Vaarsuvius's alignment [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

David Argall

2009-10-17, 11:06 PM

But the IFFC themselves said that they have a "50-50 chance of getting the elf's soul' after the 'stunt' with the dragons. And I think the IFCC would know who's evil or not

That does not mean V is currently evil. If we take it as a measure of current position, the default point is on the border of evil and neutral. Now this does not seem to be the likely meaning, but which direction is V apt to go? Assuming a trend line, it would seem that V, having just done what is suggested is a very evil stunt, is trending evil, and is thus currently well in Neutral territory. However, as a potential world savior, V may be in line for a lot of good points, which would argue she is currently well within evil.

Now one thing to notice is that this 50-50 estimate is distinctly recent, and covers a great many past deeds of V. That means we can not call a lot of them evil, unless we deem the killing of the dragons as not particularly evil. We might say at the moment that V has 100 evil points, and we have to spread them over all sins.

Liwen

2009-10-18, 12:56 AM

Corruption score heh?.

I wasn't aware there was some kind of numerical system regarding the alignments of D&D. Could you provide a link to an informative page of some kind?

Godskook

2009-10-18, 01:31 AM

"Spelt" is correct British.

Well it is now. I stand corrected(or rather, lay down, as the current case is).

5) Murder (Not entirely cold-blooded, though)

Murder who? The ABD? There's no way that counts as murder by D&D standards.

Shale

2009-10-18, 01:42 AM

The ABD's entire extended family.

Porthos

2009-10-18, 01:47 AM

Murder who? The ABD? There's no way that counts as murder by D&D standards.

The ABD's Extended Family, one presumes. And very very probably in the case of Kubota.

But it's not a universally held belief on this board for those two counts by any stretch of the imagination. As all of the electrons who gave up their lives during all of the flamewars discussions could attest to. :smallwink:

Godskook

2009-10-18, 01:57 AM

Oh right, Familicide. Forgive me, I need sleep(its 2 am local).

Haggis

2009-10-18, 02:08 AM

How does evil acts under possession count?

The fiends still have almost 45 minuites of time with his soul, and while I have no idea what they got planned I don't doubt that it's EVIL!

Plus he should be able to figure out they have plans for him and he keeping from Roy which could come into play at a very bad time.

Shale

2009-10-18, 02:13 AM

It depends on what they do with it.

For instance, if they were to offer V's power to someone else in a soul splice, s/he might be horrified by the consequences, but hir moral culpability would be...probably not nil, since V made the deal to begin with, but at least debatable, for the same reason that Familicide was such a drastic turn toward Evil - the souls have no say over how their host's actions, beyond their ability to whisper convincingly in his or her ear.

Asta Kask

2009-10-18, 03:28 AM

Murder who? The ABD? There's no way that counts as murder by D&D standards.

Daimyo Makubokutaku or whatever his name was. Therkla's boss.

SJCrew

2009-10-18, 03:36 AM

V is True Neutral. He removes obstacles in the most efficient way he knows how and fights to further his own ambitions. He was tempted by power as every other human (or elven) being would be, but only accepted because he thought it was the easiest way to defeat Xykon and end the scenario quicker. Not much to evaluate.

Kaytara

2009-10-18, 05:22 AM

Isn't the corruption score something quite separate from alignment? I mean, it determines what Afterlife the character goes to, which doesn't necessarily correspond to alignment, as we've seen. Roy is Lawful Good but nearly got shoved to the True Neutral bin because of one act. Similarly, a character could do great evil and then recognise the error of their ways and change alignment but still end up in a punitive Afterlife because their corruption meter is so high. I think it works that way, I'm not sure by any means.

But in any case... If we see alignment as more than just a track record of the person's deeds, but rather as a statement about their general disposition and tendencies and willingness to do good or evil.... I'd say True Neutral. V did some evil stuff after he had quite literally lost it during the dragon's first appearance, but after the Splice arc, his worldview hasn't changed (negatively, at least), he hasn't become more accepting of killing or cruelty or sadism. If anything, it's a bit of the opposite - he's become aware of the need to rein in his tendency to "lash out" at perceived threats, as he did witht he dragon, with Xykon, with Turban Guy. It may not be much, but if he's changed, then for the better.

So, based on that, some form of Neutral.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 05:47 AM

Agreed on corruption being separate from alignment- it is also somewhat dependant on the being having a Lawful alignment itself.

I'm not sure if there is much evidence for V either being Lawful, or having committed very many Obesiant acts.

While there is an "Obesiance" system similar to the corruption system, it is not clear how it should be implemented.

If it works in a similar fashion, it would be something like

"An Evil being who has committed enough Obesiant acts goes to Baator regardless of the amount of Chaos they have done in life"

And if the two are combined, it could be something like:

"a being who has committed enough Corrupt and Obesiant acts goes to Baator regardless of how Chaotic and Good they were in life"

Its not clear if its actually supposed to be implemented that way though- the only thing we have absolute confirmation for, is that Lawful beings with enough Corruption go to Baator, and the suggestion that devils lure Demon-worshippers and the like to Baator by getting them to commit Obesiant acts.

All that said, we don't know if Rich uses a system like Fiendish Codex 2 anyway.

Though we do know, he uses a system that can bar LG people from the classic LG afterlife for a single seriously wrong act.

Also- concerning possession- as the Fiends pointed out, the souls have no control over V- V bears full culpability for acts committed under the splice.

I'm not sure if Familicide should be deemed a single Evil act, or not. Sometimes a person who murders a whole bunch of people is tried on several seperate counts, sometimes not. Since it was all done in an instant, with one single spell, it might be deemed a single "mass murder" evil act, rather than a hundred or so counts of Murder.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 07:28 AM

Interestingly, the term "cold-blooded" has little to do with how emotional the murderer is, but how helpless the victim is.

(It is not a synonym for premeditated murder, either)

So, under this meaning of the term, V's murder of Kubota could be deemed "cold blooded" as could V's murder of all those dragons- especially the baby ones.

(That is, if "unjustified dragon-killing" can be deemed Murder in the OoTS world)

By contrast, since V's contract with the fiends does not closely resemble either the Pact Certain (because in return for the power, the fiends get V's soul on a temporary basis) or the Pact Insidious (because the fiends are not requiring V to commit an evil act for each power before being given it) it may not have such a serious corruption rating.

So we have one count of Cold-Blooded Murder, one possible count of Mass-Cold-Blooded Murder, and one count of Bargaining With Fiends.

Bago!!!

2009-10-18, 07:37 AM

I believe that V's alignment is either evil or dangerously close to evil. Not sure about his outlook, but making a pact with a fiend is always an evil deed, doesn't matter what good came out of it. Besides, in just about every case where you sell your soul or made a deal with the devil, you get your but bitten and everyone else around you gets messed up one way or the other.

I know from personal game experiance. Selling your soul or making deals with beings far beyond your understanding, does not pay in the long run. >.<

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 07:47 AM

Pretty much- V has agreed to lend his soul to the fiends for a short period, without even trying to find out what they want with it. And entered a binding pact to that effect.

Risky, to say the least.

The comment about, "after that stunt with the dragons, we might get V's soul anyway" implies that the dragon-killing was evil enough, that even after the short term of "lent soul" ends, V's soul may go to the fiends permanently.

I place a higher rating on the killings than the lending, since the lending is "potential future evil" whereas the killings are clearer.

Lending a soul, we don't know how evil the results will be, but we can suspect.

I'd say that "Making the deal" is a corrupt act, but not as big a one as V's various murders.

AtopTheMountain

2009-10-18, 09:33 AM

V is neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html) "Obviously, you have the good. Or the neutral, as the case may be." :smalltongue:

waterpenguin43

2009-10-18, 10:08 AM

First, you spelt loses wrong.

Second, V is sexy.

Third, since I have to make a relevant point here, V isn't evil. She accepted the soul splice to protect his family which is neutral at worst.

1) It was a typo
2) Err, how is that relevant?
3) You are correct (in my opinion) I was grading V with the negative sides or his/her corruption score (s)he could get, meaning that the possitive things plus atonement and yadayada also apply.

waterpenguin43

2009-10-18, 10:14 AM

Corruption score heh?.

I wasn't aware there was some kind of numerical system regarding the alignments of D&D. Could you provide a link to an informative page of some kind?

CORRUPT ACTS
Adhering to a lawful alignment is no picnic. According to
the terms of the Pact Primeval, as negotiated between Asmo-
deus and the lawful deities, the good that mortals do in life
is outweighed by the taint of sin. For game purposes, each
act of evil that a PC commits adds to his corruption rating.
Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of
9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he
rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life.
A devil assigned to harvest souls does so by inspiring
mortals to corrupt acts, whether through Faustian pacts, the
use of infernal items, or simple persuasion. The following
sinful acts, along with the corruption points they earn, focus
on activities in which adventurers are likely to engage.
Notable real-world acts of evil are intentionally omitted
from the above table. Mature groups who wish to admit life’s
grimmer side into their games can determine additional
corruption values using the above table as a baseline.
REMOVING CORRUPTION POINTS
Good and neutral characters can remove corruption points
by undergoing a program of repentance under the guidance
of a qualiﬁed spiritual advisor (a cleric, paladin, or druid). A character with a corruption rating below 3 can reduce it
to 0 by giving up all beneﬁ ts gained from the act of corrup-
tion, offering a sincere apology to those harmed, providing
full restitution, and making a donation to the spiritual
advisor’s church. The required amount is a percentage of
the penitent’s current wealth based on the original reward
rating, as speciﬁed on the Faustian Pact Wealth Rewards table
(page 24). In addition, the spiritual advisor must assign an
active gesture of repentance, such as self-scourging, fasting,
a period of silent retreat, or a dangerous quest against the
forces of evil, depending on the nature of the deity.
Using an evil spell 1
Humiliating an underling 1
Engaging in intimidating torture 1
Stealing from the needy 2
Desecrating a good church or temple 2
Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain 2
Causing gratuitous injury to a creature 3
Perverting justice for personal gain 3
Inflicting cruel or painful torture 4
Inﬂicting excruciating torture 5
Murder 5
Inﬂicting sadistic torture 6
Cold-blooded murder 6
Murder for pleasure 7
Inflicting indescribable torture 7

waterpenguin43

2009-10-18, 10:22 AM

Oh, and on the note of Obeisance:
3) Following a rule you consider stupid (See dirt farm)
4) Obeying a leader you don't respect (If Miko qualifies as a leader)
3) Obeying a leader to your own detriment.

10 points of Obeisance at best.

Bago!!!

2009-10-18, 10:26 AM

Hell is paved with good intentions and desires.
So says Saint Bernard of Clairvaux.

Just because V had the best intentions does not mean that the act itself was good. Selling your soul to save someone, while a worthy task, can usually end up consuming yourself and leaving that someone broken.

Its the demons, devils, and daemons work. They work with you, they help you, then they take everything.

Question! What would Familicide constitute as on a corruption score? I mean, you have your evil spell, you have your mass murder. What does mass family murder count up to?

Edit: Is the triple post really necessary? :smalltongue:

Gametime

2009-10-18, 10:35 AM

Question! What would Familicide constitute as on a corruption score? I mean, you have your evil spell, you have your mass murder. What does mass family murder count up to?

I'm think once you reach the point of mass murder, who the victims were becomes less relevant to the point of how evil the act was. After all, kill as many people as V did and you're bound to hit a couple of relations at some point; I'm not sure that makes it more or less evil, at that scale.

Though you could throw on a few points for inflicting psychological torture on the original black dragon.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 10:38 AM

If V did it primarily because of the pleasure to be gotten out of seeing Mama Dragon's reaction, it could arguably be Murder For Pleasure- and thus, a 7 point Corrupt act.

A generous DM might treat mass murder the same as normal murder- if, and only if, its all done with "one act"

Or one spell, in this case.

By contrast, Nale and Thog committed most of their murders separately, rather than as one big killing, so they would have points for each murder.

Bago!!!

2009-10-18, 10:40 AM

But what is mass murder constitute as under a corruption score? Just a 5?

Fireballing_Fun

2009-10-18, 11:16 AM

Total: 13. So if V loses 5 corruption points, (s)he could manage to escape an evil afterlife.

I am not familiar with the system but I feel that regardless of V's alignment (which I regard as currrently neutral evil) even if V reforms to good or neutral he/she is now fated to an evil afterlife due to the ramifications of the pact.

No Good or Neutral God or afterlife realm would accept someone who has allied with a faction as part of their plan to destroy Good.

Unless he goes the whole self-sacrifice route which I predict he will.

Murdim

2009-10-18, 11:37 AM

I am not familiar with the system but I feel that regardless of V's alignment (which I regard as currrently neutral evil) even if V reforms to good or neutral he/she is now fated to an evil afterlife due to the ramifications of the pact.The Archfiends themselves have no idea about if V is damned or not (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), so I don't think it's the case.

Haggis

2009-10-18, 11:38 AM

Wouldn't familicide also count as torture? Indescribable torture Most likely.

After all it can't get much worse then being brought back from the dead as a useless head, only to be told, guess what everyone you could possibly care about is dead now.

spargel

2009-10-18, 11:54 AM

Shale

2009-10-18, 12:03 PM

Familicide itself wouldn't be torture, but there was no reason to reanimate the ABD's head except to make it suffer.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 12:05 PM

Intimidating torture is any torture that does no actual lethal damage. The sort of thing in Room 101 in Orwell's 1984 would qualify- "emotional torture"- playing on somebody's phobias.

Under this definition, besides the murders (if murder is the correct term) what V did to Mama Dragon might qualify.

Kish

2009-10-18, 12:07 PM

The Archfiends themselves have no idea about if V is damned or not (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), so I don't think it's the case.
Not quite. First, they give a specific percentage number--not too compatible with having no idea. Then, they say that's the likelihood they'll get his/her soul eventually--not that s/he would go to a lower plane if s/he died right then and there.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 12:13 PM

alternatively, its 100% that they'd get it if V died then and there, but only 50% based on the assumption that V will live long enough to start atoning- and put quite a lot of effort into it.

Another interpretation would be V has committed an act, that interpreted one way condemns V, the other way doesn't, both ways are valid, and when V gets to the afterlife, V has the job of convincing the judges to rule one way, rather than the other, and the fiends estimate V has only a 50% chance of succeeding at convincing them.

A bit like Roy succeeding at convincing the Deva that his actions concerning Belkar count as "trying to redeem him"
(since she said "I'll put it down as trying to redeem an evildoer"

Murdim

2009-10-18, 12:59 PM

Not quite. First, they give a specific percentage number--not too compatible with having no idea.Isn't "there's a 50-50 chance" what people usually say when they can't tell which is the most probable outcome out of two ?

Then, they say that's the likelihood they'll get his/her soul eventually--not that s/he would go to a lower plane if s/he died right then and there.There's a big difference between evil and damned. By definition, the damned are definitively, irreparably condemned to some sort of eternal punishment, while evil people are "merely" on their way to a crappy afterlife (well, in the OotS-world, at least). V might be evil at this point, but he's certainly not damned... yet.

waterpenguin43

2009-10-18, 01:03 PM

That would be seriously stretching the definition of that word.

Not to mention the fact it doesn't deal 2d20+5 damage.

waterpenguin43

2009-10-18, 01:04 PM

But what is mass murder constitute as under a corruption score? Just a 5?

No, murder for pleasure is 7, and I was talking about Kubota.

Fireballing_Fun

2009-10-18, 01:07 PM

The Archfiends themselves have no idea about if V is damned or not (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), so I don't think it's the case.

It is not down to the archfiends and as personifications of evil they may not be the best people to ask.

But anyway I am touting what is purely a personal opinion.

If OOTS was a campaign, and I was the GM, I'd consider V damned.

Asta Kask

2009-10-18, 01:36 PM

5) Murder (Not entirely cold-blooded, though)

Since Elves are mammals, they can't really murder anyone in cold blood. Nor can birds.

derfenrirwolv

2009-10-18, 01:39 PM

I think V may have slipped over to evil. He's* trying to climb his way back to neutral or perhaps higher. The fiends beleive there is a 50 50 chance of getting his soul anyway. If he was hovering on the edge but trying to change, the odds wouldn't be so good for the fiends. If, on the other hand, he's already in the pit and is starting to climb out, there's every possibility he'll fie before making it to the edge.

*used for convenience.

Kish

2009-10-18, 01:42 PM

Isn't "there's a 50-50 chance" what people usually say when they can't tell which is the most probable outcome out of two ?

Only if those people want to sound like they know more about the likelihood than they actually do.

Given that the fiends also gave a numerical percentage chance for Vaarsuvius attacking Xykon, I think changing what they said into "they have no idea" demonstrates a great deal of wishful thinking.

There's a big difference between evil and damned. By definition, the damned are definitively, irreparably condemned to some sort of eternal punishment, while evil people are "merely" on their way to a crappy afterlife (well, in the OotS-world, at least). V might be evil at this point, but he's certainly not damned... yet.
Somewhat ironically, I agree that Vaarsuvius isn't irrevocably damned, simply because the fiends wouldn't be saying "50% chance" if s/he was.

Bago!!!

2009-10-18, 01:43 PM

No, murder for pleasure is 7, and I was talking about Kubota.

I wasn't asking for murdering someone for pleasure, I was asking for mass-murder. Killing more than one person at once. Not V's feelings were in commiting the act, though he did get some satisfaction out of it.

Haggis

2009-10-18, 01:57 PM

That would be seriously stretching the definition of that word.

From wiki:

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 01:59 PM

it doesn't say whether "mass" is an aggravating factor or not when discussing murder.

The point I was trying to make, is that "for pleasure" can be taken to mean secondary effects as wel as primary.

BoVD has some villains whose killing for pleasure is primary (as in, they get pleasure out of seeing the life leave their enemy's eyes, and the blood splashing over them, and that is why they do it.)

Secondary pleasure would be, the revenge killer who kills his enemy's family in front of him and doesn't take pleasure in the killing per se but what he takes pleasure in, is the grief caused by the killing.

I would say, this also counts as "murder for pleasure".

So, if "to protect V's family from reprisals" is an excuse, and the real reason is:

"the enjoyment V can get out of seeing a grief-stricken Mama Dragon"

this would count, too.

Haggis

2009-10-18, 02:08 PM

Especially when killing off a quarter of a race seems more likely to get a lot dragons (and a freaking god) wanting revenge on your case.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 02:13 PM

so, would you say the act might count as both:

a 1 point Corrupt act of Intimidating Torture,

and a 7 point Corrupt act of Murder (mass) for Pleasure?

spargel

2009-10-18, 02:46 PM

From wiki:

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

That would make pretty much any form of revenge that causes "severe pain" count as torture.

LuisDantas

2009-10-18, 02:49 PM

so, would you say the act might count as both:

a 1 point Corrupt act of Intimidating Torture,

and a 7 point Corrupt act of Murder (mass) for Pleasure?

At the very least. Genocide probably counts as 8 point instead of 7, however.

spargel

2009-10-18, 03:02 PM

At the very least. Genocide probably counts as 8 point instead of 7, however.

...
Familicide.

Zanaril

2009-10-18, 03:03 PM

That would make pretty much any form of revenge that causes "severe pain" count as torture.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 03:06 PM

At the very least. Genocide probably counts as 8 point instead of 7, however.

Ah, but does genocide count as genocide if it is done to black dragons?

I'd say that it would, but there was an extended debate on this already, which might be starting again here.

Kish

2009-10-18, 03:11 PM

Ah, but does genocide count as genocide if it is done to black dragons?

I'd say that it would, but there was an extended debate on this already, which might be starting again here.
"Might"?

I would give Vaarsuvius seven corruption points. Per black dragon. But hey. The OP has already indicated that he meant to ignore the fiends' reference to what Vaarsuvius did that puts his/her soul in jeopardy--"that stunt with the dragons"--entirely.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 03:16 PM

I figure Familicide is morally equivalent to casting something like Epic Meteor Swarm at a very big village- while a lot of beings are killed, it is still only one act.

There may be an element of "A Million Is A Statistic" here, but there does seem to be a difference between a mass killing with one act, and a whole series of killings.

For comparison- Nale- kills individuals, separately- solely to achieve his goal.

Nale, and/or Thog's Corruption is probably in the 1000+ range, or close.

So, for V, 7 points at minimum, possibly with +1 or +2 for "mass" as an aggravating factor.

This is not counting Kubota, whose murder would in my view add another 6 points.

Ave

2009-10-18, 03:18 PM

A generous DM might treat mass murder the same as normal murder- if, and only if, its all done with "one act"

That would be a very "generous" DM. A judge on Earth would definitely count the bodies.

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 03:19 PM

I figure is morally equivalent to firing a single missile at a very big village- while a lot of beings are killed, it is still only one act.

There may be an element of "A Million Is A Statistic" here, but there does seem to be a difference between a mass killing with one act, and a whole series of killings.

So, firing a missile into a village with the premeditated intent to kill as many inhabitants as possible is no more evil than carrying out a plan to kill one's neighbor? Personally, I would disagree, and genocide would be several steps about mass murder, although still less than individually killing all of the people involved.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 03:23 PM

Thats why I said 7, plus at least 1 or 2.

The difference between Simple Murder and Murder For Pleasure- a lot of people would say murder for pleasure is much, much worse, but the rules place it only slightly above "Murder".

Applying it every time seems a bit off.

Just as if a person kills lots of people through a single act of negligence, they don't generally get each death treated individually, but the whole bunch at once- so the same might apply to murder.

Rating the single act as a 9 point corrupt act, means that if V never atones for the act itself, no matter if V had never done any other evil acts, no matter how much Good V might have done, a Lawful V would be condemned to Baator.

What I wonder is, if the Ginat uses a similar system to FC2, but with "the lower planes" replacing Baator,

and even Chaotic Good beings, having a minimum Corruption needed to send them automatically to Lower Planes.

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 03:27 PM

Fair enough.

I wasn't saying that it should be applied every time, just that it was significantly worse (ie double) the normal seven points.

Nine doesn't seem to be enough because that means that a lawful V could escape Baator by making a tiny act of purposeful repentance.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 03:31 PM

could be- that is an option.

I think the Corruption system appears logarithmic though in its ratings- I wouldn't call Murder "exactly five times worse than an act of bullying an underling"

Redeeming an act requires apology- some kind of restitution, etc- for V to redeem this 9 point act, and thus escape Baator (or the Lower Planes, if The Giant uses a more general system) V has to fix the whole thing.

Just apologizing to his deities, and going on a quest, is not enough- you can't lower the Corruption inflicted by a single crime, without dealing with the whole thing.

If just ressurrecting them all is impossible, there is the "Death means redemption" option a la Darth Vader- if V died, heroically, trying to expiate V's crime, then the "Hellbred" option from the same book comes into play.

Basically, Hellbred genuinely repent, but haven't achieved redemption. Unlike the Spectres of Dis though- they really tried- their repentance actually means something.

I'd like to see V return as an OoTS equivalent of a Hellbred.

multilis

2009-10-18, 03:35 PM

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 03:41 PM

Owl's wisdom, Belkar realises he has been wasting his life in violence, then V immediately cancels owl's wisdom. Why did V cancel it? Why not let it run out naturally?

The shocking truth:
V is one of secret agents of Snarl, out of promise for ultimate power! V has always been evil!

Owl's Wisdom in long term goes against Snarl's goals, Belkar more likely to figure things out and more likely to shift away from Snarl's allignment.

V wanting ultimate power is a big give away as well, a normal quest of *evil* guys.

Um...or Belkar wasn't fulfilling his full battle potential by being pacifistic and they needed him on the front lines.

@Hamishpence: True, but the act of redemption here should be truly monumental to overcome killing all those dragons (even if only killing the dozen or so non-evil ones counts as an evil act). An example would be sealing away the Snarl with one's own life-force, for example.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a corruption score because it implies that the pact primeval exists (making Good naturally lawful and evil naturally chaotic) and that it means that people have a greater tendency to go to the lower planes. I like the concept of bargaining for souls, but I think that corruption points should only apply to them, as a special case of fiendish corruption.

Similarly, I dislike the archon here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) implying that lawful good is a standard towards which everyone should strive. The point of the alignment system is that all of them are roughly equal and no one good is "best." You can't kick someone out for deviating once in a minor matter if they make up for it for the rest of their life (and die serving the cause of good). I interpret that as the archon raking him over the coals, despite her protestations to the contrary. My theory is that, like not having an escalator, the interview is simply something that the patrons of Celestia expect. If Roy was TN, that would be where he went after he died, based on natural attraction of a soul to its proper plane based on alignment.

I would be very interesting in seeing what the eladrins do over in CG-land (not yet confirmed as Arborea).

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 03:42 PM

Personally, I don't like the idea of a corruption score because it implies that the pact primeval exists (making Good naturally lawful and evil naturally chaotic) and that it means that people have a greater tendency to go to the lower planes. I like the concept of bargaining for souls, but I think that corruption points should only apply to them, as a special case of fiendish corruption.

I like the basic concept, but agree that it is too focussed on Law/Chaos, and that a more general system where sufficient evil absolutely has to be atoned for, whether you are Lawful or not, to escape the lower Planes.

I'd also modify the system- as it stands really minor evil acts are too easily accumulated.

Note that FC2 has the "obesiance" system as well- as written, CE characters need to be almost as careful as LG ones, to avoid Baator- just careful in a very different way.

Concerning CG afterlife- I also think it would be nice to see how they handle things.

In the same way as Vaders "act of monumental redemption" was dying in order to destroy the person responsible for his Fall, and the cause of a lot of misery in the galaxy, so V's could be dying heroically to stop the Evil Plan of the IFCC, at the last minute.

Concerning which dragon deaths count as evil- possibilities include:

All of them- since V didn't bother to try and find out.

The half-dragons- since they are not Evil By Nature, but only (in MM) Often Evil (taking human half-dragons as a baseline)

The baby dragons, since they are Legally Innocent, never having committed Evil Acts.

Or some combination of the above.

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 04:12 PM

I like the basic concept, but agree that it is too focussed on Law/Chaos, and that a more general system where sufficient evil absolutely has to be atoned for, whether you are Lawful or not, to escape the lower Planes.

I'd also modify the system- as it stands really minor evil acts are too easily accumulated.

Note that FC2 has the "obesiance" system as well- as written, CE characters need to be almost as careful as LG ones, to avoid Baator- just careful in a very different way.

Concerning CG afterlife- I also think it would be nice to see how they handle things.

In the same way as Vaders "act of monumental redemption" was dying in order to destroy the person responsible for his Fall, and the cause of a lot of misery in the galaxy, so V's could be dying heroically to stop the Evil Plan of the IFCC, at the last minute.

Perhaps the corruption system should be split into two:

The acts that prevent good creatures from ascending to the Upper Planes (stuck in Neutral land) and the acts that can send you to the lower planes but only in the context of fiendish intervention (fiends carry a special taint with them that is hard to cleanse).

My current theory for the CG afterlife is dominated by elves but with "party towns" of bards and special estates for the people with the courage to subvert the system from within (although Shojo might be NG instead). If Shojo did make it to CG-land, he'd be a guru of legal subversion.

Another alternative for V;s sacrifice would be merging with the Snarl (assuming its not evil and the gods are lying) to grant it knowledge of magic, allowing it to seal the boundary once and for all by destroying itself, thus protecting the worlds from the gods for all time. This would also allow the prophecy to have a better fulfillment, because V gaining power from someone else cannot be arcane (which comes personal manipulation of the magic of the universe) in nature, because the soul splices are granting V spells like a cleric gets them from gods. If V merged with the Snarl, any spells used would be VSnarl's by definition.

I doubt that this is going to happen (the prophecy is probably supposed to be done) but I'd prefer having this or some other method of closure, because the soul splice seemed to be a sloppy way of fulfilling it to me.

Concerning which dragon deaths count as evil- possibilities include:

All of them- since V didn't bother to try and find out.

The half-dragons- since they are not Evil By Nature, but only (in MM) Often Evil (taking human half-dragons as a baseline)

The baby dragons, since they are Legally Innocent, never having committed Evil Acts.

Or some combination of the above.

Reasonable. It appears that we agree that None or Good Act Due to Killing Lots of Evil are two options that don't make sense.

hamishspence

2009-10-18, 04:18 PM

Yup- but an awful lot of people think otherwise, or say that BoED's:

"an evil act is an evil act no matter how Good the consequences are" is

"Not Core- so invalid"

Interesting question- suppose there had been no fiendish intervention- would Familicide (if cast by the original user "in life") still be "as evil"?

I'd say yes- and that Miko's act of murder, had it been accompanied by more evil acts, would risk "sending Her down"

Maybe Rich's alignment system, whatever it is, works in a similar way to FC2, but with more nuance.

Bibliomancer

2009-10-18, 04:35 PM

Interesting question- suppose there had been no fiendish intervention- would Familicide (if cast by the original user "in life") still be "as evil"?

I'd say yes- and that Miko's act of murder, had it been accompanied by more evil acts, would risk "sending Her down"

Maybe Rich's alignment system, whatever it is, works in a similar way to FC2, but with more nuance.

Rich was very clear here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html) that the possession did not change things at all, alignment/blame-wise, so if it was evil for V it would have been evil for the original caster.

I was a bit surprised that Miko still got into the LG afterlife with her horse when Roy was [supposedly, I think it was a bluff] close to being kicked out over abandoning Elan.

Bago!!!

2009-10-18, 07:02 PM

May I throw this in? Its incredibly unlikely that Rich is going by any sort of corruption sort of system. Otherwise, Familicide would have thrown our good pal V on the 'iredeemably damned' side of the judgement.

Elanrocks2009

2009-10-18, 07:32 PM

Hi, Everyone's favoritist bestest bard here! I have made some corrections to my previous post. These being:

1. Elan did not know about V being evil, all he knew was that V changed V's Hairstyle and such, most likely because he has a low intelligence score.
2. Vaarsuvius WILLINGLY took the demons in to destroy the dragon. (I am getting a lot of feedback on that one.)
3.They were not demons, they were powerful sorcerers in life.

If you have any different opinions or questions or comments, let me know! I am looking foreward to it!

-Elan the Bard

spargel

2009-10-18, 07:51 PM

Uh, thanks for stating the obvious?

The Dark Fiddler

2009-10-18, 07:55 PM

Not trying to be rude, but couldn't you have just used the old thread? Especially since said thread is only about 6 hours "old".

There is a rule about only having one thread per subject.

EleventhHour

2009-10-18, 07:56 PM

I'm... confused.

Wasn't all of that... established in-comic, without a lot of wishy-washy jabber on part of the Playgrounders? (Like there is on... all the other "issues".)

:smallconfused:

Acero

2009-10-18, 10:29 PM

y did u start a new 1 when the original only has 15 posts?

Mugen Nightgale

2009-10-18, 10:51 PM

There we go again. Alignment threads are worst than Fan Club ones.

Holyhatred

2009-10-19, 12:01 AM

So, firing a missile into a village with the premeditated intent to kill as many inhabitants as possible is no more evil than carrying out a plan to kill one's neighbor? Personally, I would disagree, and genocide would be several steps about mass murder, although still less than individually killing all of the people involved.

Yeah but your putting a price value on peoples lives. This person gives you 3 points of evil and this on who is a saint gives you 6 points if you kill him/her.

Atronach

2009-10-20, 08:10 PM

Perhaps all of you forget: in Dungeons and Dragons your alignment does not change if you do a justifiably evil act when your alignment is good, or vice versa. V is obviously still good. I could debate for a while about whether accepting the soul splices on Vaarsuvius's part was the right or wrong thing to do, however that would waste our precious time. The point is the soul splices do not make Vaarsuvius temporarily evil. I believe it is incredibly straight forward, and does not require any objection.

Zevox

2009-10-20, 08:25 PM

In my opinion, V's current alignment is up in the air. I would have said she was definitely True Neutral before the events of the soul splice, but after familicide, I suspect she could just as easily be considered Neutral Evil. Either way, though, it does appear as though she is definitely working her way back towards True Neutral, perhaps even towards a more goodly bent than she had previously (though I'd be surprised if she ever reaches the point where I'd call her Neutral Good), so I suspect that at the end of the story (maybe even the end of the current book) I'll be calling her definitely True Neutral again.

Doubt Rich would bother with the whole corruption/obeisance system from the Fiendish Codices myself. He seems to stick to the core rules almost entirely, occasionally using his own alterations or interpretations of them, and only rarely bothers to mention anything from splatbooks, and then usually just for jokes (see: Tsukiko's electric orb).

Zevox

veti

2009-10-20, 08:42 PM

I would give Vaarsuvius seven corruption points. Per black dragon. But hey. The OP has already indicated that he meant to ignore the fiends' reference to what Vaarsuvius did that puts his/her soul in jeopardy--"that stunt with the dragons"--entirely.

There's an interesting tension between the content of your post and the quote in your signature:

"You are what you do. Choose again, and change." --Miles Vorkosigan

No amount of actions can ever "make" you evil. That's just your track record. It will affect how people see you and how they react to you (including the DM, if you're in a game). But what you choose to do, whether you choose Good or Evil or anything else, is up to you.

Now: Belkar is evil because he's the sort of person who habitually, by nature, chooses cruelty and the infliction of suffering, as an end in itself. But V isn't. She's used cruelty only twice: to Belkar (as part of her Experiment, after The Incident in Azure City), and to the dragon who was trying to kill and torture her family. Both times it was meant as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Whether or not she wants to be evil is absolutely up to V. Nothing she has done commits her to that path. It's her choice. That's why the Fiends don't know how she'll end up - she could go either way.