V may have killed more black dragons in 639 than he thought [Archive]

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 09:38 AM

its possible that even the non-bereaved will react with rage, seeing it as an "affront to dragonkind" that so many were killed all at once- by a "puny humanoid".

Hehe, thanks. That's what I wanted to add to this all the time.

Given how dragons are described in D&D (powerful and VERY aware of that, proud, arrogant, egocentric) it could happen that not only black but all dragons feel "as annoyed as Tiamat was" about all this.

That Vaarsuvius plan was utterly stupid in the first place is such a no-brainer that I find it pointless to even mention it. The whole mess started when Vaarsuvius killed one dragon and another wanted revenge. Now he killed dozens and hundreds and thinks the problem is somehow solved...?

(And THAT leaves out the theories about Girard being related to some black dragon and thus Vaarsuvius had eliminated a possible powerful ally. "Karma just called and you are in big trouble").

As much as I like to see a happy ending for all our heroes (apart from Belkar, who is no hero)... I so hope that Vaarsuvius is going to hell for that dragon-stunt. In fact, I doubt he can evade it. What story would that be? Rich makes this point that it is NOT ok to commit genocide on a whole race just because of what they are (it's in the books' comments) and then suddenly the end does justify the means? I'm not seeing that happen... which is good. ;)

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 09:46 AM

If V does evade it, it will probably require something major.

DStP makes it pretty clear V's act is wrong- question is- will V change and grow enough, and atone enough, to make up for it?

Asta Kask

2010-03-08, 10:01 AM

Of course, saving the world from a god-eating abomination may make up for a whole lot...

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:06 AM

If V does evade it, it will probably require something major.

DStP makes it pretty clear V's act is wrong- question is- will V change and grow enough, and atone enough, to make up for it?

Well, we can assume Vaarsuvius is going to safe the world and stuff.

I honestly think: Something like that should not be makeupable. There are some things that you simply don't do - and if you do them, you are doomed.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:08 AM

ScottishDragon

2010-03-08, 10:10 AM

A quarter of all black dragons is at least worth a quarter of all elves.

But do the dragon's want to risk this happening again?they know one epic level spell can kill 1/4 of thheir numbers,do they want to risk this happening again?maybe a few elves know that lots of dragons were killed,but if the black dragons kill 1/4 of the elves,the elves are gonna get angry.The dragon's proboably know this,so to me it seems safer to kill all the elves instead of 1/4.

Kish

2010-03-08, 10:16 AM

And that a large portion of the readers will say "Yes- V's done enough to not be counted among the damned."
A large portion of the readers already say, "V hasn't done anything wrong, much less to be counted among the damned." Whether Vaarsuvius can make up for what s/he did in the eyes of the author and/or people who do condemn Vaarsuvius for it is another question.

But do the dragon's want to risk this happening again?they know one epic level spell can kill 1/4 of thheir numbers,do they want to risk this happening again?maybe a few elves know that lots of dragons were killed,but if the black dragons kill 1/4 of the elves,the elves are gonna get angry.The dragon's proboably know this,so to me it seems safer to kill all the elves instead of 1/4.
Argh. No. That kind of escalation is what Vaarsuvius did to bring us here. The only way to be completely "safe" is to eradicate all life. As long as you're not willing to do that, escalation increases danger, it doesn't decrease it. Killing all the elves would draw the negative attention of everyone who thinks any of their deaths was a bad thing: humans, dwarves, metallic dragons, that Wyrm red dragon whose plan to conquer the kingdom of Nowhere with the aid of an epic-level elven necromancer just got derailed...

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:21 AM

If V dies in the process (without losing soul to The Snarl) and it's clear they couldn't have won without V's willing sacrifice, I suspect most of V's bad karma will have been made up.

And that a large portion of the readers will say "Yes- V's done enough to not be counted among the damned."

Problem is, there are examples where there's no real turning back. Like "Turning into a Lich". That's a one-way ticket to deprivation.

Similar, genocide should be something where you simply have to pay the bill afterwards. "It might be worth to kill 100 to save ten thousand and you might not get punished by the law for it - but you are still guilty!"

But I know that Rich as moved himself into a tricky position with that and the "smartest" solution would be to leave the ultimate fate of Vaarsuvius' soul open so everyone could be happy with his or her interpretation. But I'm not sure if I'd like such a (non-)solution. Personally, I'd rather go for a "definite" version, even if it's the one I don't like. Thing is: No matter what he does (V is saved, V is damed, the fate is left open)... people will be disappointed.
Let's see how it turn out in the end. ;)

Darakonis

2010-03-08, 10:23 AM

Of course, saving the world from a god-eating abomination may make up for a whole lot...

Not really.

Hypothetical:

I inhabit the world. If the world gets destroyed, I'm dead. So I want to save the world. If I do save the world, it's because of selfish reasons (i.e. saving my own butt). The fact that I saved the lives of everyone on the world is secondary, and was not my intention.

All falls back to the Ends Justify the Means -- except this time, it is good means for a selfish end, instead of the usual evil means for a good end.

Peace
-Darakonis

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:26 AM

the difference being, that if V has to die in the process, the only selfish bit is "dying to save V's children, spouse, friends"

Which, while arguably selfish, is still self-sacrificing enough to be deemed a "redeeming act"

A bit like Darth Vader dying to save his son. He knew the lightning bolts would kill him- and acted anyway.

Asta Kask

2010-03-08, 10:28 AM

Of course, in the crack pairings thread we'd just polymorph V into a dragon and set him to repopulate the species. Would that count as an act of atonement?

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:31 AM

FC2 does have a "if you're theoretically damned, but genuinely repentant, you get reincarnated with a second chance" rule- the Hellbred.

Maybe something like that could happen?

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:32 AM

I honestly think that "dieing for a cause" in such a world is not enough. Death is too cheap.

In the real world, "death" is the ultimate sacrifice and thus counts for "a lot". But in a world where your soul just gets to a nice resting place or might even get ressurected, where the "death" is not "the end" or "the oblivion for everything that you are" (no offense to people who believe in RL-souls!) - it's simply not worth that much.

And surely not the "ultimate reason for redemption".

No, just "sacrificing himself" won't do the trick for Vaarsuvius. Letting his soul be unmade would do the trick... yet there would be nothing to redeem anymore. Uggh...

To ilustrate this: Just see how Rich had to move around the fact that "death is not final and as hard as death in the real word" in the case of Miko. He chose to simply ignore it and end the story with the death of Miko - just as he'd done in a story without afterlives. But here, it causes certain... complications that could only be solved by "telling the story as it is great - and ignore the possible complications". He cleaned up the fact that yes, Miko goes to her afterlife but no, she's not redeemed.
But that won't do for Vaarsuvius.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:35 AM

The Hellbred thing might be a viable compromise.

Dying heroically would prove V's repentance, allowing V to qualify for Hellbred (or nearest equivalent) but at the same time, V doesn't get an afterlife right away- but has to still quest for redemption.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:36 AM

Yes, it would be.

But - personally - I still think: There is no compromise with genocide involved.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:41 AM

D&D characters far "eviler" than V have eventually achieved redemption, though it usually takes a long time. Lord Soth, of Dragonlance, is one example.

We'll have to see how it turns out.

If it's a Kick The Dog of large proportions, V might have a chance.
If it's a Moral Event Horizon, V might not. :smallamused:

Optimystik

2010-03-08, 10:45 AM

I think apologies and restitution might be enough penance (coupled with an atonement spell - maybe administered by the Oracle via a scroll?) to set him straight again. Since Mama and her entire family are dead, the next best recipient of such will be the green dragon girl.

Rich has a habit of mentioning things like that offhand, only for them to be Chekov's Guns later - Mama herself was one such "throwaway" reference.

As an added bit of poignance, green dragons and elves are supposed to be natural enemies - giving V another hurdle to surmount in trying to prove his repentance.

-Sentinel-

2010-03-08, 10:57 AM

Wait, some people actually want Vaarsuvius to suffer for his deeds? :smalleek:

Frankly, i'm seriously hoping that a most of the elven race is wiped out in retaliation and they rub in in V's face.
You're part of the problem, not the solution :smallannoyed:. Thankfully, such a thing won't happen: this story is about goblins and a lich trying to free a god-like monster, not about the Elven race getting exterminated by dragons. Write a fanfic about it if you like.

I think it's the dragon mother who's responsible for the escalation: she's the one who turned it into a vendetta by involving innocent people. Vaarsuvius was later only trying to protect his family, and he knew the only way to do so was eliminating anyone who could threaten them and warning others not to screw with them.

One could of course argue that Vaarsuvius mostly wanted vengeance (not the safety of his family), but in the dragon mother's case, there's nothing to argue: she clearly tried to kill V's family only for her own satisfaction. The only difference is that she failed where V succeeded; it's the intent that counts, not the deed.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 11:02 AM

it's the intent that counts, not the deed.

If that was the case, Miko would not have fallen- her intent was to protect the city from someone she believed to be a villain untouchable by the law.

Optimystik

2010-03-08, 11:06 AM

it's the intent that counts, not the deed.

It is quite clear that both count in D&D.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 11:09 AM

It is quite clear that both count in D&D.

Pretty much. Depending on the DM, trying to commit murder may not rate as high, as actually succeeding.

Conversely, unintentionally killing someone may not rate at all- unless negligence can be shown, or the killing was connected to some other moral offense- like unneccessary violence.

TriForce

2010-03-08, 11:11 AM

A quarter of all black dragons is at least worth a quarter of all elves.

Also, it should be noted that V started the conflict thinking that "I'm an adventurer, that means i can get away with anything without consequences, including invading people's homes and killing them because they have something i want"

Guess what V. If it's okay for you to just walk in and start killing like that, then it's okay for the dragon to do the same thing.
But V does not agree, oh no, V is the only one who is allowed to do so.
V HAS THE GALL TO GET ANGRY OVER SOMETHING HE/SHE HAS DONE HIMSELF!?
Wut? Filthy hypocrite much?

Yes, i'm pissed off, big time :smallfurious:

please, it were black dragons, even taking in account that they are not all evil, 99% of all black dragons and relatives ARE, while in the real world anything like this is frowned upon or condemned, im D&D anything with a evil alignment is fair game. it really not unreasonable to say the stckverse is a MUCH safer and better place becouse of the death of all those black dragons, regardless of what they were doing at the time of the familicide. why V did it, or how, is not really that important if you see what the results are

Kish

2010-03-08, 11:16 AM

please, it were black dragons, even taking in account that they are not all evil, 99% of all black dragons and relatives ARE, while in the real world anything like this is frowned upon or condemned, im D&D anything with a evil alignment is fair game. it really not unreasonable to say the stckverse is a MUCH safer and better place becouse of the death of all those black dragons, regardless of what they were doing at the time of the familicide. why V did it, or how, is not really that important if you see what the results are
Remarkably (or, depending on viewpoint, extremely predictably), Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party makes it abundantly obvious that he doesn't see it that way. And is somewhat distressed that he needed to make a case against genocide (his italics).

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 11:17 AM

In some versions of D&D they might be "fair game" but not in OoTS- certainly not at this kind of scale.

This has already been brought up earlier in the thread:

Rich makes this point that it is NOT ok to commit genocide on a whole race just because of what they are (it's in the books' comments)

"the results are what's important" is not really valid in D&D anyway. "The ends justify the means" is a mindset that tends to lead to evil, according to the splatbooks- especially Champions of Ruin.

Interestingly, the "results" based reasoning is applied to Kubota in the book. While it is a dubious act, and described as "another step on V's path" its also phrased as:

"ultimately, the greater good was served by V eliminating an actual threat to innocent lives"

So, it was an evil act with good results- a step further toward evil for V, but not a huge one.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 12:47 PM

please, it were black dragons, even taking in account that they are not all evil, 99% of all black dragons and relatives ARE, while in the real world anything like this is frowned upon or condemned, im D&D anything with a evil alignment is fair game.

That's what I keep blubbering about. D&D does not HAVE to be that simple. And OotS made on several cases pretty clear (incomic as well as outcomic (commentaries)) that it is one of the cases where it is not that simple.

Face it: What you just wrote simply does not apply to OotS. We even have the Forces of Evil (IFCC) comment on that. We have Word of God comment on that.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 12:49 PM

So, it was an evil act with good results- a step further toward evil for V, but not a huge one.

Hehe, only in comparison to the other deeds from Vaarsuvius. If it was not for the familicide or the disregard of his family for YEARS (which is, in a certain way, more to condemn than the murder of an villian as Kubota!) that killing would stand out more.

As it is it blends in with all the other questionable, slightly evil, or clearly evil things Vaarsuvius has done. And that tells a lot about the character.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 01:12 PM

yup- though before Familicide and the appearance of V's family (and finding out V was more than a little neglectful) it was the standout moment-

causing almost as much outcry (of approval and disapproval) as Familicide did later.

Holy_Knight

2010-03-08, 01:49 PM

Not to mention that he is now likely on the radar of other chromatics as well, especially that "nice green dragon girl" whose boyfriend's death started all this.

Just a minor point, but do we know that they were actually a couple? Or just that the potential was there?

If V dies in the process (without losing soul to The Snarl) and it's clear they couldn't have won without V's willing sacrifice, I suspect most of V's bad karma will have been made up.
The problem here is that it has nothing specifically to do with the reason he needs repentance. Morality isn't like checks and withdrawals, where you can make up a "debt" of evil as long as you sufficiently "refill your account" with enough deposits of good. To have a chance at redemption, Vaarsuvius would need to do something which serves to directly make reparations for what he actually did--for instance, like researching some sort of spell to somehow reverse or undo the familicide.

Conuly

2010-03-08, 02:04 PM

Remarkably (or, depending on viewpoint, extremely predictably), Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party makes it abundantly obvious that he doesn't see it that way. And is somewhat distressed that he needed to make a case against genocide (his italics).

And he's had other characters say it in the comic, but who reads THAT?

So, it was an evil act with good results- a step further toward evil for V, but not a huge one.

Both the fiends (who think that this gives them a good chance of getting V's soul) and the... winged good guys in heaven (who think that this is a dramatic and disturbing turn towards evil) disagree with you.

Perhaps this would not have been a huge step further towards evil for Belkar, or for Xykon, who are already so evil that even great misdeeds would barely blip on the radar. But it's a huge step for just about anybody else.

Douglas

2010-03-08, 02:08 PM

Both the fiends (who think that this gives them a good chance of getting V's soul) and the... winged good guys in heaven (who think that this is a dramatic and disturbing turn towards evil) disagree with you.

Perhaps this would not have been a huge step further towards evil for Belkar, or for Xykon, who are already so evil that even great misdeeds would barely blip on the radar. But it's a huge step for just about anybody else.
He was referring to V killing Kubota. The fiends and celestials opinion was about the Familicide and accepting the Soul Splice.

Deliverance

2010-03-08, 04:27 PM

Similar, genocide should be something where you simply have to pay the bill afterwards. "It might be worth to kill 100 to save ten thousand and you might not get punished by the law for it - but you are still guilty!"

Strictly speaking, why should genocide be something where you simply have to pay the bill afterwards, rather than getting away with it as it most commonly the place in real life?

Is it your feeling that genocide is so awful that narrative imperative demands it be punished, because you believe that stories should feature a strong karmic element, because you believe it to be the nature of the D&D universe, because you believe that the only myth arcs with protagonists committing atrocities that are worthwhile are those where the protagonist atones, or something else entirely?

There are many story arcs in which being punished for committing an atrocity is integral, but surely it is a sad thing we have come to if it is deemed necessary for any good story arc involving atrocities to follow that particular archetype.

Optimystik

2010-03-08, 04:58 PM

Just a minor point, but do we know that they were actually a couple? Or just that the potential was there?

We don't know much of anything - any more than we knew "another dragon lives in this cave" was supposed to mean his much more powerful mother at the time that offhand comment was made.

But my money is on Rich mentioning that for a reason.

Skeppio

2010-03-08, 05:11 PM

Frankly, i'm seriously hoping that a most of the elven race is wiped out in retaliation and they rub in in V's face.

Hey V! It's your fault that your species is now on the brink of extinction! Hope you are happy! BECAUSE IT'S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT! :smallfurious: *Punches V in the face, jumps on top of V and starts punching repeatedly*

Seriously, i'm really hoping that happens, just to make V suffer.

We have so much to discuss. I too hope V suffers for his/her crimes. The genocidal monster must be punished! Here's hoping V's entire bloodline is vanquished before his/her very eyes. Karma's a *&$#!, eh V?

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 05:13 PM

Strictly speaking, why should genocide be something where you simply have to pay the bill afterwards, rather than getting away with it as it most commonly the place in real life?

The simple answer is: Because in D&D, you DO have a soul and there is an afterlife where your soul gets the bill for what you did in real life.

Vaarsuvius did an utterly pointless drive-by genocide (something that does not even exist in RL!) and thus is damned.

Yes, there are stories of redemption but as I look at Vaarsuvius I'm really not seeing it being one of those. This is more a story of damnation.

And, remember, this is the simple answer I write late in the evening before going to bed, there are other deeds for which you should be damned at once and without a real option for redemption (unless it becomes a truely MAJOR point in the story).
Making someone love you with the intent to make him do something truely bad for you and then laughing at him and killing him -> evil beyond redemption in a story.

And please, don't bring RL into this. We are talking about stories and RL in these regards is way too depressing.

Thrawn183

2010-03-08, 05:45 PM

I think the real issue here is that everyone is looking at this as a +/- situation, redemption vs. damnation. Well guess what, in D&D their happens to be a middle ground, neutral. Did V take a huge step towards evil? Yes. Could that forever bar him from true redemption? Possibly. Could that forever bar him from.... neutral? I doubt it.

Remember when Roy died and the whole point of deciding what happened to his soul was that while he wasn't always good, he always tried? What is V doing now? Looking around and going, "Oooooh, this isn't exactly what I wanted, time to get back on the neutral band wagon."

veti

2010-03-08, 05:47 PM

Yes, there are stories of redemption but as I look at Vaarsuvius I'm really not seeing it being one of those. This is more a story of damnation.

I see V as entirely redeemable. (So do the IFCC, going by their estimation of their chances of getting her soul.) If she shows that she's learned from the whole Soul Splice episode, makes personal amends and sacrifices for the greater good, then I'd say she should get away with pleading that she wasn't in her right mind when she did that isolated act.

Among the things Real Life lacks, is a way of committing genocide on the spur of the moment. You pretty much have to put a lot of work and planning into it, so it becomes hard to plead "temporary insanity". That's just another reason why it's not the same in-'verse.

Making someone love you with the intent to make him do something truely bad for you and then laughing at him and killing him -> evil beyond redemption in a story.

That would describe Kubota's treatment of Therkla.

Fitzclowningham

2010-03-08, 06:19 PM

If that was the case, Miko would not have fallen- her intent was to protect the city from someone she believed to be a villain untouchable by the law.

I hesitate to mention it, but a case could be made that Miko fell because her action was chaotic, rather than evil. She believed she was doing good and protecting the gate/the order/Azure City from what she thought would be further harm. She was ill-informed and a tad demented, but she deliberately went around the legal procedures that would have dealt with Shojo's transgressions, even as Hinjo clearly was about to invoke them.

Kish

2010-03-08, 06:20 PM

"True redemption demands that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds. That you atone for the actions that caused the Twelve Gods to turn away from you. That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong. You have done none of this."

The Twelve Gods part obviously isn't applicable. However. Vaarsuvius has expressed regret over driving away his/her mate, over taking his/her familiar for granted. Over not bothering to control his/her temper in stores.

S/he has never shown the least sign of remorse for any of the dragons s/he killed. If s/he was informed that the Familicide put his/her immortal soul in danger, I would expect his/her response to be a more verbose version of, "Bwuh? But they were black dragons!" Rich may, possibly, have a way of changing that that wouldn't seem fake and forced with the character of Vaarsuvius as s/he has always been, but that's not the way I'm going to bet. Right now, I devoutly hope his/her immortal soul is headed straight to Hades, where it belongs.

Halna LeGavilk

2010-03-08, 06:26 PM

People made the case earlier that death of the protagonist isn't that big of a deal, as Resurrection and the like are very common spells, especially amongst high-level spellcasters such as Dragons. That, combined with their massive hoards of cash, it would be a sacrifice, but the dragons could bring back all their people.

That, I think, is why it's not as evil as it might be- it's not a permanent thing, more of a huge, huge inconvenience/problem.

Woodsman

2010-03-08, 06:32 PM

People made the case earlier that death of the protagonist isn't that big of a deal, as Resurrection and the like are very common spells, especially amongst high-level spellcasters such as Dragons. That, combined with their massive hoards of cash, it would be a sacrifice, but the dragons could bring back all their people.

That, I think, is why it's not as evil as it might be- it's not a permanent thing, more of a huge, huge inconvenience/problem.

The problem is, dragons cast as sorcerers, who don't get Resurrection on their spell list.

And most dragons wouldn't be willing to give up their hoard for others. Not the evil ones, at least.

Kish

2010-03-08, 06:35 PM

People made the case earlier that death of the protagonist isn't that big of a deal, as Resurrection and the like are very common spells, especially amongst high-level spellcasters such as Dragons.
Where are you getting this? Yes, Resurrection exists. Does that mean that death isn't permanent in the vast majority of cases? Does that make death an "inconvenience"?

That line of argument doesn't hold up to the comic. Of all the people who have died, only three are alive now. One is the protagonist of the comic, one is the all-seeing Oracle, and one was right next to the main villain of the comic when he died. And if Vaarsuvius expected all (or any!) of the dragons s/he killed to be resurrected, then killing them in the first place was even more suicidally stupid. "Knowing that I will cease to be a horrific epic-level fusion thing shortly and that one ancient black dragon was more than I could ever have handled on my own, I hereby enrage a quarter of all the black dragons in the world!"

LuisDantas

2010-03-08, 07:43 PM

V would have put his family in danger by killing Mama Black Dragon, which he did.

He made that danger considerably greater by teasing and humiliating said Dragon, not to mention bringing her back as an undead, severed head.

Up until that point, a fair case could be made that he acted in defense of his family, and that the excessive sadism was a spur-of-the-moment thing.

But then he commited Familicide, and it hit the fan with full force. Regardless of "percentages of evil", regardless of how close to killing all black dragons or all relatives of that black dragon he was, V [i]lost all moral ground and gave plenty enough reason to be thought of as a dangerous killer by anyone sufficiently informed.

Anyone who thinks that it would be "safer" to go all-out and kill every extant Black Dragon is simply not thinking it very throughly at all. People who gain a reputation as dangerous killers are never safe, much less when they make a point of not caring about any innocents that may turn out to simply have the wrong relatives.

Even if, say, the Red Dragons had some reason to feel completely safe from Vaarsuvius (and I can't think of any, really), it is neither natural nor wise for them to simply ignore the deed. Murderers and other criminals must be challenged, so that they don't begin to believe that they were within their rights. And to think that Dragons of any color would simply retreat in fear from a single Elf defies both their known character and simple basic strategical thought. To admit fear is to embold one's enemies and therefore to have even more reason to fear. The Dragons would NEVER do that, nor should they.

V better not even think about "defending" himself by killing all other chromatic Dragons, either - that would only make his situation even more hopeless.

When the chips are down, V's future will unavoidably involve either his death (or at least Epic-Level hiding) or some very dramatic (and public) display of repentance. There are simply no other possibilities.

LuisDantas

2010-03-08, 07:47 PM

If that was the case, Miko would not have fallen- her intent was to protect the city from someone she believed to be a villain untouchable by the law.

That was one of her intents. Hardly the main one. By the time of her death she was clearly on a crusade to rescue her own ego above all else.

Halna LeGavilk

2010-03-08, 08:08 PM

The problem is, dragons cast as sorcerers, who don't get Resurrection on their spell list.

And most dragons wouldn't be willing to give up their hoard for others. Not the evil ones, at least.

They could hire clerics. Or suggestion or dominate. Not difficult.

Then why should V be worried at all? They don't care enough to spend some cash to get their loved ones back- why hunt him down, when he could, for all they know, kill them quite easily. We know that the dragons care enough about their loved ones to pursue a vendetta will hunt people down, and likely the only reason that the child wasn't resurrected was that he had been disintegrated.

Where are you getting this? Yes, Resurrection exists. Does that mean that death isn't permanent in the vast majority of cases? Does that make death an "inconvenience"?

That line of argument doesn't hold up to the comic. Of all the people who have died, only three are alive now. One is the protagonist of the comic, one is the all-seeing Oracle, and one was right next to the main villain of the comic when he died. And if Vaarsuvius expected all (or any!) of the dragons s/he killed to be resurrected, then killing them in the first place was even more suicidally stupid. "Knowing that I will cease to be a horrific epic-level fusion thing shortly and that one ancient black dragon was more than I could ever have handled on my own, I hereby enrage a quarter of all the black dragons in the world!"

For epic black dragons, not even including their allies and subjects, I would assume that resurrection was possible, at least for a few of them.

Well, yes, but that's because the comic has focused a lot on characters that don't have access to resurrection or similar spells quite often. It's even shown, in comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0487.html), that the concept at the very least exists in-universe.

And don't forget that he was in a power-rush. He probably wasn't thinking about it very clearly when he did it. And if he was expecting a counter-attack, it was just as stupid!

Zexion

2010-03-08, 08:30 PM

V won't get beaten up, because no one is going to mess with the guy (or girl) that killed up a quarter of the world's black dragon population with on spell.

DeltaEmil

2010-03-08, 08:47 PM

V won't get beaten up, because no one is going to mess with the guy (or girl) that killed up a quarter of the world's black dragon population with on spell.Whait if those who are concerned know, because their god(dess) tells them to do, and she knows that the elf-dude who casted that spell can't do it anymore, because one of the powers that be who granted him that ability works together with her and answers to her?

LuisDantas

2010-03-08, 09:43 PM

V won't get beaten up, because no one is going to mess with the guy (or girl) that killed up a quarter of the world's black dragon population with on spell.

Sorry, that is simply not how it works. Not in the real world, and even less so in a D&D world. Being powerful and dangerous is very much a call sign for people to challenge you.

LuisDantas

2010-03-08, 09:46 PM

They could hire clerics. Or suggestion or dominate. Not difficult.

Then why should V be worried at all? They don't care enough to spend some cash to get their loved ones back- why hunt him down, when he could, for all they know, kill them quite easily. We know that the dragons care enough about their loved ones to pursue a vendetta will hunt people down, and likely the only reason that the child wasn't resurrected was that he had been disintegrated.

You are assuming ressurrection to be a fairly banal thing, where it is clearly not at all meant to, even in OOtS-world.

Besides, even assuming your point to be valid, it still does not mean that V shouldn't be worried. Buildings may be reconstructed in the real world, but Arson is still far more than just an "inconvenience".

Debatra

2010-03-08, 11:41 PM

I agree with your point, but that's not quite true; you're forgetting that pretty much the entire Thieves' Guild were killed and then raised.

Actually, Haley reneged on the deal. Still, if you had enough diamonds, it could be done on that kind of scale.

Then again, who's to say that Familicide isn't like Disintegrate or Finger of Death, in that Resurrection spells don't work on people killed by them?

Nimrod's Son

2010-03-08, 11:45 PM

You just had to go and quote me seconds before I remembered I was wrong and deleted the post, didn't you? :smallredface:

Fishman

2010-03-09, 12:00 AM

As an added bit of poignance, green dragons and elves are supposed to be natural enemies - giving V another hurdle to surmount in trying to prove his repentance.I don't recall anything about green dragons and elves being natural ENEMIES. I mean, do we consider chickens our natural enemies? Of course not! They taste delicious! So while the elves may not be terribly fond of green dragons, I imagine green dragons probably rather like elves. We like chicken, right?

blunk

2010-03-09, 12:22 AM

Herald Alberich

2010-03-09, 12:30 AM

Seriously, trying to make a moral point in a D&D-type universe is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa in crayon. You just don't have the tools you need to shade the picture properly.

And yet that is clearly what Mr. Burlew is attempting to do, with stick figures and crayons, no less. His Good and Evil outsiders, as well as the author himself in commentary, consider V's act evil. The morality of his victims is not a factor; not a large one, anyway.

PallElendro

2010-03-09, 12:35 AM

You see, Vaarsuvius was in an extreme manner of anger (or minor annoyance) where he/she decided that after all that his/her family was about to be in, he/she decided to wipe out the black dragon's relatives. I could have imagined it better as crippling of their vitals rather than death, seeing as that was what happened to V's family, but hey. More Power > Power.

Oh, and Vaarsuvius wiped out 1/4 of the world's black dragons. And sadly, to my paladinhood, 5 Good Dragons/ black dragon must suffer. I feel horrible. And angry. Chaotic Neutral elf, my ***.

Raging Gene Ray

2010-03-09, 12:44 AM

Oh, and Vaarsuvius wiped out 1/4 of the world's black dragons. And sadly, to my paladinhood, 5 Good Dragons must suffer. I feel horrible. And angry. Chaotic Neutral elf, my ***.

5 Good Dragons? You DO know that it's going to be 5 Good Dragons for EACH black dragon killed. That's got to be at least in the double digits.

Iamyourking

2010-03-09, 12:52 AM

Something I can actually see happening would be dragons enacting revenge on V. Not the black dragons though, the red ones. You see, red dragons have very large egos and opinions of themselves and by extension take their pride and status seriously. All it takes is one red who thinks he could gain status by killing a personal enemy of his goddess, which he surely would, and who views a mass slaughter of blacks the same way we would machine-gunning a village of Amazonian primitives, maybe morally reprehensible but not exactly difficult, to take out a V who is currently in no position to defend hirself.

Aldrakan

2010-03-09, 12:53 AM

Addressing the original point, Vaarsuvius' estimate was apparently based on black dragon reproductive habits. If one includes half-dragon descendants in species that are more fertile the number could well be higher. And we did see multiple hybrids in the death montage.

Shale

2010-03-09, 12:54 AM

The comic showed 62 black dragons being killed. If that was every single death caused by Familicide - which strikes me as unlikely - that's 310 Good dragons that will eventually die if the IFCC lives up to their bargain.

Fish

2010-03-09, 07:21 PM

All I can say is, when Belkar dies and gets to Hell, it's gonna be crowded with recently deceased black dragons who are gonna want him to start 'splaining some stuff.

TriForce

2010-03-09, 07:47 PM

Genocide, schmenocide. D&D morality is not real-world morality, and you can't apply one to the other.

In this world - where "good" and "evil" are complete inventions - we'd be frightened that someone used such power so unwisely, call V's act "genocide", then proceed to strip her of her power as best we could.

In the D&D world - where "good" and "evil" are codified into its morality - V killed a bunch of evil creatures, thus was simply very efficiently "good". Go Team Good!

Seriously, trying to make a moral point in a D&D-type universe is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa in crayon. You just don't have the tools you need to shade the picture properly.

thank you, this is exactly my point

indeed, rich tends to make his world a mix of dnd morality and dnd morality. its his good right, its his comic, his story, his world. however, hes a horrible hypocrite if this is his way of thinking imho. lets make a few basic assumptions.

1: all black dragons are evil
this is a dangerous assumption, since even in dnd rules there are exceptions and we only have seen 2 black dragons in the entire comic, however, in all the creatures we have seen in the stickverse, NONE of the creatures with a "always X" alignment have had a different one then listed (to my memory) so its safe to say it wont be different for black dragons

2: killing a mass murderer is a good act
this should not be a large discussionpoint. if roy slays xykon, its a good act, and that should not be different for other people

3: alignment is a combination of both actions and intentions
as the deva pointed out, roys actions point him to neutral good, but his intentions to stay lawful is what gave him bonus points

putting all 3 together is that V killed a LOT of black dragons, his intentions were either cruelty or vengeance, but his ACT resulted in the death of a lot of evil aligned creatures. now asides from the eggs, every single one of those dragons would likely have killed a lot of innocent beings, and those eggs would have done so when they grew up, according to assumption no 1.
V performed the largest good act we have seen on the comic, with (in the worste case) evil intentions. that would still make him neutral, plus, he seemed to start regretting his previous behaviour against others, and his overuse of his power. so, rich may say its a horrible evil act, but all V did is equal to 60 times the slaying of xykon. something none of us would condemn

Kish

2010-03-09, 07:58 PM

thank you, this is exactly my point

indeed, rich tends to make his world a mix of dnd morality and dnd morality. its his good right, its his comic, his story, his world. however, hes a horrible hypocrite if this is his way of thinking imho. lets make a few basic assumptions.

1: all black dragons are evil
this is a dangerous assumption, since even in dnd rules there are exceptions and we only have seen 2 black dragons in the entire comic, however, in all the creatures we have seen in the stickverse, NONE of the creatures with a "always X" alignment have had a different one then listed (to my memory)

In other words, Sabine is established Chaotic Evil, and Qarr and the devil he summoned Lawful Evil? (Hint: A maximum of one of these statements is true.)

so its safe to say it wont be different for black dragons

Wow, Sabine and Qarr are powerful examples.

2: killing a mass murderer is a good act
this should not be a large discussionpoint.

Yet people defend Vaarsuvius, so apparently, it is.

3. Just punishment necessarily requires the people being punished to have done what they're being punished for. This should not be open to debate either, yet, somehow, people express incomprehension of this idea all the time--suggesting, for example, that killing an infant because "it would probably have grown up to be a mass murderer" is an act of good.

Oh, for the benefit of anyone who reads this thread and hasn't read this in Don't Split the Party:

Vaarsuvius finds him/herself at the dragon's mercy because he/she never thinks to take precautions against her, despite knowing that the dragon he/she killed shared a home with another. Vaarsuvius then repeats and amplifies this misconception when he/she casts the custom-made familicide spell, essentially speaking for all players who say, "All monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill." But hopefully when the reader sees the scale on which Vaarsuvius carries out the devastation, the error of this thinking is more obvious. If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons.
Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I felt the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much.

Morthis

2010-03-09, 09:19 PM

Actually, Haley reneged on the deal. Still, if you had enough diamonds, it could be done on that kind of scale.

Then again, who's to say that Familicide isn't like Disintegrate or Finger of Death, in that Resurrection spells don't work on people killed by them?

Are you thinking of raise dead? You can definitely resurrect someone who died from disintegrate, it even says so in the spell description for resurrection.

A quarter of all black dragons is at least worth a quarter of all elves.

Also, it should be noted that V started the conflict thinking that "I'm an adventurer, that means i can get away with anything without consequences, including invading people's homes and killing them because they have something i want"

Guess what V. If it's okay for you to just walk in and start killing like that, then it's okay for the dragon to do the same thing.
But V does not agree, oh no, V is the only one who is allowed to do so.
V HAS THE GALL TO GET ANGRY OVER SOMETHING HE/SHE HAS DONE HIMSELF!?
Wut? Filthy hypocrite much?

Yes, i'm pissed off, big time :smallfurious:

...

How can someone get that worked up over fictional characters? I realize we have a tendency to get attached to fictional characters in the same way we do real ones (which is why movies can be emotional), but that's pretty crazy.

Anyway, killing an evil black dragon that attacked them. This is pretty much textbook what adventurers do. In a typical D&D setting, adventurers kill evil stuff and evil stuff kills anything it doesn't like. So in that sense, V had every right to kill the young dragon, the mother, or the entire line of offspring, and any one of those dragons had every right to kill V, the children, or anything else. The thing is, oots likes to point out how silly and unfair those notions are. In fact, it's one of the major plot devices (the goblin equality).

Did V have the right to kill the young dragon? He probably shouldn't have, although it is at least understandable to a point. The mother's reaction, though, is completely out of line. If she killed V, well V had that coming. However, going after V's spouse and children, and intending to soul bind them, which is just about the most horrible fate someone can suffer in the D&D world, that's an insane escalation, and exactly what lead to V overreaction when he was in a position of power. I highly doubt V would have used familicide if the dragon had only attempted to kill him. Ironically, if the dragon had simply done a "fair" eye for an eye, none of this would have happened because V would have easily been defeated before he could make a faustian bargain.

veti

2010-03-09, 10:57 PM

How can someone get that worked up over fictional characters? I realize we have a tendency to get attached to fictional characters in the same way we do real ones (which is why movies can be emotional), but that's pretty crazy.

I don't think anyone is "attached" to the dragons that only ever appeared in a single frame for the express purpose of dying dramatically. I can imagine them being extremely mad at Vaarsuvius, though.

Anyway, killing an evil black dragon that attacked them. This is pretty much textbook what adventurers do.

Never mind "evil". If something attacks you, you don't wait to cast "detect" spells at it before striking back. Would they have done anything differently if it had been a copper dragon?

I think the whole case goes deeper than people think. The original black dragon was only defending its home, and the whole OOTS participated in killing it and gleefully looting its lair. The only reason they had to believe it was "evil", or a fair target, was the fact that it was a black dragon.

But if that's enough to excuse Roy, Haley and Durkon in that case, why isn't it good enough to excuse V later on? Familicide shocks us by its scale, but really it's just the same thing times 62. If each of those deaths was culpable, then so was the original one, and Roy et al share that guilt.

Sir_Elderberry

2010-03-09, 11:34 PM

Here's the thing. The Order was attacked by a dragon. They fought back, and killed it. At this point, everyone's really in the clear. Yes, the dragon was "just trying to defend its home", but since it spoke Common, it could have easily tried to negotiate first, then start killing people. Try shooting the next person who steps onto your property. See what the judge says.

Afterwards, Mama Dragon comes after V. This is wrong, because murderous revenge is wrong and the original "crime" was pretty justifiable. Nonetheless, from Mama Dragon's perspective, it's understandable, and I can see at least having an argument about whether or not Mama Dragon was within her rights--you almost get into cultural relativism here, as far as dragons go.

Now, Mama Dragon goes after V's family. This is a pretty much indefensible action. V's family poses no threat to any dragons, black, copper, or otherwise. V's family has done no wrong to Mama Dragon or her ilk. "An eye for an eye"? Uh, no. The death of one creature in self defense vs. the death (and soul binding!) of a helpless baker and two children doesn't make sense, and justice isn't a matter of balancing deaths like that. The result of the Nuremburg trials wasn't "Let's kill six million Germans, and things will be even."

Next, V makes the deal with the fiends. This is...probably wrong? It's hard to tell, really, and depends how you feel about ends-based versus means-based morality. Making a deal with fiends is captial-e-Evil, but I don't know that it's inherently little-e-evil. Whatever. The fact that V bargained away some of V's time--as a high-level spellcaster on a quest to save the world who will be in critical positions in the coming months--would be evil, but the impression I got was that V thought those minutes occurred after V's death, rather than control later. This is more an error in judgment than actual evil, imo, but it's slippery.

Next, V kills Mama Dragon. I don't think anyone has a problem with this, as it saved the souls of several innocents.

Next, V resurrects Mama Dragon and commits Familicide. This is DEFINITELY wrong. Mama Dragon--and only Mama Dragon--threatened V and his family. The other black dragons were more or less out of the picture, and we have no reason to assume otherwise. V just killed a bunch of people for no reason other than to make a point. The only argument I've heard supporting this is that most black dragons are themselves Evil. This is true, but I don't think "killing an Evil creature" is necessarily a Good act. Imagine that the person casting that spell was a red dragon, seeking to eliminate competition. Would it still be Good because Evil creatures were the target? Was V's motivation any better?

The subject of redemption is a touchy one. Personally, I'd like to see V be redeemed. I suppose it comes down to whether alignment is an attitude or a sum of your actions. If it's just a sum of actions, I'm not sure V can do quite enough to be pulled back from that sort of "debt" (an awful way to think of morality), although Rich may surprise us. But as for attitude, I think V has already shifted somewhat. V was willing to sacrifice V's family for the sake of "the mission", and that sort of thing might be enough to get her a neutral ending (I don't think I ever really saw V as Good...not enough altruism).

Snake-Aes

2010-03-10, 04:57 AM

Here's the thing. The Order was attacked by a dragon. They fought back, and killed it. At this point, everyone's really in the clear. Yes, the dragon was "just trying to defend its home", but since it spoke Common, it could have easily tried to negotiate first, then start killing people. Try shooting the next person who steps onto your property. See what the judge says.

The dragon did not speak common. It spoke Lizard.

Afterwards, Mama Dragon comes after V. This is wrong, because murderous revenge is wrong and the original "crime" was pretty justifiable. Nonetheless, from Mama Dragon's perspective, it's understandable, and I can see at least having an argument about whether or not Mama Dragon was within her rights--you almost get into cultural relativism here, as far as dragons go.

She's a dragon. Anything a dragon wants is within the dragon's rights for a dragon. It's revenge, and it's overdone, simple like that.

Now, Mama Dragon goes after V's family. This is a pretty much indefensible action. V's family poses no threat to any dragons, black, copper, or otherwise. V's family has done no wrong to Mama Dragon or her ilk. "An eye for an eye"? Uh, no. The death of one creature in self defense vs. the death (and soul binding!) of a helpless baker and two children doesn't make sense, and justice isn't a matter of balancing deaths like that. The result of the Nuremburg trials wasn't "Let's kill six million Germans, and things will be even."

Next, V makes the deal with the fiends. This is...probably wrong? It's hard to tell, really, and depends how you feel about ends-based versus means-based morality. Making a deal with fiends is captial-e-Evil, but I don't know that it's inherently little-e-evil. Whatever. The fact that V bargained away some of V's time--as a high-level spellcaster on a quest to save the world who will be in critical positions in the coming months--would be evil, but the impression I got was that V thought those minutes occurred after V's death, rather than control later. This is more an error in judgment than actual evil, imo, but it's slippery.

It was wrong. There's no point in capitalizing evilness there. The fiends themselves made sure V knew he wasn't on his last alternative.

Next, V kills Mama Dragon. I don't think anyone has a problem with this, as it saved the souls of several innocents.

Next, V resurrects Mama Dragon and commits Familicide. This is DEFINITELY wrong. Mama Dragon--and only Mama Dragon--threatened V and his family. The other black dragons were more or less out of the picture, and we have no reason to assume otherwise. V just killed a bunch of people for no reason other than to make a point. The only argument I've heard supporting this is that most black dragons are themselves Evil. This is true, but I don't think "killing an Evil creature" is necessarily a Good act. Imagine that the person casting that spell was a red dragon, seeking to eliminate competition. Would it still be Good because Evil creatures were the target? Was V's motivation any better?

The subject of redemption is a touchy one. Personally, I'd like to see V be redeemed. I suppose it comes down to whether alignment is an attitude or a sum of your actions. If it's just a sum of actions, I'm not sure V can do quite enough to be pulled back from that sort of "debt" (an awful way to think of morality), although Rich may surprise us. But as for attitude, I think V has already shifted somewhat. V was willing to sacrifice V's family for the sake of "the mission", and that sort of thing might be enough to get her a neutral ending (I don't think I ever really saw V as Good...not enough altruism).
Everything about the soul splice arc was about V's selfishness and pride making him commit horrible deeds. The ending of the arc brought a major shift in attitude, too.

DeltaEmil

2010-03-10, 05:04 AM

The dragon did not speak common. It spoke Lizard.It was able to speak common, when it warned the order that it would start eating them if Durkon didn't return the elf back to his original form.

Aside from that, as I've heard, Texans are allowed to shoot people immediately who trespass on their property. And are allowed to kill strangers in their neighbours house if they suspect they're robbers or something like that.
At least, that's the common urban legend about Texas.

GoC

2010-03-10, 05:20 AM

I honestly think that "dieing for a cause" in such a world is not enough. Death is too cheap.
I'd like to note that that includes the dragons' deaths. Mama dragon seemed fairly happy in the afterlife, I've no idea why she was so upset about V killing all her relatives.

Remarkably (or, depending on viewpoint, extremely predictably), Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party makes it abundantly obvious that he doesn't see it that way. And is somewhat distressed that he needed to make a case against genocide (his italics).
What's always wrong in our world (ie. genocide) isn't always wrong in other worlds due to different circumstances (think Demon). Though that is totally besides the point as V did not commit genocide.

We have so much to discuss. I too hope V suffers for his/her crimes. The genocidal monster must be punished! Here's hoping V's entire bloodline is vanquished before his/her very eyes. Karma's a *&$#!, eh V?
You hope poor elf children die? Just to spite V?
If I thought you believed that in real life I'd be gearing up to hunt you right now.:smalltongue:

Sorry, that is simply not how it works. Not in the real world, and even less so in a D&D world. Being powerful and dangerous is very much a call sign for people to challenge you.
The two cold war superpowers disagree with you there.

Ancalagon

2010-03-10, 06:01 AM

I'd like to note that that includes the dragons' deaths. Mama dragon seemed fairly happy in the afterlife, I've no idea why she was so upset about V killing all her relatives.

I opened a new discussion for my answer (as I don't want to derail this thread).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144863

TriForce

2010-03-10, 07:36 AM

In other words, Sabine is established Chaotic Evil, and Qarr and the devil he summoned Lawful Evil? (Hint: A maximum of one of these statements is true.)

Wow, Sabine and Qarr are powerful examples.

Yet people defend Vaarsuvius, so apparently, it is.

well, first of all, i highly doubt sabine and quarr were neutral or good, and their lawful/chaotic is neither relavant nor clearly established for my assumption

and second of all, you can disagree with my assumptions, all im saying is that those are the assumptions i made, and that is the reason i think V did a good act

hamishspence

2010-03-10, 07:42 AM

Though that is totally besides the point as V did not commit genocide.

Destroying 1/4 of an intelligent species doesn't qualify?

It's actually called that in DStP- so it would appear The Giant disagrees with you.

Kish

2010-03-10, 08:11 AM

well, first of all, i highly doubt sabine and quarr were neutral or good, and their lawful/chaotic is neither relavant nor clearly established for my assumption

So you don't actually believe in your first assumption. For whatever it would be worth if you could establish that a grand total of three fiendish characters were their listed racial alignments anyway.

and second of all, you can disagree with my assumptions, all im saying is that those are the assumptions i made,

You said "lets make a few basic assumptions," and proceeded to argue for them. Not, "I'm making a few basic assumptions, which don't actually have any support and which I don't expect anyone to agree with, but which will explain why anyone who already agrees with me and disagrees with the author does so."

Morthis

2010-03-10, 12:29 PM

I don't think the point of the comic has been "creatures aren't always their listed alignment" but rather "just because it's evil doesn't mean you should slaughter it". We see this on multiple occasions. The whole goblin storyline revolves around it (since the goblins are most certainly still evil), and on the origin of PC's shows it as well, with Roy actually behaving in a way most adventurers would not. In that sense, I think Roy is meant to be a portrayal of how adventurers should act.

On the origin of pc's and SoD spoilers
Roy lets the ogres live when his party wants to simply kill them. The ogres are evil, the party was sent to kill them, they could have easily done so, yet Roy managed to find a peaceful solution. The paladin, who is supposed to be the embodiment of everything good, simply wants to kill them all. I think this is Rich's way of pointing out that alignment good and actual good can be two very different things.

What does that mean for V? Well, from a moral standpoint, his actions are questionable at best. Rich obviously intended for V's actions to be considered completely immoral. However, as the paladin example pointed out, that does not necessarily mean it was unacceptable from an alignment point of view. Good aligned creatures can kill evil aligned creatures all day long. This is even an important part of the story since the Azure paladins are free to slaughter goblin women and children without falling (which I would also consider an immoral act).

Sooo, what V did was horrible, but I'm not sure it's enough to cost him the afterlife, because of the clear distinction between moral good and alignment good.

veti

2010-03-10, 03:52 PM

Here's the thing. The Order was attacked by a dragon. They fought back, and killed it. At this point, everyone's really in the clear. Yes, the dragon was "just trying to defend its home", but since it spoke Common, it could have easily tried to negotiate first, then start killing people. Try shooting the next person who steps onto your property. See what the judge says.

I'm no lawyer, and of course I'm in a completely different jurisdiction from you, but... I'm pretty sure that if Someone breaks into my house, I shoot at him, he shoots back and kills me, then that Someone is looking at a murder charge. "Self-defence" is no defence when you're in the process of committing another crime - otherwise, bank robbers would be allowed to shoot at police.

And nobody, not even Durkon, raised the slightest objection to killing the black dragon. When the subject came up with Miko, she was reassured that its scales weren't shiny: :miko: "Then its destruction was just and necessary."

Now, I know we commonly think of Miko as having all the sound judgment and trustworthiness of a deep-fried hand grenade, but in this matter, at this point, she is speaking for us all. Everyone knows that non-shiny dragons are evil, and therefore fair game.

But when V takes that belief to the extreme, suddenly it's a crime?

What is it that makes killing one black dragon good, but killing 63 black dragons bad? What's the tipping point - is it okay to kill two black dragons with one spell? Three? Ten? Is this moral switch a sudden, binary thing, or does it fade gradually from Good through Neutral to Evil?

Is it the "self-defence" aspect? - the first black dragon attacked them, even though it was defending its lair. But then it spent several hours under lizard-V's control. The Order could have snuck away then, and been out of danger long before it recovered. (Okay, they'd have to talk V into telling the dragon to let them go, but they didn't even try; heck, it didn't even occur to them.)

Is it because the first one was up close and personal, while the bulk killing was done remotely? That's the strongest argument IMO, but even so it doesn't hold water. All the Order knew about the first dragon was that it was (a) black and (b) hostile; that was enough for them to justify killing it. V could make a reasonable case that those two things were true for all of the dragons she killed with Familicide.

I'm not saying V was "right" - that's a whole separate question. What I'm saying is that if we're going to condemn her for what she did, then we need to take a long, hard look at the MO of pretty much every (good-aligned) D&D adventuring party ever.

tl;dr > I think the Giant is making a deeper point here than most people seem to appreciate. If killing monsters is bad, then adventuring is inherently wrong.

Jayngfet

2010-03-10, 03:58 PM

I'm not saying V was "right" - that's a whole separate question. What I'm saying is that if we're going to condemn her for what she did, then we need to take a long, hard look at the MO of pretty much every (good-aligned) D&D adventuring party ever.

When you get right down to it, it doesn't really take that much to make any DND character not squeaky clean. Either way by the time you get to high levels you're killing any mook left and right, and given the problem of armor class the system usually has optomised players would barely need to make an effort to restrain over killing. DND morality is a joke for the reasons of: It's poorly worded, and that players are self centered jackasses. Actually reading the rules on "usually (blank) evil" would cause the genocide thing to seem much worse. Hell, familicide almost certainly killed the rare 1% of good black dragons and all good part dragons of that line. Just the "all part dragons of that line" think kind of breaks down the argument since they aren't always alignment in the first place. I can see a munchkin sorcerer taking heritige feats then getting instantly struck down here.

Asta Kask

2010-03-10, 03:59 PM

tl;dr > I think the Giant is making a deeper point here than most people seem to appreciate. If killing monsters is bad, then adventuring is inherently wrong.

That is why I take care to make the opponents in my games fairly unambiguously evil. Eating babies and stuff.

TriForce

2010-03-10, 04:13 PM

So you don't actually believe in your first assumption. For whatever it would be worth if you could establish that a grand total of three fiendish characters were their listed racial alignments anyway.

since i was talking about being evil or not, and we have seen nothing to suggest quarr and sabine do NOT have their listed alignments. im pretty sure im allowed to believe in my assumtion

You said "lets make a few basic assumptions," and proceeded to argue for them. Not, "I'm making a few basic assumptions, which don't actually have any support and which I don't expect anyone to agree with, but which will explain why anyone who already agrees with me and disagrees with the author does so."

if your counter to my opinion consists of critisizing my wording instead of actually comming with reasons why my opinion isnt valid, this isnt much of a discussion.

since im not the giant, anything i post is a opinion, not a fact

Herald Alberich

2010-03-10, 04:24 PM

It was wrong. There's no point in capitalizing evilness there. The fiends themselves made sure V knew he wasn't on his last alternative.

Nah, as pointed out later, their alternate plan was silly and highly unlikely to actually work. But V didn't take the deal because he realized that, he took it because it was his power and skill that were going to save his family, and not any groveling at the feet of some other authority (of course, he was doing that anyway, but that's another thing he didn't realize).

The point of the alternate plan was to rub V's face in it - the real thing he wanted was the power, for its own sake and not just to save his family. By making his intentions clear to him, the fiends helped ensure that taking the deal was more Evil than it would have been had V's reasons been solely altruistic, in my view.

Kish

2010-03-10, 05:00 PM

I'm not saying V was "right" - that's a whole separate question. What I'm saying is that if we're going to condemn her for what she did, then we need to take a long, hard look at the MO of pretty much every (good-aligned) D&D adventuring party ever.

That's something of an exaggeration. But most of them? Sure. (True story: Over on the Goblins forum, someone once said that he felt guilty now because he'd slaughtered the group of goblins you find imprisoned by an evil sorcerer in Neverwinter Nights. My response was, "You did? I just opened the prison door and left them alone. I can't think why I would have attacked them.")

Let me say, first, that we don't know who attacked first, between the Order and the young black dragon. It skipped straight from the darkness to a battle already in progress.

I was bothered that Vaarsuvius didn't try to talk to the dragon before starting with the magical attacks (Suggestions). At that point, I would not have thought it inappropriate for the comic to punish him/her for doing so, but his/her action was within tolerances for the Neutral alignment and the callous, trigger-happy type s/he had always been--at least as much so as responding to verbal insults with Quickened Lightning Bolt in a store. It moved to "clear-cut wrong" when s/he enslaved the dragon, held him prisoner for hours in order to bully his/her group with him, and then killed him. It moved to "horrific Xykon-level atrocity" you-know-where.

tl;dr > I think the Giant is making a deeper point here than most people seem to appreciate. If killing monsters is bad, then adventuring is inherently wrong.
No, but presupposing that someone's race can make them a legitimate target is. Do you suppose that's why it says in the Player's Handbook that judging races rather than individuals is a sign of being Lawful Evil?

One can still be a perfectly moral adventurer. It just requires thinking about things like, "What did this sapient being do? What evidence is there for it being evil?" and treating the goblin clan which has been raiding local caravans like a group of bandits, rather than a nest of vermin. (Or even asking questions like, "Between you and the goblins, who was here first? Have any efforts been made to talk to them?") And, from previous discussions on this topic, I gather that a number of players find any acknowledgment of such considerations being required to be good to be an incredible imposition that makes the game close to unplayable, though I can't begin to relate as it's something I've done almost reflexively for the entirety of my D&D-playing career.

veti

2010-03-10, 06:04 PM

That's something of an exaggeration. But most of them? Sure. (True story: Over on the Goblins forum, someone once said that he felt guilty now because he'd slaughtered the group of goblins you find imprisoned by an evil sorcerer in Neverwinter Nights. My response was, "You did? I just opened the prison door and left them alone. I can't think why I would have attacked them.")

Well, NWN makes for extremely simplistic morality. You click on something that's glowing red, you attack it; you perform exactly the same mouse-click on something that isn't glowing red, and you talk to it. It's designed for simple play, not thoughtful roleplaying.

I think those goblins attacked me when I opened their cage, but I couldn't swear to it, it's been a while...

One can still be a perfectly moral adventurer. It just requires thinking about things like, "What did this sapient being do? What evidence is there for it being evil?" and treating the goblin clan which has been raiding local caravans like a group of bandits, rather than a nest of vermin. (Or even asking questions like, "Between you and the goblins, who was here first? Have any efforts been made to talk to them?")

Whoa there, that's three very different standards. "Judging by alignment" != "looking for evidence of specific crimes" != "who has the most convincing territorial claim". If you had three groups of "moral" adventurers, one using each of these as their compass, they'd be at each other's throats within days.

Let's take a classic first adventure for a first-level party: villagers being attacked by kobolds. You set out to talk to the kobolds, but they attack you on sight. Are they (a) judging you by your race, or (b) judging you by the fact that you're heavily armed, you've just been talking to their enemy, and you're heading towards their home? If (a) then they're in the wrong and you're entitled to fight back; but if (b) then they're engaged in justifiable self-defence, and any of them you kill would be murder.

It might be possible to run a "moral" D&D party as you suggest - but I don't think I've ever heard of it being seriously attempted, much less seen it.

Kish

2010-03-10, 06:07 PM

Well, NWN makes for extremely simplistic morality. You click on something that's glowing red, you attack it; you perform exactly the same mouse-click on something that isn't glowing red, and you talk to it. It's designed for simple play, not thoughtful roleplaying.

I think those goblins attacked me when I opened their cage, but I couldn't swear to it, it's been a while...
Yes, the goblins are red, and will, I imagine, attack you if you go into Meldanan's prison for some reason. Beyond that...

Past experience on this subject has made me gun-shy of getting into a discussion about this, but I will say that if you make a good-faith effort to talk to the kobolds, and they attack you, either you're justified in treating that particular group of kobolds (not, note, "all kobolds everywhere") as the enemy (or "that particular group of humans," if they're humans, for that matter*), or the DM is trying to mess you up arbitrarily or make some contrived point, either about violence being impossible to justify ever or about it being necessary to "treat monsters as monsters." If the DM is doing any of those three things, I suggest looking for a new DM. For that matter, I would consider the DM not being prepared for questions like, "Do you know why the kobolds are attacking you?" a huge warning signal. (Also, when you say "judging by alignment," it conjures up images of detect-and-smite paladins--who I firmly believe should Fall like rocks, every last one of them. Even if, if, with the particular DM you're playing with, it's established that evil alignment requires the person with the alignment to be a serial killer, not a grouchy drunk, betting another sapient being's life on the accuracy of your as-easy-to-fool-as-any-other magical detection method is an Evil Act in my book.)

If you think Rich means his point and his clear condemnation of Vaarsuvius to be extended to, "...and Roy's equally bad," I think you're wrong. If you think he doesn't mean them to be extended in that fashion but we should anyway, well...I still think you're wrong. :smalltongue:

*For that matter, I find myself wondering what you thought about the Elk tribe of the Uthgardt in Chapter Three of NWN. They're presented as the enemy, then you find out, after perforce killing a lot of them, that they were actually the victims in the situation. The clearly indicated good option is to help them, the clearly indicated evil option is to side with Captain Dumas and finish wiping them out. Would you see the setup as meaningfully different if the Uthgardt had actually been goblins, kobolds, or orcs instead of humans? All my actions, thoughts, and reactions would have been exactly the same.

veti

2010-03-10, 06:47 PM

If you think Rich means his point and his clear condemnation of Vaarsuvius to be extended to, "...and Roy's equally bad," I think you're wrong. If you think he doesn't mean them to be extended in that fashion but we should anyway, well...I still think you're wrong.

Maybe not quite as simple as that. Personally, I believe that the attempt to import modern (by which I mean, post-Nuremberg) morality into a D&D universe is fundamentally wrong-headed, and in the hands of a thoughtful DM (such as Rich) leads to contradictions that would quickly make the game unplayable. (Unless, of course, you're willing to play as Belkar. I think that's why I like Belkar: whatever else he is, at least he's honest about it.)

I don't know where Rich is going or what point he will ultimately end up on, but I'm fascinated by the journey and I'm greatly enjoying his argument, whatever it ends up being.

Edit: Belkar, if you remember, lampshades (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html) the moral question very early on.

*For that matter, I find myself wondering what you thought about the Elk tribe of the Uthgardt in Chapter Three of NWN. They're presented as the enemy, then you find out, after perforce killing a lot of them, that they were actually the victims in the situation. The clearly indicated good option is to help them, the clearly indicated evil option is to side with Captain Dumas and finish wiping them out. Would you see the setup as meaningfully different if the Uthgardt had actually been goblins, kobolds, or orcs instead of humans? All my actions, thoughts, and reactions would have been exactly the same.

I found that episode deeply annoying, first time I played it. Unless you're forewarned, you're pretty much doomed to spill a whole lot of innocent blood there. But if you know what to expect, it's actually possible to get through without killing anyone. (Lots of rings and potions of Invisibility in that game.)

(And no, I don't consider the species - or, for that matter, the alignment - of the Elks to make any difference.)

What really annoyed me is that there's no option but to pay Dumas for his crime. There's no chance to intimidate or persuade him, and if you kill him, then the (innocent) soldiers at the fort turn against you.

Edit: Looking back now, I think the writers of NWN did a good job of highlighting the most basic problem with "us and them" morality. It's a shame they didn't do an equally good job of highlighting the problems with trying to replace it with something more meaningful, but that would have been a much bigger challenge.

Kish

2010-03-10, 06:58 PM

Maybe not quite as simple as that. Personally, I believe that the attempt to import modern (by which I mean, post-Nuremberg) morality into a D&D universe is fundamentally wrong-headed, and in the hands of a thoughtful DM (such as Rich) leads to contradictions that would quickly make the game unplayable.
Obviously, I disagree. And, in fact, while I've seen this asserted many times online and even on this board, I've never seen a good explanation of exactly why concerns like "why, as far as our characters know, are the villains the villains?" render a game unplayable. It's always either, "...because it does and everyone knows it, quit being difficult, okay?" or, "...because thinking about that crap is just no fun, and no, I'm not interested in considering the possibility that another player might find a simplistic hack-and-slash game no fun."

I remember the Belkar lampshading very well, particularly the way everyone glares at him for expressing what Rich made no bones on the forum at the time of considering a bankrupt morality. (Everyone, that is, except Vaarsuvius...hm, foreshadowing, or just character consistency with Rich having already decided that Vaarsuvius was the most likely other member of the Order to see value in Belkar's viewpoint?)

Of course, a game which is set up for thinking in terms of "why are the villains the villains?" requires everyone in the group to be on the same page. But so does a game which is set up for thinking in terms of, "See green skin and fangs, kill."

neriana

2010-03-10, 07:11 PM

There are games that are set up that do not ask "why are the villains, villains"? I don't think I've ever read a story that poor. I can't think of anything that would entice me to play a game that poor.

As for "post-Nuremberg" morality: no. I do not know where this all-too-prevalent idea that people almost always historically dealt with those who were in any way different from, or antagonistic to, them, by slaughtering them, comes from, but it is utterly false. (I think George R.R. Martin and, well, D&D might be partly to blame.) My professors call the 20th century "the bloody century" for very good reason.

Kirgoth

2010-03-10, 07:56 PM

veti

2010-03-10, 08:17 PM

Obviously, I disagree. And, in fact, while I've seen this asserted many times online and even on this board, I've never seen a good explanation of exactly why concerns like "why, as far as our characters know, are the villains the villains?" render a game unplayable. It's always either, "...because it does and everyone knows it, quit being difficult, okay?" or, "...because thinking about that crap is just no fun, and no, I'm not interested in considering the possibility that another player might find a simplistic hack-and-slash game no fun."

Well, let's go back to the villagers-and-kobolds example. You said that the kobolds' attacking you justifies you in "treating them as enemies", by which I presume you mean "using deadly force". So you fight the kobolds, kill a number of them, and eventually the survivors run off. Job done, you loot the lair and return to collect the XP for quest completion.

A couple of adventures later, you're 5th level, you encounter a kobold storyteller who tells you of the bitter wars between his tribe and the humans who have been steadily encroaching onto their land for generations. He has no idea who you are, but by asking him a few questions you put two and two together and figure out that the villagers were the aggressors all along, even if they didn't realise it themselves. You realise your "heroic first adventure" was in fact "acting as hired muscle in a sordid land grab". But you've got more urgent things to worry about now, there's this ogre mage who's putting together an army of zombies...

Upon even closer questioning, if you go that far, the kobold concedes that his tribe was the most successful kobold tribe in the area by dint of killing and oppressing at least six rival kobold tribes (any of which would undoubtedly have done the same to it if they'd been stronger).

At 12th level you do a little research on your own account, and learn that before the kobolds came to the land there was a thriving lizardman culture there. And according to the lizardman mythology, such of it as survives, they encountered a mysterious race of sentient talking sponges, which equally mysteriously disappeared at some point in the distant past - possibly killed off by some disease or environmental change introduced by the lizardmen...

My point is: unless you're prepared to say "Here and now, this is Us and that is Them" - morality is a very, very murky business, and it can be not just difficult, but actually impossible to get to anything that could meaningfully be called "the bottom" of a set of rival claims.

You may think this example is unnecessarily contrived and made up just to make the moral dimension murkier, and to an extent it is. But it's also not unrealistic: our real world is full of examples very much like it. The history of civilisation is the history of one culture supplanting another, often violently. Sometimes one side is clearly evil - it conducts mass human sacrifices, it enslaves and tortures its rivals, whatever; and sometimes one side that is (on the whole, big-picture-wise) mostly better than the other, acts in a reprehensible way (e.g. by infecting its enemy with horrible diseases, or by encouraging its settlers to move into the other side's land despite promising to stop them). But much of the time, there's very little to choose between them. It's sheer folly to think you can impose some sort of "absolute morality" into such a world.

Kish

2010-03-10, 09:16 PM

You may think this example is unnecessarily contrived and made up just to make the moral dimension murkier, and to an extent it is.

I may, in fact, think your entire example demonstrates, not a story with morality, but a DM going out of his/her way to screw over the players.

And, as such, either misses or dodges the point, that it's no harder to run a campaign where the PCs think about the morality of their actions than it is to run one where anything with green skin and fangs exists to be killed. A DM can come up with a Chinese Boxes display of "you were the bad guys/no they were the bad guys/no they were the bad guys," sure. A DM can do that equally easily with or without granting any nonhuman moral standing, actually. A DM can also, with a great deal less effort than what would go into writing this history for the PCs to discover, tell a group of genocidal racists, "You're now all Evil," as soon as they kill a goblin without any more reason than, "It's a goblin." And is that what you meant by "highlighting the problems with trying to replace it with something more meaningful"--that NWN didn't throw the kind of screw-the-players tripe at you that exists in your example?

How does "We might do something wrong" moral paralysis make more sense in D&D than it does in real life? Or do you think people should refrain from doing anything in real life because it might be wrong?

I see the assertion that "X doesn't work in a D&D campaign" as, functionally, having the same support requirements as the assertion, "X doesn't work in a fantasy story." Maybe you see stories as so fundamentally different from games that this makes no sense, or maybe you also think morality doesn't belong in fantasy stories. Either way. If you want to convince me that there's any truth at all to your claim that "the attempt to import modern morality into a D&D game is fundamentally wrong-headed, and...would quickly make the game unplayable," you're going to have to do a lot better than that. As it is, the closest I'll get is to add, "The DM can screw the players over if s/he tries" to the list of arguments I've seen that morality has no place in D&D.

GoC

2010-03-11, 03:37 AM

My point is: unless you're prepared to say "Here and now, this is Us and that is Them" - morality is a very, very murky business, and it can be not just difficult, but actually impossible to get to anything that could meaningfully be called "the bottom" of a set of rival claims.
QFT
That's why we have all these 50 page alignment debates.

lord_khaine

2010-03-11, 03:57 AM

To solve this would just take a single 13th level cleric of timat using resurrection on each corpse and within a month or two (1 or 2 a day) they would be all back in black. Including the ancient and her child originally killed. Then a bit of scrying type magic to find V and she will be facing 1/4 of the black dragons in the world all at once.

Fun times

All those dragons was killed at once and without even getting a save, do you really think that they would be stupid enough to try anything that would risk them ending their days as undead servants to the one that killed them originaly?

doodthedud

2010-03-11, 04:50 AM

Closak

2010-03-11, 05:57 AM

Kewpa

2010-03-11, 06:13 AM

V started it.
The dragon retaliates.
V takes revenge for that.

In order to make things even 1/4 of all elves have to die.

So if you excuse me, i'm off to kill elves! *Goes off to burn and kill elves*

V had no right to do what he did, HE STARTED IT FOR CRIVES SAKE!

If you think what V did was okay, then that means that it's okay for me to invade your home, murder you and take your stuff.
And it is also okay for me to brutally murder every single cop who tries to arrest me for it.

So...where do you live? Tell me so i can come over and do to you what V did, then when the police tries to arrest me i will kill them all, because according to your logic i am in my full right to do so.

DIE COPS DIE HAHAHAHAHA!!!

The matter is completely different, but it's clear your position is not changing.

Police officers are enforcers of justice and good. If you killed them you would be committing an evil act, and breaking into some persons house, as well, would be an evil act. So your comparison is weak.

As for V, he/she completely had the right to do what he/she did. MBD was the first to drastically escalate matters to include innocents. And not every one of those dragons were innocent. It's absolutely fair to say V's actions were unnecessary, but he/she was not calm enough to make rational decisions. His spouse and children were about to be tortured for all eternity! I doubt you'd think twice if you had the means to stop that, and retaliate in kind for threatening your loved ones.

On a side note, you seem pretty violent. Hypocrisy much? I digress.

Closak

2010-03-11, 06:20 AM

LuisDantas

2010-03-11, 07:36 AM

There are games that are set up that do not ask "why are the villains, villains"? I don't think I've ever read a story that poor. I can't think of anything that would entice me to play a game that poor.

As for "post-Nuremberg" morality: no. I do not know where this all-too-prevalent idea that people almost always historically dealt with those who were in any way different from, or antagonistic to, them, by slaughtering them, comes from, but it is utterly false. (I think George R.R. Martin and, well, D&D might be partly to blame.) My professors call the 20th century "the bloody century" for very good reason.

Nuremberg is an important mark of a new mentality, more global-oriented.

However, episodes such as the Christmas Truces of World War I strongly imply that at that time, at the very least, rampant xenophoby was NOT the norm.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/christmastruce.htm
http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

IMO (and I must remember that real-world politics is not really a valid subject matter for this forum) the military bloodbaths tend to be oriented more towards "the glory of nations" than ethnicities. WW I is nicknamed "The War of the End of the Empires" because it was the immediate cause of the realization of how poor a justification for hostilities national boundaries are.

LuisDantas

2010-03-11, 07:38 AM

I thought V's spell was suitable revenge.

No way. It was a sadistic, completely out-of-proportion, irreversible shame.

V really doomed himself (and probably many others as well) by commiting genocide.

Morthis

2010-03-11, 07:52 AM

I tend to use pretty harsh words to make a point when i'm upset.

I'm not actually very violent at all, though i can seem like it when i'm ticked off at something (I have been described as "All bark and no bite" simply because i can seem scary and yell loud but it takes a lot to make me actually attack someone)

Yeah, they call that an "internet tough guy", "armchair warrior", or other such terms. If every post you make on this topic can be summed up as DIE DIE DIE ELVES then there's really no point in discussing it at all, because you're not open to discuss it.

V needs to pay for his crimes, problem is that i can't think of any punishment that is proportional to what he did, so we just have to do the same thing he did and wipe out a quarter off all elves.
If it's okay for him then it damn sure is okay for others to do the same to him.

I'm sorry, but have you not noticed how pretty much every civilized nation in the world has a "fair" form of punishment (jail or execution) rather than the eye for an eye mantra? The reason is simple, with eye for an eye you risk only escalating the violence, which is exactly what happened here and how so many dragons ended up dead.

And the case with the police.
If they try to arrest me then they are trying to punish me for my crimes.
Look at V's reaction when the ABD tried to punish him.
V murdered her and a quarter of her entire species because he didn't want to accept his punishment.
If he is allowed to refuse being punished by killing those trying to punish him then it should be okay for me to do the same.

Well that's the issue here. If you commit a murder irl, the cops aren't going to gun down your family and tell you "Yeah, take that!" You would be punished for your action. You do not punish innocent bystanders. In the case with the ABD, it was not simply murder too, it was murder + soulbinding. Being stuck in a little gem permanently, with absolutely nothing to do or keep you sane for all eternity, that's just about the worst punishment you can inflict on someone, not even V deserved that for murder if we were following "eye for an eye", because it's clearly established the young dragon did go to an afterlife and the mother would meet the young dragon in said afterlife eventually.

If the ABD had simply killed V, she would have succeeded without even the slightest issue, V was clearly defeated. The problem is, she decided to escalate the chain of violence in a major way, and in doing so angered V to such an extend that he was willing to cast familicide. V might have been guilty of starting the original conflict, but both parties are guilty of escalating it.

Asta Kask

2010-03-11, 07:56 AM

Nuremberg is an important mark of a new mentality, more global-oriented.

However, episodes such as the Christmas Truces of World War I strongly imply that at that time, at the very least, rampant xenophoby was NOT the norm.

And it's much older than that. The Iliad is written from a Greek perspective, yet the most sympathetic character is a Trojan, and the Trojans are never portrayed as baby-eating monsters who must be killed at all costs.

Optimystik

2010-03-11, 08:57 AM

No way. It was a sadistic, completely out-of-proportion, irreversible shame.

V really doomed himself (and probably many others as well) by commiting genocide.

I agree it was out of proportion, but I don't think he's doomed just yet. V's contrition ("Please, do not remind me of all that I have done") shows that he is regmorseful, and Blackwing's snark ("the important thing is that this needless conflict is over WITHOUT the loser's entire family line getting totally eradicated") shows that he is going to try to keep V on the straight and narrow going forward.

Kish

2010-03-11, 10:36 AM

QFT
That's why we have all these 50 page alignment debates.
No, we have 50 page morality debates because some people are really attached to the idea that it's never wrong to kill a monster (even to the point of arguing with Rich about it, as has been demonstrated in this thread, including by you) and some people (including me) are really attached to opposed ideas.

Asta Kask

2010-03-11, 10:42 AM

Ancalagon

2010-03-11, 10:49 AM

.. we have 50 page morality debates...

50? It's more like 500 or even 5000. ;)

Zevox

2010-03-11, 10:49 AM

V needs to pay for his crimes, problem is that i can't think of any punishment that is proportional to what he did, so we just have to do the same thing he did and wipe out a quarter off all elves.
So because you're upset about something V did, you want to go and do the exact same thing. Think about that for a second - is it even remotely logical?

If it's okay for him then it damn sure is okay for others to do the same to him.
...but isn't the whole point of your rage that it wasn't okay for him to do that?

Zevox

Morthis

2010-03-11, 11:14 AM

No, we have 50 page morality debates because some people are really attached to the idea that it's never wrong to kill a monster (even to the point of arguing with Rich about it, as has been demonstrated in this thread, including by you) and some people (including me) are really attached to opposed ideas.

In what way is Rich some sort of supreme authority on morals?

Some people feel that what V did was morally acceptable. If you want to argue against this, argue why it is immoral, find out the reasons why someone else might feel it is moral and discuss flaws in their reasoning. Saying "Rich said it was immoral" is just silly. That holds no more weight than saying "It's immoral because I said so". Obviously Rich is the author, and we know he intended for V's actions to be considered immoral, but that doesn't mean everybody will automatically adopt that view simply because the author intended it so. We're talking about opinions here, they can sometimes be influenced with solid reasoning (if the other person is open to considering it), but they're not going to be influenced by saying "Rich said you should consider this immoral so you better consider it immoral".

Kish

2010-03-11, 11:27 AM

In what way is Rich some sort of supreme authority on morals?

Some people feel that what V did was morally acceptable. If you want to argue against this,

I don't, thanks.

I don't consider Rich an authority for anything outside of OotS, but if I considered the morality presented in OotS unacceptable, I'd quit reading--as I have with other webcomics in that situation. Not come on the forum and try to argue that that morality was something other than it was. Lots and lots of people have argued that Vaarsuvius will never feel or express remorse for the mass murder, should not do so as s/he did nothing wrong, and will not be punished for it as s/he did nothing wrong. At least two of those premises are setting those people on a collision course with disappointment.

Ancalagon

2010-03-11, 11:30 AM

In what way is Rich some sort of supreme authority on morals?

Actually, he is. Not in regard to anything that is beyond his comic, but in his comicworld, he is.

I think it's obvious - from all the discussions here - that morals can be debated and interepreted. Because there are no absolute guidelines what is or what is not ok in the world we live or in the world that we talk about.

As an author, you now have that freedom to decide that for your world. That will of course be influenced by what you as author think and based on your personality, but that does not change the fact that you CAN decide about morals in your world.

Of course you are free not to accept that which means you can argue against the author's descision and opinion on moralsa and the way he added that in his world, but you cannot anymore argue against the exact shape of the in-comic morals, as it was clearified how that works.

Setra

2010-03-11, 12:59 PM

The only thing I'm going to say on this is.. Redemption is rare, I'd like to see V try to redeem him/herself... Elves live a long time, so maybe it's possible..

One note.. Personal feelings aside, apparently V's genocidal actions, while evil, aren't TOO evil.. if s/he seems to only have a 50/50 chance of landing in hell.

hamishspence

2010-03-11, 01:03 PM

Morthis

2010-03-11, 04:15 PM

I don't, thanks.

I don't consider Rich an authority for anything outside of OotS, but if I considered the morality presented in OotS unacceptable, I'd quit reading--as I have with other webcomics in that situation. Not come on the forum and try to argue that that morality was something other than it was. Lots and lots of people have argued that Vaarsuvius will never feel or express remorse for the mass murder, should not do so as s/he did nothing wrong, and will not be punished for it as s/he did nothing wrong. At least two of those premises are setting those people on a collision course with disappointment.

I was under the impression that most of these moral arguments are based on personal views of the morality, not in-comic. In comic obviously Rich has the final say, because he can make the character reacts in whatever way he wants when they learn what V has done. There's no way to argue against that one way or another, whatever Rich has in mind for his storyline is pretty much what will happen, whether or not we say V was wrong. If I misunderstood that part, my apologies.

Draconi Redfir

2010-03-11, 04:22 PM

Drolyt

2010-03-11, 04:23 PM

Wow, this thread is quite interesting. I'm actually kinda shocked by some of the opinions here... well, lets go through a couple:
1. Was V's act of genocide against the Black Dragons wrong?
A: Of course it was! Murdering defenseless sentient beings, regardless of whether they were "evil" or whether it was thought that "the ends justify the means", is wrong! I have nothing more to say to anyone who disagrees with me on this point.
2. Is slaughtering 1/4 of the Elven population fair retribution for V's actions?
A: What the hell? Of course not! If that were fair then certainly V killing all those Black Dragons would be fair. It just perpetuates the vicious cycle of revenge. People who believe that retributive genocide is okay need to learn mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.
3. Should V be damned for his actions?
A: Why exactly should he be? Or, more to the point, why would some people feel more satisfied if he was? I think that people who honestly want to see V damned are making the same mistake V did, the same one the Ancient Black Dragon made in fact, though they are covering it up with a sense of "justice". The only reason you would desire karmic retribution is out of a sense of revenge. Revenge only leads to more hate and more suffering. Note that this doesn't just apply to V, no one should "want" Xykon to face his eternal torment, but rather view it as necessary but certainly not desirable.
4. Can V be redeemed?
A: This kinda depends on your view on the matter, but in my opinion yes he can. Redemption has nothing to do with the severity of your crimes but only with the desire to atone and to make up for your past acts. It requires that you honestly admit that you were wrong and at least try to correct your actions. V is starting to do this. I think that he will eventually be redeemed. Remember that all the great childhood heroes, Superman, Batman, Goku, etc., always gave the villain a chance to redeem themselves, even though some of these villains had committed acts of genocide or worse. Remember Vegeta? It's fairly clear that he killed whole planets full of people, but he eventually redeemed himself, dying to save Earth from Majin Buu. Fact is anyone can be redeemed, but they have to try, and it sometimes takes a long time, and sometimes you just don't get the chance (like Miko).

Kish

2010-03-11, 04:25 PM

I was under the impression that most of these moral arguments are based on personal views of the morality, not in-comic. In comic obviously Rich has the final say, because he can make the character reacts in whatever way he wants when they learn what V has done. There's no way to argue against that one way or another, whatever Rich has in mind for his storyline is pretty much what will happen, whether or not we say V was wrong. If I misunderstood that part, my apologies.
I suspect, for the people who debate actively, there is pretty close to perfect congruity between "what I consider to be the case independently of the comic" and "what I believe the comic is saying."

For my part, I've argued the idea that Rich meant the Familicide to be horrifically evil (now with textual support from Don't Split the Party). Before the Familicide, I've argued the more general point that Rich doesn't mean "see green skin and fangs, kill," to come across as an appropriate or moral attitude. And I've argued that idea that, in D&D, it's not meant to be okay to go "see green skin and fangs, kill." If someone said, and stuck to, "I don't care what Rich says or what D&D says, I say it's right to kill monsters for being monsters," I would not argue with that person; I wouldn't know how, even if I wanted to.

--But no one ever has stuck to that concept. A number of people have said something like that, and then promptly jumped into arguing that it's right to kill monsters for being monsters in D&D or in OotS.

Wow, this thread is quite interesting. I'm actually kinda shocked by some of the opinions here... well, lets go through a couple:
1. Was V's act of genocide against the Black Dragons wrong?
A: Of course it was! Murdering defenseless sentient beings, regardless of whether they were "evil" or whether it was thought that "the ends justify the means", is wrong! I have nothing more to say to anyone who disagrees with me on this point.
2. Is slaughtering 1/4 of the Elven population fair retribution for V's actions?
A: What the hell? Of course not! If that were fair then certainly V killing all those Black Dragons would be fair. It just perpetuates the vicious cycle of revenge. People who believe that retributive genocide is okay need to learn mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

Erm...I think the question that we should be asking here is...

Closak, are you Chaotic Evil?

3. Should V be damned for his actions?
A: Why exactly should he be? Or, more to the point, why would some people feel more satisfied if he was?

Because I see three alternatives.
1. Vaarsuvius is damned. If anyone in the comic deserves it, s/he does.
2. Vaarsuvius repents, sincerely. Rich manages to bring this off and make him/her sympathetic again. This is a feat at least as impressive as Start of Darkness.
3. The comic ends with Vaarsuvius deserving damnation, at least as much as characters who don't escape it do, yet s/he escapes it somehow anyway.

Of those three, I would find #3 profoundly unsatisfying, and I consider #2 rather unlikely. I recognize that not everyone shares my high requirements for #2--why, many believe Vaarsuvius never stopped being sympathetic, and would find it most satisfactory if Vaarsuvius was hailed as a hero and people in the comic, on the forum, and behind the drawing pen all stopped acting like s/he did anything wrong. If Rich brings off #2, I'll be as satisfied as if I get #1 instead. But, primarily, I'm hoping for #1. This is not about whether eternal punishment could ever be just if it happened to a real person; this is about what makes the most satisfying story resolution, for a fictional character who committed an unspeakable atrocity.

4. Can V be redeemed?
A: This kinda depends on your view on the matter, but in my opinion yes he can. Redemption has nothing to do with the severity of your crimes but only with the desire to atone and to make up for your past acts. It requires that you honestly admit that you were wrong and at least try to correct your actions. V is starting to do this.
Again, V has expressed guilt for: Neglecting his/her familiar, driving away his/her family, and an unspecified "all that I have done." S/he has a long way to go from there to even a tiny bit of remorse for the really important thing s/he did. I am terribly afraid that if s/he did express such remorse, it would seem forced and artificial. But we'll see. Or s/he will die, or come to the end of the comic, without ever expressing such remorse, in which case we'll see something else.

veti

2010-03-11, 04:49 PM

I may, in fact, think your entire example demonstrates, not a story with morality, but a DM going out of his/her way to screw over the players.

Well, sure, if "experiencing some mild feelings of guilt" is your idea of being screwed over... Personally, I like playing in a world where history has some level of depth.

Please note I didn't suggest (and I'd argue violently with the DM if he tried) that anyone's alignment should change as a result of finding out that something they'd done in the past was less creditable than they'd thought at the time. Good characters might feel some guilt and wonder if there was anything they could do to redress things, but I did stress that there were more pressing things on their minds. (I guess there's a chance that good characters with WIS as a dump stat might find themselves consumed by guilt and go insane, but I wouldn't imagine the DM enforcing that on any PC.)

And, as such, either misses or dodges the point, that it's no harder to run a campaign where the PCs think about the morality of their actions than it is to run one where anything with green skin and fangs exists to be killed.

PCs "thinking about the morality of their actions" is just fine. No problem with that. What we're arguing about is the basis of their decisions.

Heroism is a rare and special thing. It's not for everyone. In particular, it's not for people who refuse to pick sides. Heroes are people who do pick a side, and serve it with unusual dedication. You're a human? - if you want to be a hero, you fight for Humanity. You're a hobgoblin? - you fight for Goblinkind. That's how two heroes, both Lawful Good within their own ethical systems, may be mortal enemies. (See, for instance, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.)

[Pointing out a dead Haradrim warrior]
"The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he comes from, and if he really was evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home, and would he not rather have stayed there - in peace? War will make corpses of us all."

Optimystik

2010-03-11, 04:53 PM

I agree with Kish - none of V's monologues have given insight into how he feels about Familicide in particular, just the Splice in general.

Though I must say, I'm hoping for option 2 a bit more than she seems to be :smalltongue: We've already seen the consequences of "duty sans repentance" through Miko - seeing them again through V would just be revisiting an old point.

Of course, we've also already seen redemption through Roy - though technically he didn't apologize to his wronged party either. Come to think of it, neither did Therkla. So this territory might be more unexplored than I thought.

veti

2010-03-11, 05:03 PM

Of course, we've also already seen redemption through Roy - though technically he didn't apologize to his wronged party either. Come to think of it, neither did Therkla. So this territory might be more unexplored than I thought.

If you're talking about the episode of abandoning Elan, then I'd say Roy's "fall" was too brief, and too easily corrected, to qualify as a story arc at all. Therkla was a more convincing redemption story, but I wouldn't say she showed us all there is to be said about the subject. Miko also showed us another angle of redemption (on the basis that you learn more from failure than success).

I'm reasonably sure that V has some sort of redemption arc coming, but how it will go - and how it will end - is more than I would like to predict.

Optimystik

2010-03-11, 05:16 PM

The trouble with counting Therkla as redemption, is that we don't know yet if she was.

I'm hoping she didn't make it to the CG afterlife - eternity watching Elan + Haley wouldn't be much of a heaven for her, I think.

Concerning doing a bad thing, and only finding out later: BoVD agrees that this won't cause a fall, retroactive or otherwise. (A paladin inadvertently causes a rockslide, accidentally killing some commoners, and does not fall.) A Good character is obligated to try and make reasonable amends though.

Kish

2010-03-11, 05:18 PM

From what Rich said in Don't Split the Party about Therkla representing Neutral, I suspect she went to the True Neutral afterlife, to be told that which afterlife she would go to had never really been in question.

veti

2010-03-11, 05:22 PM

It's possible that what the three fiends mean is, if V spends the rest of the strip trying to become redeemed (and thus avoid the Big Fire Down Below) then V has a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

So we can't be sure that it was "not that bad" if it works this way.

I don't think we can take "50/50" literally. Usually when people say "there's a 50/50 chance", they don't mean they've weighed the probabilities carefully and calculated that the chances are precisely even - they just mean they don't know and aren't prepared to guess.

In this case, the unknowns include: how V will acquit herself for the rest of her life; how the gatekeepers from her preferred afterlife will view the Familicide episode; and to what extent her state of insanity at the time, and the level of outside influence (the IFCC itself), would mitigate that judgment.

Drolyt

2010-03-11, 05:37 PM

I will admit that V hasn't yet shown remorse for what he did to the Black Dragons. Neither has anyone yet shown remorse for the slaughtering of innocent goblin children. Also not much screen time has passed since the end of the soul splice. I don't think even a week has passed in comic. I think that eventually the whole issue will come to a head, and the remainder of the Sapphire Guard will make amends for their crimes against goblins while V makes amends for his crimes against the Black Dragons.

Optimystik

2010-03-11, 05:38 PM

I don't think we can take "50/50" literally. Usually when people say "there's a 50/50 chance", they don't mean they've weighed the probabilities carefully and calculated that the chances are precisely even - they just mean they don't know and aren't prepared to guess.

While that can be true, we should consider Archfiends to be authorities on alignment on par with Word of God, just as we would the Devas, and ascribe weight to their estimates accordingly.

What's telling is the context in which he was referring to V's soul - right after the others effectively said they didn't want it in the first place; therefore "we have [X chance] of getting it anyway" pretty plainly means "we don't have to make any special effort, even after the Splice, to hold on to it."

LuisDantas

2010-03-13, 04:53 AM

Heroism is a rare and special thing. It's not for everyone. In particular, it's not for people who refuse to pick sides. Heroes are people who do pick a side, and serve it with unusual dedication. You're a human? - if you want to be a hero, you fight for Humanity. You're a hobgoblin? - you fight for Goblinkind. That's how two heroes, both Lawful Good within their own ethical systems, may be mortal enemies. (See, for instance, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.)

That is in fact one among several possibilities. There is no reason why Human heroes must choose to fight for Humanity, for instance. Choosing a side is indeed a choice, not a default setting.

veti

2010-03-14, 07:30 PM

There are games that are set up that do not ask "why are the villains, villains"? I don't think I've ever read a story that poor. I can't think of anything that would entice me to play a game that poor.

Usually the "answer" to that question involves circular logic: "They are villains because they are the enemy." Often, as in real life, the answer is (some variant on) "Because they are trying to kill us and we don't have time to sit around talking about it, there'll be time for that later but right now we need to do something!"

Consider, for example, The Hobbit. The trolls are bad guys because they try to eat our heroes. Ditto the spiders, and for that matter Smaug. But in each case it's the "good guys" who are the aggressors. (With the dragon they make a historic claim, but no mention of who owned the mountain before their ancestors moved in.)

As for "post-Nuremberg" morality: no. I do not know where this all-too-prevalent idea that people almost always historically dealt with those who were in any way different from, or antagonistic to, them, by slaughtering them, comes from, but it is utterly false. (I think George R.R. Martin and, well, D&D might be partly to blame.) My professors call the 20th century "the bloody century" for very good reason.

It's not that pre-1945, every foreigner was fair game. Far from it. But there was a basic division between Us and Them, and They were qualitatively and morally different.

Pre-Nuremberg, "loyalty" was the basic founding virtue of our society. "Traitor" was the nastiest word in the language, the ultimate crime, for which the very worst punishments imaginable were reserved. Dante puts traitors on the lowest circle of Hell, in the presence of Lucifer himself. Britain abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965, but it remained in force (in statute) for treason until 1998.

What Nuremberg established, for the first time, was a consensus that it was possible for some crimes to be even worse than treason. (For a while, "Nazi" became the ultimate insult.) It decided that treating Them as human beings was not just a moral duty, but an actual legal obligation.

"Homicide is the killing of a human being. I can find no law against killing a ********." - 'Judge' Roy Bean (attrib.), circa 1880.

(Edit: apparently I'm not even allowed to quote the word he used to describe a person of Chinese ethnicity. I had no idea that was considered offensive.)

Drolyt

2010-03-14, 07:50 PM

Usually the "answer" to that question involves circular logic: "They are villains because they are the enemy." Often, as in real life, the answer is (some variant on) "Because they are trying to kill us and we don't have time to sit around talking about it, there'll be time for that later but right now we need to do something!"

Consider, for example, The Hobbit. The trolls are bad guys because they try to eat our heroes. Ditto the spiders, and for that matter Smaug. But in each case it's the "good guys" who are the aggressors. (With the dragon they make a historic claim, but no mention of who owned the mountain before their ancestors moved in.)

It's not that pre-1945, every foreigner was fair game. Far from it. But there was a basic division between Us and Them, and They were qualitatively and morally different.

Pre-Nuremberg, "loyalty" was the basic founding virtue of our society. "Traitor" was the nastiest word in the language, the ultimate crime, for which the very worst punishments imaginable were reserved. Dante puts traitors on the lowest circle of Hell, in the presence of Lucifer himself. Britain abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965, but it remained in force (in statute) for treason until 1998.

What Nuremberg established, for the first time, was a consensus that it was possible for some crimes to be even worse than treason. (For a while, "Nazi" became the ultimate insult.) It decided that treating Them as human beings was not just a moral duty, but an actual legal obligation.

"Homicide is the killing of a human being. I can find no law against killing a ********." - 'Judge' Roy Bean (attrib.), circa 1880.

(Edit: apparently I'm not even allowed to quote the word he used to describe a person of Chinese ethnicity. I had no idea that was considered offensive.)

Although the distinction between us and them used to be far more important pre WWII, one thing is that "us" meant very different things in different times and places. To the Romans for example "us" meant Roman citizens, which included people of vastly different races, religions, etc. That other stuff rarely mattered as long as you swore loyalty to the emperor; this was actually more the norm throughout history. Through much of the post classical to pre-modern period "us" meant those who shared your religion (this was less true in the far east, especially in China where the idea was that the emperor wasn't just ruler of China but ruler of all under heaven, and in that mindset all where equal under heaven, at least in theory). It was only starting in the 18th and 19th centuries that "us" referred to a nationality or a race and it became okay to mistreat those who weren't of your nationality.

By the way, I'm not even sure what word your talking about that is supposedly insulting to Chinese. I can't think of any words that long that would be a slur for Chinese people. Edit: I looked up the quote and the word is ********, but I can't see how that would be blocked for profanity. Edit 2: And yet it is.

Zevox

2010-03-14, 08:35 PM

Consider, for example, The Hobbit. The trolls are bad guys because they try to eat our heroes. Ditto the spiders, and for that matter Smaug. But in each case it's the "good guys" who are the aggressors. (With the dragon they make a historic claim, but no mention of who owned the mountain before their ancestors moved in.)
Bad examples. The Trolls and spiders were the aggressors in their situations - the Dwarves and Bilbo were traveling through their areas, on their way to Erebor, when they were attacked by them. Yes, Bilbo was trying to steal from the Trolls when they caught him, but that hardly justifies trying to eat him and the Dwarves. And hell, the spiders aren't even quasi-intelligent like the Trolls, they're just giant-size animals. And Smaug sacked the Dwarves' home, driving them out a couple hundred years ago (which isn't even a generation for Dwarves, less for a Dragon).

As for "who owned the mountain before the Dwarves," likely no one. The Elves were the first sapient race to awaken in Middle-Earth, but the Dwarves weren't far behind (their creator had in fact been prohibited from awakening them before the Elves by the Overgod of the world, else Dwarves would have been the world's eldest race), and they always settled in mountains and caves. Certainly Dwarves are older than Dragons by far, so there's no chance of Smaug having any claim to Erebor, if that's what you were thinking.

There's also the fact that Dragons in Tolkien are the twisted creations of the ultimate evil god, Morgoth, and thereby inherently, unalterably evil themselves. They cannot be reasoned with, and have no interest in living in peace with others - at best, they'll leave you alone for a time if you pay them a hefty tribute and they happen to be being too lazy at the moment to just destroy you and take everything you have. Otherwise their instincts, once out of the service of Morgoth after the First Age, are to kill other creatures and hoard valuables for themselves. Much the same applies to the Trolls, actually - they were also creatures twisted by Morgoth, in mockery of the Ents, and made quite thoroughly evil as a result.

That, actually, is the explanation for pretty much all the enemies in Tolkien's works. All evil in his world, save arguably for humans who aren't under the influence of Morgoth or Sauron at the time, can be traced back to Morgoth.

Zevox

veti

2010-03-14, 08:49 PM

Bad examples. The Trolls and spiders were the aggressors in their situations - the Dwarves and Bilbo were traveling through their areas, on their way to Erebor, when they were attacked by them. Yes, Bilbo was trying to steal from the Trolls when they caught him, but that hardly justifies trying to eat him and the Dwarves. And hell, the spiders aren't even quasi-intelligent like the Trolls, they're just giant-size animals. And Smaug sacked the Dwarves home, driving them out a couple hundred years ago (which isn't even a generation for Dwarves, less for a Dragon).

Bilbo tried to steal from the trolls, and got caught. Doesn't justify the punishment? - maybe, but historically plenty of people have been executed for crimes no worse than pickpocketing.

The dwarves were warned - repeatedly - not to wander from the path in Mirkwood, yet they charged off and ran into the spiders' webs. And the spiders are at least quasi-intelligent, else Bilbo wouldn't be able to insult them with his songs. (You can't insult something that's not sentient.)

As for "who owned the mountain before the Dwarves," likely no one. The Elves were the first sapient race to awaken in Middle-Earth, but the Dwarves weren't far behind

True, except that dwarves didn't even move in to that particular mountain until after they were driven out of Khazad-Dum. It was Thorin's grandfather, Thrain I, who founded the first dwarven kingdom of Erebor. Hardly mists-of-time genesis stuff.

There's also the fact that Dragons in Tolkien are the twisted creations of the ultimate evil god, Morgoth, and thereby inherently, unalterably evil themselves.

And there you have it, the real justification. "They're evil because they're evil, end of story. Now let's get on with the killing."

Belkarsbadside1

2010-03-14, 08:52 PM

Zevox

2010-03-14, 09:49 PM

Bilbo tried to steal from the trolls, and got caught. Doesn't justify the punishment? - maybe, but historically plenty of people have been executed for crimes no worse than pickpocketing.
And would you honestly contend that such a punishment is even remotely reasonable for such a crime?

The dwarves were warned - repeatedly - not to wander from the path in Mirkwood, yet they charged off and ran into the spiders' webs. And the spiders are at least quasi-intelligent, else Bilbo wouldn't be able to insult them with his songs. (You can't insult something that's not sentient.)
Perhaps - I don't remember the song thing myself, but my memory may just be imperfect on the matter - but in any event that's just the Dwarves making a mistake. Doesn't make them the aggressors, or guilty of even the minor crime Bilbo was with the Trolls.

True, except that dwarves didn't even move in to that particular mountain until after they were driven out of Khazad-Dum. It was Thorin's grandfather, Thrain I, who founded the first dwarven kingdom of Erebor. Hardly mists-of-time genesis stuff.
All right, but the fact remains that there is no reason to believe anyone else had any claim to Erebor, and certainly none to believe that Smaug had any. Especially given how Dragons in Tolkien's world work - the only difference between Smaug's actions at Erebor and Glaurung's at Nargothrond were that Glaurung was acting under Morgoth's orders while Smaug was acting completely of his own volition.

And there you have it, the real justification. "They're evil because they're evil, end of story. Now let's get on with the killing."
And in Tolkien, that's exactly how it is. Evil began with Morgoth, who desired to rule creation for himself, and decided to take it from the other Ainur by force. Lacking the ability to create new things himself, he twisted existing ones, corrupting them to evil in form and mind so that they would serve him and his ends. Thus were Orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Balrogs, and pretty much all evil things in his world created. This is why you'll never see any such creatures ever act reasonably towards other races, and why their mere presence ensures death and conflict - even among their own groups, once they're bereft of leadership from Morgoth or Sauron.

As I said, you simply picked a bad example here.

Zevox

waterpenguin43

2010-03-14, 10:04 PM

Frankly, i'm seriously hoping that a most of the elven race is wiped out in retaliation and they rub in in V's face.

Hey V! It's your fault that your species is now on the brink of extinction! Hope you are happy! BECAUSE IT'S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT! :smallfurious: *Punches V in the face, jumps on top of V and starts punching repeatedly*

Seriously, i'm really hoping that happens, just to make V suffer.

*Sees Black Dragon lovers group* *Sees V lover group* *Runs into nuclear-weaponry prrof room and hides.*

Also, how did ANY Black Dragons live? Did Tiamat create four or something? Because wouldn't they ALL share a blood-line from being the same species?

Brennan

2010-03-14, 10:29 PM

Where are you getting this? Yes, Resurrection exists. Does that mean that death isn't permanent in the vast majority of cases? Does that make death an "inconvenience"?

This is why, in my D&D campaign, resurrection has a much steeper price than a "big-ass diamond". According to my house rules, resurrection costs:

-Apprx. 500,000gp worth of diamonds.
-A sacrifice that would appease your god. (Live Good Humanoid for Gruumsh, Ashes of a terrible demon for Heironeus.) In addition, any god that endorses healing and good over everything else or wouldn't care either way about the individual being alive will not allow resurrection. (Boccob wouldn't resurrect a hero, unless that hero could benefit the god in some way.
-(And here's the big one) A fraction of a loved one's soul. The loved one must bind themselves to the soul of the person they are trying to resurrect, making it so that if one of them should die, the other person's soul will be decimated permanently. The only way to avoid this is to die in a Romeo and Juliet fashion. (Dying within seconds of each other.)

I make it so that only the most devoted of people will try to resurrect a fallen comrade. Call me evil, if you'd like.

veti

2010-03-14, 10:36 PM

All right, but the fact remains that there is no reason to believe anyone else had any claim to Erebor, and certainly none to believe that Smaug had any.

We simply don't know. (Whether the dwarves were the first sentient beings to live in or on the mountain, or whether they had to drive out some trolls or goblins or humans, or even, for that matter, a dragon.) We don't know because nobody asks.

And the reason nobody asks? - because this is the heroes' story. If we started questioning their claims there'd be no heroic tale, just a rather turgid fictional history. (Like Tolkien's works published since his death.)

What we do know is that, at the beginning of the story, the dragon is in possession of the mountain - a position where he seems perfectly content to lie curled up on his huge pile of treasure, and shows no sign of terrorising his neighbours as you describe. The Lakemen, not unreasonably, blame Thorin and co for disturbing him.

Thorin is, very clearly, motivated by revenge and greed. And it's his word we have to take that Smaug is the one who's greedy and destructive.

Zevox

2010-03-14, 11:02 PM

We simply don't know. (Whether the dwarves were the first sentient beings to live in or on the mountain, or whether they had to drive out some trolls or goblins or humans, or even, for that matter, a dragon.) We don't know because nobody asks.

And the reason nobody asks? - because this is the heroes' story. If we started questioning their claims there'd be no heroic tale, just a rather turgid fictional history. (Like Tolkien's works published since his death.)

What we do know is that, at the beginning of the story, the dragon is in possession of the mountain - a position where he seems perfectly content to lie curled up on his huge pile of treasure, and shows no sign of terrorising his neighbours as you describe. The Lakemen, not unreasonably, blame Thorin and co for disturbing him.

Thorin is, very clearly, motivated by revenge and greed. And it's his word we have to take that Smaug is the one who's greedy and destructive.
Look, my point, as I've said in both of my previous posts, is that you've chosen a very bad example here. Tolkien's works were never meant to be morally ambiguous. He makes quite clear which creatures are evil, twisted beings that cannot be trusted or reasoned with, and which groups of creatures are predominantly good and noble. There are few known exceptions for Dwarves or Elves, and none known for any creatures twisted by Morgoth. The only real significantly divided group are humans, because some fall under the sway of Morgoth or Sauron while others don't, and some are just greedy and as fallible as real people. If Tolkien had intended there to be any ambiguity to the story of Smaug and the Dwarves, he'd have mentioned previous inhabitants of Erebor somewhere - The Hobbit proper, the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, some unfinished drafts that would've made it into Unfinished Tales or The History of Middle Earth, something. But no such thing exists, which makes arguing that such may have been the case pretty ridiculous.

I don't even disagree with the general point you're trying to make here, I'm simply pointing out that The Hobbit, or indeed anything written by Tolkien, is not a good example for it, due to the way Tolkien wrote his world.

Zevox

Kish

2010-03-15, 04:34 AM

Usually the "answer" to that question involves circular logic: "They are villains because they are the enemy."
You keep asserting that, but it's completely untrue. Taking computer game examples, because unlike tabletop games I've played more people than just those at the table with me can be expected to recognize them:

Baldur's Gate: Sarevok is the villain because he wants to start a massively destructive war so he can become a god.
Baldur's Gate II: Irenicus is the villain because he wants to steal your soul to gain revenge on everyone who said he couldn't do whatever he wanted to do.
Neverwinter Nights: The villain wants to reestablish an ancient, brutal empire, turning everyone who currently lives in the region back into slaves.

Your character doesn't have to care why those characters are villains rather than just antagonists; because the PC can be evil in any of those games, they're set up so that you can oppose them just because they're in your way if you want. But they're still evil, for much more than "they are the enemy."

And, veti, you made quite an extreme claim to make and not support.

Personally, I believe that the attempt to import modern (by which I mean, post-Nuremberg) morality into a D&D universe is fundamentally wrong-headed, and in the hands of a thoughtful DM (such as Rich) leads to contradictions that would quickly make the game unplayable.
And, as far as I can tell, you have yet to offer any support for that claim. You've talked about what a DM who wanted murky morality could do. You've talked about what Tolkien did do, and quoted Faramir--and would you really try to take that quote as far as "Sauron isn't any more evil than Gandalf or Aragorn"? Because if you wouldn't, then your argument annihilates itself. All you've offered for your original claim is reassertion.

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 05:49 AM

*Sees Black Dragon lovers group* *Sees V lover group* *Runs into nuclear-weaponry prrof room and hides.*

Also, how did ANY Black Dragons live? Did Tiamat create four or something? Because wouldn't they ALL share a blood-line from being the same species?

I've been wondering that myself. How does the Giant define family exactly?

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 06:11 AM

I would just like to say that this is easily solved using logic:
V and fellow party members initially went into the dragons layer in search of gold. That is wrong

The Young Adult Dragon Attacked them to defend it's home. That is right.
V killed the dragon to protect his friends. That is right.

Also the Monster manual states that Black Dragons are Most of the time evil, so is killing someone who would likely cause harm and possibly death to many people evil?

The mother, grieved by the death of her son sought revenge against V so she attempted to kill Vs family. She involved innocents. That is wrong.

V defended his family and killed her, which is right.

Now, the mass genocide of EVIL black dragons that cause misery and meyhem to innocent people? In my opinion that is a right thing to do. He might have done it for the wrong reasons, but it was still a good deed.

It's like asking if a serial killer deserves to be punished or not. black dragons are evil. It is even listed in the Monster Manual. Evil beings deserved to be punished. Even though they have not wronged V specifically, what is so wrong about it?

WHAT THE HELL? GENOCIDE IS WRONG! It doesn't matter if your victims might be evil, it is still unprovoked murder. Life is the most sacred thing there is, and once you kill someone you can never take it back (technically in OotS you can, but that's besides the point. Considering how many Black Dragons just died I think it would take all the diamonds in the world to do it). I suppose your also going to tell me that Kira was in the right?

Think about it this way, if you could line up all the people in the world that have committed evil deeds at some point in the past or are likely to in the future and kill them all on the spot, would you? If you answer yes, well I don't really know what the hell to say.

Remember also that not all Black Dragons are evil, so even if you somehow justify mass murdering as long as the victims are evil you also have to justify the death of all the innocents who just happened to be related to those Black Dragons.

Asta Kask

2010-03-15, 06:17 AM

Now, the mass genocide of EVIL black dragons that cause misery and meyhem to innocent people? In my opinion that is a right thing to do. He might have done it for the wrong reasons, but it was still a good deed.

It's like asking if a serial killer deserves to be punished or not. black dragons are evil. It is even listed in the Monster Manual. Evil beings deserved to be punished. Even though they have not wronged V specifically, what is so wrong about it?

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I mean, while we're talking Tolkien.

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 06:37 AM

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I mean, while we're talking Tolkien.

It's cliche, but that quote is truly a gem of wisdom. Many people in the real world would do well to learn that lesson.

Asta Kask

2010-03-15, 07:20 AM

All the same, I wouldn't hesitate to say that a world without Xykon would be a better place.

Optimystik

2010-03-15, 07:35 AM

All the same, I wouldn't hesitate to say that a world without Xykon would be a better place.

True, but as he's technically already dead, the quote doesn't apply to him :smalltongue:

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 08:12 AM

All the same, I wouldn't hesitate to say that a world without Xykon would be a better place.

The point is not to never kill, but not to do so without the utmost reason. Obviously you don't always have a choice, for example when a epic lich sorcerer is trying to unleash a god killing monster on the world. More realistically, if someone attacked you with a gun in real life obviously it wouldn't be evil to kill him in self defense, though it would be best to try other alternatives first if possible. The quote refers more to killing out of vengeance ("in judgment") not to those cases where it is absolutely necessary.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-15, 11:49 AM

To any arguing that familicide was evil and the right punishment is killing 1/4 of the elves, if the eye for an eye/good bad balance morality system works then the familicide was not evil. If 99% of dragons are evil then V killed 1 or 2 good dragons with his spell and the 60ish bad dragons should make up for it. But, beyond that, I think both sides were not acting right from the start. The dragon attacked immediantly without trying to talk to V and V killed the dragon wile it was clearly not neccessary. The ABD's attemptede murder of V's family was an evil act, but was the familicide an evil act? The deva Roy talks to says in this universe intentions count more then the means used, and V's casting of the spell was at least partly to protect his family, a neutral if not good act. Though V uses evil means, in hir mind another dragon might come after hir family in the future when s/he would not have the means to protect them, would it not be best to simply prevent the same situation from ever happening again?
Consider, for an example a 3 member adventuring party consisting of a wizard, a rogue, and a fighter. They have just survived a difficult battle and are all near the end of their HP totals. They enter a room containing a creature that is also low on health but could kill them all within one round. The rogue has not been spotted by the creature and has the means to kill the creature in her sneak attack round. If the rougue doesn't kill the creature it could slay them all, as the fighter cannot overcome its damage reduction and the wzard has not spells the creature isn't resistent to. Without waiting to see if the creature is hostile or itself an adventurer, if the rogue killed the creature while she had the chance would it be an evil action?
No, at least not by most morality systems. So, V cast the familicide partly to protect (in hir mind) hir family.
So, wile it was an evil act, it was done for justifible reasons at the time that made sense to the person doing them (who had not sleeped in months, been tormented by horrible dreams when s/he tried to sleep, and just been beaten up by a dragon) So, yeah, I don't think V deserves damnation for this so long as s/he regrets it and sincirely tries to improve (which s/he's been doing)

Kish

2010-03-15, 12:03 PM

Wall of Text...

To any arguing that familicide was evil and the right punishment is killing 1/4 of the elves, if the eye for an eye/good bad balance morality system works then the familicide was not evil. If 99% of dragons are evil then V killed 1 or 2 good dragons with his spell and the 60ish bad dragons should make up for it.

I don't think you realize what "eye for an eye" means.

But, beyond that, I think both sides were not acting right from the start. The dragon attacked immediantly without trying to talk to V and V killed the dragon wile it was clearly not neccessary.

Which dragon? Whether the young dragon attacked the Order first is unestablished. Vaarsuvius clearly attacked the young dragon before he attacked him/her.

The deva Roy talks to says in this universe intentions count more then the means used,

No.

and V's casting of the spell was at least partly to protect his family,

A matter of opinion at best.

And you proceed to act as though your "at least partly" was semantically equivalent to Rich Burlew's "entirely," ignoring Vaarsuvius' blatant desire to torture the dragon and flaunt his/her own power, and assert your conclusion repeatedly.

From Rich Burlew, in Don't Split the Party:

Vaarsuvius finds him/herself at the dragon's mercy because he/she never thinks to take precautions against her, despite knowing that the dragon he/she killed shared a home with another. Vaarsuvius then repeats and amplifies this misconception when he/she casts the custom-made familicide spell, essentially speaking for all players who say, "All monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill." But hopefully when the reader sees the scale on which Vaarsuvius carries out the devastation, the error of this thinking is more obvious. If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons.
Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I felt the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much.

veti

2010-03-15, 05:05 PM

You keep asserting that, but it's completely untrue. Taking computer game examples, because unlike tabletop games I've played more people than just those at the table with me can be expected to recognize them:

Okay, let's talk about Morag in Neverwinter Nights, because that's the example I'm most familiar with. You start out opposing her - without the faintest idea of who she is or what she wants, or even that she exists - because she's attacking your city. That's as clear a case of "antagonist as villain" as you could hope to see. "We're under attack and we need to do something." At this point, the motivations and the alignment of the attacker are simply irrelevant.

Later you learn that she's trying to bring her people back to their ancient homelands, which are, as it happens, now occupied by humans. So you're fighting to defend your homeland, with everything that implies. Is she evil? - well, yes, as it happens, which is a stroke of luck 'cuz it means certain spells and abilities will work better against her - but that's not why you're fighting her: you're doing it in self-defence. That's why it doesn't matter what alignment the PC is.

But to claim that you're fighting her out of some sort of principled, internally consistent, rigorously derived moral stance, which any rational being would recognise and agree with - is sheer delusion.

And, veti, you made quite an extreme claim to make and not support.

And, as far as I can tell, you have yet to offer any support for that claim. You've talked about what a DM who wanted murky morality could do. You've talked about what Tolkien did do, and quoted Faramir--and would you really try to take that quote as far as "Sauron isn't any more evil than Gandalf or Aragorn"? Because if you wouldn't, then your argument annihilates itself. All you've offered for your original claim is reassertion.

I've talked about what a DM who had some knowledge of history could do. (My favourite DM is, as it happens, a professional historian. It's difficult to play 'good' in his campaign, and I like that - real, moral heroism isn't meant to be easy.) The kobolds example is very much how real-world moral situations build up. It's not a matter of "wanting murky morality", it's about having some depth in the world.

And I've talked about Tolkien, because it's a story that most people (a) know, and (b) will admit to be a good story. It's also a story in which most intelligent beings are judged simply, instantly and infallibly by their species. Elves, dwarves, hobbits, eagles good; goblins, wargs, trolls, dragons bad. Zevox has talked about why that makes sense in Middle-earth, but all that means is that in this situation it's right to be racist.

Is Sauron evil? Absolutely. Does that mean Gandalf is good? He's opposed to Sauron - but that doesn't mean anything, so is Gollum...

In The Quest for Erebor, it's revealed that Gandalf goes to enormous lengths to persuade Thorin to go on his quest to get rid of Smaug - because he's afraid Sauron might enlist him as an ally. He's two-faced, secretive and manipulative, he uses Thorin (whom he knows to be driven by revenge and greed) and puts an innocent hobbit in harm's way to further his own geopolitical agenda. (Edit: Which means, on further reflection, that he's employing Thorin as a jumped-up assassin.)

To me: yes, Gandalf is undoubtedly Good. But I'm not the one who's claiming to be judging by some sort of absolute morality. He's Good because he's on our side, and I have no problem with that as a moral yardstick.

Kish

2010-03-15, 05:18 PM

That's as clear a case of "antagonist as villain" as you could hope to see. "We're under attack and we need to do something." At this point, the motivations and the alignment of the attacker are simply irrelevant.

Specifically, you're setting out to cure a plague which is killing people in Neverwinter.

Later you learn that she's trying to bring her people back to their ancient homelands, which are, as it happens, now occupied by humans.

Which were occupied by the mammalian ancestors of the human and demihuman races when she ruled it brutally. It's just that they happened to be slaves then. You can travel back to the past and see exactly what it was like. Declaring it all "irrelevant" is at least as much a moral choice as declaring it makes Morag evil. It just happens to be the moral choice you absolutely need to make if you wish to believe that modern morality has no place in D&D.

But to claim that you're fighting her out of some sort of principled, internally consistent, rigorously derived moral stance, which any rational being would recognise and agree with - is sheer delusion.

But I'm not the one who's claiming to be judging by some sort of absolute morality.
You're the one who claimed that the attempt to import modern morality into a D&D universe is fundamentally wrong-headed, and in the hands of a thoughtful DM leads to contradictions that would quickly make the game unplayable. As you still haven't supported that claim with anything but assertion, I'm about done asking you to. I hope you're not under the impression you can convince me of anything by tireless repetition.

neriana

2010-03-15, 05:42 PM

hamishspence

2010-03-15, 05:45 PM

Didn't Oscar Wilde argue that sometimes, it's worse to betray your friend, than to betray your country?

That was maybe a century ago?

Antivillains, are often villains who follow a moral precept to an extreme- in the process, violating other moral precepts.

Avert armageddon- by murdering millions.

And various other interesting combinations.

neriana

2010-03-15, 05:57 PM

Didn't Oscar Wilde argue that sometimes, it's worse to betray your friend, than to betray your country?

It certainly sounds like something he'd say. It was a common idea in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In Huckleberry Finn, Huck's big moment is when he decides he'll go against his country's law rather than betray his friend, Jim. The idea that loyalty to one's country should supersede other loyalties is a relatively new one, historically speaking. Historians debate about when nationalism really got going, but pretty much basically agree that it wasn't solidified and spread throughout Europe until the late 18th century.

hamishspence

2010-03-15, 06:03 PM

Even a Lawful Good character doesn't have to obey the law if it's an evil one- and (at least in some sources) slavery is evil in D&D.

So not turning a runaway slave in might be illegal- but (in that kind of D&D setting) a Lawful Good character could do it without behaving in an inconsistant manner with their alignment.

That said, Huck is probably closer to Chaotic Good, personality-wise, in my view. Maybe Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Good tendencies.

(This is just an approximation in D&D terms.)

veti

2010-03-15, 06:15 PM

You're the one who claimed that the attempt to import modern morality into a D&D universe is fundamentally wrong-headed, and in the hands of a thoughtful DM leads to contradictions that would quickly make the game unplayable. As you still haven't supported that claim with anything but assertion, I'm about done asking you to. I hope you're not under the impression you can convince me of anything by tireless repetition.

What I said was "Personally, I believe that the attempt yada yada". I've tried to explain my reasons for that belief. Maybe I haven't done a very good job. But anyway, if you don't agree with them, that's fine, you play your games and I'll play mine. There's no need to get personal about it.

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 07:17 PM

I'm a little confused about the argument involving "he's evil because he's our enemy" or whatever. It's true that it is sometimes just to fight someone who is not evil, for example if they are attacking your homeland and killing your friends and family it is not wrong to fight back, even if the opponent does not register as evil with your spells or has good reasons for attacking.

Besides that if someone starts killing people randomly 99.99% of the time they are evil.

veti

2010-03-15, 08:37 PM

Have you ever read the Bible? Just curious.

Well, yes. Conflict of loyalties is a recurring theme in the Bible. Saul kills the priests because he perceives they're siding with David; but David himself refuses to harm Saul, even though he's a dangerous lunatic, because he's the king. That illustrates David's righteousness: even though Saul earnestly believes he's a traitor, David refuses to become one.

There are lots of other stories designed to illustrate the moral importance of loyalty:

Esther is raised to a position of high honour under the Persian king - and risks it all to further the welfare of her people;
Jacob's brothers sell him into slavery, but when he comes good he repays them with favour - that's what makes Jacob a good guy;
Ruth refuses to desert Naomi in her troubles;
From his own deathbed, David takes the time to issue a death warrant for a man whose only crime was to "curse" him (cursing one's king is a big deal);
The Pharisees try to trick Jesus into choosing between duty to God and to Caesar.

There were centuries between Dante and Nuremburg. Nor was Dante the one and only arbiter of the morality of even his own particular time and culture, let alone all those centuries both before and after him. Even in The Inferno, those in the lowest circle of hell are there for betrayal, not treason.

The distinction between "treason" and "betrayal" is meaningless in this case. Dante enumerates four types of betrayal: of kindred, of party or city, of one's guests, and - most serious - of one's lord and benefactor. And of course there was a long time between Dante and Nuremberg - Dante is just a particularly well known example - do you seriously want me to try and dig up a whole pile of them? This doesn't seem like an appropriate forum for that kind of discussion.

Drolyt

2010-03-15, 08:40 PM

We should avoid religion talk. Forum rules and all that.

Nimrod's Son

2010-03-16, 12:43 AM

Summarising Bible stories is not the same thing as discussing religion.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-16, 01:40 AM

I don't think you realize what "eye for an eye" means.

I wasn't phrasing that perfectly, I meant that if morality is a checks and balances system, where you can be moving towards good after commiting one evil act and two good acts that were equaly good as the bad one was bad, then killing 60 bad dragons and 2 good dragons is the same result as killing 58 bad dragons. Btw, I wasn't arguing for the familicide, i was arguing against the "let's kill some elves for fair revenge" crowd.

Which dragon? Whether the young dragon attacked the Order first is unestablished. Vaarsuvius clearly attacked the young dragon before he attacked him/her.

Go read the archive again. Haley tried to flee the dragon and it attacked so V tried to help the party and hirself survive. S/he went a little overboard with unneeded disintegrations, but the arguments over the morality of that are pretty convoluted and often both half-right, which was the original point of my post, somehow I didnot convey that properly the first time.

Tannhaeuser

2010-03-16, 02:24 AM

Hamish, I think you're thinking of E.M. Forster, not Oscar Wilde: "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." (from Two Cheers for Democracy)

hamishspence

2010-03-16, 03:26 AM

Oh, right. I saw it attributed to Wilde.

Though I think he's famous for getting quotes attributed to him: I recall a story about, at a dinner, someone saying something very witty- he turns to his friend and said "I wish I had said that" and his friend said:

"Don't worry, Oscar, you will!" :smallamused:

Kish

2010-03-16, 04:10 AM

I wasn't phrasing that perfectly, I meant that if morality is a checks and balances system, where you can be moving towards good after commiting one evil act and two good acts that were equaly good as the bad one was bad, then killing 60 bad dragons and 2 good dragons is the same result as killing 58 bad dragons. Btw, I wasn't arguing for the familicide, i was arguing against the "let's kill some elves for fair revenge" crowd.

Closak's not a crowd. He's a single poster with a persona as a dragon. And no one in this thread has argued for, what is correctly called not "checks and balances" or "eye for an eye," but rather, "killing an evil creature is inherently a good act, therefore Xykon is the most good character in the comic" morality, without being one of Vaarsuvius' defenders.

Go read the archive again.

Take your own advice.

The Order emerges from the darkness and Haley pushes Roy back into it.
Skip to battle in progress. Who actually attacked first is not shown, though somehow people who argue for Vaarsuvius always try to claim it was obviously the dragon.
Vaarsuvius discovers the dragon can understand him/her, and immediately skips attempting diplomacy to go to casting Suggestion. The dragon does not attack Vaarsuvius until s/he has attempted multiple Suggestions.

Killing either one-quarter of all the elves, or all the elves personally related to Vaarsuvius, would clearly be an act of pure evil--just like what Vaarsuvius did. And if it happened, I would hope that whoever did it would wind up in the exact same afterlife as Vaarsuvius himself/herself. For added poetic justice points, permanently confined in the same room as Vaarsuvius.

silvadel

2010-03-16, 01:18 PM

Of course V is already questioning whether or not the snarl is the big bad that everyone portrays it as, or if it is being mis-portrayed. Regardless, the snarl is probably the one entity that could easily break the agreement between the fiends and V.

I actually see it as a possibility that V could end up as the snarl's emmissary in all of this at the end.

Asta Kask

2010-03-16, 01:27 PM

How many dragons could a wizard familicide if a wizard could familicide dragons?

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-16, 05:24 PM

Closak's not a crowd. He's a single poster with a persona as a dragon. And no one in this thread has argued for, what is correctly called not "checks and balances" or "eye for an eye," but rather, "killing an evil creature is inherently a good act, therefore Xykon is the most good character in the comic" morality, without being one of Vaarsuvius' defenders.

Take your own advice.

The Order emerges from the darkness and Haley pushes Roy back into it.
Skip to battle in progress. Who actually attacked first is not shown, though somehow people who argue for Vaarsuvius always try to claim it was obviously the dragon.
Vaarsuvius discovers the dragon can understand him/her, and immediately skips attempting diplomacy to go to casting Suggestion. The dragon does not attack Vaarsuvius until s/he has attempted multiple Suggestions.

If Haley was trying to flee, she probably did not attack first; from what I've heard of him in otOoPC and what he does in comic, Roy doesn't seem the type to just attack a monster for being a monster; from in comic stuff (like where he didn't fight Miko) Durkon seems like he would think things through; Elan would sing at the dragon either way and V thought he would be useless in the combat, so Belkar is the only one who would start the fight on the OotS side, but he was still in the darkness when Haley started pushing Roy back in.

And V's a wizard, from the comic we can see s/he has a crappy charisma and s/he'd likely get 1 or 2 failed dipolmacy/bluff checks in before the dragon kept killing them.

Oh, and I wasn't reffering to killing good stuff=bad, killing bad stuff=good, I was talking about how some think that if 62 elves die it would make up for 62 dead dragons, or Tiamat's acceptance of the IFCC's pledge to kill good dragons to make up for the dead bad ones.

And just because only one person has argued that point doen't mean that is the opinion of only one person. These (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VocalMinority)tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SilentMajority) exist for a reason.

Kish

2010-03-16, 06:00 PM

If Haley was trying to flee, she probably did not attack first; from what I've heard of him in otOoPC and what he does in comic, Roy doesn't seem the type to just attack a monster for being a monster; from in comic stuff (like where he didn't fight Miko) Durkon seems like he would think things through; Elan would sing at the dragon either way and V thought he would be useless in the combat, so Belkar is the only one who would start the fight on the OotS side, but he was still in the darkness when Haley started pushing Roy back in.

So you argue that the dragon attacked first because...you think the dragon would have attacked first. Really, why are you bothering?

(Also, what's this "kept killing them" business? How many of them had the dragon killed before Vaarsuvius cast Suggestion?)

And V's a wizard, from the comic we can see s/he has a crappy charisma and s/he'd likely get 1 or 2 failed dipolmacy/bluff checks in before the dragon kept killing them.

"But his/her charisma is--"
"Not my problem. Go!"

Oh, and I wasn't reffering to killing good stuff=bad, killing bad stuff=good,

But that's what you said. If you didn't mean to make an argument that hinges on the presumption that killing anything evil counts as good, I'd suggest you start over from scratch.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-16, 06:21 PM

(Also, what's this "kept killing them" business? How many of them had the dragon killed before Vaarsuvius cast Suggestion?)

But that's what you said. If you didn't mean to make an argument that hinges on the presumption that killing anything evil counts as good, I'd suggest you start over from scratch.

"Killing- the action of depriving something of life." The dragon was trying to kill them, it was killing them.

Once again killing bad=good was not my argument, I was arguing against the people arguing for dead elves being compensation for dead dragons. I phrased my argument as "if this is, then that is", not "this is, so that is"

Drolyt

2010-03-16, 06:32 PM

"Killing- the action of depriving something of life." The dragon was trying to kill them, it was killing them.

Once again killing bad=good was not my argument, I was arguing against the people arguing for dead elves being compensation for dead dragons. I phrased my argument as "if this is, then that is", not "this is, so that is"

So basically the entire argument was saying that if killing 1/4 of the Elves was fair retaliation then in that case the rest of what you said would be true, but you do not in fact believe that? You worded it poorly, I thought you honestly meant that it was okay for V to kill all those Black Dragons.

You know what, I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying.

Mikeavelli

2010-03-16, 06:39 PM

The main problem with applying real-world morality to a role-playing game is that it doesn't directly transfer.

Consider the Illithid morality thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144360) where it's eventually established (well enough to convince me anyways) that Illithids are biologically incapable of acting according to the "Good" alignment as is understood by humans. The best you can argue is that human morality doesn't even apply to them because it's a meaningless construct.

The closest analogy you could get to humans is if I said vegetarianism was "morally good" and eating meat was "morally bad" and most of humanity asked "how does morality even apply to that decision?"

[hr]

Similarly, Black Dragons are intrinsically evil, they were created by their goddess (Tiamat) to behave in an unambiguously evil fashion. Every single member of the species sharing enough in common with the Mother Dragon had enough dragon blood in them to remain unambiguously evil through fantasy genetics.

Despite Rich's attempt to introduce moral ambiguity into the D&D world, this has never been contradicted! It's an argument even Miko accepted as accurate based on its own merits!

V was completely justified in wiping out as many Black Dragons as V could.

Drolyt

2010-03-16, 07:43 PM

The main problem with applying real-world morality to a role-playing game is that it doesn't directly transfer.

Consider the Illithid morality thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144360) where it's eventually established (well enough to convince me anyways) that Illithids are biologically incapable of acting according to the "Good" alignment as is understood by humans. The best you can argue is that human morality doesn't even apply to them because it's a meaningless construct.

The closest analogy you could get to humans is if I said vegetarianism was "morally good" and eating meat was "morally bad" and most of humanity asked "how does morality even apply to that decision?"

<hr>

Similarly, Black Dragons are intrinsically evil, they were created by their goddess (Tiamat) to behave in an unambiguously evil fashion. Every single member of the species sharing enough in common with the Mother Dragon had enough dragon blood in them to remain unambiguously evil through fantasy genetics.

Despite Rich's attempt to introduce moral ambiguity into the D&D world, this has never been contradicted! It's an argument even Miko accepted as accurate based on its own merits!

V was completely justified in wiping out as many Black Dragons as V could.

Did you just use Miko to support your argument? She lost her Paladin powers for a reason...

Kish

2010-03-16, 07:48 PM

The main problem with applying real-world morality to a role-playing game is that it doesn't directly transfer.
[...]
V was completely justified in wiping out as many Black Dragons as V could.
Well, if you assert it, and offer nothing but assertion to support your claim, it must be true, even though the author asserts the contrary.

littlebottom

2010-03-16, 07:57 PM

just been thinking, and i think V killed that dragon, all dragons who shared its blood and all of their relatives. something to that effect, problem is, if you go back to the 13th century, you can almost rightly claim that everyone living in europe now, is related to anyone who lived at that time (whos bloodline continued) to that effect, V could of wiped out every single black dragon just due to the fact that if you go back far enough you have more ancestors than there have ever been people on the planet...

just my 2 pence :P

Starbuck_II

2010-03-16, 08:39 PM

Mikeavelli

2010-03-16, 09:05 PM

The assertion "All people of this ethnic group are evil" is shockingly racist in the real world.

In the D&Dverse, this can be a simple statement of fact, and as accurate as saying "all iron golems are made of iron."

Since all Black Dragons are Evil, killing them is, by definition, a good, or at least neutral act. If they hadn't yet performed an act that would justify their death, they would have in time. It's not a matter of "if" - but "when"

Yes, this is a hideously unfair and broken system to live under, the gods designed the world to be this way! The whole point of the comic is one of the creatures designed as the world's butt-monkeys (The Dark One, and Redcloak by proxy) - has realized the way things are is unfair, this doesn't yet change the way things are!

So, while V exists in the world as written, his indiscriminate slaughter of Black Dragons is justified, because they're all evil.

Logical rules against mindless tautologies go out the window once you live in a world where gods exist, and decided the way things are.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-16, 09:09 PM

So basically the entire argument was saying that if killing 1/4 of the Elves was fair retaliation then in that case the rest of what you said would be true, but you do not in fact believe that? You worded it poorly, I thought you honestly meant that it was okay for V to kill all those Black Dragons.

Yes, that's pretty much it, it was worded a bit ambiguously, but I hope it didn''t cause to much confusion. As for my own opinon, I think V's familicide was both good and evil but done with neutral/lower end of good reasons (that made sense to hir at the time, due to hir mental state)

Mystic Muse

2010-03-17, 12:45 AM

silvadel

2010-03-17, 03:37 AM

Thing is that 1 good act and 1 evil act do not tend to cancel each other out.

I mean if you save a cat trapped in a tree and then toss another cat into a burlap sack with rocks and throw it off a bridge: they dont cancel.

Just like if you murder someone and save someone else they dont cancel.

---

Very evil acts tend not to even cancel with 10 very good acts.

Morthis

2010-03-17, 04:39 AM

Killing either one-quarter of all the elves, or all the elves personally related to Vaarsuvius, would clearly be an act of pure evil--just like what Vaarsuvius did. And if it happened, I would hope that whoever did it would wind up in the exact same afterlife as Vaarsuvius himself/herself. For added poetic justice points, permanently confined in the same room as Vaarsuvius.

I'm not even sure we can say V will end up in any "bad" afterlife.

The world is created in such a way that good aligned creatures can kill evil aligned creatures, no if's or but's. The Azure City Paladins are free to slaughter goblin civilians without falling, because the world was created on the premise evil = you can kill it. In fact, that's pretty much the entire purpose of the goblins, and probably the reason why they can be killed indiscriminately without alignment shift. While black dragons were not created under the same premise (afaik), they are still evil, and the same principle would apply to them.

In many ways, V's actions with familicide were very very similar to the start of SoD. If those actions at the start of SoD get the good aligned god stamp of approval, I don't see why V's actions would not. From an ethical point of view, what he did was pretty messed up, but ethics and alignment don't always match in D&D, which is one of the things oots likes to point out.

Asta Kask

2010-03-17, 04:55 AM

Also, since there are an infinite amount of fiends and 1/5% of those deviate that means there are an infinite amount of good aligned fiends.:smalltongue:

Mr. Hilbert? There's an infinite amount of guests who want to check in at your hotel...

Kish

2010-03-17, 05:20 AM

Since all Black Dragons are Evil, killing them is, by definition, a good, or at least neutral act.
See, even if this was true, which it isn't as Kyuubi and Starbuck_II have already addressed, that link wouldn't work. Slaughtering someone for getting drunk and picking fights in bars wouldn't fly in the real world, and killing everyone who happens to be evil-aligned wouldn't fly in D&D.

Drolyt

2010-03-17, 05:39 AM

I'm not even sure we can say V will end up in any "bad" afterlife.

The world is created in such a way that good aligned creatures can kill evil aligned creatures, no if's or but's. The Azure City Paladins are free to slaughter goblin civilians without falling, because the world was created on the premise evil = you can kill it. In fact, that's pretty much the entire purpose of the goblins, and probably the reason why they can be killed indiscriminately without alignment shift. While black dragons were not created under the same premise (afaik), they are still evil, and the same principle would apply to them.

In many ways, V's actions with familicide were very very similar to the start of SoD. If those actions at the start of SoD get the good aligned god stamp of approval, I don't see why V's actions would not. From an ethical point of view, what he did was pretty messed up, but ethics and alignment don't always match in D&D, which is one of the things oots likes to point out.

This... is a good point.

The assertion "All people of this ethnic group are evil" is shockingly racist in the real world.

In the D&Dverse, this can be a simple statement of fact, and as accurate as saying "all iron golems are made of iron."

Since all Black Dragons are Evil, killing them is, by definition, a good, or at least neutral act. If they hadn't yet performed an act that would justify their death, they would have in time. It's not a matter of "if" - but "when"

Yes, this is a hideously unfair and broken system to live under, the gods designed the world to be this way! The whole point of the comic is one of the creatures designed as the world's butt-monkeys (The Dark One, and Redcloak by proxy) - has realized the way things are is unfair, this doesn't yet change the way things are!

So, while V exists in the world as written, his indiscriminate slaughter of Black Dragons is justified, because they're all evil.

Logical rules against mindless tautologies go out the window once you live in a world where gods exist, and decided the way things are.

So you think it is okay to kill someone because they fall under your evil radar? No no no! In the real world you don't go around killing people you think are evil, or even people convicted of crimes. Many of those Black Dragons haven't even committed any crimes. Even if they had, it wouldn't justify genocide.

Nimrod's Son

2010-03-17, 05:44 AM

Belkar is the only one who would start the fight on the OotS side, but he was still in the darkness when Haley started pushing Roy back in.
...And the second he realises there's a dragon out there, he charges into battle with daggers drawn and a joyous grin on his face. Is that such a stretch? Or, indeed, is any one of a thousand scenarios that resulted in the Order coming out of the darkness fighting, while the dragon stands there and waits to see what happens?

We didn't see how the fight started, therefore we don't know who started it.

"Killing- the action of depriving something of life." The dragon was trying to kill them, it was killing them.
That's really not what "killing" means. You can't indulge in the act of killing someone unless they end up dead by your hand shortly thereafter. If you didn't kill them, you were never killing them in the first place.

Kinda like how they don't give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry. :smallwink:

Every single member of the species sharing enough in common with the Mother Dragon had enough dragon blood in them to remain unambiguously evil through fantasy genetics.
:smallconfused: You say that as though "fantasy genetics" were some all-encompassing, immutable law that has stood for all time - and not, for example, fantasy genetics. Despite the fact that the author has gone on record as saying he dislikes the idea you propose and is looking to redefine it.

In the D&Dverse, this can be a simple statement of fact, and as accurate as saying "all iron golems are made of iron."
Actually, their new drummer is made of lead, but their make-up team is second to none so you'd never know.

Kish

2010-03-17, 09:08 AM

I'm not even sure we can say V will end up in any "bad" afterlife.
Perhaps not. But...we can hope.

And I'm not inclined to bet against the IFCC's projections at this point. Even less so now that Rich has suggested that some of the paladins who massacred Redcloak's village actually did Fall for it. The IFCC know what the rules of their universe are, and they say "the stunt with the dragons" put Vaarsuvius' soul in jeopardy.

factotum

2010-03-17, 09:25 AM

Slaughtering someone for getting drunk and picking fights in bars wouldn't fly in the real world, and killing everyone who happens to be evil-aligned wouldn't fly in D&D.

And it definitely doesn't fly in OotS, either, given that Roy (and the Deva interviewing him) both seemed to believe that "cutting Belkar's throat while he sleeps" would NOT be a good act!

Drolyt

2010-03-17, 09:51 AM

And it definitely doesn't fly in OotS, either, given that Roy (and the Deva interviewing him) both seemed to believe that "cutting Belkar's throat while he sleeps" would NOT be a good act!

Mind you, the same celestials tried to tell Roy that V had taken a shift towards evil. That's pretty much canon that what he did was wrong.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-17, 11:13 AM

That's really not what "killing" means. You can't indulge in the act of killing someone unless they end up dead by your hand shortly thereafter. If you didn't kill them, you were never killing them in the first place.

Kinda like how they don't give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry. :smallwink:

Consider if there is someone in a hospital bed tied to life support. If you were to pull the plug it would kill them. For the lenth of time you are pulling the plug you are in the process of killing them. After you've pulled it you have killed them. If you were pulling the plug and something interrupted you, thenyou dealt with it and went back to pulling the plug, it could be said that you went back to killing them.
Likewise, the dragon was attacking tOotS with its poison breath thing when V started casting suggestion. It was attacking with the intent of killing.

And they do have a punisment for attempted murder, and it is nearly the same as the one for murder.

But this is just semantics. Would you have waited until one of your party was dead?

Kish

2010-03-17, 11:40 AM

But this is just semantics.
No, it's language. In which words mean things, and your insistence on bending the word "killing" in this way shows that you know it perfectly well. If "fighting" was as good for the point you're trying to argue as "killing," you would have no reason to persist in attempting to force the English language to perform the contortion you want it to do.

Morthis

2010-03-17, 03:11 PM

Perhaps not. But...we can hope.

And I'm not inclined to bet against the IFCC's projections at this point. Even less so now that Rich has suggested that some of the paladins who massacred Redcloak's village actually did Fall for it. The IFCC know what the rules of their universe are, and they say "the stunt with the dragons" put Vaarsuvius' soul in jeopardy.

Even they were not entirely sure though. Obviously even to them there's room for a gray area or room for redemption, otherwise they could have made that statement with complete certainty.

Personally I don't think V will end up in an evil afterlife, purely from a storytelling point of view. Killing off main characters in the process of saving the world is one thing. Killing them and then making them suffer for all eternity is quite another. If you cross a line in terms of abusing your "good" characters, you risk alienating readers. We've seen an example of this before as well.

SoD
Lirian is trapped in a soul gem, which is a horrible horrible fate you can suffer in D&D. When Durokan is defeated, Xykon puts him in the same soul gem, and the "No not alone anymore, together" thing is said by Durokan. I think this is meant specifically to soften the blow of those two suffering such a horrible faith (until they're freed from the gem). Xykon could have simply put them in different gems (I'm actually not even sure if you can normally soul bind 2 people to the same gem).

Ancalagon

2010-03-17, 03:29 PM

Personally I don't think V will end up in an evil afterlife, purely from a storytelling point of view. Killing off main characters in the process of saving the world is one thing. Killing them and then making them suffer for all eternity is quite another. If you cross a line in terms of abusing your "good" characters, you risk alienating readers.

A) Belkar? Not good, but from the "Storytelling point of view" and "alienating readers point of view" it's the same.

B) What readers? At that point, the comic will basically be over. I think it's quite probable that we learn about Vaarsuvius' ultimate fate in an epilogue... if at all. So much about that char is untold that it makes sense to let the ultimate fate be untold as well.

C) It's not about making "them" suffer, but Vaarsuius. And I think even the poeple who think it was "legit in some way" have to admit: he did quite an evil evil stunt there.

Kish

2010-03-17, 03:30 PM

Even they were not entirely sure though. Obviously even to them there's room for a gray area or room for redemption, otherwise they could have made that statement with complete certainty.

They were not sure that Vaarsuvius would go to a lower plane upon dying. Anything could theoretically happen between now and dying.

Personally I don't think V will end up in an evil afterlife, purely from a storytelling point of view. Killing off main characters in the process of saving the world is one thing. Killing them and then making them suffer for all eternity is quite another. If you cross a line in terms of abusing your "good" characters, you risk alienating readers.

And if you let someone get away with quasi-genocide because "s/he's a main character," you also risk alienating readers.

The questions here are: 1) Is Rich concerned about alienating readers? and 2) If he is, which readers would he prefer to alienate?

C) It's not about making "them" suffer, but Vaarsuius. And I think even the poeple who think it was "legit in some way" have to admit: he did quite an evil evil stunt there.
Don't I wish.

Ancalagon

2010-03-17, 03:44 PM

Don't I wish.

I already changed it from "I think everyone has to admit..." - I'm not willing to make more concessions here. ;)

veti

2010-03-17, 03:50 PM

A) Belkar? Not good, but from the "Storytelling point of view" and "alienating readers point of view" it's the same.

Not really. Belkar revels in his evil; it's pretty hard to make excuses for him. Whereas V has never really thought of herself as evil, even when she was. Look at the expression on her face (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0645.html) when Belkar welcomes her to "the deep end of the alignment pool".

B) What readers? At that point, the comic will basically be over. I think it's quite probable that we learn about Vaarsuvius' ultimate fate in an epilogue... if at all. So much about that char is untold that it makes sense to let the ultimate fate be untold as well.

The readers who've loyally followed the story through. If a significant number of them were seriously alienated by the ending, that would put a significant dent in the word-of-mouth and damage future marketing.

I agree it makes sense that V's ultimate fate should be left to the readers' interpretation, particularly if she survives the strip.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-17, 04:08 PM

No, it's language. In which words mean things, and your insistence on bending the word "killing" in this way shows that you know it perfectly well. If "fighting" was as good for the point you're trying to argue as "killing," you would have no reason to persist in attempting to force the English language to perform the contortion you want it to do.

Fighting with the intent of killing, fighting could mean many things, killing is simply more specific and less wordy. But whatever, I think everbody understood what I meant.

Optimystik

2010-03-17, 04:27 PM

Would you have waited until one of your party was dead?

I would have talked to the damn dragon.

Ancalagon

2010-03-17, 04:31 PM

... instead of jumping back into the darkness where you only get caught in numerous blasts of dragon breath...

Morthis

2010-03-17, 04:40 PM

And if you let someone get away with quasi-genocide because "s/he's a main character," you also risk alienating readers.

The questions here are: 1) Is Rich concerned about alienating readers? and 2) If he is, which readers would he prefer to alienate?

The way I am looking at it. The IFCC stunt and dragon stunt is meant as a big lesson to V. He's reckless, he abused his power, and his pursuit for ultimate arcane power without learning how to wield it responsibly is bound to end in disaster. By having a preview of his power, and how poorly he managed it, he can avoid becoming the next Xykon and redeem himself, saving the world in the process. Building up this big storyline like that, only to have it end with a main character suffering for all eternity anyway, feels so pointless. V might as well have just jumped into the rift then and see what happens, couldn't have been worse than where he was heading.

I would have talked to the damn dragon.

When I first started reading the comic, I always wondered why V didn't try to talk to the dragon. It did not appear like the dragon would only be interested in killing. They probably would not have walked out with the star metal though, so they might have killed it anyway, who knows. Either way, reading later comics it's obvious why V didn't reason with the dragon, he seems to err on the blast first side usually.

Kirgoth

2010-03-17, 06:01 PM

I would love to see the ancient black dragon be given a name and come back as a ghost. She did die in the best possible way to become one from what I can see. Possible new cool ally for Xylon in his quest, epic litch sorcerer flying a ghost ancient black dragon mage....

Warren Dew

2010-03-17, 06:07 PM

Slaughtering someone for getting drunk and picking fights in bars wouldn't fly in the real world, and killing everyone who happens to be evil-aligned wouldn't fly in D&D.

Black dragons are a little worse than people who get feisty when drunk. A more accurate parallel would be:

"Slaughtering organized criminals for contract killings and forcing people into prostitution wouldn't fly in the real world ..."

Probably still true, but it shows that the morals are not so clear.

Drolyt

2010-03-17, 06:12 PM

Black dragons are a little worse than people who get feisty when drunk. A more accurate parallel would be:

"Slaughtering organized criminals for contract killings and forcing people into prostitution wouldn't fly in the real world ..."

Probably still true, but it shows that the morals are not so clear.

Use whatever analogies you want. Killing 1/4 of all organized criminals in the world would not be a good act. It might have good results, but that doesn't justify the act and at any rate isn't entirely clear that the results would be good. In V's case it is pretty clear that the results are going to be BAD.

Kish

2010-03-17, 06:19 PM

Black dragons are a little worse than people who get feisty when drunk. A more accurate parallel would be:

"Slaughtering organized criminals for contract killings and forcing people into prostitution wouldn't fly in the real world ..."
See, now you're changing the subject. "It is correct to make up evil deeds and ascribe them to black dragons because they're black dragons," is quite a different assertion from, "It is never an evil act to kill an evil creature."

--I mean, both are wrong to the point of being goofy. But still. More different than similar.

If slaughtering "any Evil creature" is by definition a non-evil act as Mikeavelli claimed, then that covers a rowdy drunk whom the DM decides is best classified as Evil. If you're not willing to defend the statement that killing said drunk would be nonevil, it makes little sense to defend the statement that killing any evil creature would inherently be nonevil. The horrible crimes you can make up and attribute to the dragons Vaarsuvius murdered are your business; you're not the author.

Saph

2010-03-17, 07:21 PM

See, now you're changing the subject. "It is correct to make up evil deeds and ascribe them to black dragons because they're black dragons," is quite a different assertion from, "It is never an evil act to kill an evil creature."

--I mean, both are wrong to the point of being goofy. But still. More different than similar.

The Monster Manual describes chromatic dragons in general as "aggressive, greedy, vain, and nasty."

Black dragons are described specifically as "evil-tempered, cunning, and malevolent . . . Black dragons are especially fond of coins. Older dragons sometimes capture and question humanoids about stockpiles of gold, silver, and platinum coins before killing them." In keeping with this, their alignment is listed as always Chaotic Evil.

The Draconomicon further describes them as "among the most evil-tempered true dragons . . . They have no natural enemies, but are willing to kill and eat almost anything unfortunate enough to stumble upon them."

You don't need to make up evil deeds to show that black dragons, in general, do evil things - D&D books make this quite clear, and nothing we've seen in OotS contradicts this at all. So, does this justify killing 1/4 of the black dragons in the world?

I'd say that it doesn't. But if you take this into account, it becomes a lot more understandable why lots of characters in the D&D world wouldn't be greatly bothered at killing them. The average D&D citizen's response to hearing that a black dragon is dead is not going to be "Oh no, a sentient creature has been killed", it's going to be "Okay, there's now one less dangerous monster to eat me, that's a good thing."

That's why the topic is a difficult one. You have to deal with the fact that genocide is wrong. You also have to deal with the fact that the D&D world would be a considerably nicer place with less black dragons in it. There aren't really any easy answers.

Optimystik

2010-03-17, 08:17 PM

They probably would not have walked out with the star metal though, so they might have killed it anyway, who knows.

You mean the chunk of metal, no bigger than a field mouse, that they didn't give a damn about? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html) I can see how very attached the dragons must have been to it.

That's why the topic is a difficult one. You have to deal with the fact that genocide is wrong. You also have to deal with the fact that the D&D world would be a considerably nicer place with less black dragons in it. There aren't really any easy answers.

D&D world? Monster Manual? Weren't we talking about OotS here? :smallconfused:

I must have missed the chapter of the Draconomicon where Black dragons learn Lizard, or consider understanding other cultures important, or stop in the middle of a fight to parley, or care more about their children than their hoard. Just like I missed the chapter of Savage Species where goblins go to the circus.

It's at least as important, I think (if not moreso) to consider the differences between OotS and D&D, as it is the similarities.

Morthis

2010-03-17, 08:44 PM

You mean the chunk of metal, no bigger than a field mouse, that they didn't give a damn about? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html) I can see how very attached the dragons must have been to it.

That's hardly a reliable source. Just because the loss of her child pisses her off more than the loss of her treasure doesn't mean that if she hadn't lost her child she wouldn't have cared if the treasure was gone. If she truly does not care about hoarding treasure at all, why is there such a big dragon hoard?

There's also a vast difference between not caring if you happen to lose some treasure and letting someone else take it away. If I lost a dollar, I won't be too bothered and I won't run all over the place the find it again, but that doesn't mean I will allow people to just grab my wallet and take a dollar out of it whenever they want.

Optimystik

2010-03-17, 09:25 PM

That's hardly a reliable source. Just because the loss of her child pisses her off more than the loss of her treasure doesn't mean that if she hadn't lost her child she wouldn't have cared if the treasure was gone. If she truly does not care about hoarding treasure at all, why is there such a big dragon hoard?

They weren't there for her whole hoard, they were there for the Starmetal - which she clearly is not very attached to.

Also, how in the hell are a character's own words not a reliable source for their own point of view?

There's also a vast difference between not caring if you happen to lose some treasure and letting someone else take it away. If I lost a dollar, I won't be too bothered and I won't run all over the place the find it again, but that doesn't mean I will allow people to just grab my wallet and take a dollar out of it whenever they want.

That's why you ask the dragon about it, and a) hope he lets you have it, b) pay for it like a non-psychotic sentient being would, or c) undergo a special quest for an item suitable to trade.

If it looks like negotiations are going sour, that's when you use Suggestion.

Really, for such a genre-savvy group, they totally dropped the ball on this one. "The dragon stops attacking and starts talking to you" is blatant DM-code for "stop rolling dice for god's sake, I have a plot hook here."

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-17, 10:18 PM

You mean the chunk of metal, no bigger than a field mouse, that they didn't give a damn about? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html) I can see how very attached the dragons must have been to it.

tOotS didn't know the starmetal was that size at the time or that the dragons didn't care about it. And considering that it is supposed to be an ultra-hard, rare super-material, they didn't have any reason to think the dragon would just give it to them. And V wouldn't suggest the dragon give them the starmetal because suggestions have to be reasonable V thinks dragons just like to horde crap (see the comic you linked), so (to V at least) no dragon would ffind the loss of the treasure of their horde a reasonable thing to do.

Optimystik

2010-03-17, 10:30 PM

tOotS didn't know

That's why you ask-

I'm tired of repeating it.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-17, 10:58 PM

That's why you ask-

I'm tired of repeating it.

In # 297, Roy seems to have thought the sword required a large chunk of starmetal. Given that he thought the (fake) dwarf smith in the town was telling the truth and that he thought the sword needed lots of metal, there was no reason (for him) at the time to think it would be that small, and no reason to ask how large it would be.

veti

2010-03-17, 11:10 PM

In # 297, Roy seems to have thought the sword required a large chunk of starmetal. Given that he thought the (fake) dwarf smith in the town was telling the truth and that he thought the sword needed lots of metal, there was no reason (for him) at the time to think it would be that small, and no reason to ask how large it would be.

The "dwarven smith (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0134.html)" who sent Roy off on that quest didn't say anything about how much metal he needed, nor about how much (if any) he'd find in the forest. Since Roy had already collected the pieces (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html) of his sword, it'd be reasonable to assume that the smith wouldn't need much more (even if the whole thing was solid starmetal) because they already had enough to make a whole blade, minus any little pieces Roy may have overlooked.

In short: Optimystik is right. Whichever way you spin it, there's no excuse there.

Optimystik

2010-03-17, 11:15 PM

In # 297, Roy seems to have thought the sword required a large chunk of starmetal. Given that he thought the (fake) dwarf smith in the town was telling the truth and that he thought the sword needed lots of metal, there was no reason (for him) at the time to think it would be that small, and no reason to ask how large it would be.

Roy wasn't supposed to ask anything. The dragon was talking to V, remember?

This exchange:

"My mentally deficient companions stumbled into your lair in search of some starmetal. Might you have a clue as to its whereabouts, that we may cease disturbing you all the more quickly?"
"Well, as it happens, we have some starmetal right here in the cave."
"Astounding! Would you be willing to trade it?"
[Insert negotiation here]

Is vastly preferable to what actually happened:

"In that case, Suggestion!"

Note how the former conversation does not require working knowledge as to the size or even existence of starmetal deposits in the area.

The_Weirdo

2010-03-17, 11:16 PM

A large portion of the readers already say, "V hasn't done anything wrong, much less to be counted among the damned." Whether Vaarsuvius can make up for what s/he did in the eyes of the author and/or people who do condemn Vaarsuvius for it is another question.

Argh. No. That kind of escalation is what Vaarsuvius did to bring us here. The only way to be completely "safe" is to eradicate all life. As long as you're not willing to do that, escalation increases danger, it doesn't decrease it. Killing all the elves would draw the negative attention of everyone who thinks any of their deaths was a bad thing: humans, dwarves, metallic dragons, that Wyrm red dragon whose plan to conquer the kingdom of Nowhere with the aid of an epic-level elven necromancer just got derailed...

And that assuming the entire elvish race is that much of a pushover in the first place.

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-18, 12:04 AM

Roy wasn't supposed to ask anything. The dragon was talking to V, remember?

This exchange:

"My mentally deficient companions stumbled into your lair in search of some starmetal. Might you have a clue as to its whereabouts, that we may cease disturbing you all the more quickly?"
"Well, as it happens, we have some starmetal right here in the cave."
"Astounding! Would you be willing to trade it?"
[Insert negotiation here]

Is vastly preferable to what actually happened:

"In that case, Suggestion!"

Note how the former conversation does not require working knowledge as to the size or even existence of starmetal deposits in the area.

From the one with ABD beating on V, we see that V thinks the dragon would care about their hordes enough to track down a lone elf on a deserted island, so s/he probably thought the dragon would demand something substantial in return for the starmetal, and suggestion would get the starmetal (and more) for the cost of a few spells that had limited use to V anyway. Plus V has low charisma and it's likely the exchange would include some sort of a diplomacy check.

Nimrod's Son

2010-03-18, 01:05 AM

Consider if there is someone in a hospital bed tied to life support. If you were to pull the plug it would kill them. For the lenth of time you are pulling the plug you are in the process of killing them. After you've pulled it you have killed them.
No arguments so far, sure.

If you were pulling the plug and something interrupted you, thenyou dealt with it and went back to pulling the plug, it could be said that you went back to killing them.
Again, sure. If, however, your interruption ended with you NOT pulling the plug, then the first time you tried to pull it is "retconned" (if you will) into trying to kill them. Not killing them. Because they didn't die. See how this works?

And they do have a punisment for attempted murder, and it is nearly the same as the one for murder.

...Which in turn is NEARLY the same as the punishment for armed robbery, and so on down the line. But not exactly the same, because, y'know, it's a different crime.

From the one with ABD beating on V, we see that V thinks the dragon would care about their hordes enough to track down a lone elf on a deserted island, so s/he probably thought the dragon would demand something substantial in return for the starmetal, and suggestion would get the starmetal (and more) for the cost of a few spells that had limited use to V anyway. Plus V has low charisma and it's likely the exchange would include some sort of a diplomacy check.
Might as well not bother then, eh?

And whatever V thought about anything is simply not an excuse for not actually checking, particularly since the dragon had already stopped attacking and was engaging him in conversation. If the dragon ignored your attempts to reason with it and resumed attacking, by all means defend yourself. But forcibly controlling a creature's brain to make it bend to your will, without even the slightest intention of letting it live after it's served its purpose to you, is NEVER the optimal way to go about doing things. (In real life, too.)

Tricksy Hobbits

2010-03-18, 01:50 AM

No arguments so far, sure.

Again, sure. If, however, your interruption ended with you NOT pulling the plug, then the first time you tried to pull it is "retconned" (if you will) into trying to kill them. Not killing them. Because they didn't die. See how this works?

I`m not sure where I lost you. If you are in the process of killing them then you stopped, you were killing them, but you never killed them. Like how someone can be dying of cancer, but get treatment and continue to live, then die from causes unrelate to the cancer. Or if you are shot and lying on the floor dying, then, shortly after you losing consciousness from blood loss, paramedics arrive and treat your wounds and you survive. You were dying from the blood loss, but now you are not.

And since at the time they didnot know how much the dragon valued his starmetal, and if V suggested the dragon left them alone it could come after them after the spell ended, killing the dragon would not just be killing an unarmed and helpless enemy, as it could pose a danger to the party were it to live.

Nimrod's Son

2010-03-18, 02:30 AM

I`m not sure where I lost you.
It was pretty near the beginning, to be sure.

If you are in the process of killing them then you stopped, you were killing them, but you never killed them. Like how someone can be dying of cancer, but get treatment and continue to live, then die from causes unrelate to the cancer.
...In which case they were never dying of cancer. They just HAD cancer. That's not the same thing.

Or if you are shot and lying on the floor dying, then, shortly after you losing consciousness from blood loss, paramedics arrive and treat your wounds and you survive. You were dying from the blood loss, but now you are not.
You were shot. You nearly died. But at no point there were you actually dying, other than in a vague, "we are all dying as each minute passes" kind of way.

And since at the time they didnot know how much the dragon valued his starmetal,
I swear someone mentioned something about talking to the dragon at some point. I guess it was just the wind.

and if V suggested the dragon left them alone it could come after them after the spell ended, killing the dragon would not just be killing an unarmed and helpless enemy, as it could pose a danger to the party were it to live.
For all we know they sat by the dragon waiting for V's curse to wear off for hours and hours. Perhaps far longer than it would have taken to find the starmetal and get to a safe place far away.

Yes, the dragon COULD have posed a threat to the Order (Although maybe not - he did eat corn, after all... :smallwink:). But there are things the Order COULD have done to lessen or eliminate that threat without killing the dragon. And I tend to think with hindsight, V might now be wishing he'd tried a few of them.

Morthis

2010-03-18, 02:56 AM

They weren't there for her whole hoard, they were there for the Starmetal - which she clearly is not very attached to.

Also, how in the hell are a character's own words not a reliable source for their own point of view?

Ok, a dragon hoard is essentially a collection of rare metals and gemstones. Star metal is, by the definition given in the comic, one of the rarest metals that exist. How is this not valuable? It's even said in the very comic that it was enshrined there. So the whole hoard just goes into a pile, but the thing you care least about gets enshrined in a room all by itself?

As for the statement, I consider it unreliable because of the mother's current emotional state. If your family just got murdered by someone, and I came in saying "So what about our bowling plans?", I doubt you'd have any concern for those plans being ruined.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 04:21 AM

The "dwarven smith (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0134.html)" who sent Roy off on that quest didn't say anything about how much metal he needed, nor about how much (if any) he'd find in the forest.

I'm not sure you should base ANY argument on that smith. Since, well, there is no "dwarven smith" and as far as we know, Sabine has no idea on smithing at all.
She just took his form and told the party some rumour that Nale had heard ("the rumour was around for decades, if there was real starmetal it's probably gone for years") to get them out of the way. Whatever the "smith" said... it surely has nothing at all to do with the profession of a real smith.

Drolyt

2010-03-18, 04:35 AM

I'm not sure you should base ANY argument on that smith. Since, well, there is no "dwarven smith" and as far as we know, Sabine has no idea on smithing at all.
She just took his form and told the party some rumour that Nale had heard ("the rumour was around for decades, if there was real starmetal it's probably gone for years") to get them out of the way. Whatever the "smith" said... it surely has nothing at all to do with the profession of a real smith.

There was a real smith, Sabine had him tied up. At any rate doesn't change the fact that Roy was making assumptions, he assumed that he needed a lot of starmetal.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 04:59 AM

There was a real smith, Sabine had him tied up. At any rate doesn't change the fact that Roy was making assumptions, he assumed that he needed a lot of starmetal.

The real smith had no role at all in what happend there. He's simply not important beyond the fact that Sabine had a face a local would expect. That's all.

The statement is still true: Basing any argument on the "smith" in regard to the actual smith's profession is pointles as the Order was talking to a shape-shifted succubus and not to a real smith.

Drolyt

2010-03-18, 05:40 AM

The real smith had no role at all in what happend there. He's simply not important beyond the fact that Sabine had a face a local would expect. That's all.

The statement is still true: Basing any argument on the "smith" in regard to the actual smith's profession is pointles as the Order was talking to a shape-shifted succubus and not to a real smith.

But that's not the point. The point is that Roy had no idea how much he needed and was making all sorts of assumptions.

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 06:02 AM

From the one with ABD beating on V, we see that V thinks the dragon would care about their hordes enough to track down a lone elf on a deserted island, so s/he probably thought the dragon would demand something substantial in return for the starmetal, and suggestion would get the starmetal (and more) for the cost of a few spells that had limited use to V anyway.

And it turns out he was wrong. That's my point.

Plus V has low charisma and it's likely the exchange would include some sort of a diplomacy check.

The dragon DOES speak Common you know. V wouldn't have had to broker the entire deal, just get the dragon (who was already standing down) to turn around and parley with his hairless ape companions.

Ok, a dragon hoard is essentially a collection of rare metals and gemstones. Star metal is, by the definition given in the comic, one of the rarest metals that exist. How is this not valuable? It's even said in the very comic that it was enshrined there. So the whole hoard just goes into a pile, but the thing you care least about gets enshrined in a room all by itself?

It's a very small stone - keeping it with the rest of the hoard might have risked it getting lost in the pile. It could have easily been by itself for practical reasons as much as sentimental ones.

As for the statement, I consider it unreliable because of the mother's current emotional state. If your family just got murdered by someone, and I came in saying "So what about our bowling plans?", I doubt you'd have any concern for those plans being ruined.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Mama or Junior would have reacted to a request for the Starmetal without any slaying first. The Order didn't try that option. And that is entirely V's fault.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 06:05 AM

But that's not the point. The point is that Roy had no idea how much he needed and was making all sorts of assumptions.

The point is "that what the smith said has no relevance at all in regard to what is needed to make a sword".

And yes, not only Roy made those assumptions. We readers did as well. I bet you, as well, thought "well, that's not going to give Roy a new sword" when you saw the starmetal... hum... pebble.

Drolyt

2010-03-18, 06:28 AM

The point is "that what the smith said has no relevance at all in regard to what is needed to make a sword".

And yes, not only Roy made those assumptions. We readers did as well. I bet you, as well, thought "well, that's not going to give Roy a new sword" when you saw the starmetal... hum... pebble.

I'm not disagreeing that what the smith said had no relevance, but as you said Roy made those assumptions, which I thought was the point. As for when I saw that pebble, my knowledge of literary conventions told me it would be used anyways. I have enough knowledge of alloys to know that sometimes you can make really strong ones by adding only a small amount of a certain mineral, so I kinda saw that one coming.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 06:45 AM

My point what was I stated because my original reply addressed that (the first quote was by someone who based some argument on what the "smith" said. Which is pointless, as the "smith" wasn't a smith who actually wanted to forge something).

That the starmetal was going to get used is obvious (Starmetal in a Fantasy Setting is always something that is truely superior) , but I did not assume it would be made into a sword. Anyway, what we assumed or not assumed is not really the point (at least not mine).

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 06:52 AM

About trading of the Starmetal:

It does not sound very unreasonable a dragon would trade such a thing. Dragons love wealth and shiny things (the MM says so) and Black Dragon especially like coins (the MM says so as well).

Now, you give a dragon "A small item that is worth 10.000 gold coins" or a "a large amount of valuables, among other things coins, that are worth 10.000 gold coins or more" I bet that most dragons will take the bigger heap. Simply because it's... more.

I don't find it unlikely some dragon would rather pick a chest full of shiny coins than a small pebble of shiny metal.

Of course, a REAL dragon would consider to kill you after the deal since it is better to have "a chest full of shiny valuables plus a pebble of shiny metal" than just a "chest full of shiny valuables".
But we cannot know what WOULD have happened.

On the other hand I would not condem Vaarsuvius too much here. If you want to parley with a dragon it might be the last thing you attempt if the dragon does not want to parley. We should not forget that the Order did not sneak around a corner, spotted the dragon, pondered, decided, then killed... they stumbled out of the darkness right in the face of a black dragon - with no cover whatsoever.
It was a rash thing to do, it might have been the wrong thing to do, but I think the attack on the black dragon was a very understandable one - and after that, the option to talk was somewhat over.

If the second disintegrate was a good move could be argued. But if we open that line of thought, then "adventuring" simply is not possible anymore, which totally changes the genre of the world.
In case of players, you usually agree on at least a basic genre of your world or playing it simply becomes impossible. If you enter a world with adventurers, dungeons, traps, and monsters you have to accept that "normal" morals can not apply.
My point is not that Rich cannot do what he does with his world. It makes an awesome story - but it would not be playable.

The point is: When seen from a moral standpoint, Vaarsuvius was wrong. But from the standpoint that the "world" has to work under specific conventions or it becomes a different world, his actions are not THAT condemnable. At least not the ones in that case. Other of his actions are still very condemnable, even in such a setting.

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 07:07 AM

It was a rash thing to do, it might have been the wrong thing to do, but I think the attack on the black dragon was a very understandable one - and after that, the option to talk was somewhat over.

The dragon was quite plainly talking after the attack had begun. He even immediately associated the curious lizard with the humans attacking him - in a favorable way. "These stupid humanoids are your allies?"

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 07:14 AM

The dragon was quite plainly talking after the attack had begun. He even immediately associated the curious lizard with the humans attacking him - in a favorable way. "These stupid humanoids are your allies?"

As I said: It is possible to condemn this act but from the list of "things we can condemn Vaaruvius for" it's not the most pressing issue. Which says quite something (bad!) about Vaarsuvius.

Of course he could have ordered the Dragon "Don't do anything but if you are bored, you can talk to the guys there" instead of just letting it wait out the spell.
Your point is that it's not "he could have done it" but "he should have done it".
Which is probably correct but given the world they live in it is understandable they/he did not do it as the line towards "hostility" had already been crossed (involuntarily?).

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 07:32 AM

As I said: It is possible to condemn this act but from the list of "things we can condemn Vaaruvius for" it's not the most pressing issue. Which says quite something (bad!) about Vaarsuvius.

In that encounter, I think failing to talk was the most pressing issue. Once he attempted to enslave the dragon's will, any hope of a peaceful resolution was shattered. Even if the party had used the 11 hours that the thing was ensorcelled to recover the Starmetal and get out of dodge, Junior would definitely have a reason to bear a grudge from that point onward.

It may not be much compared to Familicide, but it was easily his biggest mistake while Junior was still alive.

Morthis

2010-03-18, 07:46 AM

It's a very small stone - keeping it with the rest of the hoard might have risked it getting lost in the pile. It could have easily been by itself for practical reasons as much as sentimental ones.

Why enshrine it though? Enshrining it indicates this means something to you.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Mama or Junior would have reacted to a request for the Starmetal without any slaying first. The Order didn't try that option. And that is entirely V's fault.

I agree with this. Although I consider it unlikely they could have left with the starmetal peacefully, they could have at least tried this option.

Minor otoopc spoiler
It's somewhat similar to the paladin Roy first grouped with in otoopc (forgot the name). When given the choice of resolving the conflict peacefully or just killing them, he'd rather just kill because he's allowed to within his alignment and paladin code. Given Roy's reaction to that paladin's behavior, and the similarities here, I imagine Roy would have wanted V to at least try diplomacy first, if he'd known V could speak with the dragon.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 07:49 AM

As I said: it probably was a wrong action but given the world they live in, I am not sure about the seriousness it should be condemned. I think that they were "adventuring in a dungeon and suddenly encountered an enemy and that encounter turned into a fight" could be counted as "mitigating factor".

Thus, instead of being "wrong 7" it's only "wrong 3".

I don't want to argue it was the biggest mistake in that encounter. It surely was.

Yet, I'm not really sure if the suggestion shattered all options for a peaceful solution. It could be the dragon was intimidated enough to make a deal instead of risking another fight.
The long-term effect of having an angered dragon in your history isn't surely one you want but I would not go as far as saying there was no chance of a peaceful solution for the current problem.
And the angry-dragon-thing... it's one thing to be angry and another to be able to to actually enact revenge (especially if that means you have to venture far from your hoard), thus it's quite possible the "short term peaceful resolution" becomes a permanent one.

Note: Vaarsuvius does not think about such things and lets them play a role in his decisions has been shown with Mother Dragon, so he cannot use the prevention of long-term-effects as excuse for his killing (he simply did it because he can - the new spell HAD to get tried).

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 07:52 AM

Why enshrine it though? Enshrining it indicates this means something to you.

I think it's fairly safe to assume it was not enshrined. It was on the floor in a place we know as damp and dusty. If it was enshrined, it would at least have been on a pedestal or so. At least. Given what we know about dragons, "enshrining" something means "building a pedestal and putting lots of other valuables around and below it and also maybe decorate the entire cave around it with the bones of fallen enemies".
Dragons are not particularly known for "thinking small"... whatever the starmetal did what it did when it was found: it was not especially enshrined by a dragon.

Morthis

2010-03-18, 07:59 AM

I think it's fairly safe to assume it was not enshrined. It was on the floor in a place we know as damp and dusty. If it was enshrined, it would at least have been on a pedestal or so. At least. Given what we know about dragons, "enshrining" something means "building a pedestal and putting lots of other valuables around and below it and also maybe decorate the entire cave around it with the bones of fallen enemies".
Dragons are not particularly known for "thinking small"... whatever the starmetal did what it did when it was found: it was not especially enshrined by a dragon.

The comic specifically says otherwise though.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 08:04 AM

The comic specifically says otherwise though.

Well, Vaarsuvius says it - but it still does not really look like it.

But let's assume it actually was enshrined. I guess it just looked more fancy for those who were there. ;)

Morthis

2010-03-18, 08:11 AM

Well my thinking is, V is not retarded, he would probably be able to identify what it looks like when a dragon enshrines something. So now we have the word of someone who was present in that cave, and saw the area the starmetal was kept, compared what we see in like 3 panels. To me, V's comments seem like the more reliable choice of the two.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 08:17 AM

I already agreed to you. ;)

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 08:19 AM

Why enshrine it though? Enshrining it indicates this means something to you.

The comic specifically says otherwise though.

V used the word "enshrine," not the dragons.
I already supplied an explanation as to why the lump of metal could have been off by itself.

Morthis

2010-03-18, 08:26 AM

V used the word "enshrine," not the dragons.
I already supplied an explanation as to why the lump of metal could have been off by itself.

Right, but enshrine means something more than just being "off by itself". I already explained above why I feel V is the more reliable source (of those available) of how the starmetal was kept.

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 08:36 AM

Right, but enshrine means something more than just being "off by itself". I already explained above why I feel V is the more reliable source (of those available) of how the starmetal was kept.

He's not reliable at all, given that a) he was utterly wrong as to the importance of the starmetal to the dragons, and b) he has a tendency to embellish his language unnecessarily. Further, his initial reading of the runes (where he is pointing at them) simply say it was "brought here." The fact that he used "enshrined" later does not mean that is what the runes said.

And if the Starmetal really was "enshrined" why was it just lying on the floor? Wouldn't a pedestal or display of some kind be more expected?

And none of this invalidates the possibility that the dragons would simply rather trade it for something else, or even give it away if sufficiently flattered (the default "negotiate with dragons" tactic.)

Underground

2010-03-18, 08:42 AM

Hmm.

Slaughtering a ton of evil people is not an evil act.

So I dont get the "doomed" part.

And yes I argue strictly in D&D terms - there is no such thing as an "evil race" in reallife.

Also I dont get it why the dragons would know who slaughtered their friends. After all, V DID use something super powerful and even dragons might have a very hard time finding out what actually happened.

In the real world, "death" is the ultimate sacrifice and thus counts for "a lot". But in a world where your soul just gets to a nice resting place or might even get ressurected, where the "death" is not "the end" or "the oblivion for everything that you are" (no offense to people who believe in RL-souls!) - it's simply not worth that much. How do you know this is so much different from what happends in reality ? Just curious what makes you so sure.

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 08:48 AM

Also I dont get it why the dragons would know who slaughtered their friends. After all, V DID use something super powerful and even dragons might have a very hard time finding out what actually happened.

The same way Mama found him in the first place - the Oracle.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 08:56 AM

I first thought the same as Optimysik, but I think I follow Morthis now.

There are two different things to consider here:
A) Vaarsuvius' statement
B) the exact rendering of the Starmetal

We have two different possible conclusions:
1) The Starmetal was enshrined
2) The Starmetal was not enshrined

Let's discuss this:
The exact way the starmetal was shown indicates it was not enshrined. It was just on the floor in a room. In that case, Vaarsuvius comment would just be his usual verbose way to say "look, in that other room is the Starmetal".

But considering how likely it is that a dragon would let something that valuable lie around I have to say: it's unlikely. If the dragon knew what it was, there is no way it just happens to lie on the ground in a random room or even got lost by accident. Dragons simply don't treat their hoard with the for that necessary neglect.

If we assume the dragon did NOT know what the starmetal is, then we have to assume it got lost (sunk in the swamp, got kicked around to lie in the corner of a room or similar) over the past *decades*.

Thus, I conclude the dragon knew what it was. IF she knew what it was, why would it be there, alone in the next room, just on the floor. Why would it not be "enshrined" or at least somewhere on or in the hoard? I'm failing to see a way to bring these two statements "The dragon knew what the starmetal was" and "it was not enshrined but just lieing around" together.

So I conclude: The dragon knew what it was and it was enshrined.
This gets supported by Vaarsuvius' words which were, in this case, not verbose or bloated - an assumption that is supported in the comic: Vaarsvuvius talks about runes outlining the history of the starmetal (which again is a proof for the conclusion that the dragon knew what it was). This indicates some more elaborate decorations than just a bare tunnel in the rock.
We do not see a second exit to the starmetal-cave so we can assume it's a dead end.
As Vaarsuvius talks about "enshrining", there are probably more decorations around the tunnel that leads to the starmetal cave. Those renderings are often not shown in the comic and we should not forget that we still talk about a time when the drawing of the comic evolved.

We are left with just the problem that the cave itself really does not look like anything that resembles a shrine. There are no pedestals or all the other things I spoke about earlier that I expect when a dragon enshrines something.
But given the above ramblings, I have to assume there are runes and the floor is made of solid stone (not soft mud).

I'm also going to add an "artistic rendering". Rich draw the metal to lie on the floor to even increase the impression the lack of size makes. There is no other reference near the metal so we only have the incoming Roy (and nothing else) to compare its size to.
That scene has a good effect so I'm willing to assume the pedestal etc was sacrificed for it.

Of course, all this is not definite. But given the two options "Enshrined" or "Not Enshrined" I have to say I find it much more probable that it was indeed enshrined.

Sholos

2010-03-18, 08:56 AM

Hmm.

Slaughtering a ton of evil people is not an evil act.

So I dont get the "doomed" part.

And yes I argue strictly in D&D terms - there is no such thing as an "evil race" in reallife.

Even if we assume that slaughtering random evil creatures is "okay", and we assume that every black dragon is evil (something only true by RAW, and we've seen Rich go against RAW when it comes to alignment), at least a few of those killed could have been half-dragons and could have very possibly been some alignment other than evil. Not to mention the spell itself almost assuredly had the evil descriptor. I mean, it's a custom-made-by-a-necromancer epic spell. What are the odds that it wasn't evil?

Shale

2010-03-18, 08:57 AM

Hmm.

Slaughtering a ton of evil people is not an evil act.

So I dont get the "doomed" part.

So when Xykon kills his minions en masse, that makes him more good?

Kish

2010-03-18, 09:01 AM

Hmm.

Slaughtering a ton of evil people is not an evil act.

So I dont get the "doomed" part.
Clearly, there is something wrong with one of your premises.

I would suggest examining the stated one first.

Ancalagon

2010-03-18, 09:05 AM

How do you know this is so much different from what happends in reality ? Just curious what makes you so sure.

No. I'm not going to talk on a fantasy-rpg forum the reasons why I think that some certain RL beliefs are wrong and actually much worse than some really crappy fantasy writings I read. Especially if something like that is not allowed due to the forum rules.

If you really are interested in finding out why people might consider some RL beliefs to be outright ridiculous (no offense, really. You believe what you do, I believe what I do, and apart from that, we both are nice persons and human beings that can gladly argue about the moral of Vaarsuvius or this awesome plot) I suggest you read around on the net or old fashioned dead-tree-books on that issue.

Probably everything I can say has been said much better by numerous and very diverse authors (and no, I'm not an Atheist, I find people who think that are also wrong (not as wrong as... but that's another issue)).

So, I'm sorry, but I have to decline an answer to your question in this place. We have already enough problems argueing about stuff Rich made up that no one has a truely deep connection to. ;)

Optimystik

2010-03-18, 09:06 AM

Thus, I conclude the dragon knew what it was. IF she knew what it was, why would it be there, alone in the next room, just on the floor. Why would it not be "enshrined" or at least somewhere on or in the hoard? I'm failing to see a way to bring these two statements "The dragon knew what the starmetal was" and "it was not enshrined but just lieing around" together.

There are a couple of ways to explain this.

1) The Dragon was present when the Starmetal fell ("Centuries ago," "through the atmosphere.") Thus, bringing it to the cave was like finding a pretty shell on the beach. Not particularly valuable, but interesting enough to hang on to.

2)It is off by itself because it is very small and could potentially be lost amidst all the coins and jewels.

And all of your arguments (and Morthis') about "enshrined or not enshrined" are missing the point. Whether she considered it special or not does not rule out the possibility of trading it, or even giving it away. Junior had yet to speak with any of the party members that had Charisma, i.e. Roy and Elan. We already know these dragons are not typical of blacks. For one, Black parents do not keep their children around into young adulthood (Draconomicon) - they either eat them, force them out or are killed themselves by their traitorous offspring. They certainly don't spend time learning lizard, or befriending Green dragons. Of these, V only knew the second one, but even that (plus the dragon, you know, taking the time out in the middle of being attacked to talk) should have clued V in that this dragon may not have been as Color Coded for His Convenience as he thought.

ColourDeaf

2010-03-18, 09:21 AM

If I may posit a slightly different approach. Would the other Black Dragons necessarily care? Now, I know 'Always Chaotic Evil' doesn't mean Always Chaotic Evil, as it were, but so far we've only had 2 instances of Black Dragons actually speaking, and of them only Mama Dragon had any real conversation. Now, Mama Dragon was outraged that her child had been killed, and horrified at the Familicide spell that V cast, but that may just be because that she cared about her direct kids, who were about to be killed. Now, if we take MD's reaction to kin dying as a basis, then it's entirely possible they'll care. However, we don't know if it will just be the mothers who care (since the males could quite easily abandon their offspring, or the female after mating), or even if MD was an anomaly of Black Dragon psychology. Other Black Dragons who are in no way affected by this may just go "Meh, sucks to be them. Obviously they were weak and stupid. I wonder where they kept their hoard..."

I'm, personally, not entirely convinced that the whole of the Black Dragon species is going to take umbridge at V killing off a lot of them, as they are, as a general guideline, Chaotic Evil

Just my two cents, anyway

Starbuck_II

2010-03-18, 09:24 AM

So when Xykon kills his minions en masse, that makes him more good?

No, it makes him good-er. One act will not change your alignment.
Remember Xylon does evil all the time: doing a good act here and there is not enough to play catch up.
The most he could hope for his neutrality till he stops doing evil.

But since he won't (since he can't taste coffee: Why not try to make/learn a spell to let liches taste?) then he is doomed to evil.

Reverent-One

2010-03-18, 09:24 AM

And all of your arguments (and Morthis') about "enshrined or not enshrined" are missing the point. Whether she considered it special or not does not rule out the possibility of trading it, or even giving it away. Junior had yet to speak with any of the party members that had Charisma, i.e. Roy and Elan. We already know these dragons are not typical of blacks. For one, Black parents do not keep their children around into young adulthood (Draconomicon) - they either eat them, force them out or are killed themselves by their traitorous offspring. They certainly don't spend time learning lizard, or befriending Green dragons. Of these, V only knew the second one, but even that (plus the dragon, you know, taking the time out in the middle of being attacked to talk) should have clued V in that this dragon may not have been as Color Coded for His Convenience as he thought.

How do you know this? Junior could speak common just fine, and it is, I believe, fairly common knowledge that a dragon can do so. How do you know that before combat started that the party didn't try to parley with Junior first?