the power to do quite a variety of other things as well. Have you planned how to use all of that power?
The acquisition of power takes time. In that time, the world will have changed, and the things you saw and knew when you first started working to acquire power will no longer be true. Ergo, you will have to change your plans at least slightly.

(Edited for tyop.)

spargel

2009-09-13, 09:14 PM

Who needs logical reasoning, when the observed evidence is overwhelming? There's no "logical reason" for the Second Law of Thermodynamics either, but it's still regarded as pretty much golden.

I need logical reasoning.

Are you honestly trying to compare philosophical musings with a scientific law?

As for your second point: I think that's probably impossible, for a number of reasons.

There's no way of telling, after the event, what a person originally planned to do with their "power". Even for the person in question.
Power is multi-dimensional: the power to do one specific thing carries with it, indivisibly, the power to do quite a variety of other things as well. Have you planned how to use all of that power?
The acquisition of power takes time. In that time, the world will have changed, and the things you saw and knew when you first started working to acquire power will no longer be true. Ergo, you will have to change your plans at least at least slightly.

As long as your morals don't suddenly change because you obtained power, then I wouldn't count it as being corrupted.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-09-13, 09:18 PM

Lemme just find the "someone else's problem" folder, it should be right here next to my towel...

The comparison to being drunk while not aware while you are drinking alcohol is rather interesting, and to some extent you can be in control but think you can just do anything. There's also after effects if you remember what you did.
Responsibility sometimes means that Fate just bent you over and pleasured itself inside you and you're the one left with the bill.

Drunk is different because even when you are drunk, a person is cognizant of alcoholism as an excuse.

teratorn

2009-09-13, 10:01 PM

I'm not claiming that the pact makes him beyond saving, I'm simply stating that the pact was an act of evil.

I do agree with you that THIS particular contract is evil, but my initial comment was about selling one own's soul, not this contract.

Consorting with the devils/demons isn't evil per se in the DnD world. A friendly association with evil doesn't necessarily taint you and warrants punishment or change in alignment. Ok, paladins should not work with evil creatures, and the Deva frowned on Roy's association with Belkar. But that wasn't enough to taint Roy's character, because even though he associates with Belkar he prevents his evil actions. And by the way, Belkar profited hugely from that contract, and now if he were left unchecked he could murder and torture entire cities.

V's contract can be considered evil because V agreed in being used by the evil guys to act in the mortal plane for a significant amount of time. That puts innocents in danger and can only lead to evil results.

Faustian deals in a non-DnD scenario (like Goethe's work) can't be discussed in depth here without going into real-world stuff (including religion). Even today it persists sort of a cultural bias that too much knowledge is sort of evil in nature and bad for us (the "scientist who plays god" comes to mind).

There's no "logical reason" for the Second Law of Thermodynamics either, but it's still regarded as pretty much golden.

Huh? Where did you get that from (by the way, I'm a physicist). If we got the Second Law of thermodynamics it was for logical reasons: given enough time it seems reasonable (logic) that an isolated system should even out its properties.

I don't believe power corrupts as much as that power attracts the kind of people who are prone to be corrupted.

Bago!!!

2009-09-13, 10:31 PM

I believe V is Chaotic Neutral. He has broken the law, on more than one occasion, on a whim against his ego or numerous other small reasons. Evil now? No, he's neutral now because he committed a terrible deed but is trying to rise above it (and failing at it now). Is he a twit? No, but he lacks skill points in the class skill 'common sense.' Course, alot of people fail in that sense. And his intellegence makes him rather bombastic, so its not surpising he sometimes comes off as a twit.

Edit: Commiting a pact with devils is technically taints you as evil, or I would think so. After all, if its power or knowledge froms ome otherworldly entity, you can be sure its branded on you in some way.

teratorn

2009-09-13, 11:24 PM

Edit: Commiting a pact with devils is technically taints you as evil, or I would think so.

But why is it worse than having Belkar on the team?

Shale

2009-09-13, 11:46 PM

Because keeping Belkar on the team means they force a CE character to serve Good aims, while doing the bidding of fiends generally means you're serving Evil.

Kish

2009-09-14, 12:13 AM

But why is it worse than having Belkar on the team?
Because Belkar lacks thousands of years of experience manipulating people, is not dedicated to Evil as a goal, doesn't do long-term planning, isn't the leader...and Roy still got in trouble for Belkar's actions. Whether he'll get back into the Lawful Good afterlife the next time is, I would think, rather dependent on what Belkar gets away with in the future (as well as many other considerations, of course).

Fireballing_Fun

2009-09-14, 02:07 PM

Okay so, V was evil best as we can tell, but is V still evil?

I'm guessing yes judging by that outburst in 677, but V is definately attempting to redeem (her/him-self).

Also is V going to successfully return to (her/his) orginal alignment, or continue floundering about in Belkars area of "expertise".

Just curious as to what other people think.

V committed several very evil actions, he/she made a demonic pact with the full knowledge of aiding the greater cause of evil, he/she took pleasure in revenge, he/she committed genocide.

Also V has shown very little actual compassion for the well being of spouse and children, oh sure he/she saved their lives... but where is the genuine empathy with their suffering?

This all shows to me that V is evil.

If V was good or neutral they would be feeling remorse for their actions, as opposed to being slightly embarrassed.

spargel

2009-09-14, 02:17 PM

V committed several very evil actions, he/she made a demonic pact with the full knowledge of aiding the greater cause of evil, he/she took pleasure in revenge, he/she committed genocide.

Also V has shown very little actual compassion for the well being of spouse and children, oh sure he/she saved their lives... but where is the genuine empathy with their suffering?

This all shows to me that V is evil.

If V was good or neutral they would be feeling remorse for their actions, as opposed to being slightly embarrassed.

You're making stuff up.

V never had the knowledge that the fiends were planning anything with her soul beyond torturing it, and she committed familicide, not genocide.

She obviously does feel compassion, she just doesn't let it go too far.

Porthos

2009-09-14, 02:24 PM

You're making stuff up.

V never had the knowledge that the fiends were planning anything with her soul beyond torturing it

I think Fireballing_Fun is referring to the speech that the IFCC gave at the end of Comic #633 where they state that V "renting" his soul is an important part of the Conquer The Universe Plan as it would show that Daemons, Demons and Devils can indeed cooperate. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html)

The fact that they're lying about their goals here (as that is most certainly not the only thing they're getting out of all of this :smallwink:) is immaterial. The fiends explicitly tell V why he's so gosh darn important in the overall scheme of things, and he doesn't care about the implications.

Or he doesn't believe them. Take your pick.

Re-read the end of 633 and you should see what Fireballing_Fun was getting at. :smallsmile:

As for genocide...

Are we REALLY going to debate the definition of "genocide" again? Because as I recall the last time that happened, the mods were sicced on the thread. And we really don't want that to happen again, now do we? :smalltongue:

spargel

2009-09-14, 02:39 PM

I think Fireballing_Fun is referring to the speech that the IFCC gave at the end of Comic #633 where they state that V "renting" his soul is an important part of the Conquer The Universe Plan as it would show that Daemons, Demons and Devils can indeed cooperate. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html)

A small step. Whatever V could accomplish with the splice would do more than the small contribution she thought she would be giving to the fiends.

As for genocide...

Are we REALLY going to debate the definition of "genocide" again? Because as I recall the last time that happened, the mods were sicced on the thread. And we really don't want that to happen again, now do we? :smalltongue:

I don't see how it's possible to debate against a dictionary.

Porthos

2009-09-14, 02:43 PM

I don't see how it's possible to debate against a dictionary.

I don't see how it's possible to debate against the definition the UN (or just about any International Orginization/Government/News Media Outlet for that matter) uses.

See how fun this can be? :smallsmile:

Let's just agree to disagree on this one, eh?

spargel

2009-09-14, 03:01 PM

I don't see how it's possible to debate against the definition the UN (or just about any International Orginization/Government/News Media Outlet for that matter) uses.

See how fun this can be? :smallsmile:

Let's just agree to disagree on this one, eh?

As you wish.

David Argall

2009-09-14, 04:01 PM

V never had the knowledge that the fiends were planning anything with her soul beyond torturing it,
The fiends told her this was a trial run, which if fully successful, would give evil a powerful new weapon/tactic.
Now V could easily think the fiends had not thought thru their idea and it was going to fail even if the test was successful [which was true since the idea was just a cover story for their true purpose and the fiends would have wanted her to think they were only harmlessly evil], but he was told it could be massively harmful to the cause of good, so much so that the death/torture of 3 souls to prevent it was a trivial price to pay. V's fans have some work to do here.

and she committed familicide, not genocide.
Multiple murder in several digits. Po-ta-to, Pa-tah-to. Actually we might say that genocide has at least 10,000 victims while familicide is unlikely to reach 1000, but we are still talking about extreme massive crime.
V's defense has to be that the dragons were so heavily evil that they were certain to have done/do enough crimes to justify their execution.

She obviously does feel compassion, she just doesn't let it go too far.
And unfortunately for V, a lot of people, apparently including K, think too far is barely far enough.

Sholos

2009-09-14, 04:19 PM

Huh? Where did you get that from (by the way, I'm a physicist). If we got the Second Law of thermodynamics it was for logical reasons: given enough time it seems reasonable (logic) that an isolated system should even out its properties.

Okay, I've got a little bit of training as a scientist, and one thing I learned is that "reason" doesn't really have much to do with science. It's "reasonable" that we'd be able to figure out which slot a photon is going through if we set up a sensor and two different slots, yes? I'm sure you're aware of the results of that experiment. Basic line is that science is driven by observation, not reason.

she committed familicide, not genocide.

Does it really matter? Is 200 kills "not evil" whereas 10,000 kills would be "evil"? It's still a massively evil act either way.

I need logical reasoning.

Are you honestly trying to compare philosophical musings with a scientific law.

Actually, philosophy uses laws in its own way. Regardless, I think the point was to show something that didn't necessarily have a "reason" for existing, i.e. why does a system lose energy? Why doesn't it stay the same? These aren't questions science tries to answer. Science simply cares about "how".

As to the whole "power corrupts", I suggest an exchange of examples from both sides. People who have deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for evil, and people who have deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for good. I am specifically eliminating anyone who had power land in their lap because we're talking about people wanting power and whether that tends to be a good or bad thing. For the record, I can very easily think of several people who deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for evil (Hitler, Stalin, various tyrants around the world). I can't really think of any that used it for good. .... On that note, I'd accept people who deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and were, at worst, merely neutral with it, and by neutral I mean, "not anything real good, not anything real bad", not a mix of really good things and really bad things.

veti

2009-09-14, 04:30 PM

Consorting with the devils/demons isn't evil per se in the DnD world. A friendly association with evil doesn't necessarily taint you and warrants punishment or change in alignment. Ok, paladins should not work with evil creatures, and the Deva frowned on Roy's association with Belkar. But that wasn't enough to taint Roy's character, because even though he associates with Belkar he prevents his evil actions. And by the way, Belkar profited hugely from that contract, and now if he were left unchecked he could murder and torture entire cities.

Evil is not a binary thing. You can work with evil entities to achieve good ends, or to achieve mutually beneficial ends that are neither good nor evil in themselves. But there's always a cost to doing this: the evil being is (unless you've managed to trick it thoroughly) strengthened in the process. So the question is, whether the benefit outweighs the cost.

In practice, people will pretty much always tend to over-estimate the benefit to themselves and their ends, and under-estimate the benefit to the other party. So the moral "risk" is always greater than you think. I think that's why paladins are prohibited from making such deals at all - they're trying to set a good example.

V's contract can be considered evil because V agreed in being used by the evil guys to act in the mortal plane for a significant amount of time. That puts innocents in danger and can only lead to evil results.

As a side note, there's also the spirits of three ultra-powerful Evil casters batting around the Stickverse now. The fiends said they couldn't do anything without a body, but were they right? The spirits themselves seemed happy to escape. Almost as if they were... looking forward to something...

Huh? Where did you get that from (by the way, I'm a physicist). If we got the Second Law of thermodynamics it was for logical reasons: given enough time it seems reasonable (logic) that an isolated system should even out its properties.

I don't believe power corrupts as much as that power attracts the kind of people who are prone to be corrupted.

"Seems reasonable" isn't logic. It "seems reasonable" that the Sun goes around the Earth - we see it happen every day - but that's not a logical proof.

In the same way, it "seems reasonable" that someone who acquires power will tend to do things - because they now can - without thinking through all the consequences. Someone who has to work much harder to make things happen, will tend to be more careful and conservative in what they do.

Nobody can give their full attention to everything, so we tend to focus most attention on the things that are "biggest", most important. Lesser decisions get made casually, without full thought. And the more powerful you are, the bigger and more life-changing those "lesser" decisions will be for other people. That's the corrupting effect of power: you will start to hurt people casually, without even realising it.

And that's why "democratic" politics is explicitly designed to minimise the power that any one person ever holds.

Fireballing_Fun

2009-09-14, 04:37 PM

You're making stuff up.

V never had the knowledge that the fiends were planning anything with her soul beyond torturing it, and she committed familicide, not genocide.

She obviously does feel compassion, she just doesn't let it go too far.

Strip 633, bottom left panel.
V had full knowledge that the soul splice was part of an evil agenda, an agenda that could not in fact be anymore evil.

Familicide/genocide, is in this case a semantic distinction.

There is a distinct lack of compassion on the part of V, who appears unconcerned with the family home, the truama of the family, the possibility that the 'familicide' destroyed innocent life, or the fact it has advanced the side of evil.

V is clearly of evil alignment.

Fireballing_Fun

2009-09-14, 04:42 PM

A small step. Whatever V could accomplish with the splice would do more than the small contribution she thought she would be giving to the fiends.

So I did not make anything up... in any case now you are. V's primary goal in accepting the soul splice was to save his family. This is either a neutral or only slightly good act. The consequence of accepting the soul splice was that he would assist three evil fiends in their goal to destroy Good. A more evil agenda is difficult to imagine.

spargel

2009-09-14, 04:46 PM

The fiends told her this was a trial run, which if fully successful, would give evil a powerful new weapon/tactic.
Now V could easily think the fiends had not thought thru their idea and it was going to fail even if the test was successful [which was true since the idea was just a cover story for their true purpose and the fiends would have wanted her to think they were only harmlessly evil], but he was told it could be massively harmful to the cause of good, so much so that the death/torture of 3 souls to prevent it was a trivial price to pay. V's fans have some work to do here.

She was told that it was a pretty long term goal, and that they would probably eventually reach that even if she doesn't agree to the deal. They could have just waited for another customer.

Multiple murder in several digits. Po-ta-to, Pa-tah-to. Actually we might say that genocide has at least 10,000 victims while familicide is unlikely to reach 1000, but we are still talking about extreme massive crime.
V's defense has to be that the dragons were so heavily evil that they were certain to have done/do enough crimes to justify their execution.

Ok, I'm only trying to point out that it's familicide, not genocide.

As to the whole "power corrupts", I suggest an exchange of examples from both sides. People who have deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for evil, and people who have deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for good. I am specifically eliminating anyone who had power land in their lap because we're talking about people wanting power and whether that tends to be a good or bad thing. For the record, I can very easily think of several people who deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and used it for evil (Hitler, Stalin, various tyrants around the world). I can't really think of any that used it for good. .... On that note, I'd accept people who deliberately pursued vast amounts of power and were, at worst, merely neutral with it, and by neutral I mean, "not anything real good, not anything real bad", not a mix of really good things and really bad things.

Most democratically elected leaders, although they don't get as much power as leaders in monarchies or dictatorships. Mohammad Gandhi is another one. There were also several good Roman rulers.

By the way, I think the exact quote was "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This only means most people who have power tend to get corrupted, not all.

Strip 633, bottom left panel.
V had full knowledge that the soul splice was part of an evil agenda, an agenda that could not in fact be anymore evil.

Whatever good V could have done with the soul splice was likely to outweigh whatever he thought he could have contributed to their evil agenda.

Familicide/genocide, is in this case a semantic distinction.

I'd just rather not use incorrect terms. It's like calling a serial killer a genocider.

There is a distinct lack of compassion on the part of V, who appears unconcerned with the family home, the truama of the family, the possibility that the 'familicide' destroyed innocent life, or the fact it has advanced the side of evil.

V is clearly of evil alignment.

If V didn't care about her family, she wouldn't have been willing to sell her soul a few moments earlier. And just a few moments before that, she was unwilling to ally herself with the "forces of darkness" for power. I doubt she considered the possibility of familicide destroying innocent life either; all she thought she destroyed were black dragons.

Porthos

2009-09-14, 05:27 PM

I'd just rather not use incorrect terms. It's like calling a serial killer a genocider.

<trying to stay on this side of Board Rules>
Then under your definition no one has ever committed genocide. Ever.

Better contact all the people who have written history books tho.

What I and so many many other people are trying to tell you is that Genocide Does Not Neccessarily Mean Kill Every Last Member of Group X.

Yes, I am quite sure that you can find plenty of dictionaries that say that is one of the definitions.

And I can find plenty of people who say other wise.

I'd love to quote them and to point to historical examples of genocide. But I can't. All I can do (and I did the last time this subject came up) is point to vast number of sources that basically state:

Genocide Equals Trying To Kill Large Portions of Group X.

Don't like that definition? Take it up with the following people/groups:

The UN
The US
The UK
The EU
Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and many many other countries that have accepted this political defintion of the word.
NBC/BBC/CNN/Fox/ABC/Sky News/et etc
Amnesty International/Red Cross/et etc
Too Many Historians To Note
The Publishers of Just About Every History/Ethics Book Written For Schools In the Western World.

You might be a bit busy tho. Perhaps you can work on a form letter. :smalltongue:

=======

So what am I saying here? I am saying that while one definiton of the word "genocide" conforms to your view, another doesn't. And the other one is used by many many many people. Both colloquially and not.

And, like it or not, definitions of words change if enough people use the new definition. While that point drives language purists up the wall, there ain't much one can do about it. :smalltongue:

</trying to stay on this side of Board Rules>

*reads over post*

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I stayed out of brining in specific examples of RL here. Close call tho. :smallwink:

veti

2009-09-14, 05:33 PM

Most democratically elected leaders, although they don't get as much power as leaders in monarchies or dictatorships. Mohammad Gandhi is another one. There were also several good Roman rulers.

I'll agree there are some examples of people who gained a degree of power without, apparently, becoming greatly corrupted. Gandhi would be one example; Nelson Mandela would be another. But neither one has a spotless record.

(Edit: Sadly, can't go into details without Real-World Politics. But Google "Gandhi partition".)

Even the powerful have to pick their battles, and the people who disagree with their choices will tend to feel betrayed. From their perspective, it seems unarguable that the leader has been corrupted.

Whatever good V could have done with the soul splice was likely to outweigh whatever he thought he could have contributed to their evil agenda.

Well, V certainly thought so. But if she'd had more time to think it through, she might have reflected that the Fiends were clearly making a parallel calculation of their own, in which they reckoned that they would come out ahead. (Otherwise, why would they make the offer?) And given that they knew more than she did at the time, the chances are that they were right.

spargel

2009-09-14, 05:34 PM

<trying to stay on this side of Board Rules>
Then under your definition no one has ever committed genocide. Ever.

Um, no, I'm saying it's not genocide because she was aiming to kill the family, not the species. If she casted the spell on some random human/elf/dwarf, no one would be calling it genocide.

Fireballing_Fun

2009-09-14, 05:38 PM

Whatever good V could have done with the soul splice was likely to outweigh whatever he thought he could have contributed to their evil agenda.

V managed to save the lives of three elves.
Kill a black dragon and all her descendants some of whom may have been good.
Teleport the refugees somewhere better to establish a new community.
Anger a lich.
Free a Paladin.
Advance the cause of three evil fiends in destroying Good.

V's intention was to save his family, a relatively neutral act.
V's results was potentially a net increase in evil, which was a predictable outcome, this appears evil.
V shows no remorse for the fact he has advanced the cause of evil. A lack of remorse is evil.
V is evil.

I'd just rather not use incorrect terms. It's like calling a serial killer a genocider.

It is not actually an incorrect term as such. Familicide though maybe more accurate is not a word in common usage. If there was a reasonable chance that a reasonable person would be confused by my use of the word genocide you would have a point, as it is understood what I mean I have by definition used the correct word. In the context of the discussion it is irrelevant which one we use unless you can argue that performing familicide for pleasure is a moral superior act to performing genocide for pleasure.

If V didn't care about her family, she wouldn't have been willing to sell her soul a few moments earlier. And just a few moments before that, she was unwilling to ally herself with the "forces of darkness" for power. I doubt she considered the possibility of familicide destroying innocent life either; all she thought she destroyed were black dragons.

Okay, it is not so much he/she does not care for her family, it is that he/she lacked compassion for her family. V was more concerned with victory, revenge, self-vindication, and the destruction of a lich than he was with the fact his families home was a pool of acid, and his children were injured and traumatised. He functions on the level of logic and mission goals, instead of empathy and love, which suggests neutrality at best.

Porthos

2009-09-14, 05:41 PM

Um, no, I'm saying it's not genocide because she was aiming to kill the family, not the species. If she casted the spell on some random human/elf/dwarf, no one would be calling it genocide.

That may as be. But since the result was the destruction of 25% of the Black Dragon race, it's really a matter of semantics right now.

V may have intended to "only" kill members of the family of the ABD (though we don't know how far up and down the family tree the spell goes. If it's "to the third generation" as an old saying goes, then that can affect a lot of people). But the result was still an act of genocide.

Again, using modern definitions of the word "genocide".

It may not be V's fault that there are so few Black Dragons in the OotSWorld (which is a point you've brought up in the past IIRC). But I guess that just means one needs to be careful when sligning around Epic Level Necormatic Magic, eh?

Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, if you wish. :smallsmile:

spargel

2009-09-14, 06:03 PM

V managed to save the lives of three elves.
Kill a black dragon and all her descendants some of whom may have been good.
Teleport the refugees somewhere better to establish a new community.
Anger a lich.
Free a Paladin.
Advance the cause of three evil fiends in destroying Good.

V's intention was to save his family, a relatively neutral act.
V's results was potentially a net increase in evil, which was a predictable outcome, this appears evil.
V shows no remorse for the fact he has advanced the cause of evil. A lack of remorse is evil.
V is evil.

If things went the way she intended, the Lich would have been destroyed as well, resulting in a net increase in good. And she obviously does show remorse for something ("Please don't remind me of all that I've done").

It is not actually an incorrect term as such. Familicide though maybe more accurate is not a word in common usage. If there was a reasonable chance that a reasonable person would be confused by my use of the word genocide you would have a point, as it is understood what I mean I have by definition used the correct word. In the context of the discussion it is irrelevant which one we use unless you can argue that performing familicide for pleasure is a moral superior act to performing genocide for pleasure.

I just want everyone to use the correct term. Is that asking for too much?

Okay, it is not so much he/she does not care for her family, it is that he/she lacked compassion for her family. V was more concerned with victory, revenge, self-vindication, and the destruction of a lich than he was with the fact his families home was a pool of acid, and his children were injured and traumatised. He functions on the level of logic and mission goals, instead of empathy and love, which suggests neutrality at best.

If she didn't care at all, she would have just instantly teleported away instead of staying for a few more moments to talk with Kyrie. For her, every second while in the soul splice means a higher chance of losing it and more time with the fiends. Even her own family would probably want her to kill the lich if they knew about it.

That may as be. But since the result was the destruction of 25% of the Black Dragon race, it's really a matter of semantics right now.

V may have intended to "only" kill members of the family of the ABD (though we don't know how far up and down the family tree the spell goes. If it's "to the third generation" as an old saying goes, then that can affect a lot of people). But the result was still an act of genocide.

Again, using modern definitions of the word "genocide".

It may not be V's fault that there are so few Black Dragons in the OotSWorld (which is a point you've brought up in the past IIRC). But I guess that just means one needs to be careful when sligning around Epic Level Necormatic Magic, eh?

Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, if you wish.

The modern definitions state that the intent does matter.

Aldrakan

2009-09-14, 06:24 PM

I just want everyone to use the correct term. Is that asking for too much?

It wouldn't be if everyone agreed that your definition was the correct one. Since a lot of people don't you can't declare other people to be deliberately inaccurate just because they disagree with your definition.

So using the correct term? No. Automatically ascribing to your definition of the "correct term"? Yes.

spargel

2009-09-14, 06:26 PM

It wouldn't be if everyone agreed that your definition was the correct one. Since a lot of people don't you can't declare other people to be deliberately inaccurate just because they disagree with your definition.

So using the correct term? No. Automatically ascribing to your definition of the "correct term"? Yes.

It's not my definition.

Roland St. Jude

2009-09-14, 06:44 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religion is an Inappropriate Topic here. Please steer clear of this topic.

Ironwolf172

2009-09-14, 08:54 PM

People really seem to get off topic here.

BTW: George Washington wasn't corrupted by power, he in fact felt he had more responsiblity because he had power (see also: Spiderman).

Well this disscussion has pretty much worn itsef thin.

Porthos

2009-09-14, 09:19 PM

BTW: George Washington wasn't corrupted by power, he in fact felt he had more responsiblity because he had power

Ahhhh....

...

*remembers board rules*

...

I'll just say that you might want to do some reading on the Revolutionary War and leave it at that.* :smallwink: Gen. Washington was just as human as every one else was. No, he we wasn't a bad guy. Far from it. But he wasn't perfect either.

Anyway, the context of my quote about power corrupting isn't that anyone who gets power becomes a Slobbering Complete Monster. It's that when one has power, the temptation to use it in not completely just means can start to take hold. Even the idea of "taking shortcuts" always has to be looked out for. That's the context of "power corrupting".

To put it in DnD terms, we're not talking about going headfirst from LG to CE. We're talking about someone making moral shortcuts while still remaining good. Lord Shojo and Miko are two perfect examples of Power Corrupting. Even though they have their (VERY :smallwink:) vociferous defenders, it's pretty undeniable that they let their situation and station in life override common sense.

In Lord Shojo's case, he felt he was above the law and could do all sorts of things in the name of Greater Good. He dismissed alternatives as naive or unworkable. The fact that rejecting these alternatives dovetailed nicely with his own prejudices can't be ignored here.

As for Miko, by Word of God, she was always walking a fine line about letting her... commitment... to Law override her own common sense. She was convinced that the Twelve Gods had a plan for her, and this eventually snapped her mind. And even beyond that we have her unwavering commitment to Law cause her to wrongly handle situations where a bit more of a perspective might have helped things considerably.

So when one thinks about the phrase "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" (which started this whole thing off) remember that we are not talking about damnation or utter depravity here. Were also talking about generalities. Sure there are examples of people getting lots of power without it affecting them to a large degree. But the context of the quote is that is rarer than one would like.

Anyway, this all got started by the innocent question of: What's so bad about wanting power? Well the answer is: The more power one has, there sometimes is more of a temptation is to use it unwisely.

All well and good if you have a really wise person getting power.

But since when has V EVER been described as really wise? :smalltongue:

====

NB: The positions described in this post do not necessarily represent the personal views of the poster. Said poster views the relationship between power, wisdom, corruption, and abuse to be a very complex one. And one that is, sadly, not suitable for discussion on this board.

Just so we're clear on that point. :smalltongue:

* Also note that the president wasn't NEARLY as powerful then as he is in modern times. But, alas and alack, that is another discussion we can't have around these parts. :smallwink:

spargel

2009-09-14, 10:15 PM

Gen. Washington was just as human as every one else was. No, he we wasn't a bad guy. Far from it. But he wasn't perfect either.

Anyway, the context of my quote about power corrupting isn't that anyone who gets power becomes a Slobbering Complete Monster. It's that when one has power, the temptation to use it in not completely just means can start to take hold. Even the idea of "taking shortcuts" always has to be looked out for. That's the context of "power corrupting".

Are you sure most of those people weren't already like that before they got their power?

To put it in DnD terms, we're not talking about going headfirst from LG to CE. We're talking about someone making moral shortcuts while still remaining good. Lord Shojo and Miko are two perfect examples of Power Corrupting. Even though they have their (VERY :smallwink:) vociferous defenders, it's pretty undeniable that they let their situation and station in life override common sense.

In Lord Shojo's case, he felt he was above the law and could do all sorts of things in the name of Greater Good. He dismissed alternatives as naive or unworkable. The fact that rejecting these alternatives dovetailed nicely with his own prejudices can't be ignored here.

Shojo? Other than all of the things he could have done better (Why did he feel that he could trust the Order better than he could trust his closest paladins?), he was pretty OK. He simply tried being practical, and the law was too impractical for him to accomplish what he needed. He always had good goals in his mind.

So when one thinks about the phrase "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" (which started this whole thing off) remember that we are not talking about damnation or utter depravity here. Were also talking about generalities. Sure there are examples of people getting lots of power without it affecting them to a large degree. But the context of the quote is that is rarer than one would like.

Anyway, this all got started by the innocent question of: What's so bad about wanting power? Well the answer is: The more power one has, there sometimes is more of a temptation is to use it unwisely.

All well and good if you have a really wise person getting power.

But since when has V EVER been described as really wise? :smalltongue:

Great, now you understand more of what I'm saying.

Sholos

2009-09-14, 11:48 PM

David Argall

2009-09-15, 01:53 AM

it doesn't matter that Shojo had good intentions. His actions were a fairly significant cause in the gate (and the city with it) falling to Xykon. The same applies to Miko. Both of them had good intentions coupled with faulty reasoning/methods.
Now Miko made some serious errors in getting to her disastrous conclusion, but Shojo was pretty much just unlucky. Granted, you have to accept that there are risks in lying, but it was a pretty small risk that Hinjo and Miko would be just outside the throne room at the wrong moment. Shojo had surely put out strict orders that he was not to be disturbed at certain times [which purely by accident just happened to be the times he wanted to talk with the party] and being paladins, they would not think of violating those order [unless something completely impossible like an invading army had been discovered]. But all the evidence we have says that if he wanted to learn about the other gates, the paladins could not learn about it.

Killer Angel

2009-09-15, 02:11 AM

Extract from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide): The legal definition of the crime of genocide was defined in 1948 by the United Nations Convention. 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... (snip)"

Emphasis mine. So yeah, Familicide was a spell that caused a genocide. You can argue on how big must be this "part". 1/4 seems sufficient to me.

That said, back to V.
V. commits acts good, neutral and evil... his behaviour is not a classic example of an alignment.
The thing that makes me think most, is the fact that he's showing no comprehension of the real problem: he maked a deal with fiends to obtain power, and he didn't regret that. 4th panel of 677 shows clearly this: he's still shows pride in the power he held. And he's doing almost nothing to keep at bay his bad temper, regardless the advices of blackwing.
V. isn't really trying and so, he has the same weakness that made him a target for fiends' corruption.

Lissou

2009-09-15, 05:15 AM

Extract from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide): The legal definition of the crime of genocide was defined in 1948 by the United Nations Convention. 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... (snip)"

I understand spargel's point, V's goal wasn't to kill black dragons. V's goal was to kill the whole family of the person who wanted to kill his family. If this person had been an elf, would it still be a genocide even though V himself is an elf?

If intent doesn't matter, then it's a genocide. But if intent does matter, then it's not. Kind of the same difference between a hate crime and a regular crime that just happens to be against a minority.

Killer Angel

2009-09-15, 05:54 AM

I understand spargel's point, V's goal wasn't to kill black dragons. V's goal was to kill the whole family of the person who wanted to kill his family. If this person had been an elf, would it still be a genocide even though V himself is an elf?

If intent doesn't matter, then it's a genocide. But if intent does matter, then it's not. Kind of the same difference between a hate crime and a regular crime that just happens to be against a minority.

True, but (IMO) V. under soul splice knew the details of the spell (sharing knowledges with the others 3 casters), and was well aware of what he was doing, and of the consequences (mass killing, just to avoid a theoretical and not so probable revenge).

Kaytara

2009-09-15, 06:54 AM

I understand spargel's point, V's goal wasn't to kill black dragons.

Maybe it was, in a way. After all, of the two black dragons V had experience with, one nearly devoured his friend as a lazy afterthought to mopping the floor with those "stupid humanoids", and the other wanted to inflict horrible torture and death on his family. That alone may have been a factor in causing V to grasp the opportunity to exterminate a great number of such horrible monsters, anyway, on top of all the other reasons. Just saying.

Setra

2009-09-15, 07:25 AM

Nimrod's Son

2009-09-15, 08:02 AM

Can you point out the logical reasoning of why there would be a rule that says "Power will always corrupt you"?

There isn't any such rule. The quote just says "power corrupts".

"Drink driving kills" is not the same thing as "drink driving will always kill you".

As long as your morals don't suddenly change because you obtained power, then I wouldn't count it as being corrupted.
You'll notice the quote doesn't say anything will necessarily happen suddenly, either.

Setra

2009-09-15, 08:43 AM

I don't think power corrupts at all, personally.

People just reveal how corrupted they were all along.

Edit: Actually I take that back, I do think power can corrupt, I just think USUALLY it is just people revealing how corrupt they actually are.

Herald Alberich

2009-09-15, 11:50 AM

Something has always bothered me about Familicide...

If Black Dragons are Always Evil... and, let's say an epic mage, decides to cast a spell that will get rid of them forever (as they are all always evil), why would that be any worse than, say, a Paladin walking into a cave and slaying two evil dragons?

As far as I know, killing evil is generally considered neutral, so why would killing evil in large numbers be evil? Is it because V's reasons for 'killing evil' weren't 'killing evil'?

A couple different things apply here; let's see if I can get all of them straight.

First, as I understand it, Always Evil in 3.5 doesn't mean 100% of the species is evil, but rather around 95%, thus allowing for the occasional Heel Face Turn or shocking revelation. For example, I recall reading on TVTropes about a DM who led his players to a fight between a red dragon and a silver dragon. They helped out the silver, and were shocked to later find he was an evil manipulative bastard, and the red had been a misunderstood freedom fighter. The exception is fiends, who are literally Evil personified and are all 100% Evil. Most types of undead, too.

Anyway, the point there is that there's a chance that some (not more than 2 or 3) of the dragons V killed were not Evil. There were three half-dragons shown in the Familicide strip also, who had even odds of being of any alignment.

Second, when a paladin goes out dragonslaying, there's usually a reason besides that chromatic dragons are Evil-no-question. In your example, perhaps the dragons were swooping out of the sky and snatching villagers out of a nearby town, or demanding virgin sacrifices, or some other such cliched plot device. Lawful Good beings are not supposed to go kill things that are minding their own business (i.e. not doing evil) just because they register on a Detect Evil scan. (The fact that D&D players often do exactly that is one of the things Rich likes to make us think about. Haven't read Start of Darkness, but I'm given to understand that's one of the things Redcloak hates about the Sapphire Guard; they killed goblins who weren't doing anything evil.)

Bottom line: Killing evil beings is neutral because it prevents evil from being done. You're still snuffing out sentient life, and that's never really a Good idea. Killing 1/4 of any sentient species requires a hell of a lot more justification than "they may come after me at some point".

Even if that's the case, why does everyone make it out to be the most horrible thing ever? I'd argue Xykon killing a room full of Lawful Good Paladins was far more evil.

Absolutely, but it's also entirely in character for him, so it isn't nearly as shocking. We expect him to go slaughter things left and right. V? Not so much.

Kish

2009-09-15, 12:25 PM

The exception is fiends, who are literally Evil personified and are all 100% Evil.
Except for the succubus paladin.

spargel

2009-09-15, 01:51 PM

Spargel, have you ever heard the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions,"? The point of the phrase is that it doesn't matter how humble or noble your goals are; if you use evil means to get there, the end result isn't going to be what you wanted. So it doesn't matter that Shojo had good intentions. His actions were a fairly significant cause in the gate (and the city with it) falling to Xykon. The same applies to Miko. Both of them had good intentions coupled with faulty reasoning/methods.

What do you think the road to Heaven is paved with?

I didn't really see Shojo using many evil means actually. Most of the bad things that happened from him came because he didn't think his plans through, not because he intended to seriously screw anyone over.

Shojo was attempting to prevent the gate from falling to Xykon. He simply failed because he's not really that good at planning things.

Extract from wikipedia: The legal definition of the crime of genocide was defined in 1948 by the United Nations Convention. 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... (snip)"

intent

I understand spargel's point, V's goal wasn't to kill black dragons. V's goal was to kill the whole family of the person who wanted to kill his family. If this person had been an elf, would it still be a genocide even though V himself is an elf?

If intent doesn't matter, then it's a genocide. But if intent does matter, then it's not. Kind of the same difference between a hate crime and a regular crime that just happens to be against a minority.

Finally, somebody understands.

There isn't any such rule. The quote just says "power corrupts".

"Drink driving kills" is not the same thing as "drink driving will always kill you".

If people would quit using that quote to try and make anyone who wants power look like he/she's going to become a corrupted jerk, I wouldn't be so annoyed.

Fireballing_Fun

2009-09-15, 02:13 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religion is an Inappropriate Topic here. Please steer clear of this topic.

I don't think anyone was...

Shale

2009-09-15, 02:41 PM

Iranon

2009-09-15, 03:09 PM

Also, just to add the confusion: Thinking in taxonomic terms, Familicide would be a lot bigger than Genocide... which is bigger than common-use Genocide which is bigger than the apparent use of Familicide in the strip (which probably still counts as genocide in this instance because the reference population is very small).
Which just goes to show just how useful juggling definitions is.

*

Regarding Setra's excellent point:

Slaying dragons the hard way leaves you the opportunity for discretion: Do you kill hatchlings, smash eggs, kill genuinely non-threatening ones (recluses in the wilderness, those who have a history of not terrorising anyone)?

If such things make no difference to the paladin in question, I see no moral difference. In fact, I see no moral difference to setting out to kill a single dragon without a special justification - it's merely a difference of scale (not whether it's shiny.).
It would boild down to the old question... are adventurers justified in seeking out dragons, goblinoids etc to kill them?

*

Also: Whether the victim is Evil... how important is this really? A good part of humanity is Evil in D&D terms (maybe 20%? I'd say more people are Good or Neutral).
This does not imply having done anything atrocious to anyone else. Would executing them on the spot - given we had 100% confirmation they are indeed Evil - justified, Good or both?

spargel

2009-09-15, 03:16 PM

The question for whether V committed genocide isn't whether intent matters, it's whether motive matters. V knew the spell would kill 1/4 of the black dragons in the world and cast it anyway, willingly and deliberately. Therefore s/he had the intent to kill 1/4 of the black dragons in the world. Hir motive was to kill the relatives of the creature threatening hir children, not to kill black dragons for the crime of being black dragons.

Sorry, but now you're stretching the definition way too far.

Also: Whether the victim is Evil... how important is this really? A good part of humanity is Evil in D&D terms (maybe 20%? I'd say more people are Good or Neutral).
This does not imply having done anything atrocious to anyone else. Would executing them on the spot - given we had 100% confirmation they are indeed Evil - justified, Good or both?

Humans don't have their alignment set as "Always Chaotic Evil" when they're born.

It implies that they would do something atrocious if given the chance with no remorse, and cannot change, so yes, it's justified to execute them if you have 100% confirmation.

veti

2009-09-15, 03:47 PM

What do you think the road to Heaven is paved with?

Duty. In that particular mindset, you get to Heaven by doing what your lawful masters and church authorities tell you to do. No more, no less.

I didn't really see Shojo using many evil means actually. Most of the bad things that happened from him came because he didn't think his plans through, not because he intended to seriously screw anyone over.

It's not necessary to turn evil to be corrupted: merely to get your priorities a little skewed.

A very common form of corruption-by-power is a strong reluctance to give it up. Shojo failed in his primary duty - to protect Azure City - partly because he didn't trust his own lieutenant, but mostly because he couldn't bring himself to retire when he should have (after the Meatloaf Day assassination attempt). If he'd quit then, Azure City would have been able to establish a nice, stable government in time of peace, rather than trying to sort out the rather ramshackle succession arrangements with forty thousand hobgoblins at the gate.

Another thing powerful people do is use people as tools. Shojo sent a psychotic paladin after the Order knowing full well that she wanted to kill them; it's just sheer luck, and Durkon's strange behaviour, that stopped her. That was reckless, and showed a scant regard for the rights of those involved.

Or the Linear Guild. At Roy's request, he agreed to lock them up and throw away the key, without trial and - here's the corrupt part - without paperwork. No paperwork means that they've just - disappeared, with no possibility of due process either now or later. And he gets the paladins to take an active part in the process, which means he's establishing a precedent...

He's just turned Azure City into the sort of place where the Secret Police can come and drag you away with no questions asked.

Shojo was attempting to prevent the gate from falling to Xykon. He simply failed because he's not really that good at planning things.

I think you're getting confused. By the time Shojo even knew Xykon was coming, he wasn't in much of a position to plan anything but his own funeral.

If people would quit using that quote to try and make anyone who wants power look like he/she's going to become a corrupted jerk, I wouldn't be so annoyed.

When Lord Acton - who was a historian, by the way - coined the phrase, he was talking about the tendency of historians to look admiringly at what "great men" (very rarely women) achieved, and gloss over how they achieved it. That still goes on to this day. (See exchange re George Washington, above.)

If you want to do anything big, anything that you'll be remembered for, there are going to be sacrifices along the way. Some people - those with no power to speak of - manage to sacrifice nothing more than their own lifetimes and, often, their families. But those who take a political or military route will typically upset thousands, sometimes millions, of lives, without ever being asked to account for them.

spargel

2009-09-15, 04:02 PM

Duty. In that particular mindset, you get to Heaven by doing what your lawful masters and church authorities tell you to do. No more, no less.

Wrong answer.

It's not necessary to turn evil to be corrupted: merely to get your priorities a little skewed.

A very common form of corruption-by-power is a strong reluctance to give it up. Shojo failed in his primary duty - to protect Azure City - partly because he didn't trust his own lieutenant, but mostly because he couldn't bring himself to retire when he should have (after the Meatloaf Day assassination attempt). If he'd quit then, Azure City would have been able to establish a nice, stable government in time of peace, rather than trying to sort out the rather ramshackle succession arrangements with forty thousand hobgoblins at the gate.

It was more because he thought he knew what he was doing and that he had everything under control rather than simply wanting power. I really don't see how retiring would give Azure City a stable government either, unless the new leader is incredibly competent or something. There's not much that would prevent them from attempting to kill whatever new leader that comes along.

Another thing powerful people do is use people as tools. Shojo sent a psychotic paladin after the Order knowing full well that she wanted to kill them; it's just sheer luck, and Durkon's strange behaviour, that stopped her. That was reckless, and showed a scant regard for the rights of those involved.

Yes, that's part of the bad planning I was talking about.

Or the Linear Guild. At Roy's request, he agreed to lock them up and throw away the key, without trial and - here's the corrupt part - without paperwork. No paperwork means that they've just - disappeared, with no possibility of due process either now or later. And he gets the paladins to take an active part in the process, which means he's establishing a precedent...

If it was really necessary to save the world, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

He's just turned Azure City into the sort of place where the Secret Police can come and drag you away with no questions asked.

Azure City already allowed Shojo to do that by making him the ruler in the first place.

In any case, he could just randomly drag people away with no questions, but he doesn't. He attempts to only use that kind of power when he feels it's necessary (Although his judgment is screwed up) to save the world.

If you want to do anything big, anything that you'll be remembered for, there are going to be sacrifices along the way. Some people - those with no power to speak of - manage to sacrifice nothing more than their own lifetimes and, often, their families. But those who take a political or military route will typically upset thousands, sometimes millions, of lives, without ever being asked to account for them.

Yes, of course you do. To succeed, others must fail.

And I mean usually, not always.

Kaytara

2009-09-15, 04:03 PM

Duty. In that particular mindset, you get to Heaven by doing what your lawful masters and church authorities tell you to do. No more, no less.
I disagree with that statement on two counts.

Firstly, obeying without question is practically never a good idea, regardless of who's giving the orders. The lawful masters and church authorities are people too and make mistakes or can become corrupted by the aforementioned power. Obeying them without question means supporting mistakes where otherwise they might have been eliminated by your own critical thinking or simply a fresh mind in the mix.

Secondly, in the DnD-verse that statement comes even remotely close to applying for Lawful Good types only. Neutral Good and especially Chaotic Good types in fact directly oppose the "do what you're told" mentality and still get into their respective Good Afterlives regardless.

Shojo failed in his primary duty - to protect Azure City - partly because he didn't trust his own lieutenant, but mostly because he couldn't bring himself to retire when he should have (after the Meatloaf Day assassination attempt). If he'd quit then, Azure City would have been able to establish a nice, stable government in time of peace, rather than trying to sort out the rather ramshackle succession arrangements with forty thousand hobgoblins at the gate.

I truly do not think that's a good example of Shojo being unwilling to give up power. Everything we've seen of the noble class implies that, had Shojo retired then, his successor would have faced a similar situation and so on. What Shojo says also implies that the assassination attempts started a long time ago and that it was just a particularly close call that made him think of starting his deception.

veti

2009-09-15, 05:17 PM

Wrong answer.

I'm all ears.

It was more because he thought he knew what he was doing and that he had everything under control rather than simply wanting power.

You just described Robert Mugabe. That's exactly how despots think.

I really don't see how retiring would give Azure City a stable government either, unless the new leader is incredibly competent or something. There's not much that would prevent them from attempting to kill whatever new leader that comes along.

That's true, but beside the point. In the years since Meatloaf Day, Shojo did nothing to rein in the power of the nobles or to consolidate the authority of the Sapphire Guard. So the chaos that followed his death was going to follow sooner or later anyway. By hanging on as he did, he merely increased the chances that it would happen at a time of crisis.

Now, you could make a case that a crisis is the best time for a strong leader to appear. But if that was what he had in mind, he should have been training Hinjo (or someone) much more seriously to take over from him.

Yes, that's part of the bad planning I was talking about.

There's a point where "bad planning" becomes "culpable negligence". If I drink a bottle of vodka, then drive home, and kill half a dozen people on the way - I didn't mean to kill them, it was "just" bad planning, right?

If it was really necessary to save the world, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

Ah, excellent - the old end-justifies-the-means argument! Another splendid illustration of exactly how power corrupts.

I disagree with that statement on two counts.

Firstly, obeying without question is practically never a good idea, regardless of who's giving the orders. The lawful masters and church authorities are people too and make mistakes or can become corrupted by the aforementioned power.

Yes, of course they can. But that's their mistake, and their souls will have to answer for it, not yours. They know more than you do, so it's their responsibility to issue the correct orders.

(The "good intentions" quote is very old, it comes from a time before democracy, or mass literacy, when people took things like duty - and religion - very seriously indeed.)

I'm not saying that "duty" is the key to Heaven, I'm not talking about modern religion at all, least of all my own beliefs; it's just the medieval mindset that gave rise to the "good intentions" quip in the first place.

I truly do not think that's a good example of Shojo being unwilling to give up power. Everything we've seen of the noble class implies that, had Shojo retired then, his successor would have faced a similar situation and so on. What Shojo says also implies that the assassination attempts started a long time ago and that it was just a particularly close call that made him think of starting his deception.

If you can't stand the heat, the normally recommended procedure is to get out of the kitchen. It was Shojo's reluctance to give up power that caused him to apply an alternative policy of lying to everyone, effectively isolating himself from everyone, and thus began the tissue of deceit that eventually collapsed so spectacularly.

Maybe his successor would have faced a similar situation. So what? That's for them to deal with. "Lack of faith in your underlings" is an extremely common form of power-corruption.

spargel

2009-09-15, 09:59 PM

I'm all ears.

I'm not going to tell you what the road to heaven is paved with, but just about anyone can tell you what's wrong with your answer. Kaytara already did that for me.

You just described Robert Mugabe. That's exactly how despots think.

Robert Mugabe's intentions are far from good.

That's true, but beside the point. In the years since Meatloaf Day, Shojo did nothing to rein in the power of the nobles or to consolidate the authority of the Sapphire Guard. So the chaos that followed his death was going to follow sooner or later anyway. By hanging on as he did, he merely increased the chances that it would happen at a time of crisis.

He never was really good at planning ahead. But exactly how it increased the chances that it would happen during a crisis, I have no idea.

Now, you could make a case that a crisis is the best time for a strong leader to appear. But if that was what he had in mind, he should have been training Hinjo (or someone) much more seriously to take over from him.

He's not exactly the most intelligent person there.

There's a point where "bad planning" becomes "culpable negligence". If I drink a bottle of vodka, then drive home, and kill half a dozen people on the way - I didn't mean to kill them, it was "just" bad planning, right?

Yes. I'd just call you stupid if you did that, but not corrupt or evil.

Ah, excellent - the old end-justifies-the-means argument! Another splendid illustration of exactly how power corrupts.

If you seriously cannot save the world without doing a little evil, then go ahead and do it. Letting the world end would be incredibly stupid. Although in Shojo's case, he did a lot of unnecessary things that he thought would help him save the world because he's an idiot.

Yes, of course they can. But that's their mistake, and their souls will have to answer for it, not yours. They know more than you do, so it's their responsibility to issue the correct orders.

You really don't care much about what happens in the physical world, do you?

(The "good intentions" quote is very old, it comes from a time before democracy, or mass literacy, when people took things like duty - and religion - very seriously indeed.)

I'm not saying that "duty" is the key to Heaven, I'm not talking about modern religion at all, least of all my own beliefs; it's just the medieval mindset that gave rise to the "good intentions" quip in the first place.

The last people I'd listen to would be philosophers who existed hundreds of years ago.

If you can't stand the heat, the normally recommended procedure is to get out of the kitchen. It was Shojo's reluctance to give up power that caused him to apply an alternative policy of lying to everyone, effectively isolating himself from everyone, and thus began the tissue of deceit that eventually collapsed so spectacularly.

Not being lawful stupid. Although he was being stupid in his own kind of paranoid way. He might have actually been more effective if he didn't lie that much.

Maybe his successor would have faced a similar situation. So what? That's for them to deal with. "Lack of faith in your underlings" is an extremely common form of power-corruption.

When most of your underlings have urges to be lawful stupid, then it's probably justified.

Kaytara

2009-09-16, 01:19 AM

Yes, of course they can. But that's their mistake, and their souls will have to answer for it, not yours. They know more than you do, so it's their responsibility to issue the correct orders.
Maybe, if your goal is to get yourself a safe ticket to the Good Afterlife.

Which is the kind of selfishness that is the anti-thesis of Good, altruistic characters. They do what's right because it's right, because they care about people and don't want people to get hurt - not because they'll be rewarded for it in the Afterlife if they do it.

(The "good intentions" quote is very old, it comes from a time before democracy, or mass literacy, when people took things like duty - and religion - very seriously indeed.)

I'm not saying that "duty" is the key to Heaven, I'm not talking about modern religion at all, least of all my own beliefs; it's just the medieval mindset that gave rise to the "good intentions" quip in the first place.
A problem with the "duty is the key to Heaven" idea is that it was precisely this same idea that the aforementioned lawful authorities used to keep the masses under control. The result was cultural and technological stagnation for a thousand years.

Just because some philosopher said it certainly doesn't make it true and one must consider what that philosopher's intention was.

If you can't stand the heat, the normally recommended procedure is to get out of the kitchen. It was Shojo's reluctance to give up power that caused him to apply an alternative policy of lying to everyone, effectively isolating himself from everyone, and thus began the tissue of deceit that eventually collapsed so spectacularly.

Maybe his successor would have faced a similar situation. So what? That's for them to deal with. "Lack of faith in your underlings" is an extremely common form of power-corruption.

The point being that, had they faced a similar situation, by your logic they should have done what Shojo did - retire. I don't think an endless cycle of people coming to the throne and retiring when they start being targeted for assassination is good for the country.

A league of paladins ruling the city may not be a good solution either. Running a country tends to require a certain kind of cold pragmatism - yes, ends justifying the means - in order to make it work. Besides, the general populace doesn't even know the Sapphire Guard exists, which would make it hard to consolidate them as rulers.

veti

2009-09-16, 05:04 PM

Maybe, if your goal is to get yourself a safe ticket to the Good Afterlife.

Which is the kind of selfishness that is the anti-thesis of Good, altruistic characters. They do what's right because it's right, because they care about people and don't want people to get hurt - not because they'll be rewarded for it in the Afterlife if they do it.

Okay, we're at cross purposes here. You're talking about D&D - which is fair enough, given the context - but it's very firmly based in modern morality. It may seem obvious to us, but as recently as 50-60 years ago - within living memory - it would have seemed very odd, alien. Me, I'm talking about the origin of the quotes about "good intentions" and "power corrupts", which came from a different world. After all, the places being discussed are "Heaven" and "Hell", not "Celestia" and "Baator".

One of my constant complaints about D&D is that it takes a mish-mash of ideas from our world, plants them in a wholly imaginary one, and pretends that they work. Clever people can do this while recognising that there are absurdities and inconsistencies (the GITP himself is one of them, which is why I read the strip) - but they simply put them to one side for the sake of having fun, or telling a story.

However, if we tug and worry at those inconsistencies, they turn out to be really quite big, with consequences that would completely ruin the world if they were allowed to follow through. And that's why every thread on this board that mentions "alignment" automatically runs to at least five pages.

A problem with the "duty is the key to Heaven" idea is that it was precisely this same idea that the aforementioned lawful authorities used to keep the masses under control. The result was cultural and technological stagnation for a thousand years.

No, progress has always happened - just in different ways, at different rates, and in different places. "Keeping the masses under control" has always been a myth. Change happens when the needs of different parties - two rulers, or two peasants, or ruler and peasant - get balanced in a new and sustainable way. Sometimes changes take time - it takes a long while before many people will accept new ideas - but that doesn't mean no change is happening.

Take "capitalism", for instance. When Adam Smith first described how it worked in 1776, he was writing about a system that already existed by then, it had grown up without anyone planning or guiding it - and so people read his book and saw at once that he was on to something, he had given an accurate and insightful account of the world. But it took another hundred years before the old, agricultural-based aristocracy was ready to bow out of the way and allow manufacturers and money-makers to run the place.

But those "hundred years" weren't a simple story of an ongoing power struggle between two factions. Things were changing like crazy: people were building railways and steamships, installing sewerage and mains water and lighting, inventing the internal combustion engine and the telegraph and electromagnetic induction and modern democracy, utilitarianism and atomic theory and the theory of evolution and free verse and impressionism and photography and the middle class... It was only a handful of people who took a long view, who looked around in the 1880s and said things like "Hey, didn't the aristocracy used to be in charge of this place? Whatever happened to them?" Everyone else was too busy doing stuff.

Just because some philosopher said it certainly doesn't make it true and one must consider what that philosopher's intention was.

No, of course that doesn't make it true. But we should consider that lots of people - diverse people, with many different agendas and beliefs - believed it and have quoted it over the years. Of course that doesn't make it true either, but it does suggest that perhaps there's something to it that bears examination - it's not "just" some random old guy's opinion.

The point being that, had they faced a similar situation, by your logic they should have done what Shojo did - retire. I don't think an endless cycle of people coming to the throne and retiring when they start being targeted for assassination is good for the country.

No, they should only retire when they felt they could no longer do the job. Just because it's too much for Shojo, doesn't mean it's automatically too much for anyone else as well. People are different. Even the tough, the canny, the ruthless sometimes get worn down with time; a fresh mind on the job might have seen entirely different possibilities.

But Shojo, at that point, felt that he could no longer do the job. So instead of quitting honourably, he redefined "the job" to something that he felt he could manage and clung on, thus preventing anyone from doing it properly.

A league of paladins ruling the city may not be a good solution either. Running a country tends to require a certain kind of cold pragmatism - yes, ends justifying the means - in order to make it work. Besides, the general populace doesn't even know the Sapphire Guard exists, which would make it hard to consolidate them as rulers.

Maybe it wouldn't have been a good solution. But maybe it wouldn't have happened; the nobles might have got together and arranged a new equilibrium between their power and the SG's. Or, they might have fought like cats in a sack, and given the SG a chance to emerge as a stabilising force. The point is - now Azure City will never know. Thanks to Shojo, it's never had the chance to establish a stable, sustainable leadership structure.

Please note, I'm still not saying Shojo was stupid, or in any noticeable degree "evil". But he was corrupted by power, to the extent that he failed to realise when he was no longer doing his job. That's how I see it.

spargel

2009-09-16, 05:32 PM

Please note, I'm still not saying Shojo was stupid, or in any noticeable degree "evil". But he was corrupted by power, to the extent that he failed to realise when he was no longer doing his job. That's how I see it.

I see it in almost the opposite way: Shojo was completely stupid, but not really corrupted by power.

veti

2009-09-16, 05:39 PM

If you seriously cannot save the world without doing a little evil, then go ahead and do it. Letting the world end would be incredibly stupid. Although in Shojo's case, he did a lot of unnecessary things that he thought would help him save the world because he's an idiot.

If you seriously can't save the world without doing "a little" evil, then maybe you're not trying hard enough. Or maybe you're just too dim to see how to do it. Maybe it's a sign - another sign - that you really should get out of the way and let someone else take a turn.

Not that Shojo's decisions had anything to do with saving the world - they were purely about his personal fears and political expediency. As I've already pointed out, by the time he learned that the Gate was under threat, he had more pressing things to worry about.

You really don't care much about what happens in the physical world, do you?

Where did that come from? I'm the one who's trying to base my arguments in the real world - in history, in things that have actually shaped the world we live in. You're the one who seems to be confining yourself to the opinions and dreams of fantasy authors.

The last people I'd listen to would be philosophers who existed hundreds of years ago.

Thats' certainly a difference between us, yes.

spargel

2009-09-16, 06:10 PM

If you seriously can't save the world without doing "a little" evil, then maybe you're not trying hard enough. Or maybe you're just too dim to see how to do it. Maybe it's a sign - another sign - that you really should get out of the way and let someone else take a turn.

What you're looking for is called a Deus Ex Machina.

Not that Shojo's decisions had anything to do with saving the world - they were purely about his personal fears and political expediency. As I've already pointed out, by the time he learned that the Gate was under threat, he had more pressing things to worry about.

Actually, I don't think he was really abusing his power much before the Gate anyways. He was still pretty much doing his normal job (Which seems to be mostly just making decisions), but made it look like he wasn't.

Where did that come from? I'm the one who's trying to base my arguments in the real world - in history, in things that have actually shaped the world we live in. You're the one who seems to be confining yourself to the opinions and dreams of fantasy authors.

You're trying to base your arguments off of the monotheistic religions, I'm trying to base mine off of the typical western modern morality for this argument.

When I said "Road to Heaven", I didn't quite expect you to interpret that literally.

Sewblon

2009-09-18, 03:08 PM

Vaarsuvius was true neutral until he/she/it killed Cobota and since then became neutral evil, like the celestial was trying to tell Roy. V's attempts to murder the turban guy for calling him/her/it names and only relenting because of Blackwing's prodding indicates that V is still neutral evil.

Iranon

2009-09-19, 05:45 AM

Humans don't have their alignment set as "Always Chaotic Evil" when they're born.

It implies that they would do something atrocious if given the chance with no remorse, and cannot change, so yes, it's justified to execute them if you have 100% confirmation.

This... scares me. What kind of atrocities are we talking of? Worse than mass killings of mostly-innocent beings for no reason other than their beliefs?

The otherwise dutiful soldier or executioner who simply enjoys killing a little too much...
The criminal judge who acts according to the law but gets a kick out of lording it over the defendants...
The engineer who'd enjoy the challenge of designing sophisticated torture implements...
The hard-nosed pawnbroker who actively enjoys her clients' misery....

I might not invite them to dinner and I might not want them in charge, but killing them as soon as we can verify they are Evil in D&D terms seems excessive.

There are plenty of fleshed-out characters in D&D settings with an Always Evil background who are believable and sometimes even sympathetic characters, despite being unquestionably Evil so the same considerations apply to D&D in my opinion.