SoD Spoilers: Why would good aligned gods

[Alex Warlorn]

Question: why would Good aligned gods, in a story verse Good has been defined as: "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." ...

Purposely create SENTIENT creatures whose sole purpose is to be killed by the already created races?

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to create non-sentient semi-humanoid creatures who a base instinct for collecting gold and attacking any humanoid or semi-humanoid it sees that is not of it's own species if you wanted to create creatures whose sole purpose was to provide gold and XP?

[Conuly]

We don't actually know what happened, of course. We know what Redcloak believes about what happened. He may have learned this directly from his god, or from another cleric of his god when he was younger, I don't know, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth.

(I'm perfectly willing to take just about any side in this just to stir the pot.)

[SaintRidley]

Think, for example, of the deities of the classical era. They were human in nature, except with flaws raised to deific proportions When they were capricious, they were capricious to extremes impossible to imagine. They raged with the rage of armies.

The gods are short-sighted, self-possessed, childish, and think that since they're gods that whatever they think is perfectly good because of their nature and status as deities.

In short - gods are morons and even the ones that are good-aligned are not to be counted on to be smart enough to avoid colossally stupid decisions.

[Alex Warlorn]

Think, for example, of the deities of the classical era. They were human in nature, except with flaws raised to deific proportions When they were capricious, they were capricious to extremes impossible to imagine. They raged with the rage of armies.

The gods are short-sighted, self-possessed, childish, and think that since they're gods that whatever they think is perfectly good because of their nature and status as deities.

In short - gods are morons and even the ones that are good-aligned are not to be counted on to be smart enough to avoid colossally stupid decisions.

That was the Greek/Roman patheon. Who no longer exist in the OotS verse.

[CapedLuigiYoshi]

Everyone is an idiot. Including the gods. And myself.

[Conuly]

That was the Greek/Roman pantheon. Who no longer exist in the OotS verse.

Other pantheons contemporary to the Greeks/Romans weren't much better.

[Drakevarg]

The Norse Gods were pretty much a sitcom on acid.

[Mystic Muse]

Question: why would Good aligned gods, in a story verse Good has been defined as: "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." ...

Purposely create SENTIENT creatures whose sole purpose is to be killed by the already created races?

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to create non-sentient semi-humanoid creatures who a base instinct for collecting gold and attacking any humanoid or semi-humanoid it sees that is not of it's own species if you wanted to create creatures whose sole purpose was to provide gold and XP?

The "good" gods define what good is in this world according to their own whims and they're morons. that's all the answer you need.

[Raging Gene Ray]

They probably justified it by saying it was for the greater good. Sure, they created a sentient race solely to be depraved of resources and slaughtered for XP, sure they were harming the already existing races by making them targets of the new goblin race.

But it was all to give adventurers the necessary XP to keep from being wiped out by the likes of dragons and demons and abberations.

[Ancalagon]

Everyone is an idiot. Including the gods. And myself.

Esepcially the gods in the OotS-world.

So far, they seem mostly childish and rather immature. They at least don't think as much as they should (probably because they think they are gods and thus safe from grave mistakes?)
And that's also the explanation for the entire mess they created.

[Raging Gene Ray]

The "good" gods define what good is in this world according to their own whims and they're morons. that's all the answer you need.

So there is a "Good beyond Good," a definition of Good that even the Gods are truly subject too. An Overgood, if you will.

Good God.

[JoseB]

I would like to stress again what Conuly said: What we know about the creation of the world and the position of the goblins therein is not guaranteed to be the whole, undistorted truth.

The same way that the "crayons of time" are not guaranteed to be the whole undistorted truth either!

I am very much of the opinion that when it comes to the Snarl, the origin of time and the creation of the world, we are dealing with very unreliable narrators, who may well be "spinning" the story to suit their own agendas. And I include the gods themselves among the "spinners"!

[Conuly]

And I include the gods themselves among the "spinners"!

Just about the only person I don't include, oddly, is Redcloak. Why? Because I don't see that he had any need to lie to his own brother to make their species look better.

Of course, if he was misled....

[Selene]

The "good" gods define what good is in this world according to their own whims and they're morons. that's all the answer you need.

I'm going to go with this answer.


Just about the only person I don't include, oddly, is Redcloak. Why? Because I don't see that he had any need to lie to his own brother to make their species look better.

Of course, if he was misled....

Agreed. I would also guess that Shojo wasn't purposely deceiving Roy. His agenda with Roy wasn't making the Sapphire Guard look good. It was saving the world. Granted, he would see the SG's actions in a better light than RC would.

[Optimystik]

So there is a "Good beyond Good," a definition of Good that even the Gods are truly subject too. An Overgood, if you will.

Good God.

There is - but for the purposes of paladin and cleric abilities, at least, it seems the gods can override it.

Actual "afterlife assignment" however - the most important effect of morality - seems to depend on this "Overgood."


Other pantheons contemporary to the Greeks/Romans weren't much better.

To quote Yahtzee from his Too Human (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/213-Too-Human) review:

"Ancient cultures didn't have that problem. They knew their gods were a bunch of drunken lunatics who ran around boning their close relatives and turning their goolies into fruit-bearing trees - consequently, they made for much more interesting storytelling."

Good gods that actually subscribe to the whole benevolence bit wouldn't be as interesting, not without gods that were equally dark, tyrannical and savage. And that would push the Giant's work further from humor and closer to epic fantasy, like FR

[SaintRidley]

That was the Greek/Roman patheon. Who no longer exist in the OotS verse.

That makes no difference whatsoever.

If you've looked at the gods in charge in OotS and what they let happen and what they do, they're just the same as the Greek pantheon.

[deuxhero]

Remeber that Pelor is NG and Lyonsbane is LN

[Gift Jeraff]

We have known that the gods are fools since the first Crayons of Time sequence. It certainly wasn't a surprise reading the one in SoD and seeing that they would do what they did.

But it was all to give adventurers the necessary XP to keep from being wiped out by the likes of dragons and demons and abberations.
Nope. If the crayon sequence in SoD is true, then they were created so their followers could fight all the "cool" high/epic-level monsters they created, not to protect them from said powerful monsters.

[Optimystik]

Nope. If the crayon sequence in SoD is true, then they were created so their followers could fight all the "cool" high/epic-level monsters they created, not to protect them from said powerful monsters.

What? He didn't mention anything about "protecting." Just that they wouldn't be insta-killed by the high-level monsters.


We have known that the gods are fools since the first Crayons of Time sequence. It certainly wasn't a surprise reading the one in SoD and seeing that they would do what they did.

Given that both crayon sequences are as of now incorrect about the nature of the Snarl, I think we should withhold judgment until we know more.

[Conuly]

Given that both crayon sequences are as of now incorrect about the nature of the Snarl, I think we should withhold judgment until we know more.

Excellent point. What we know is that we heard two versions of the beginning, second-hand. That's... about it.

[Gift Jeraff]

What? He didn't mention anything about "protecting." Just that they wouldn't be insta-killed by the high-level monsters.
Ah, my bad. I thought he meant that dragons and such would go out of their way to attack them.


Given that both crayon sequences are as of now incorrect about the nature of the Snarl, I think we should withhold judgment until we know more.Well, as of right now the Snarl is acting differently. So, it may have changed. I agree that we can't take them both 100% for their word, though.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Nope. If the crayon sequence in SoD is true, then they were created so their followers could fight all the "cool" high/epic-level monsters they created, not to protect them from said powerful monsters.

!?!?!?!?!? Never read SoD...I didn't think the gods were THAT asinine...so the GOOD-aligned gods created EVIL-aligned monsters for cheap amusement?

Does GOOD mean nothing more than their favorite color? Is it just a meaningless name given to their team in a friendly little sport between the EVIL gods?

I just sort of assumed that deities like Tiamat and Loki and Rat all introduced Evil to the world and that's what forced the Good gods to bicker among themselves...


Ah, my bad. I thought he meant that dragons and such would go out of their way to attack them.

Actually...yeah, that is kind of what I meant. Again, I assumed that the gods, having gone through the trouble of creating humanity, would not dump in a bunch of stuff that could kill them just to see them fight.

The entire world is a gigantic cockfighting arena and the ideals that people worship are just cheers thrown around by the unruly audience.

[Alex Warlorn]

Better question then: how the gods who did CATEGORIZED as Good given the existence of the 'over good' implied before given the review of Roy's choices in life?

I keep hearing the same argument over and over "the gods makes the rules and thus they're Good (as per the school of thought) because they say they are even though said action doesn't fit the definition at all when they had a perfectly valid option to accomplish the same goals with less suffering of sentient life."

Which IMHO makes no sense what so ever. It feels too much like the argument 'a universe with no gods is a good universe.'

And IMHO feels kinda speciesist to the deities in general.

[Kish]

And IMHO feels kinda speciesist to the deities in general.
You hardly need to be speciesist to observe a few dozen people--even if those few dozen comprise an entire species--behaving in a childish and petty fashion.

[veti]

Short answer: the gods' idea of "good" is not the same as the definitions given in yer common D&D player and DM materials.

What the Giant has done is to highlight the basic incompatibility between "good" as defined by basic mythological/fairytale morality, and the modern notion of "good" as some set of egalitarian ideals that can, in theory, be applied and measured objectively. What D&D currently does is try to apply modern, non-theistic morality to a fairytale world - which I think is just sloppy. The myths and stories on which the fantasy world is based make certain assumptions about morality, and if you take those away, there are some, let's say, loose ends that are unaccounted for.

The D&D sourcebooks have never bothered about that (which is understandable - after all, how many players really care?), but it's the entire premise of OOTS. That's what I love about this strip.

[Katana_Geldar]

It could be argued that this exists in the Abrahamtic religions with animals in which humans were given dominion over, not that I want to make a religious point but there ARE more real-world equivalents.

[veti]

It could be argued that this exists in the Abrahamtic religions with animals in which humans were given dominion over, not that I want to make a religious point but there ARE more real-world equivalents.

Yes, but - without wanting to get into forbidden territory - those religions make no pretence that "morality" can be judged and measured by some sort of human calculation. Their entire premise is that true morality can only be judged by something that is so far above humans that we can't begin to comprehend it, let alone question it.

D&D doesn't have that mechanism - it goes to great lengths to define "good" as something objective, that can be quantified and measured. That's why it gets into trouble.

[Conuly]

The entire world is a gigantic cockfighting arena and the ideals that people worship are just cheers thrown around by the unruly audience.

No, their entire world is not an arena. It's a giant game of D&D.

Important distinction, I'm sure.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Question: why would Good aligned gods, in a story verse Good has been defined as: "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." ...

Purposely create SENTIENT creatures whose sole purpose is to be killed by the already created races?

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to create non-sentient semi-humanoid creatures who a base instinct for collecting gold and attacking any humanoid or semi-humanoid it sees that is not of it's own species if you wanted to create creatures whose sole purpose was to provide gold and XP?
Why would you create such a threat in the first place?

Couldn't you just create a system where you could level without the gold or XP? Or even a system where levels are unnecessary?

You just ran face-first into Epicurus's Problem of Evil.

[SaintRidley]

!?!?!?!?!? Never read SoD...I didn't think the gods were THAT asinine...so the GOOD-aligned gods created EVIL-aligned monsters for cheap amusement?

Does GOOD mean nothing more than their favorite color? Is it just a meaningless name given to their team in a friendly little sport between the EVIL gods?

I just sort of assumed that deities like Tiamat and Loki and Rat all introduced Evil to the world and that's what forced the Good gods to bicker among themselves...



Specifically, they had this neat idea - clerics - who could walk around outside the lands the gods have purview over and could work their deities' wills. However, low level clerics can't fight those big bad monsters and be impressive and cool without XP. And XP is most easily earned by killing monsters, so they decided to make little bundles of easy XP that would breed quickly and raid settlements from time to time to give the clerics (and other adventurers) something to attack and gain XP for.

That's would be the explanation, for example, for why Kobolds and Goblins are a bit underpowered for supposedly LA+0 races while Hobgoblins are a bit weak to really warrant that LA+1.


Yeah, the gods are massive screwups. Quick clue - when dealing with gods based on the mould cast by ancient deities, expect them to be massive screwups. They all are.

[CletusMusashi]

Here's an idea, they were created with evil personlities. I mean, the first goblins/bugbears/etc weren't just humanoid-shaped blank slates that stood there, right? They must have had minds and original alignments. So they were created evil, but weak, as the story says. Which means, of course, that they got their asses kicked, and retreated, after which they built villages and bonded under stress and formed relationships and developed new customs and interests... none of which the gods really give a damn about, because they aren't really interested in reconsidering the alignment question and making more work for themselves when there are much more exciting, heroic things to focus on.

[Optimystik]

Well, as of right now the Snarl is acting differently. So, it may have changed. I agree that we can't take them both 100% for their word, though.

But for it to be acting differently now, it must have been more than they thought it was even back then. By rights, something "literally born of deific frustration and hostility" shouldn't have the capacity to keep a world inside it and still have that description - whether the Snarl's attacks simply stole bits of World 1 and transported them there, or whether all the fragments and loose threads of the Snarl coalesced into something entirely new.


No, their entire world is not an arena. It's a giant game of D&D.

Important distinction, I'm sure.

My point exactly. The gods' problem (well, one of their problems) is that they have approached building a sustainable story setting, with a gaming mindset.

"Fodder races" is a fine idea for a game, so long as the monsters remain unconcerned about their lot in life. Giving them the capacity to do so is quite a mistake.

[snafu]

Does GOOD mean nothing more than their favorite color? Is it just a meaningless name given to their team in a friendly little sport between the EVIL gods?

This is a well-known philosophical problem. Plato discussed it at length; it's known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. In this dialogue Socrates debates with Euthyphro, a priest, on the nature of piety, of goodness itself. Euthyphro claims that goodness is what is loved by the gods. Socrates asks whether the good is loved by the gods because it is good, or whether it is good because it is loved by the gods.

Much the same as the problem we have here. Is 'good' simply that which is proclaimed as such by gods styling themselves 'good'? Or is 'good' something independent of the gods, which the gods proclaim not because it happens to suit their fancy, but because they themselves recognise that it _is_ good? Could the gods proclaim that it is good to kill beggars? Or evil to help them? If they did, would that make it so?

Abstract theological hair-splitting? Perhaps; but sometimes in a legend you will find a supposedly good god ordering his followers to do terrible things. Child sacrifice, perhaps; or a war of conquest and genocide. Is it good to do those things because your local deity says so? Or are good and evil quite separate from divine diktat, meaning that it would be good to defy your god if he gives orders you deem to be evil? When faced with divine command to slay your neighbour, the Euthyphro Dilemma is suddenly very important.

Most mythologies don't seem to explore this too much. I remember reading one somewhere (I forget which one - Bronze Age, I think, maybe Sumerian?) where the local deity actually issued evil orders on purpose, child-killing I think it was, just to see who would really go ahead and do it, then countermanded those orders at the last minute; he seemed to value obedience over conscience. Tends to support the 'It's good because I say so' school of theology, rather than 'I say so because it's good'.

Fantasy settings that go to this area have usually had the very predictable twist that the gods are actually evil; Pullman, I'm looking at _you_ here. I think Narnia went the other way with it: Aslan was certainly the local god, but he was subject to a mysterious Emperor-over-the-Sea who never came on stage, and his restoration to life was the result of a 'Deeper Magic from before the dawn of time', which he knew vaguely, but was not sure of; he took a big risk in allowing the White Witch to kill him. Is this Deeper Magic the underlying moral law to which even the gods must bow?

So I'll be interested to see where we go with this here. If you're going to have gods in your setting, and those gods claim to be moral authorities, then the Euthyphro dilemma is raised. In this setting I suppose the question would run: Did the Powers align to good and to evil, and therefore quarrel? Or did the Powers first quarrel, and thereby form factions that _define_ good and evil?

[frogspawner]

Couldn't you just create a system where you could level without the gold or XP? Or even a system where levels are unnecessary?
What? A system not based on "killing things and taking their stuff"?? Without classes/levels but with realistic skills-development and possibly even morals instead?

Where the heck could we find a system like that... :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

What? A system not based on "killing things and taking their stuff"?? Without classes/levels but with realistic skills-development and possibly even morals instead?

Where the heck could we find a system like that... :smallwink:

Not in D&D, that's for sure.

[frogspawner]

Couldn't you just create a system where you could level without the gold or XP? Or even a system where levels are unnecessary?What? A system not based on "killing things and taking their stuff"?? Without classes/levels but with realistic skills-development and possibly even morals instead?

Where the heck could we find a system like that... :smallwink:
Not in D&D, that's for sure.
Quite. I was, of course, alluding to the one I recommend in my sig (Chaosium Basic RolePlaying (http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=307)). But that's just one possibility.

I can't help wondering if that will be the last laugh for OotS: the world is unmade and they fall into a new one which doesn't run by D&D rules...

[Optimystik]

I can't imagine the Giant doing that. He loves D&D, warts and all.

He might upgrade it to 4e at the end - now wouldn't that be something?

[frogspawner]

He might upgrade it to 4e at the end - now wouldn't that be something?
Urgh! :smallyuk: But yes, something like that would have a certain symmetry with episode #1. Maybe negotiations are on-going... :smallwink:

[Lecan]

"Fodder races" is a fine idea for a game, so long as the monsters remain unconcerned about their lot in life. Giving them the capacity to do so is quite a mistake.

Every monster that has had a speaking part has had issues with their lot in life. This malcontentedness seems to be a commonality to everything in the OotS universe except perhaps the MitD (until he meets O-Chul).

[Ancalagon]

He might upgrade it to 4e at the end - now wouldn't that be something?

It surely would be an explanation why Belkar would be permanently out of the picture. ;)

[Optimystik]

Every monster that has had a speaking part has had issues with their lot in life. This malcontentedness seems to be a commonality to everything in the OotS universe except perhaps the MitD (until he meets O-Chul).

What gave you that idea? The Ogres, Hag and even one of the Displacer Beasts seemed quite content to be attacking travelers.

[rewinn]

Let's try to imagine how it might seem to the gods as they created the world.

Design problem: What do humanoid races need?

Answer: Water. Food for building strong bodies. XP for building strong PCs.

Water: we'll leave that lying around; it doesn't mind being drunk.

Food: we'll provide that on plants; they don't mind being eaten. For more concentrated food units, we'll create animals; in the wild, they expect to be eaten by another animal anyway, so it doesn't matter if humanoids eat them too.

XP: we'll provide that in the form of monsters. In the wild, some of them kill each other, so it doesn't matter if humanoids kill them too.

Maybe at this point, someone notices that the goblinoids are self-aware, and actually they don't like being killed. But if that happened, it'd be, like, oh well, too late. If we try to change things now, it'll be a big bother. Who are they to complain anyway; without us, they wouldn't even exist? Anyway, there's no possible way they could harm us.

I'm not suggesting that the gods were wise or correct to take that path, but rather than being stupid, I think they are merely callous. Think of them as being Pointy-Headed Bosses.

[TheBST]

The answer's simple: because they are Gods. They're not answerable to anyone so they can do whatever they want. And they're the moral arbiters of the unvierse, so they decide what's 'right' or 'wrong'.

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

[Ancalagon]

The answer's simple: because they are Gods. They're not answerable to anyone so they can do whatever they want. And they're the moral arbiters of the unvierse, so they decide what's 'right' or 'wrong'.

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

Unless, of course, you keep screwing up. You don't have to "answer" to anyone but the mess you caused is still there. You don't answer and can define "right and wrong" within a certain margin but your deeds still do have Consequences (capital letter on purpose).

And the gods of the Stickverse really have a history of screwups. World 1.0, World 2.0 (rifts still left and were unnoticed), Thor and the "bringer of pestilence", creation of goblinoids in the way they were created, Thor let an village being eaten to give one of his clerics spells... good? evil? I have no idea. But those deeds and misdeeds surely have Consequences.

[pita]

The Norse Gods were pretty much a sitcom on acid.
This is my favorite quote I've ever read on this forum.
Good job.

[Callista]

Other pantheons contemporary to the Greeks/Romans weren't much better.Yes, I think we make the mistake of thinking that the OotSverse has gods of the sort the Western world is used to--that is, omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent types, one or at most two in number, generally infallible. That's not the outlook that was common in the legends on which D&D was based. Their gods were basically mortals turned immortal and given a great deal of power, with all the same shortcomings that mortals have. Considering that D&D gods can be and often are killed, can and often do make mistakes, and most certainly are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, the Greek/Roman polytheistic viewpoint on gods would be the appropriate context for the analysis of the actions of the gods in the OotSverse.

There's one thing that I think is still in question, though: Are Good/Evil/Law/Chaos determined by the gods in this story? Or are they concepts independent of the gods? If they're independent concepts, then it should be possible for a good god to do something evil--very unlikely, sure, but possible. If they're determined by the gods, then G/E/L/C are not absolute, because the OotS gods aren't absolute. Either one has interesting implications for the story.

Incidentally, this calls into question the definition of "god" itself: What, exactly, is a god? D&D defines it by "divine ranks", a measure of sheer power and little else--I think we have to admit that this is a different thing from the real-world concept of God, though not so very different from "the gods" of most polytheistic worldviews. And the presence (though distanced) of an Ao-like overdeity makes things even more complicated... because now you've got both a Western-style "God" somehow coexisting with "the gods" in polytheistic style, which means you've suddenly got two different, competing definitions of "god" to worry about.

And they say wizards need the INT bonus. Those poor clerics... then again, they probably need the will save to avoid going crazy from studying this tangled mess of a theology!

[Selene]

Incidentally, this calls into question the definition of "god" itself: What, exactly, is a god? D&D defines it by "divine ranks", a measure of sheer power and little else--I think we have to admit that this is a different thing from the real-world concept of God, though not so very different from "the gods" of most polytheistic worldviews. And the presence (though distanced) of an Ao-like overdeity makes things even more complicated... because now you've got both a Western-style "God" somehow coexisting with "the gods" in polytheistic style, which means you've suddenly got two different, competing definitions of "god" to worry about.

And they say wizards need the INT bonus. Those poor clerics... then again, they probably need the will save to avoid going crazy from studying this tangled mess of a theology!

It might be because it's nearly 3:00 am here, or it may be because of my opinion on gods in general, but you lost me at this part. Where does the part about an overdeity come in? Unless s/he was left out of the crayon stories, there is no overdeity in the Stickverse, nor is there any need to posit one.

I hope that made sense, because I don't think I can make it any clearer without venturing into forbidden topics. At least not a 3:00 am.

[Lawless III]

I've got to nitpick on the original question. It wasn't just the good aligned gods who were in on it. SOD shows Loki being in on it as well and it's rather implied that ALL the gods were in on it. They were all just furthering their own interests really.

Also, as to their short sightedness, just look at any part of the comic depicting anyone on the norse pantheon.

[snafu]

It's quite a tortured definition of 'good', but a good god might... permit... the existence of a race that inherits a natural, hereditary tendency to evil, solely in order that there be a subject on which to demonstrate justice. Since these creatures are born already evil, they deserve whatever punishment the good gods and their followers see fit to mete out.

After all, they're evil. And if there weren't evil creatures around to be afraid of and to kill, nobody would appreciate the good gods.

Myself I find the concept of inherited evil that deserves punishment to be absolutely monstrous, and the goblins have certainly been hard done by. But it's a concept that certainly does appear in some mythologies; I'd have to go back to the books to identify which though. I think it was one of the Babylonian gods who was in the habit of punishing the descendants of offenders with all sorts of hereditary curses. He was described as good; whether the writers really thought he was good, or were just terrified that if they didn't flatter their god then they'd be next in the fire, is not something I'm certain of :-)

[veti]

It might be because it's nearly 3:00 am here, or it may be because of my opinion on gods in general, but you lost me at this part. Where does the part about an overdeity come in? Unless s/he was left out of the crayon stories, there is no overdeity in the Stickverse, nor is there any need to posit one.

... and thus in your sleep-deprived state, you've put your finger on the very nub, crux, essence, core, kernel or other central feature of the problem. Kudos.

There is no visible sign of an "overdeity" in the Stickverse, nor in many other D&D universes. But the rules of D&D assume a set of laws - the infamous "objectively defined good and evil" - that only makes sense if there is such a being. (You can come up with moral definitions that don't require one, but you can't explain why those definitions have any force or effect in the world.) So this being is required to make a coherent universe.

It's possible that, in the Stickverse, the Snarl is in fact the Overgod.

[Snake-Aes]

The world is not fair, they should be glad.

[Asta Kask]

There is no visible sign of an "overdeity" in the Stickverse, nor in many other D&D universes. But the rules of D&D assume a set of laws - the infamous "objectively defined good and evil" - that only makes sense if there is such a being. (You can come up with moral definitions that don't require one, but you can't explain why those definitions have any force or effect in the world.) So this being is required to make a coherent universe.

Unless these forces can be part of space-time and not require a designer.

[JonestheSpy]

I'm surprised no one has really picked up on the Meta-logic of all this.

Why are gameworlds so packed with monsters? So players have something to fight. They're created evil so the players are justified and can be heroes, not bandits and murderers. The OotSworld is a gameworld - so the same reasoning applies, with the postscript "The gods did it" as a simplistic explanation. The gods in his case are just metaphors for "the way it is in DnD".

One of the running jokes/themes of the strip is the idea that the world does NOT revolve around the PC's, even though the PC's usually forget that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0340.html). I see the whole story of Redcloak and the Dark One as a much deeper, morally ambiguous exploration of that theme. He's not rebelling against the gods so much as standard, unexamined game conventions (as in traditions, not GenCon).

So I don't think it's really possible to assign any reasonable rationalization for the OotS gods' actions here. They are just the easy explanation for the Way It Is in this particular gameworld.

[veti]

Unless these forces can be part of space-time and not require a designer.

But that reduces "good" and "evil" to mere physical laws, like gravity or magnetism. In that case, saying that good is somehow "better" than evil has no more moral force than saying that green is "better" than purple, or up is better than left - it's just personal preference. I don't know about you, but as a moral argument I find that kinda - uncompelling.

[Asta Kask]

That is the problem with 'essentialism' - why should we care? In this case, I would say you should care because you can either go to a place with infinite one-night stands (and other amenities), or to a place where they'll use your soul as BBQ coal. Classic carrot-and-stick.

[snafu]

But the rules of D&D assume a set of laws - the infamous "objectively defined good and evil" - that only makes sense if there is such a being. (You can come up with moral definitions that don't require one, but you can't explain why those definitions have any force or effect in the world.)

Wait, though. Certainly a D&D world has an objective definition of 'good' and 'evil': if you want to know if somebody is evil, you cast Detect Evil, and then you find out, no problem.

But who's giving out Detect Evil spells? The cosmos? No, the gods!

You don't need an overgod to define good and evil. The gods themselves, by dividing into Team Good and Team Evil, have done that well enough: 'good' means 'approved of by Team Good' and 'evil' means 'approved of by Team Evil'. They deal out Detect spells which let you know who's who, and all sorts of other spells that use the good/evil alignment as a sort of IFF transponder, to harm foes and aid friends. Yes, one's position vis-a-vis Good and Evil can be objectively determined - but not by natural means, it's done with divine magic handed down by the gods. That's how they make their definitions stick and have real effects in the world: no overgod needed.

[snafu]

But that reduces "good" and "evil" to mere physical laws, like gravity or magnetism. In that case, saying that good is somehow "better" than evil has no more moral force than saying that green is "better" than purple, or up is better than left - it's just personal preference. I don't know about you, but as a moral argument I find that kinda - uncompelling.

Is it any more compelling than good and evil being the diktats of some great cosmic commissar? 'Because I said so' is not much of a foundation for morality. I remember mentioning in another thread on this topic, a story I once read of an old Bronze Age deity (Sumerian IIRC, I still haven't got around to looking it up; anyone else recognise it?) who deliberately gave evil orders, then countermanded them at the last minute, just to see if people would go along with it. If good and evil really are defined by such a being, then if he were to play such a trick then good and evil really would change places for the duration!

Of course in this case the argument is moot; we know who's actually defining good and evil, it's the guy writing the D&D rulebooks :-)

[Optimystik]

So I don't think it's really possible to assign any reasonable rationalization for the OotS gods' actions here. They are just the easy explanation for the Way It Is in this particular gameworld.

The problem isn't that monsters exist - it's that in actual D&D, those paladins would fall so hard for impaling children that they'd leave craters.

[hamishspence]

Actual 3.5 D&D, anyway. Maybe earlier ones as well- going back to 2nd ed.

Though I have seen claims that in 1st ed, slaughtering the children of "evil races" was perfectly acceptable- on a "nits make lice" justification.

Which I wasn't very keen on.

[JonestheSpy]

The problem isn't that monsters exist - it's that in actual D&D, those paladins would fall so hard for impaling children that they'd leave craters.

Actually, the original post is about the gods and their creation of races to be killed, not the Sapphire Guard.

But as Hamish points out, if you regard a race as inherently evil, then there is a moral logic to killing its young. This is of course both repellent as well as hard to imagine because there is absolutely no parallel to this in real life. I think Rich is deliberately showing the contrast between black and white, old school DnD morality vs a more realistic situation wherein the goblins are not monsters but rather just another bunch of folks trying to get along. It's like the Guard exists in one moral universe, the goblins in another.

[hamishspence]

the same moral logic was used by the people defending V after Familicide- who argued that if his motive hadn't been revenge, it would have been a Good act-

a few innocent half-dragons dying being massively outweighed by the amount of harm all those dragons would have done if they hadn't been killed.

[Optimystik]

Actually, the original post is about the gods and their creation of races to be killed, not the Sapphire Guard.

The gods and the Sapphire Guard are inextricably tied - because they are the only logical reason the Paladins did not insta-fall.


the same moral logic was used by the people defending V after Familicide- who argued that if his motive hadn't been revenge, it would have been a Good act-

a few innocent half-dragons dying being massively outweighed by the amount of harm all those dragons would have done if they hadn't been killed.

And, very interestingly might I add, Familicide - and only Familicide - was the act that came closest to damning V according to Orange Fiend. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

[veti]

Wait, though. Certainly a D&D world has an objective definition of 'good' and 'evil': if you want to know if somebody is evil, you cast Detect Evil, and then you find out, no problem.

But who's giving out Detect Evil spells? The cosmos? No, the gods!

Yes! Precisely! And that means that Good and Evil aren't "objective" at all, they're defined by the whim of the gods. One god might decide that a certain artifact should trigger a "Det Evil", while another might think that the same artifact should count as "Good". And that's why you need some kind of cosmic referee, to make the definitions have some kind of meaning.

Incidentally, in 1e/2e AD&D, the great majority of evil people and monsters in the world wouldn't actually ping a "Det Evil" spell at all. You had to be high-level, or magical, or something before you qualified as "really" Evil. If you were relying on the party paladin to tell you whether there were goblins on the other side of the door... you were setting yourself up for a nasty surprise.

[hamishspence]

Know Alignment worked though.

[Ghostwheel]

Yes! Precisely! And that means that Good and Evil aren't "objective" at all, they're defined by the whim of the gods. One god might decide that a certain artifact should trigger a "Det Evil", while another might think that the same artifact should count as "Good". And that's why you need some kind of cosmic referee, to make the definitions have some kind of meaning.

Incidentally, in 1e/2e AD&D, the great majority of evil people and monsters in the world wouldn't actually ping a "Det Evil" spell at all. You had to be high-level, or magical, or something before you qualified as "really" Evil. If you were relying on the party paladin to tell you whether there were goblins on the other side of the door... you were setting yourself up for a nasty surprise.

In addition to magical and/or powerful, the early editions also included, iirc, "intent to commit" an evil act. This was a pretty large hole that allowed DM's a lot of discretion, for better or worse.

[SPoD]

I realize that the topic has drifted from the OP, but I just wanted to answer the original question:

The goblins (and other humanoids) were created by consensus of all three of the remaining pantheons. Each pantheon contains Good gods, Neutral gods, and Evil gods. Therefore, the non-Good gods outnumber the Good gods, two to one. So it should be no surprise that they went with some major non-Good ideas during the creation process. The Good gods had to go along with them in order to avoid creating another Snarl.

It's not really that complicated.

EDIT: If it makes no sense that the evil gods would support making evil cannon fodder races, consider that these are the gods of evil humans (and likely evil demihumans like drow and duergar), not of evil humanoids. The goblins don't have any deific representation until that Dark One shows up. Heck, the evil gods may have thought that creating goblins may take the pressure off their evil followers by giving paladins something else to smite!

[Optimystik]

The goblins (and other humanoids) were created by consensus of all three of the remaining pantheons. Each pantheon contains Good gods, Neutral gods, and Evil gods. Therefore, the non-Good gods outnumber the Good gods, two to one. So it should be no surprise that they went with some major non-Good ideas during the creation process. The Good gods had to go along with them in order to avoid creating another Snarl.

That's a very interesting explanation - out of fear for their creation, the Good gods were forced to choose a lesser Evil.

That doesn't sanction the paladins, but it does mitigate the goblins' creation - slightly.

[Ancalagon]

That's a very interesting explanation - out of fear for their creation, the Good gods were forced to choose a lesser Evil.

Especially if they knew (from bad experience) what serious arguments among gods can create. Imagine the goblines being created being "snarled". Each goblin carries a small snarl of god-dissent in them... so the god gods had to roll with it instead of coming up with some better (more good) option.

[Kish]

Though I have seen claims that in 1st ed, slaughtering the children of "evil races" was perfectly acceptable- on a "nits make lice" justification.
I've seen people claim that, but never support it. Myself, I can only think of one 1ed book which gave the PCs a chance to attack orc noncombatants--Ruins of Adventure--and it specified "huge alignment penalties for this slaughter of defenseless beings" if they chose to do so.

[Snake-Aes]

There's also the uncanny amount of "Evil" in the demographics of such beings, which osrt of appeased them, I suppose.

[hamishspence]

I think it was Gygax's threads on what Good characters are supposed to do with prisoners, that gave me the idea.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

Found it- pages 6, 7, and 8 have most of it.

[Optimystik]

I think it was Gygax's threads on what Good characters are supposed to do with prisoners, that gave me the idea.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

Found it- pages 6, 7, and 8 have most of it.

Yes, I recall you and Roland having this discussion before. I never did put as much stock in Gygax as some. :smalltongue:


Especially if they knew (from bad experience) what serious arguments among gods can create. Imagine the goblines being created being "snarled". Each goblin carries a small snarl of god-dissent in them... so the god gods had to roll with it instead of coming up with some better (more good) option.

I'm not so sure goblins carry "snarl-stuff" even if they are a bone of contention. Isn't the Snarl's defining feature that it's made of unused reality threads?

[Kish]

I knew there was somethingthere wasn't anything I didn'tdid like about 1ed compared to later editions. (0AD&D? There wasn't such a thing, was there? Pretty sure it went from 0D&D to 1AD&D...)

[Ancalagon]

I'm not so sure goblins carry "snarl-stuff" even if they are a bone of contention. Isn't the Snarl's defining feature that it's made of unused reality threads?


It's a bit unsure what the snarl exactly is. It surely consists of unused threads of reality but it is also born from/created by strong dissent. Could "strong dissent" create unused strings? Would it create small snarls that break out and do "bad things"? I think we don't know and neither do the gods (there's no rule-book they could read and it's apparently something they did not make up themselves).
I thinkk the bottom line is: They did not find out and accepted the "non-goodish" side effects of the goblin-creation.

[Optimystik]

I knew there was somethingthere wasn't anything I didn'tdid like about 1ed compared to later editions. (0AD&D? There wasn't such a thing, was there? Pretty sure it went from 0D&D to 1AD&D...)

Don't get me wrong, the man is brilliant and a pioneer, but I'm also kind of glad he had nothing to do with writing BoED. :smallamused:

[hewhosaysfish]

Most mythologies don't seem to explore this too much. I remember reading one somewhere (I forget which one - Bronze Age, I think, maybe Sumerian?) where the local deity actually issued evil orders on purpose, child-killing I think it was, just to see who would really go ahead and do it, then countermanded those orders at the last minute; he seemed to value obedience over conscience. Tends to support the 'It's good because I say so' school of theology, rather than 'I say so because it's good'.


We should perhaps stay away from this example, because it is not from an obscure dead religion. It's actually quite a famous one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac)


OT:
The internal logic of the gods' descision vis a vis goblins cannot be explained because there is none.
It can only be explained by factors outside of the narrative: specifically the tropes of DnD and Rich's intention to deconstructed (or, often, to lampoon them).

"Good" in the Stickiverse is defined as "concern for the life and dignity of sentient (sic) beings" because that is how the DnD rules define the Good alignment.
Paladins may slaughter goblin babies who can really be held accountable for much worse than a few dirty nappies. and yet maintain their Paladin status (and pristine Good alignment) because that is the common portrayal of goblins, paladins and Good (or at least its the common perception of the common portrayal).
That these two facts are inconsistent is (according to my reading) an entirely deliberate part of Rich's work.

[pjackson]

The gods and the Sapphire Guard are inextricably tied - because they are the only logical reason the Paladins did not insta-fall.


Incorrect. There are other possible reasons which have been given in this forum on earlier occasions.

[Kish]

Incorrect. There are other possible reasons which have been given in this forum on earlier occasions.
"They didn't Fall because they didn't do anything evil" has been given on this forum multiple times. But it's insupportable, and always has been; even if it didn't fail on its own lack of merits, Rich's commentary makes it clear that that's not what he's going for.

[Optimystik]

Incorrect. There are other possible reasons which have been given in this forum on earlier occasions.

Hence the qualifier "logical."

[hamishspence]

Don't get me wrong, the man is brilliant and a pioneer, but I'm also kind of glad he had nothing to do with writing BoED. :smallamused:

There are a few people that insist BoED is bad because of things like "you may not kill noncombatants of evil races" and "you must take people prisoner, if they surrender- and you may not kill them out-off-hand."

Still, its less common than it was. These days, complaints about ravages/afflictions, and Sanctify the Wicked, are commoner as far as I can tell.

as to 0D&D and 1st ed AD&D- some of the earliest editions of Basic D&D, had more in common with AD&D, than the later editions, which presented it as the first stage of a series (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters)

For one thing, it had 5 alignments- LG, CG, LE, CE, N.

A bit like 4th ed in that respect. Only 4E simply had "Good" and "Evil" instead of CG and LE.

[snafu]

We should perhaps stay away from this example, because it is not from an obscure dead religion. It's actually quite a famous one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac)

Ah yes, that was the one. Apologies for mixing up my deities; although looking up the actual story, it seems the protagonist was actually from Ur, and so that's my excuse for remembering it as Sumerian :-)

[hamishspence]

"They didn't Fall because they didn't do anything evil" has been given on this forum multiple times. But it's insupportable, and always has been; even if it didn't fail on its own lack of merits, Rich's commentary makes it clear that that's not what he's going for.

Yup- some of the reasons given included:

"not evil because, to protect the world, almost any act is justified"
"not evil because the goblins are Complete Monsters, even the young"
"not evil because leaving the young goblins alive would have meant their dying of starvation, which is worse"

And so on.

[Optimystik]

Most of which were put forth by David Argall as I recall :smallsigh:

[hamishspence]

yes- on trawling through the SoD discussion thread

(which I've linked to, in my most recent post to the main discussion thread index)

I am reminded of these "reasons why their acts were not evil" - and the heavy insistance that the crayon strips, because they were being recounted by Evil beings, were unreliable by definition.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Most of which were put forth by David Argall as I recall :smallsigh:

Whatever happened to that guy?

[hamishspence]

No idea- I think he stopped posting near the end of the second "was Roy morally justified"- haven't seen any posts by him since.

[Selene]

... and thus in your sleep-deprived state, you've put your finger on the very nub, crux, essence, core, kernel or other central feature of the problem. Kudos.

There is no visible sign of an "overdeity" in the Stickverse, nor in many other D&D universes. But the rules of D&D assume a set of laws - the infamous "objectively defined good and evil" - that only makes sense if there is such a being. (You can come up with moral definitions that don't require one, but you can't explain why those definitions have any force or effect in the world.) So this being is required to make a coherent universe.

It's possible that, in the Stickverse, the Snarl is in fact the Overgod.

Hmm... ok, it's not because I was half asleep, then. It's because I'm an atheist. Question answered. Thank you. :smallsmile:

[joeaverage]

Setting aside the snarl, why would good gods create a world at all?

The only reason I can see is for entertainment. But the more good a world is, the less fun it is to watch(note that basically all fiction has some kind of conflict.)

Thus, the world could be as good as it can be, while still being interesting. Monsters have souls and an afterlife, for example(the black dragon etc.) So how bad is it really to send someone to that afterlife by killing them? Didn't the black dragon mother actually say she was with her family up there?

[Mystic Muse]

Even if you knew an afterlife existed I imagine you'd still complain if somebody slaughtered your neighborhood/city Children and all.

[Alex Warlorn]

Setting aside the snarl, why would good gods create a world at all?

The only reason I can see is for entertainment. But the more good a world is, the less fun it is to watch(note that basically all fiction has some kind of conflict.)

Thus, the world could be as good as it can be, while still being interesting. Monsters have souls and an afterlife, for example(the black dragon etc.) So how bad is it really to send someone to that afterlife by killing them? Didn't the black dragon mother actually say she was with her family up there?

I'd say down there since her son was willing to kill trespassers who stumbled into his home mostly by accident and the Order of the stick was -retreating- the last panel we saw before the fight started so he pursued or cut off THEIR escape, and his mother was willing to murder two kids and deny them an afterlife who had no involvement in the entire thing.

I just wish V would wake up and ask their local cleric for an Atonement spell already.

[Raging Gene Ray]

I just wish V would wake up and ask their local cleric for an Atonement spell already.

Will an Atonement Spell invalidate the Fiends' claim on V's soul?

[Mystic Muse]

Will an Atonement Spell invalidate the Fiends' claim on V's soul?

That would be a no. At least it doesn't say it would in the description of the spell.

Fiendish contracts wouldn't be used nearly as often if Atonement worked like that.

[hamishspence]

According to Fiendish Codex 2- it will, but only if actual acts of atonement (not just the spell) are done, and if V apologizes to the beings wronged, as well.

[Asta Kask]

Well, I'm sure the ABD would accept an apology... :smallwink:

[Kish]

Even tracking down all the dragons (and half-dragons) s/he murdered to apologize to them would be quite an undertaking for non-spliced Vaarsuvius.

[Kareasint]

Even tracking down all the dragons (and half-dragons) s/he murdered to apologize to them would be quite an undertaking for non-spliced Vaarsuvius.

They could hold a group meeting. Tiamat would preside over it.

As Judge, Jury and Executioner.

[snafu]

They could hold a group meeting. Tiamat would preside over it.

As Judge, Jury and Executioner.

That sounds fair, actually. If V intends true atonement, then after the conclusion of her quest, perhaps she should go and turn herself over to the dragons. Penance often involves freely accepting a just penalty for one's transgressions. If V intends to atone towards some Lawful alignment, then she should surely permit justice to be done to herself.

[SaintRidley]

That sounds fair, actually. If V intends true atonement, then after the conclusion of her quest, perhaps she should go and turn herself over to the dragons. Penance often involves freely accepting a just penalty for one's transgressions. If V intends to atone towards some Lawful alignment, then she should surely permit justice to be done to herself.

I think V's transgression was more on the Good-Evil axis than the Law-Chaos axis.

[Ancalagon]

Will an Atonement Spell invalidate the Fiends' claim on V's soul?

As I see that spell, it's "something" that was formed into rules and that comes after the real atonement (deeps, thoughts, repenting). The spell exists so player and DM don't have to argue if there was enough "atonement" or not. If the DM allowed it to get successfully cast (some NSC even agreed to cast it for a given character)... then there was.
This becomes important when class-abilities are tied to it and it also makes an awesome climax of any storyline you played in the last six weeks/months that were about that character who wants to atone for some misdeeds.

No matter how serious you play that out in your game:

"Doing something bad" -> "Regretting" -> "Spell" -> "All good again" isn't how it should work (in my opinion).
It should be "Doing something bad" -> "Regretting" -> "Actually working for redemption and actually LIVE according to it" -> "Spell" -> "All good again".

The joke (or actually, the intersting thing!) is that you can afterwards argue if your behaviour BEFORE the spell was the reason for the redemption or that puny spell cast by that cleric-guy.

Just plastering "atonement" on a character who did something bad quickly before breakfast should not work out as hoped (if you even find a willing cleric for that). This comic here really seems to belong to the "D&D in a morally more complex way"-works so it's unlikely Atonement alone would "fix" the problem with the "planes in the more ventral position" for Vaarsuvius.

[hamishspence]

Champions of Valor goes into some depth on this subject- stressing there is nothing that special about the spell- or the level of cleric able to cast it.

If V puts the real effort in, V might not need the spell- but it's strongly stressed in Fiendish Codex 2 that it's the effort that's important.

[Ancalagon]

Good that books support "how it should be". Someone wrote, printed, and sold it. Thus: it must be important and correct, no? ;)

[hamishspence]

If the Someone is WoTC, rather than some third party source, it does suggest that they take a similar approach. :smallamused:

[Ancalagon]

Not necessarily. I find the that what I wrote above about the Atonement makes sense - even before I knew there's some book that says something similar.
I'd still think that'd be "the approach" even if The Wizard didn't publish it. Or even if he published something that says the opposite ("get the spell and everything is fine"). ;)

[hamishspence]

Its more a "maybe WoTC has better ideas about alignment than a lot of people think" point.

We'll have to wait and see if this sort of thing comes up in the strip- will V try to atone? And will it simply be by asking for the spell? And how hard will it really be?

[Raging Gene Ray]

Will an Atonement Spell invalidate the Fiends' claim on V's soul?

Pointing out that this was a rhetorical question. I know an Atonement Spell won't help V's case. V could become Good aligned, behave like a saint and personal work to correct everything she did wrong in the past, it won't make a difference.

I personally don't like the idea of an Atonement spell, but I know why it's necessary. Like Ancalagon said, it prevents arguing with the DM and can bring up the player and DMs real-life views on morality.

Then again, it shouldn't be as simple as having an Atonement-bot around to throw a spell on you so your character can do the same Evil (or Good, depending on the deity they're atoning to) acts over and over again.

[TriForce]

Its more a "maybe WoTC has better ideas about alignment than a lot of people think" point.

We'll have to wait and see if this sort of thing comes up in the strip- will V try to atone? And will it simply be by asking for the spell? And how hard will it really be?

maybe its also "maybe WotC is the ones DEFINING alignment in anything DnD based" also, V is atoning as far as i can see.. not into directly apologizing to to the black dragons ( that would amount to the shortest atonement attempt EVER, not to mention that he would be atoning by trying to help a 99.9% evil race) but by actually changing his/her look on life, as you can see, he definatly learned from the experience and is (starting to) making less selfish decisions in life.. THAT is atonement, a apology isnt

[Optimystik]

He doesn't have to apologize to the Black Dragons, or even to Tiamat... but perhaps a visit to the "nice green dragon girl" to explain why her boyfriend is a pile of dissolved ashes may be in order at some point in the future.

[Darkhands]

I think it was Gygax's threads on what Good characters are supposed to do with prisoners, that gave me the idea.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

Found it- pages 6, 7, and 8 have most of it.

Wow, some good stuff in that thread. Particularly this bit:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=197789#p197789


A character can certainly have a differentiation from the nine primary alignments. A LnG Pc for example, or a NlG, the lower-case indicating the propensity towards the second alignment while remaining in the main one. For example NlG= Neutral (with a leaning towards lawfulness) Good.

Cheers,
Gary

The alignment-mongers would do good to remember that. Heck, one of the points the entire OOTS comic tries to make is: "Alignment is not set in stone".

[hamishspence]

That's been a common theme in D&D for a while- "tendencies" were mentioned in 2nd ed books as well as earlier ones.

Sudden changes of alignment have always been rare- 3.5 ed DMG stresses that they are the exception, rather than the rule (but still possible).

[Alex Warlorn]

That sounds fair, actually. If V intends true atonement, then after the conclusion of her quest, perhaps she should go and turn herself over to the dragons. Penance often involves freely accepting a just penalty for one's transgressions. If V intends to atone towards some Lawful alignment, then she should surely permit justice to be done to herself.

Except the ABD proved one things. Dragons don't believe in justice, they believe in revenge. Any death sentence V got handed when he was mentally and emotionally exhausted and had three evil spirits screaming in his ears, wouldn't be passed on him or JUST him, it would be on just about every elf who was even V's most remote relative, or, to carry the ABD's logic, those who had been FRIENDS of the elves who had been even remotely related to V.

Dragon's sense of self superiority means that "since dragons are better than anything else alive, any crime committed against me shall be also take into account that this crime has been against a superior being."

Tiamat didn't just want one good dragon dead for evil black dragon gone, she wanted FIVE TIMES the number of corpses.

[Conuly]

Except the ABD proved one things. Dragons don't believe in justice, they believe in revenge.

Meanwhile, those dragons? They're saying the same things about elves - this whole escapade proves that elves don't believe in justice, they believe in incredibly disproportionate retribution.


Any death sentence V got handed when he was mentally and emotionally exhausted and had three evil spirits screaming in his ears, wouldn't be passed on him or JUST him, it would be on just about every elf who was even V's most remote relative, or, to carry the ABD's logic, those who had been FRIENDS of the elves who had been even remotely related to V.

We haven't seen dragons do that. The only person we've seen do that is, well, an elf. Sure, sure, V was under a lot of stress - but the ABD wasn't? I've been under stress, I've yet to kill even ONE being, much less a quarter of a species! Or are these some sort of special rules where we make exceptions for "good" characters but none of them for "evil" ones, where being good means that the actions you take are right, even if objectively they're wrong?