About Xykon's power:

[Souhiro]

To cast a Maximized Energy Drain (Last Panel Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)) Xykon needs a Cha of 32-33.

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him?

[Kerrah]

Because he's a mass-murderer, perhaps.

[Ancalagon]

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him?

Because, to quote SoD, he's some kind of ****.

[Kish]

Charisma=/="Everyone will like you regardless of your actions or whether you want them to like you."

Also, though, who's this Everybody who hates him? The only people I can think of who hate Xykon personally, rather than "recognize that he's the villain," are Roy and Redcloak. The one is obsessed with him, the other completely dominated by him. Tsukiko has a crush on him and the hobgoblins fear and obey him. He hasn't tried to use his charisma to make anyone like him since he died.

[Souhiro]

Charisma=/="Everyone will like you regardless of your actions or whether you want them to like you."
Try to tell it to all the Sephiroth fans!

He isn't a mass murder, is a Mega-Mass Murder; he wants to kill the entire planet (inhabitants and planet's life force) and still, he has a HUGE fanbase.

[Ancalagon]

He hasn't tried to use his charisma to make anyone like him since he died.

He did that before he died?

I think the only exception could be Yydranna but I think they mostly paired up because... well, who else was there?
Ok, we know he did that once in a while (the girl in the bar when he tells his crown-story) but that's nothing you'd need charisma 18+ for anyway.

Apart from his ladyfriends Xykon never was strong or really interested in using his charisma "to be liked". And why should he? He's a textbook-sociopath after all.

[Ancalagon]

He isn't a mass murder, is a Mega-Mass Murder; he wants to kill the entire planet (inhabitants and planet's life force) and still, he has a HUGE fanbase.

Where did you get THAT from? He does not. He wants to rule the planet. Stating that Xykon "wants to kill the planet and even the souls of all beings living there" is simply wrong.
Even further, Redcloak told him about the god-killer but left out all the other fine details - the "unmaking of the universe" really isn't Xykon's thing here. No really, you are totally off the mark...

[Souhiro]

Where did you get THAT from? He does not. He wants to rule the planet. Stating that Xykon "wants to kill the planet and even the souls of all beings living there" is simply wrong. The Mega-Mass murder was about Sephiroth, not about Xykon.

[Ancalagon]

The Mega-Mass murder was about Sephiroth, not about Xykon.

Ah, so you changed the topic. ;)

Sephiroth... also a FF-character. Did not know that, I always thought it was that RL-religion thing... pretty stupid name for their villian the FF-makers have chosen there...

[Kish]

He did that before he died?

I think the only exception could be Yydranna but I think they mostly paired up because... well, who else was there?
Ok, we know he did that once in a while (the girl in the bar when he tells his crown-story) but that's nothing you'd need charisma 18+ for anyway.

The point is that he was using his Charisma, not whether he needed as much Charisma as he has for it. :smalltongue:

Try to tell it to all the Sephiroth fans!

He isn't a mass murder, is a Mega-Mass Murder; he wants to kill the entire planet (inhabitants and planet's life force) and still, he has a HUGE fanbase.
You've shifted your "everyone" into the real world now. I can't think of anyone in the real world who hates Xykon.

[TheWerdna]

He ha been using his high Charisma .... Intimidate is a Charisma based skill.

[hewhosaysfish]

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him?

His Charisma score doesn't mean people like him when he kills them and all their friends. It just means they can't deny that he was pretty badass-awesome when did it.

See also: Badass and really badass explained. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html)
A practical demonstration of badass (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)

Hateable? Certainly.
But he's got style.

[Ancalagon]

The point is that he was using his Charisma, not whether he needed as much Charisma as he has for it. :smalltongue:

Yes, but as far as we know, he did not really use it for anything but that. ;)

[NerfTW]

Elan has 18 (and now possibly more) charisma, and people still get annoyed with and hate him.

[Souhiro]

His Charisma score doesn't mean people like him when he kills them and all their friends. It just means they can't deny that he was pretty badass-awesome when did it.

You know, V is counted among the people without charisma (Geekery inside) at he was awesomely badass inscribing explosive runes in the Philactery. O'chul himself complains about having CHA as a dump stat, and he is awfully badass surviving Xykon's deathtraps.


My post is about Xykon isn't very charismatic. You can see Girard, at least in the Crayons of Time, and he seems to be charismatic and BadAss. But Xykon don't seems to be intimidating, at least until he shoot meteor swarms or energy drains. And that isn't by his high charisma. At Start of Darkness, when he is in the bar with RedCloak and RighEye he seems to be an old man, a bitter old man. Not an intimidating one.


Palpatine is an old man, with lots "Dark Charisma" (Intimidating Charisma, not Charming Charisma) but Xykon seems to me a clown with heavy firepower.

I mean: Palpatine enters into a tabern, nobody knows hum, but the band stop playing, everybody shuts and the less courageous hide under their tables.
The Old Xykon (The one with flesh) enters into the same tabern, and everybody continues with their babling and their business. And I'm pretty sure that that Xykon has a huge charisma, by then.

[ocdscale]

His Charisma score doesn't mean people like him when he kills them and all their friends. It just means they can't deny that he was pretty badass-awesome when did it.

See also: Badass and really badass explained. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html)
A practical demonstration of badass (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)

Hateable? Certainly.
But he's got style.

You really think the O'Chul would agree with you, that Xykon's actions were "badass-awesome"?

Charisma is merely force of personality, something which Xykon has in spades.
He's practically always the center of attention no matter where he is.

[Optimystik]

He hasn't tried to use his charisma to make anyone like him since he died.

I wouldn't go that far. When he isn't angry, he seems to be okay with having a little fun with the minions. First, we have Redcloak calling him "funny and charming" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html), and second, he's instituted movie night (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html), taco night, twister and other such diversions. (The latter two are in SoD.)

The point being that he uses his Charisma for more than save DCs and Intimidate.

[Nimrod's Son]

I mean: Palpatine enters into a tabern, nobody knows hum, but the band stop playing, everybody shuts and the less courageous hide under their tables.
Hmm... must have missed that scene.

The whole POINT of Palpatine through most of the prequel trilogy is that no one has any clue just what he's capable of. To most people in the galaxy, he's just a wise, benevolent politician. Even his detractors never say anything more damning than "he's not to be trusted".

And if you meant Palpatine AFTER his big reveal, well, it's hardly fair to compare him to Xykon when he was still human, is it?

[Kish]

My post is about Xykon isn't very charismatic. You can see Girard, at least in the Crayons of Time, and he seems to be charismatic and BadAss.:smallsigh: No, he doesn't. The primary thought that comes to mind reading Girard saying, "Honor, yeah, that and a silver piece will get you a hunk of cheese" is "used car salesman." In the other scenes he's just kind of there, maybe the least noticeable member of the Order of the Scribble.

And if you read Start of Darkness and didn't see Xykon as projecting amazing presence in the final scene, well, I think you're missing something.

[Lord_Drayakir]

Charisma, can also be likened how well you influence people. Well, that's practically the definition of it anyway. And Xykon has a great deal of it. Sure, he's not nice, and he doesn't charm people into doing what he wants (non-magical charm). Instead he just strongarms them by the threat of deadly force.

But it's still Charisma. Furthermore, as someone mentioned in SoD, he was pretty successful with the ladies, including some non-humanoid ones as well. In addition, in order to have loyal mooks, if we go past the story, and just into the D&D mechanics, he needs the Leadership feat, and the Leadership feat is most useful when the person in question has a ton of Charisma.

[Captainocaptain]

As for the tavern thing, Bluff is also charisma based, so is disguise. If Xykon wanted to be a commanding presence when he walked in then he would be, but if he wanted to be ignored he can do that too.
Charisma affects how convincing you are. No matter what you are trying to convince people of, its still charisma.

[Debatra]

Palpatine is an old man, with lots "Dark Charisma" (Intimidating Charisma, not Charming Charisma) but Xykon seems to me a clown with heavy firepower.

:roach: Clown With Heavy Firepower? Quick! Somebody stat up that Prestige Class!

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/evil_ronald_mcdonald.jpghttp://members.optusnet.com.au/evilpundit/blog/images/rommel-mcdonald.jpg

[slayerx]

Try to tell it to all the Sephiroth fans!

He isn't a mass murder, is a Mega-Mass Murder; he wants to kill the entire planet (inhabitants and planet's life force) and still, he has a HUGE fanbase.

Xykon has a fanbase, i'm lots of people here loves Xykon... we just love him for a different reason. We just love how evil he is... similar can be said for sephiroth... Its not a "we want to go out and have a beer with the guy" kinda of like, but more of "he's so badass, cool, evil and funny" kinda of like... if we were in the OotS world we would fear him, but from the perspective of readers we luvs him... same for sephiroth, in the FF-verse we would fear and hate him like and real world villain, but from the perspective of gamers, we can love him

[Asta Kask]

Basil Fawlty has a huge fanbase, but I doubt many of them would care to associate with the man for an extended period of time.

[Ossian]

A lot of people have had Charisma, like the Pacific has water, without being necessarily good looking, or even likeable, for their actions and conduct.
Tyrants of the highest order simply ooze command, and people want to stay close to them, whether to bask in their light or simply because they are too afraid. They attract followers like moths go to the light, and even those who oppose them can´t help but want to be like them sometimes.

Here is a good example of a guy who was not necessarily good looking or even a nice guy, yet he overthrew the existing power caste, to replace it with himself as a son of Venus and a Demi God. He broke every single law and tradition, and the masses loved him for that.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles2/1446004/article_images/ciaran.jpg

Here is another "sorcerer who is charisma on legs". The galaxy at large hates his guts, and yet...

http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/images/emperor.jpg

[Morquard]

Charisma can be used to many ends. When used with Bluff and Gather info its usually a "you like me so much you believe what I say/tell me what I want to know" kind.
But Intimidate for example is Cha based too, and your goal there is clearly not to be liked.

Pathfinder (i know OOTS is based on 3.5) expanded the explanation for the ability scores a bit, there it says:

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. [...] For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.”

[jidasfire]

Xykon's charisma shows itself in a lot of ways. When he was alive, it's shown that he was pretty successful with women, even when he got older. Also, his stupidity act manages to fool just about everyone into thinking he's a bumbling cliche villain instead of the monstrous psychopath and manipulator he really is. Finally, on those rare occasions when he lets the act down and shows who he truly is, he is truly terrifying. So don't be fooled. If you don't think Xykon is charismatic, it's probably because that's what he wants you to think.

[Closak]

Ah, so you changed the topic. ;)

Sephiroth... also a FF-character. Did not know that, I always thought it was that RL-religion thing... pretty stupid name for their villian the FF-makers have chosen there...

...Why do i get the feeling that you don't even really know what it is you are talking about?
Well, either you don't know what you are talking about and are just jumping to conclusions or you are a hater (Funny thing about haters, they tend to twist and even make up new facts in a attempt to make the thing they hate look bad, then they get angry when it's pointed out that what they are saying isn't true) OR you are trying to troll.
The first option seems the most likely.

(By not knowing what you are talking about i mean not knowing anything about Final Fantasy 7, and when you talk about things you don't have very much knowledge about a lot of the stuff you say about it tend to be blatantly wrong)

The name is actually quite appropriate given the setting and Sephiroth's goal.
It's a symbolic name.

WARNING: RANT AHEAD

Seeing as so few people actually bother finding out all the little details i figured i might as well take this opportunity to write down a few things about him.

For starters, Sephiroth was created by scientists (Hojo being the most important) to be beyond peak human.
After not only being infused with Jenova Cells while still an embryo but also receiving extensive genetic engineering in an attemp to make him "Perfect" Sephiroth was basically born better than everyone else.
In D&D terms this would basically translate as starting out with straight 20's across the board on all attributes even though 18 is supposed to be the highest you can start with, and even then only with one or two, not all six attributes.
Thank the crazy scientists for that one.

Add in the best military training that ShinRa INC had to offer and you end up with a monster of a man.
And that's without all the field experience he got from the wutai war later on.


Then there's his weapon, the Masamune.
That thing is nasty incarnate.

For starters, notice how he keeps leaving the thing behind everywhere?
I kinda doubt he bothered turning around to retrieve it after he left it in the president's back, so this would imply an ability to summon it to his hand at will.
There's also the part where despite the sheer lenght of it you never see it on him outside of combat, which implies some sort of hammer-space (Also why he can turn around without slicing the whole street in half)

Then there's the part with how no one else than him can successfully use it, anyone else who attempts to tend to either die or at least be horribly injured in some way.

Also remember when Tseng got his chest sliced wide open?
Why didn't he just use a potion to fix that?
Or for that matter, why didn't anyone use a potion on Tifa when she got sliced open during the Nibelheim incident?
Simple, the Masamune is cursed, magical healing won't work on wounds caused by it, you either let it heal naturally or use SCIENCE! to fix the wound, but magical healing won't do squat, which is a problem when you get the thing lodged in a vital organ.

In D&D terms this would mean that if you try to ressurect someone killed by it the result would be "Sorry, ressurection counts as magical healing, no rez for you"


And that's just the stuff he had while he was still human, it got a lot worse when he turned into whatever the heck he is by the time of the game. Let alone the movie.

Illusions, remember in the northern crater when you leave the black materia with a team member?
Well, Tifa comes rushing and calls for that team member to come help Cloud, and after said team member has left Tifa dissappears and Sephiroth is there instead.

Meaning that Sephiroth can disguise himself as other people, which is...well...bad.

And remember the Supernova attack?
That is also illusion, a big one at that, the only part about it that is actully real is the giant fireball at the very end. The rest is just there for Sephiroth to say "I am God, you are screwed!"
This also explains why he can do it several times and why it's not an automatic game over.
Heck, the whole battle field you fight him in is also an illusion, even the thing you are fighting is nothing more than a physical manifestation of his willpower.

Also, about the final battle, a large portion of his strenght was occupied with restraining Holy, so he could only fight you at a small fraction of his true power, the rest had to be used to keep the planet's ultimate defene mechanism from interfering.
Had he actually been at full strenght it is very likely that he would have been stronger than Emerald and Ruby WEAPON's combined.

The last fight is him trying to take over Cloud so he can use Cloud's strenght to bolster his own, this is because after the battle against his Safer form he barely has enough strenght left to keep Holy away and really needs a boost to keep from being overwhelmed, unfortunately for him Cloud made his will save.
This results in Holy getting loose and Sephiroth being torn apart in the process.

Bad news is that despite having his plan to use Meteor to wound the planet and absorb it's lifestream AND being torn apart Sephiroth still had a backup.

His destruction allows him to spread Jenova's cells into the lifestream as it comes out to aid in destroying Meteor, coming into contact with a whole lot of people in the process.
This causes the Geostigma, and when people with Geostigma dies their lifefore (AKA their souls) are corrupted and placed under Sephiroths control.

Then despite being torn into several small chunks of lingering thoughts he still manages to will Kadaj, Yazoo and Loz into existence by creating them from his own remains.

Then he manages to pull himself back together by using people's memories off him, eventually reconstructing himself as an entity made entirely out of thoughts and willpower.
Unfortunately, to make a long story short, this basically means that he turned the whole freaking planet into some sort of giant phylactery, as long as people know who he is he will continue to exist and never EVER actually die.

Then he manages to manifest a presence on the physical plane by possessing Kadaj after he absorbs some Jenova cells.

The dark sky that appears when he waves his hand is the corrupted lifestream from all those who died from the Geostigma, at that time he has enough of it under his control to rip the planet out of orbit and use the whole world as a massive spaceship, this would also kill everything living on the planet, as well as the planet itself, which would let him absorb it and become a god.
After that it's a simple matter of finding another planet and repeating the process to gain even more power, like some sort of planet eating super god-parasite.

However, his physical forms power is limited and he can only use a fraction of his power while possessing Kadaj, but since it's his only way of interacting with the physical world and he needs a physical presence to enact his plan he has no other choice than to tolerate the power limit that comes with it.

Then Cloud kills Kadaj with an Omnislash and basically slams the door to the world of the living shut in Sephiroth's face, which causes the corrupted lifestream to dissipate before it can get started on the whole tearing the planet out of orbit thing.

So now Sephiroth is stuck with a whole lot of power and no way to use it, trapped in the lifestream together with a very angry Zack and Aeris.
Good luck getting anything at all done now when you have those two restraining you all the time.

If Sephiroth ever manages to manifest again it would basically be bye-bye planet.


Now, about Xykon.

His main way of using his charisma these days seems to be to keep up the act of appearing like a total idiot.
And of course intimidating Redcloak into obeying whenever he get's uppity.

[Ancalagon]

...Why do i get the feeling that you don't even really know what it is you are talking about?

The first option seems the most likely.

You deducted what I just said. I'm impressed, Watson, very impressed. ;)

And I don't hate FF, I just don't care about it. But I see I just pushed a red, blinking button and will rather back out. Slowly.

About Xykon: Actually, I don't think it's an act. He behaves relaxed and charming because that's just like he feels. Xykon does not seem to be the type who puts up an act to appear this or that way.
He's just a "charismatic guy".

That his "true face" shows sometimes does not have to mean his other one is a mask or even a deliberate "act", in fact I think he does not care enough to actually put up an act.

[Nimrod's Son]

Funny thing about haters, they tend to twist and even make up new facts in a attempt to make the thing they hate look bad, then they get angry when it's pointed out that what they are saying isn't true
...

I was going to make some sort of comment about elves here, but you know what? I'll leave it. Too easy.

(Also, regarding your spoiler: does the abbreviation TL:DR mean anything to you? :smallwink:)

[Optimystik]

...

I was going to make some sort of comment about elves here, but you know what? I'll leave it. Too easy.

Thank you for saving us :smalltongue:


(Also, regarding your spoiler: does the abbreviation TL:DR mean anything to you? :smallwink:)

In his defense, he used the spoiler block as intended.



Here is another "sorcerer who is charisma on legs". The galaxy at large hates his guts, and yet...

http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/images/emperor.jpg

I'm glad you mentioned Palpatine - he's a great example of how someone can be a total ass, hated and feared by millions, and still be very charismatic. He's a reasonably good analogue to Xykon.

[Nimrod's Son]

In his defense, he used the spoiler block as intended.
Oh, absolutely. But as I understood it, it was intended as some sort of crash-course for the uninitiated - and I don't believe that ANYONE who wasn't already a big FF fan would bother wading through all that.

[Closak]

...

I was going to make some sort of comment about elves here, but you know what? I'll leave it. Too easy.

Yes, it's true that i hate elves.

This is because i have seen only bad elves and no good ones.

First there's V's arrogance and belief that he is justified in anything he does.
Then comes the Familicide.

And now we have the elven commander and his remark about how the only good goblin is a dead goblin.

And i have not seen a darn trace of nice elves anywhere.

So duh, of course i hate their guts, and i will maintain that hate until i see with my own eyes that not all elves are total ass-hats.

[Nimrod's Son]

:smallsigh: Someday, with luck, I will learn to keep my big mouth shut and let sleeping dogs "dragons" lie.

[Ancalagon]

Yes, it's true that i hate elves.

This is because i have seen only bad elves and no good ones.

[...]

And i have not seen a darn trace of nice elves anywhere.

So duh, of course i hate their guts, and i will maintain that hate until i see with my own eyes that not all elves are total ass-hats.

Vaarsuvius' Family (mate, children)? I liked those.

PS: You also seem to have a lot of that stuff in you that leads to the dark side.

[Nimrod's Son]

You also seem to have a lot of that stuff in you that leads to the dark side.
Suffering? Gluttony? I can never remember how this goes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html)

[Ancalagon]

Suffering? Gluttony? I can never remenmber how this goes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html)

If I ask if "stupidity" was also in that progression, I might earn an infraction for flaming so I keep my mouth shut. ;)

[Asta Kask]

First there's V's arrogance and belief that he is justified in anything he does.
Then comes the Familicide.

What I don't understand is this - you hate V because she killed 25% of the world's black dragons. We then learn that Tiamat demands 5 dead good dragons for every dead black dragon - and yet you have no ire directed towards her. How come?

[Nimrod's Son]

Psst: I find it's best not to ask for rational justifications from someone who actually thinks they are a dragon. :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

To drag the thread back on topic - are there characters in fiction/media with low Charisma, that are liked?

I was thinking Durkon, but with the exception of Roy he seems to be more "respected" by the others than "liked."

[Nimrod's Son]

To drag the thread back on topic - are there characters in fiction/media with low Charisma, that are liked?
Hmm... I immediately thought of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Grenouille), although he spends the vast majority of the book either being loathed or living in seclusion, up until the point he creates a perfume that makes everyone adore him unconditionally.

Of course, the fact that most fictional characters don't have a charisma score makes this pretty difficult to judge.

[Ancalagon]

Psst: I find it's best not to ask for rational justifications from someone who actually thinks they are a dragon. :smallwink:

Don't bash dragons that way! Most of us can justify - at least somewhat - rationally. ;)

[Ancalagon]

Hmm... I immediately thought of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Grenouille), although he spends the vast majority of the book either being loathed or living in seclusion, up until the point he creates a perfume that makes everyone adore him unconditionally..

He has CHA 6 and then invents his CHA +20 Potion. (To speak in game-terms)

[Nimrod's Son]

Don't bash dragons that way! Most of us can justify - at least somewhat - rationally. ;)
But... but... you're not a dragon! You're some kind of mysterious glowy-eyed thing that peers out of a hole in my laptop screen!


He has CHA 6 and then invents his CHA +20 Potion. (To speak in game-terms)
Yeah, I guess that sounds about right.

[Ancalagon]

But... but... you're not a dragon! You're some kind of mysterious glowy-eyed thing that peers out of a hole in my laptop screen!

Wait a second... you mean people are not their Avatar and Forum Name? So you are not actually a stormtrooper?

To address Optimysic's question:
You mean in-universe liked by other characters?
Actually, I think Forest Gump could be an example. He's liked by a lot of people (which is kind of the point of the entire thing) but he does not really come over as guy with a lot of charisma (he might look ok but he surely has no real "force of personality" or anything similar).

But you are correct, it's pretty tricky to come up with even a few examples of main-characters that have somewhat lowish scores.

[Capt Spanner]

What I don't understand is this - you hate V because she killed 25% of the world's black dragons. We then learn that Tiamat demands 5 dead good dragons for every dead black dragon - and yet you have no ire directed towards her. How come?

Tiamat isn't a main character, and is also explicitly evil.

Also, vengeful feelings following a genocide (and that is what V did, there - mass slaughter based purely on your birth) are pretty natural when it was your subjects targeted.

[Ancalagon]

Also, vengeful feelings following a genocide (and that is what V did, there - mass slaughter based purely on your birth) are pretty natural when it was your subjects targeted.

Ughh... but... well, he is not... hum... actually a dragon, you know? So it's still a bit strange these feelings pop up. So your explanation does not really offers an... explanation.

[Closak]

Sure, Tiamat is evil, but at least she's honest about it.

What really pisses me off is when someone with a non-evil alignment goes and does something as atrocicously evil as genocide and get's away with it.

It's one thing if you acknowledge that you are an evil bastard, and an entirely other one if you go around claiming to be the one of the good guys while commiting atrocities.

Now, it just so happens that V is supposed to be one of the good guys, and look at what he did.
RAAAAAAAGEEEEE!!!! :smallfurious:

What the hell hero makes me rage at V (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle0z548336167v?from=Main.WhatTheHellHero)

To V: You are a selfish monster who needs to die horribly for the good of everyone else.

[Nimrod's Son]

So you are not actually a stormtrooper?
The smiliest one ever, no less. :smallwink:

Although, to go back to what you said about Grenouille's "+20 CHA perfume": as far as I remember people loved him because he created the perfume, not because he wore it himself. When he douses himself with it at the end of the book, people are so overcome with "love" for him that they kill and eat him.

Um... I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

[Ancalagon]

Sure, Tiamat is evil, but at least she's honest about it.

What really pisses me off is when someone with a non-evil alignment goes and does something as atrocicously evil as genocide and get's away with it.

A) Last time I looked, the story was not over yet.
B) Evil is bad if someone non-evil does it but totally ok if someone evil does it? That does not strike you as... strange?


Now, it just so happens that V is supposed to be one of the good guys, and look at what he did.

Awesome storytelling apart from lame cliches, isn't it?


RAAAAAAAGEEEEE!!!! :smallfurious:

Dude, chill out. You are not a dragon. It's just a story. The story is not over yet. Reserve your freakouts for things that really are worth it.

[Killer Angel]

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him?

I root for him, and he's only a sticky figure! :smallwink:

[Ancalagon]

Although, to go back to what you said about Grenouille's "+20 CHA perfume": as far as I remember people loved him because he created the perfume, not because he wore it himself. When he douses himself with it at the end of the book, people are so overcome with "love" for him that they kill and eat him.

It derails the thread somewhat but (if I remember correctly):
A) He first had some smaller perfumes that did this and that, like "him being able to be a bit more unnoticed" so. Smaller but quite helpful things.
B) Later people liked him because he did use very small amounts of his master-perfume. No one knew he had it or why they liked him so they cannot love him for what he created. He did use it (at least in the book).


Um... I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
Hmm... I think... nowhere. But I'm also not entirely sure. Yet, trying to link Xykon with perfumes seems to be a major task. Maybe Tsukiko gets him one for Valentines Day? ;)

[Closak]

B) Evil is bad if someone non-evil does it but totally ok if someone evil does it? That does not strike you as... strange?

If someone who admits that they are evil does something horrible i shrug and go after them because they need to be stopped, but i won't be completely homicidal about it.
I'm not saying that it's okay, i'm just saying that it doesn't piss me off nearly as much.

If someone who claims to be good does something horrible on the other hand...BOOM RAGE TIME.

[Optimystik]

Hmm... I think... nowhere. But I'm also not entirely sure. Yet, trying to link Xykon with perfumes seems to be a major task. Maybe Tsukiko gets him one for Valentines Day? ;)

He does polish his skull (SoD.) So there's at least a little vanity left.

Anyway, I think this thread is a lost cause. *Exits*

[doodthedud]

You deducted what I just said. I'm impressed, Watson, very impressed. ;)

And I don't hate FF, I just don't care about it. But I see I just pushed a red, blinking button and will rather back out. Slowly.


No idea what's wrong with never playing any FF games...they're kinda dumb-looking imo...

[Asta Kask]

To drag the thread back on topic - are there characters in fiction/media with low Charisma, that are liked?

Do you mean by characters in the series, or by fans?

[SoC175]

To cast a Maximized Energy Drain (Last Panel Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)) Xykon needs a Cha of 32-33.

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him? Actually he only needs a Cha of 19 (10 + spell level). Applying metamagic to a spell doesn't change the spell's level (the only metamagic feat doing so is heighten spell, which does nothing else but increasing the spell's level by 1), only the required spell slot (the DC is also still only 19 + Mods). Even if it did, it would only require Cha 22). And to gain a level 12 spell slot he only needs to take Improved Spell Capacity thrice.

[lord_khaine]

Sure, Tiamat is evil, but at least she's honest about it.

What really pisses me off is when someone with a non-evil alignment goes and does something as atrocicously evil as genocide and get's away with it.

It's one thing if you acknowledge that you are an evil bastard, and an entirely other one if you go around claiming to be the one of the good guys while commiting atrocities.

Now, it just so happens that V is supposed to be one of the good guys, and look at what he did.
RAAAAAAAGEEEEE!!!!


What are you talking about? V did a good deed by making the world a lot safer for all other humanoids.

[Closak]

*Kills all other species on the planet so it's humans are the only ones left*

Look, i did a good deed, we no longer need to worry about those mean animals!

*Kills all politicians*

Another good deed, i just made the world safer!

*Kills everyone in the military*

And another good deed, the world is much safer for us now!

By the way, that guy has a gun, he might be dangerous *Kills*


Oh wait, humans are dangerous to the planet and evil, this means it's okay to kill humans! *Kills every single human i can find and then kills myself for being human*
I just did a good deed!

[Wulfang]

Closak, is it me or you don't have that good a grasp on sarcasm?

[Shale]

Poe's Law. Made worse by the fact that many people on this very forum take that position in complete seriousness.

[Kish]

I am fairly certain there's a great deal of sarcasm in his immediately preceding post, actually.

[Wulfang]

Poe's Law. Made worse by the fact that many people on this very forum take that position in complete seriousness.

Sad but true.

[hamishspence]

I've seen this sort of statement a few times:

"You cannot be Evil and not have committed acts that would make it a Good action to kill you."

Which is pretty much how we get people justifying Familicide, and various other acts in the strip.

[Kish]

I've seen this sort of statement a few times:

"You cannot be Evil and not have committed acts that would make it a Good action to kill you."

Which is pretty much how we get people justifying Familicide, and various other acts in the strip.
Ironically enough, I have no objection to "if you're Evil, you've done really horrible things," as a house rule, provided the person using it recognizes that it's not RAW and changes other rules as necessary to make it fit (no more born-with-the-listed-alignment for Always X Evil creatures, for example).

Of course, people using that line of argument to justify the Familicide are much more likely to blur "Often" and "Usually" into "the-dictionary-meaning-of-always" than to do either of those.

[hamishspence]

In 2nd ed it was "if you detect as evil, you've done really horrible things"- since Detect Evil didn't work the way it does in 3.0-3.5.

an "ordinary" evil character wouldn't ping on it, only on Know Alignment.

An exceptionally malevolent evil character, usually of considerable power, would ping on it.

The "Evil alignment, means that creature has committed exceptionally horrible acts" argument was also used in the original SoD discussion thread:

as an excuse for the paladins slaughtering the goblin children

Though with Rich's statement that the scene does not in fact preclude the possibility that paladins fell, some of the feasibility is taken out of that claim.

[Mystic Muse]

Wait a second... you mean people are not their Avatar and Forum Name? So you are not actually a stormtrooper?


No I am not a nine tailed fox/ good aligned daughter of Asmodeus
Nor am I a nine tailed fox/good aligned son of Asmodeus
nor am I a nine tailed fox version of Hinata.
Nor am I a nine tailed fox version of Link in blue armor.

I am a relatively normal human being.

[Kish]

No I am not a nine tailed fox/ good aligned daughter of Asmodeus
Nor am I a nine tailed fox/good aligned son of Asmodeus
nor am I a nine tailed fox version of Hinata.
Nor am I a nine tailed fox version of Link in blue armor.

I am a relatively normal human being.
Gack! Normal? That's far worse than any of the other four options!

[Mystic Muse]

Gack! Normal? That's far worse than any of the other four options!

Relatively normal. And when I say normal I mean normal for my family, I'd definitely qualify as insane to quite a few people.

that make it better?

Also, being normal is always better than being a furry.:smalltongue:

[jidasfire]

Wasn't this thread about Xykon's Charisma and not another morality debate? I mean, seriously, aren't you people kind of sick of those by now?

[hamishspence]

It turned into a morality debate when elves were brought up, and has bounced back and forth between morality debate, Charisma debate, and a few comments about avatars.

[Kaytara]

Concerning Xykon's Charisma, since when is high Charisma even supposed to be tangentially related to being liked or making people like you?

Have you ever had a teacher at school whom you hated, or just didn't like much, but who had this weird knack for making you work harder and being afraid to slouch off, for whatever reasons?

I think it's less about liking and more about, well, compulsion. Dominating other people by sheer force of personality so that for whatever reason, they're uncomfortable acting the way you don't want them to act. In Elan's case, it's the honest, vulnerable charm of a naive buffoon. In Xykon's case, it's the power with which he carries himself, an aura of personal power that both intoxicates and terrifies, a sense that he's something greater than you and so you really should do as he says.

[RecklessFable]

He ha been using his high Charisma .... Intimidate is a Charisma based skill.

This post on page 1 pretty much answered the OP...

[Dark Matter]

And i have not seen a darn trace of nice elves anywhere.That Druid in SoD.

[Souhiro]

Yeah... Xykon can be intimidateing, but my point is that Xykon isn't intimidating like Vito Corneone is, or like Palpatine is. If Xykon is just speaking, quietly, he isn't an overwhelming presence.

Xykon's intimidating is like he have a kind of Intimidating Prowess Feat (Benefit: Add your Strength modifier to Intimidate skill checks in addition to your Charisma modifier.) but instead adding strength to the Cha, he is adding spell power.

Whe he "CheckMates" Redcloak at the Begining of Darkness, is one of the very few moments he display High CHA, not intimidating, not being loved by the masses, but CheckMating: Getting into RedCloack's mind, and "cornering" him.

But most of time, he acts just a dumbass skelleton. I mean... it's HARD to hide being SO charismatic! we talk of a CHA > 22. That's super-human

[Liwen]

*Kills all other species on the planet so it's humans are the only ones left*

Look, i did a good deed, we no longer need to worry about those mean animals!

*Kills all politicians*

Another good deed, i just made the world safer!

*Kills everyone in the military*

And another good deed, the world is much safer for us now!

By the way, that guy has a gun, he might be dangerous *Kills*


Oh wait, humans are dangerous to the planet and evil, this means it's okay to kill humans! *Kills every single human i can find and then kills myself for being human*
I just did a good deed!

Indeed, that was a very good job. Except for the animal extermination perhaps. Animals are neutral and useful for feeding the dominant race. They also pose very little threat to the planet as a whole, unlike humans. By exterminating them, you have regressed the ecosystem back a few hundreds of millions of years, but I shall see to it that it is rebuilt within the century.

Then we can talk about populating the Earth with another sentient, but less evil and self-destructive race.

[Mystic Muse]

Indeed, that was a very good job. Except for the animal extermination perhaps. Animals are neutral and useful for feeding the dominant race. They also pose very little threat to the planet as a whole, unlike humans. By exterminating them, you have regressed the ecosystem back a few hundreds of millions of years, but I shall see to it that it is rebuilt within the century.

Then we can talk about populating the Earth with another sentient, but less evil and self-destructive race.

how about Dragons?:smallbiggrin:

alternatively, Dinosaurs.

[Closak]

how about Dragons?:smallbiggrin:

alternatively, Dinosaurs.

Three words: Giant space rock.

[Zexion]

People don't like Xykon because he's selfish. Being selfish has nothing to do with your Charisma score.

[Mystic Muse]

Three words: Giant space rock.

huh?:smallconfused:

[Querzis]

Xykon is the center of attraction everytime we see him. Nobody can be as scary or mislead you as easely as Xykon. His sheer force of personnality and his magnetism are also incredible and can force anyone to do pretty much anything if Xykon want it. In other words, Xykon is not just charismatic, hes probably the most charismatic villain I ever saw in fiction. If you dont think hes charismatic, then you dont what charisma mean.

[Dark Matter]

Ironically enough, I have no objection to "if you're Evil, you've done really horrible things," as a house rule, provided the person using it recognizes that it's not RAW and changes other rules as necessary to make it fit (no more born-with-the-listed-alignment for Always X Evil creatures, for example).What's wrong with "born-with-alignment"? Shouldn't we call Vampires evil even before they've killed someone?

I've been thinking about this and realized I don't know of any "always evil" creatures that have an "innocent" (i.e. CR0 &/or helpless) phase. The obvious examples, i.e. Vampires & Dragons have "young" able to slaughter villages. Other species have young who aren't formless impressionable lumps.


Of course, people using that line of argument to justify the Familicide are much more likely to blur "Often" and "Usually" into "the-dictionary-meaning-of-always" than to do either of those.Last I checked, Black Dragons are "always evil". In the real world we'd insist that Dragons stop committing evil acts on people or we'd exterminate them. The reason why you don't find (outside of a zoo) man eating creatures living next to cities is because of this policy.

That's not to say that "Familicide" was correct. Dragons have relatives (including Sorcerers) who don't have "always evil" alignments.

[Mystic Muse]

Always evil means 99% V could have very well killed every good black dragon.

I don't think half dragons have to be evil either although I could be wrong about that.

[Kish]

What's wrong with "born-with-alignment"?

Combined with, "If you're Evil, you've done horrible things"? Think about it for a minute.


Last I checked, Black Dragons are "always evil".

Which doesn't mean the dictionary meaning of "always."

[Querzis]

Always evil means 99% V could have very well killed every good black dragon.

I don't think half dragons have to be evil either although I could be wrong about that.

And, more importantly, the book of Vile Darkness is quite clear about the fact that being evil does not means you deserve death and that killing sentient creatures just because you think they are evil is, well, evil. I still cant believe that some people argue that in D&D you must destroy all evil people and that its a good act to kill evil people when no D&D book say that, in fact, one book say exactly the opposite.

[Mystic Muse]

And, more importantly, the book of Vile Darkness is quite clear about the fact that being evil does not means you deserve death and that killing sentient creatures just because you think they are evil is, well, evil. I still cant believe that some people argue that in D&D you must destroy all evil people and that its a good act to kill evil people when no D&D book say that, in fact, one book say exactly the opposite.

This too.

Last D&D session of mine we came face to face with a young blue dragon. He was evil aligned. All he had done was take livestock from the townsfolk to feed himself. he hasn't killed a single townsperson. Is he deserving of death? If you say no, then evil creatures are not automatically deserving of death.

luckily, it sounds like the Rehabilitation is going well. (we're making him a respectable member of paradise. he shall be buying his own cows and defending the town.)

[Dark Matter]

Always evil means 99% V could have very well killed every good black dragon.Is that what it means? Or does it mean "at least 99%"?


Combined with, "If you're Evil, you've done horrible things"? Think about it for a minute.So we need to let Vampires kill people before we stake them?


And, more importantly, the book of Vile Darkness...Which I have not read.


... is quite clear about the fact that being evil does not means you deserve death and that killing sentient creatures just because you think they are evil is, well, evil. I still cant believe that some people argue that in D&D you must destroy all evil people and that its a good act to kill evil people when no D&D book say that, in fact, one book say exactly the opposite.Fair enough. The issue isn't "people". I wouldn't apply that line of thought to people because (apparently) it's possible to be evil without having done anything. Further, people can change. I'm even willing to apply that line of reasoning to goblins. We might see RC reform... but I suspect Xykon and the Dark One are beyond hope.

In AD&D there are a lot of monsters we normally don't call "people", and when we get into the "always X" category we're apparently dealing with things that either don't have a choice, or who have already made theirs.

If we find out that a Vampire has moved into a location in our city and we don't know specifically if/who he's killing... does that give him a pass?

[hamishspence]

And, more importantly, the book of Vile Darkness is quite clear about the fact that being evil does not means you deserve death and that killing sentient creatures just because you think they are evil is, well, evil. I still cant believe that some people argue that in D&D you must destroy all evil people and that its a good act to kill evil people when no D&D book say that, in fact, one book say exactly the opposite.


I agree strongly with this (though an awful lot of people insist that alignment works otherwise.)

Still BoVD is somewhat less generous toward "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil such as chromatic dragons"- arguing that even if you kill one entirely for profit, it's not an evil act (though its not a good act) because it still prevents it preying on the innocent.

Other books, however, suggest that dragons are not in fact irredeemable (BoED) or describe chromatic dragons that are both evil and not necessarily opponents to the party (Draconomicon mentions a green dragon which, while evil, owns a logging concern, and suggests as a possible adventure hook, the PCs allying with the dragon against a group of militant druids.)

It's also much more a BoED thing than a BoVD thing, the idea that not all evil beings deserve to be slain, or that good characters need more than "they are evil" to justify violence- they need just cause as well.

Which is why it comes up a lot in morality debates, with some people saying that everything in it (including the idea of showing mercy to orc or goblin women and children) is a bad idea,

and others saying most of the fluff in the book on alignment is OK, with only some of the mechanical stuff being poorly written or illlogical (ravages, Sanctify the Wicked, and a few other things.)

[Shale]

Lawful evil is a classic alignment for a petty, obstructive bureaucrat. Do they deserve to die?

[Mystic Muse]

Is that what it means? Or does it mean "at least 99%"?
If always evil meant at least 99% it might as well mean 100% However, I'd ask somebody like Hamish. he knows the alignment system pretty dang well.



So we need to let Vampires kill people before we stake them? vampires are different. They have to kill in order to keep living.



Fair enough. The issue isn't "people". I wouldn't apply that line of thought to people because (apparently) it's possible to be evil without having done anything. Further, people can change. I'm even willing to apply that line of reasoning to goblins. We might see RC reform... but I suspect Xykon and the Dark One are beyond hope. Xykon is beyond hope, The dark one possibly so. Some will argue that Redcloak has already passed the moral event horizon but I wouldn't say so. Not quite yet at least.


In AD&D there are a lot of monsters we normally don't call "people", and when we get into the "always X" category we're apparently dealing with things that either don't have a choice, or who have already made theirs. Always evil means that they're inherently evil. it doesn't mean they can't choose to change their mind and be good instead.


If we find out that a Vampire has moved into a location in our city and we don't know specifically if/who he's killing... does that give him a pass?
again. Vampires are different since they have to kill to live. (at least I think they do. could be making that up)

But, if a creature hasn't done anything that makes them deserving of death you can't kill them just because they might do so in the future.

[hamishspence]

Lawful evil is a classic alignment for a petty, obstructive bureaucrat. Do they deserve to die?

I've tended to argue no numerous times, but others cite Player's Handbook ("Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others")

as proof that anything with an evil alignment has either committed crimes deserving of on-the-spot execution, or has a personality so psychopathic that they should be killed as a danger to others.

The usual argument is "If you spare a creature you know to be evil, any crimes it commits are your fault- so sparing it is an evil act- showing lack of respect for the lives of the innocent"

Personally I think alignment doesn't work quite that way.


However, I'd ask somebody like Hamish. he knows the alignment system pretty dang well.

Why, thank you. :smallredface:

[DeltaEmil]

Lawful evil is a classic alignment for a petty, obstructive bureaucrat. Do they deserve to die?Yes, if they sacrifice people to their lawful evil deities, and impose and/or enforce harsh and cruel laws that will lead to death, suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves.

If they don't do any of these things, they're not lawful evil.

[hamishspence]

But, if a creature hasn't done anything that makes them deserving of death you can't kill them just because they might do so in the future.

This is the bit that gets argued a lot:


Yes, if they sacrifice people to their lawful evil deities, and impose and/or enforce harsh and cruel laws that will lead to death, suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves.

If they don't do any of these things, they're not lawful evil.

Fiendish Codex 2 would tend to differ. Its description of a Lawful Evil society is very similar to that of a typical medieval one.

[Kish]

So we need to let Vampires kill people before we stake them?

If you're not interested in addressing what I actually said, could you please not ask me to deal with strawmen?

Again, one can have "born with the listed alignment, which can be evil" or, "if you've evil, you did all the horrible things on this list." Not both, because anyone just born, by definition, has done exactly one thing--be born. If one wishes to house-rule in "if you're evil, you did all the horrible things on this list," and one wishes to have a set of rules that isn't completely incoherent, one has to to house-rule out "possible to be born with evil alignment."

Of course, that doesn't apply to vampires--because vampires are not born, in any sense. One could make yet another house rule that no one can become a vampire without already being evil aligned, to go with the house rule that "if you're evil, you did all the horrible things on this list," and then even a newly created vampire would have done those things. Without something like that, though, the person in question would be stuck with either, "It's possible to be evil without completing the checklist" or, "A newly turned vampire isn't evil." Definitionally and inescapably.

Without house rules--that is, in by-the-book D&D--it is possible to be born with an alignment, it is possible to be evil without having done anything, it is possible to live out your life with an evil alignment without ever committing anything that would be considered a capital crime in the real world, and killing an evil creature without more of a reason than "s/he is evil" is wrong.

[hamishspence]

Concerning Vampires and society, the 4th edition book Open Grave discussed in some depth.

Basically, in certain cosmopolitan cities (such as Sigil):

The righteous paladin who takes it upon herself to slay an undead "monster" without provocation or proof of the creature's unlawful activity would find herself on the wrong side of the law.

Of course, the undead have to respect the rules of polite society too (first and foremost, no predation on other citizens.)

Generally, in such locations, undead with a diet requirement are required to satisfy it by purchasing livestock.

Alignment seems to be partly personality, and partly acts.

For a newborn chromatic dragon, it's entirely personality.

For a person raised in an Evil society that goes out of its way to instill evil personality traits in their young, through upbringing, Fiendish Codex 2 does suggest that thew act that makes the person Lawful Evil usually takes place at a coming-of-age ceremony. They're already been committing evil acts through childhood (being encouraged to torment the younger children)- this just "seals the deal" so to speak.

So a child in Lawful Evil society will be bullied by the older children, encouraged to bully the younger children as they get older, and

[Shale]

Yes, if they sacrifice people to their lawful evil deities, and impose and/or enforce harsh and cruel laws that will lead to death, suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves.

If they don't do any of these things, they're not lawful evil.

But now we get into the question of what "death, suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves" is. For instance, a clerk at the DMV who keeps customers waiting as long as possible, denies applications for small but technically valid reasons - marks in a "this space intentionally left blank", ink the wrong color, etc. etc. It goes without saying that you can expect to wait in line a long time at his office, and he'll go on break at the busiest time of the day. He enjoys making people miserable this way - it's almost a game. He scrupulously does not go outside of the written rules or do anything out of pure spite - there's always a regulation backing him up. But if there's any leeway for him to make his own call in enforcing the regs, he'll do what makes people jump through the most hoops, and if it means they don't get their driver's license or have to pay a fine, he'll have a chuckle at their expense.

Is that "causing suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves"? I'd say so. Deserving of death? Not so much.

[DeltaEmil]

Fiendish Codex 2 would tend to differ. Its description of a Lawful Evil society is very similar to that of a typical medieval one.And those were clearly good societies, with their progroms against whatever religious group there was (jews are always a good target), hellish torture-devices, never-ending wars, heavy taxes leading to bloody peasant revolts, intolerance, serf-and slave-keeping, bands of robber barons, and other stuff that was really common back then (later followed with witch hunts and inter-religious wars in the early modern times)...

[Kish]

Do you wish to go on record with the stance that real-world humans have been a Usually Evil race for most of our history? :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I tend to the view that a large part of evil alignment, is causing suffering and pain, rather than death.

And not necessarily on a large scale- the sadistic older students at a school that allows them to enforce discipline, the emotionally abusive, the people who go out of their way to make the lives of others a misery in a small way- this kind of petty evil is likely to be more common than the actively murderous.

Small-scale bullies, little tyrants rather than the rulers of nations.


And those were clearly good societies...

The point I'm trying to make, is that being evil is not something that is rare- its quite possible to meet a society where most of the peasants, townsfolk, etc. are evil. That doesn't mean its a Good, or even Neutral, act to slaughter every evil-aligned peasant you meet.

[Digitality]

Personally, I look at alignment as more of a predisposition. It can be reinforced with a history of actions as a character develops.

Either way, without background information on a character/monster/thing, you cannot declare anything righteous or morally good about slaying them all outright "because they're evil and I can/should". Such a view of good fits the trope of Heroic Sociopath I'd say.

It also trivializes morality into an A vs B scenario. It disregards any shades of gray(grey) that might fall in between.


But now we get into the question of what "death, suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves" is. For instance, a clerk at the DMV who keeps customers waiting as long as possible, denies applications for small but technically valid reasons - marks in a "this space intentionally left blank", ink the wrong color, etc. etc. It goes without saying that you can expect to wait in line a long time at his office, and he'll go on break at the busiest time of the day. He enjoys making people miserable this way - it's almost a game. He scrupulously does not go outside of the written rules or do anything out of pure spite - there's always a regulation backing him up. But if there's any leeway for him to make his own call in enforcing the regs, he'll do what makes people jump through the most hoops, and if it means they don't get their driver's license or have to pay a fine, he'll have a chuckle at their expense.

Is that "causing suffering and pain for those who can't defend themselves"? I'd say so. Deserving of death? Not so much.

lol I have a friend who works at an insurance claims office who takes great pleasure in denying claims, and hearing the laments of people over the phone. She's admittedly sadistic though.

[hamishspence]

Either way, without background information on a character/monster/thing, you cannot declare anything righteous or morally good about slaying them all outright "because they're evil and I can/should". Such a view of good fits the trope of Heroic Sociopath I'd say.

An awful lot of players seem to take this tack though- usually phrased as

"Anything with an evil alignment is a threat to innocents. Enough of one, that killing them (with the motivation of protecting innocents) is always a good act. Even if the only thing you know about them is their alignment, not anything else."

Which is not really consistant with the way most D&D sourcebooks work.

In Manual of the Planes, there is a Chaotic Evil wizard who is permitted to reside in Celestia by the archons, because he wants to learn the ways of goodness. While he's sincerely trying to reform, he's got a long way to go, and retains many of the instincts and attitudes of his former lifestyle.

It seems that the archons didn't take a "He's Chaotic Evil- kill him on the spot" attitude.

[DeltaEmil]

An awful lot of players seem to take this tack though- usually phrased as

"Anything with an evil alignment is a threat to innocents. Enough of one, that killing them (with the motivation of protecting innocents) is always a good act. Even if the only thing you know about them is their alignment, not anything else."

Which is not really consistant with the way most D&D sourcebooks work.

In Manual of the Planes, there is a Chaotic Evil wizard who is permitted to reside in Celestia by the archons, because he wants to learn the ways of goodness. While he's sincerely trying to reform, he's got a long way to go, and retains many of the instincts and attitudes of his former lifestyle.

It seems that the archons didn't take a "He's Chaotic Evil- kill him on the spot" attitude.Wasn't it a lich, too? I treat this blurp to be nothing more than some kind of vague and obscure joke steeming from older D&D-editions that only few will ever get, if at all. With nobody laughing...

[Kish]

I don't think, "Even though it's not funny and I can't figure out how it would be, it's a joke, and thus should be ignored," is terribly likely.

[hamishspence]

It doesn't state he was a lich.

Right at the start of the description of Celestia it says the plane is "understanding and mercy" and that :

"Here, justice, kindness, order, celestial grace, and mercy are the rules"

So, no, I don't think it's intended to be an obscure joke.

[Dark Matter]

If you're not interested in addressing what I actually said, could you please not ask me to deal with strawmen?Fine. I'll restate that.

Vampires may not be "born" but the differences between a "created" vampire and a hatched Dragon are mostly in favor of the Vampire being "good" over the Dragon. I'm a PC, I've been LG for centuries, I have a wife and children I love... and oops, through no fault of my own I'm turned into a Vampire. And at that point it's not out of character to eat my children.

Or put differently (in most games), just "being" a Vampire is an evil (horrible) act; If you're a Vampire, then no matter what is done to you, no matter how you are treated, no matter who you were before... the moment we give you the opportunity, you're going to start eating children just because you want to hear them scream. And if it can be true for Vampires, then it can presumably be true for other members of the "always evil" clan, including dragons.

Here I should point out that there are two schools for thought for this.

1) Vampires (or other monsters) are "people with fangs and unusual dietary requirements".

2) Vampires are irredeemably evil. If you're a Vampire, then you're evil, right out the box.

Clearly GMs can do what they want, and they can mix and match these schools for various "races". However it's worth pointing out various source books are written by different people applying different schools to the various monsters. Effectively, school #1 fits "usually, but not always" evil, and school #2 is "always evil".

School #1 is where we get that Blue Dragon who was put to work for the city, and it's also where we get "undead as members of society". It's apparently the default for most (but not all) races in Pathfinder. It's also where we get the idea Paladins shouldn't be killing evil monsters "who haven't done anything wrong" (which is why it's not a straw man for me to ask you if we should wait for Vampires to kill people, it's the logical conclusion of this line of thinking).

But there is nothing innately wrong with saying "being a monster of type X" means you're evil and society should NOT give you the benefit of the doubt. Most GMs throw Demons and Vampires in that group. Familycide looks a lot less evil if we apply it to an elder Vampire and all the Vampires he's created, who are evil by definition.

In real life, there are species on this planet who we are actively trying to exterminate (and there were others in the past). None of them are currently sentient, but it's not clear to me that it would make a difference for us if we found out that a human-parasite or disease like Malaria were sentient. I'm not going to tolerate something that views my kids as food to live around here outside of a zoo, that's true no matter how smart it is (or maybe especially if it's very smart).

[Kish]

Apparently I was too subtle.

No, just apparently under the impression you were refuting something I'd said while not actually addressing what I'd said.


I'll state it directly.

Vampires may not be "born" but the differences between a "created" vampire and a hatched Dragon are mostly in favor of the Vampire being "good" over the Dragon.

That's quite a claim to make and act as though you expect it to pass without question. I will admit that I find it insupportable, in fact. And if you believe that, why bring vampires into it at all? If the differences between a created vampire and a hatched dragon are mostly in favor of the vampire being good over the dragon, then you can make a stronger case for genociding dragons with dragons standing in for dragons than by bringing in vampires.

First, I imagine you meant "chromatic dragon," not to make a statement which could be quite so easily refuted by a very brief glance inside any Monster Manual. However, even so. Vampirism is a condition. It involves dying and being charged with negative energy. If you cast a spell to tell you what race Strahd Von Zarovich is, it will tell you "Human," because that is his race; it won't tell you "vampire," because that's not a race. Familicide cast upon a vampire, in fact, would presumably heal all the injuries currently suffered by that vampire and any other undead creatures who happened to have once been a member of that vampire's living family, kill all the still-living members of it, and not arc in any way to other vampires turned by that vampire. Dragons are living creatures. Whatever their reasons for being an alignment, "They're animated by pure negative energy" isn't one of them. Lumping vampires and dragons both into "the always evil clan" and going from there to, "Therefore, as it is for vampires, so it is for dragons," is as valid as saying, "Snails grow hard shells and are living creatures, so now I will talk about the implications of the hard shell I have just established cougars grow." Um no.


In real life, there are species on this planet who we are actively trying to exterminate (and there were others in the past). None of them are currently sentient, but it's not clear to me that it would make a difference for us if we found out that a human-parasite or disease like Malaria were sentient.
I don't know whether it would either. But this argument, which you keep repeating, would seem to hinge on either the is/ought fallacy, or a belief that real-world humans are Always Good. "Under these circumstances real-world human governments would declare a policy of genocide" has very little to do with, "Under these circumstances a policy of genocide would be morally correct."

Also, you speak as though which of your two options was correct in D&D RAW was under dispute. The Monster Manual spells out quite plainly that even "Always X Alignment" doesn't actually mean "Always." I get that you house-rule that out of existence when/if you DM. If we seemed at all likely to be in a position to play D&D together, I would appreciate the warning; but for debates on a message board, "Usually, but not always evil"--preferably with a little less caricaturing than in your Option 1--is still the official one. For some "monsters"--orcs, for example--"Evil more often than they're not evil, but not enough to say usually" is the official one.

[Havelock]

In the case of a vampire, or undead in general, it is generally a good act to slay them. Either because they bring more negative energy into the world, or by slaying them you release their souls to travel to the afterlife. Becoming a vampire/undead tends to mess up your mind so much that if you were not evil before, you are evil now.

[Dark Matter]

Vampirism is a condition. It involves dying and being charged with negative energy.Dying in AD&D is basically nothing. Being charged with negative energy is big... but we still come back to I can be an Epic level PC with centuries of experience who actually has Shapeshift so I also have experience with other forms. Fundamentally a Vampire is still "me", with my skills, experiences, class features, etc, and could still be a PC... and none of that matters.

Black Dragons out of the shell have none of those things in their favor. We don't understand them well enough to know what they have against them (racial memories, group mind, instinct, something else) but what really matters is the end results.

I don't care "why" a Vampire is "always evil". Us understanding the process better doesn't change what the end dynamic is.


Famlicide cast upon a vampire, in fact, would presumably heal all the injuries currently suffered by that vampire and any other undead creatures who happened to have once been a member of that vampire's living family, kill all the still-living members of it, and not arc in any way to other vampires turned by that vampire. You'd prefer a different spell called "Famlicide #2"? Maybe "Vampircide"? And this is dodging the question, are you comfortable with Vampircide being cast?


Lumping vampires and dragons both into "the always evil clan" and going from there to, "Therefore, as it is for vampires, so it is for dragons,"...I'm not the one who lumped them together, that's the core rules (fixed in Pathfinder btw).

What I'm pointing out is the whole "they're in school #1 because they're alive" or "they're in school #1 because..." ultimately comes down to "they're in school #1 because the ST says they are". That's fine, but that's also a house rule because it's effectively moving them from an "always evil" race to an "usually evil" race.

I'm good with that. There's been interesting stories written about universes where the undead are "usually" rather than "always". But it's not AD&D black letter core, and neither are those "species X is School #1" supplements. One good black dragon can be a freak of nature, claiming all they need is a good home and some ethical training is something else.


I don't know whether it would either. But this argument, which you keep repeating, would seem to hinge on either the is/ought fallacy, or a belief that real-world humans are Always Good. "Under these circumstances real-world human governments would declare a policy of genocide" has very little to do with, "Under these circumstances a policy of genocide would be morally correct."This brings us back to me asking you if you're claiming that it'd be "ethical" to insist that Vampires must kill people before they can be destroyed... even if all of them always try to.

We don't have Paladins destroy things that are evil because they're evil. But we do destroy Vampires/demons/etc because they're always evil. There's no conflict in those two statements.

[Kish]

Black Dragons out of the shell have none of those things in their favor. We don't understand them well enough to know what they have against them (racial memories, group mind, instinct, something else) but what really matters is the end results.

And that end result, in D&D RAW, is "every last one of them is evil," or, "not every last one of them is evil"?


What I'm pointing out is the whole "they're in school #1 because they're alive" or "they're in school #1 because..." ultimately comes down to "they're in school #1 because the ST says they are". That's fine, but that's also a house rule because it's effectively moving them from an "always evil" race to an "usually evil" race.

Again, no. Read the Monster Manual. The house rule, is saying, "This 'Always' is the dictionary definition of 'Always,' not the game term."


This brings us back to me asking you if you're claiming that it'd be "ethical" to insist that Vampires must kill people before they can be destroyed... even if all of them always try to.
And again, I'm not interested in defending strawmen. Quote me saying anything that indicates that if you want me to defend it. Or take vampires, who by your own word are somehow less evil than dragons anyway, back to wherever they came from here and ask a question about what I would (not did) say about dragons.

What I said, was,


Again, one can have "born with the listed alignment, which can be evil" or, "if you've evil, you did all the horrible things on this list." Not both, because anyone just born, by definition, has done exactly one thing--be born. If one wishes to house-rule in "if you're evil, you did all the horrible things on this list," and one wishes to have a set of rules that isn't completely incoherent, one has to to house-rule out "possible to be born with evil alignment."

Is there some part of that that you disagree with? Do you think it's possible to do horrible things before being born? Do you think it's possible to have an evil creature who doesn't fit the definition of an evil creature (both that definition and the fact that said creature is evil being established by the same DM in this example)? If I had said, "I object to the mathematical formula 2+2=17, that last number has to be 4," would you be asking me if I was implying a defense of vampires?

[Havelock]

Familicide was an evil act, the IFCC guys said that they had about 50% chance of getting V's soul permanently after that.

[Fiery Diamond]

Do you wish to go on record with the stance that real-world humans have been a Usually Evil race for most of our history? :smalltongue:

I wish to go on record for that stance.

[Antacid]

My post is about Xykon isn't very charismatic. You can see Girard, at least in the Crayons of Time, and he seems to be charismatic and BadAss. But Xykon don't seems to be intimidating, at least until he shoot meteor swarms or energy drains. And that isn't by his high charisma. At Start of Darkness, when he is in the bar with RedCloak and RighEye he seems to be an old man, a bitter old man. Not an intimidating one.
You can see Charisma as being about understanding how to play on people's emotions as much as physical presence or likability (indeed that's really the only way to justify charismas of 20 or more). Xykon definitely knows what makes people tick, and uses it to maximum effect whenever he needs to. Which isn't that often, because he's so good at it.

E.g. I don't believe Xykon really doesn't remember Roy's name. It's a joke he amuses himself with, diminishing Roy because he know's Roy is obsessed with him.

[Ancalagon]

I'd leave vampires (and undead) in general out of those discussions.

"Is it illegal to kill an undead?"
"Is it murder to... hum... murder an undead?"
"What are the moral rights of those already dead but still somehow living?"

Unless those questions are answered bringing up the undead will make things only trickier. "Undeath" is an totally unnatural act that is "simply wrong" by the rules of the universe - and the creation of one is evil (as the spell indicates).

I doubt anyone really wants such a complicated and tricky example to stand as... hum... easy example as support for some other argument. ;)

[Deca]

E.g. I don't believe Xykon really doesn't remember Roy's name. It's a joke he amuses himself with, diminishing Roy because he know's Roy is obsessed with him.

But doesn't Xykon mess up Roy's name when Roy isn't around at one point? I don't remember the strip but I'm sure he did it once.

[Ancalagon]

E.g. I don't believe Xykon really doesn't remember Roy's name. It's a joke he amuses himself with, diminishing Roy because he know's Roy is obsessed with him.

I don't know... both options seem quite possible with Xykon.

What I think is very likely that in the past, he really did not remember/care who Roy was. I guess that did change now.

[Dark Matter]

And again, I'm not interested in defending strawmen...

Is there some part of that that you disagree with? Do you think it's possible to do horrible things before being born? Do you think it's possible to have an evil creature who doesn't fit the definition of an evil creature (both that definition and the fact that said creature is evil being established by the same DM in this example)? If I had said, "I object to the mathematical formula 2+2=17, that last number has to be 4," would you be asking me if I was implying a defense of vampires?It's not a strawman. If you're going to insist that one "always evil" race species be allowed to individually prove they're evil before we put them down, then why doesn't that logic also apply to other members of other always evils?

To answer your question plainly...

Vampires and Black Dragons are evil with equal frequency.
Being a Vampire is an evil/horrible act.
Ergo, Yes, it's possible to do "horrible" things before (or as a result of) being "born".

Some creatures are not "born" innocent. This is true no matter what the mechanism is of their birth. And I'll point out you refused to answer whether "Vampire-cide" would be a "good" spell/act.


Familicide was an evil act, the IFCC guys said that they had about 50% chance of getting V's soul permanently after that. Sure. That'd be true in Pathfinder too. Basically it was a mistake to have Vampires, Demons, and Black Dragons all at the same evil "frequency".

And btw I'd say Familicide is a pretty risky spell as it's written even if we want to apply it to demons, because again, Sorcerers can in theory have a bloodline which springs from them, and nothing prevents them from being non-evil.

But write an exception into that spell (i.e. "only Vampires" or "only Demons") and it looks a lot different. Moving back to real life for a moment, imho it's a "good" act to attempt to exterminate the Malaria Mosquito for the same reason it was a "good" act to get rid of the rattlesnakes and grizzly bears that used to infest this area.

[Kish]

Vampires and Black Dragons are evil with equal frequency.

This is your unacknowledged house rule. One "Usually Neutral Evil" species can be 51% Neutral Evil with another 20% being True Neutral and 20% being Neutral Good, while another is 90% Neutral Evil with another 6% being Chaotic or Lawful Evil. Both will be listed as "Usually Neutral Evil" in the Monster Manual. That vampires and black dragons are both listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't mean they're both Chaotic Evil in exactly the same numbers, just those both of them fall in the "99%+" range. That you don't care why either of them falls into that range doesn't make why they fall into that range irrelevant.


Being a Vampire is an evil/horrible act.
Ergo, Yes, it's possible to do "horrible" things before (or as a result of) being "born".

This is massive definition-blurring.
"Being turned into a vampire against your will is an evil act."
"An evil act by definition is the same as a horrible act."
"Being turned into a vampire is the same as being hatched as a dragon." (Meaning specifically chromatic, presumably.)

I grant none of those equivalencies.


Some creatures are not "born" innocent.

That depends entirely on the definition you're using of "innocent." Beyond that, you're still talking about vampires. Not dragons. And the only reason I can think of to bring vampires into this, is that you don't actually believe that vampires occupy a higher moral level than dragons.


This is true no matter what the mechanism is of their birth.

Unless it's false no matter the mechanism of their birth.

And I'll point out you refused to answer whether "Vampire-cide" would be a "good" spell/act.

You hardly need to point it out, I said exactly why I refused: I'm not going to defend strawmen. If you wish to maintain that vampires are, for some reason, a better moral stand-in for dragons than dragons themselves are despite being somehow less evil than (chromatic) dragons, then have fun with that, but you'll have to count me out.

[hamishspence]

There's D&D novels that feature vampires struggling to avoid being evil. Most notably Jander Sunstar in Vampire of the Mists- a nonevil elven vampire.

In 3.0, Vampires & Vampire Spawn were Always Chaotic evil. In 3.5, this was changed to Always evil (any)- and in Libris Mortis, it discussed the issue of playing a vampire spawn character, and said than nonevil vampire spawn were possible:

"a vampire spawn might turn to adventuring as penance", though:

"the innate selfishness of a vampire spawn makes a good alignment difficult to uphold."

So, yes, there is rules support and fluff support for the notion that a vampire in D&D might not be evil.

On "Usually evil" alignment- the 3.5 source Expedition to the Demonweb Pits stats out a type of demon that is both Usually Evil and Often Chaotic Evil- and lists the percentage that are Neutral or Good as 10%.

So, even for extraplanar outsiders with the Evil subtype, its possible for as much as 10% of a particular type of Outsider (Evil) to be nonevil.

How much higher, might the number be for Usually Evil beings without the Evil subtype?

[Querzis]

How much higher, might the number be for Usually Evil beings without the Evil subtype?

If I remember well, often chaotic evil means between 20 and 49%. Usually chaotic evil means a majority of them (between 50 and 80%) are chaotic evil and always chaotic evil means between 80% and 99% are chaotic evil. And yes I said 99% because there is always a few exceptions. So to answer your question, usually evil beings means between 49% and 20% of them are not evil. And once again, being evil doesnt mean you deserve death anyway. I also remember that some creatures are more lawful or chaotic then evil. For example: orcs, who are just 'often' chaotic evil, are said to be more chaotic then evil and that you're more likely to see a chaotic good orc then a neutral evil orc. And lets not even talk about a lawful evil orc.

By the way, taking undead as an example is cheating Dark Matter. Not only are they created creatures who are meant to be evil but they are animated by negative energy and if you know anything about negative energy then you should realize why its never really evil to destroy them. Even fiends are kinda cheating since they are mostly people who died. In other word, most of the time, a devil is lawful evil because he was lawful evil when he was alive, thats it. If they become anything else then lawful evil, then they obviously did it after their death.

[hamishspence]

MM gives between 40% and 50% as the figures for "Often X alignment" and 50+% for "Usually X alignment"

It doesn't give a figure for "Always X alignment"- though it states specifically that there are exceptions.

So, it's pretty up-in-the-air what the figures are.

"Usually X" can be as high as 90% (in the example I gave, where the creature in question was an aligned outsider) but for it to be significantly higher, might seem to stretch the term "Usually" a bit.

Also, on orcs- its not clear how common lawful or good orcs are, but in MM4 (which expands on orcs) it explicitly states that the most common alignment after chaotic evil, is chaotic neutral.

So we can't be certain that CG orcs are more common than LE ones.

But we can (if MM4 is taken as valid) be sure that CN orcs are more common than NE ones (or any other alignment besides CE, for that matter).

[Querzis]

MM gives between 40% and 50% as the figures for "Often X alignment" and 50+% for "Usually X alignment").

I actually have to retract my previous statment. Not because I'm wrong, but because we both are:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Alignment_Demographics_Variant_Rules_(DnD_Variant_ Rule)

Basically, nobody seems to agree with what the demographics are, some books seems to contradict each other...The only thing everyone agree with is that 'often' is less then 50% and 'usually' is more then 50%. And yeah, the 'Always X alignement' is really up-in-the-air but as you said, everyone agree that there are exceptions. Guess it depends on your DM more then anything else.


Also, on orcs- its not clear how common lawful or good orcs are, but in MM4 (which expands on orcs) it explicitly states that the most common alignment after chaotic evil, is chaotic neutral.

So we can't be certain that CG orcs are more common than LE ones.

We can still assume it with basic logic since orcs are really more aligned with chaos then evil but as long as its not explicitly stated I guess you're right.

[hamishspence]

The link doesn't seem to work.

Assuming it's referring to demographics, the "community power center" alignments might not represent the population alignments.

Still, they tend to match.

Elves- Usually Chaotic Good. Percentage of elven communities with a Chaotic Good power center, according to Races of the Wild: 51%. Exactly in line with MM's "more than 50%."

Dwarves- Often Lawful Good. Percentage of dwarven communities with a Lawful Good power center, according to Races of Stone: 50%. Fits with the figure given in MM "40-50%"

So, seems to work.

It may break down a little for some of the others:

Halflings: Usually Neutral. Percentage of halfling communities with a Neutral power center, according to Races of the Wild: 50%

Just short of "more than 50%" for Usually.

And for gnomes, it's way off.

Gnomes: Usually Neutral Good. Percentage of gnomish communities with a Neutral Good power center, according to Races of Stone- 35%??

Do they have a weird compulsion to not be led by typical gnomes, or something?

[Snake-Aes]

Yay, thread derailing!

Alluding to the first page's posts, Charisma is not how likable you are. Charisma is not how beautiful you are.
Charisma is about your force of personality, and the force of your presence among other people (the stat damage describes that 0 charisma is when you can no longer tell yourself from other things. A drone.).

People with high charisma are good at influencing people. People with high charisma can choose to stand out. People with high charisma can instill greater emotions. Love?Hatred?Devotion?Fear? All fit.

A wonderful example is Rurouni Kenshin's Shishio. The guy's face was a map of hell, his whole body burned and his people loved him almost like a deity. Xykon's no different.

[hamishspence]

I kinda liked Terry Pratchett's charisntma- Nobby Nobbs being the classic example- so bad socially that they fascinate people- resulting in them playing along with him.

On the other hand, it's represented differently in Unseen Academicals- with a different person with "charisntma" being disliked by everybody, including their parents, for no particular reason.

And one of the characters in the story actually had to restrain themselves from picking on him- phrased as him thinking "Just because the universe inscribed KICK ME on that guy's soul, is no reason for doing it."

[Dark Matter]

One "Usually Neutral Evil" species can be 51% Neutral Evil with another 20% being True Neutral and 20% being Neutral Good, while another is 90% Neutral Evil with another 6% being Chaotic or Lawful Evil. Both will be listed as "Usually Neutral Evil" in the Monster Manual.We're not talking about "usually evil" species, we're talking about "always evil". The math for the always evil species is a lot more simple and less varied.


That vampires and black dragons are both listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't mean they're both Chaotic Evil in exactly the same numbers, just those both of them fall in the "99%+" range. That you don't care why either of them falls into that range doesn't make why they fall into that range irrelevant.It does indeed make it irrelevant. Both of them fall into a far more extreme category than anything we humans can imagine. In order to find reasonable comparisons for Black Dragons, we need to turn away from Nazis/Goblins/etc and to things like Demons and Vampires.

This is massive definition-blurring.
"Being turned into a vampire against your will is an evil act."
"An evil act by definition is the same as a horrible act."
"Being turned into a vampire is the same as being hatched as a dragon." (Meaning specifically chromatic, presumably.)

I grant none of those equivalencies.And yet those hatched dragons are still CE, can fly, and they're CR3.

It's great to pretend that they're not, it makes for fine roll playing and imho a better game. However, in order to make the logic of "giving a baby dragon a chance" work, we need to move Black Dragons from "always evil" to "usually evil".

V killed 61 Black Dragons, or roughly 1/4th of their population (meaning their population was 240-ish). 99+% means somewhere between 2 and 0 of them were something other than CE, and that's not "good" that's just "something other than CE".

The problem with the math is it doesn't make for good roll playing. You find some dragon eggs, you raise them "right"... and one of two things happens. Either you've just changed the entire population of Black Dragons from "always evil" to "usually evil", or you've still got a monster on your hands no matter what you do. The former is breaking the rules but is the route most GMs would take (and should take).


That depends entirely on the definition you're using of "innocent." Beyond that, you're still talking about vampires. Not dragons. And the only reason I can think of to bring vampires into this, is that you don't actually believe that vampires occupy a higher moral level than dragons.IMHO the black letter rules put them on the same moral level. Both "always evil", just like demons. And no, I'm not still talking about vampires. CE and CR3.


Unless it's false no matter the mechanism of their birth.You say you don't want to defend stawmen-Vampires, then you come out with statements like that.

If you actually believe that then you just bought into giving Vampires a chance to see if they're evil. Yes, all the previous Vampires were depraved killers, but *this* one might be different because "it's false no matter the mechanism of their birth".

[hamishspence]

V killed 61 Black Dragons, or roughly 1/4th of their population (meaning their population was 240-ish).


Inferred, not proven, from the strip. The scene shows pictures getting smaller and smaller- so its entirely possible it was just to communicate the message that it was a lot.

How do you fit thousands of dragons into one strip? You can't. So how would you communicate in-strip that this sort of number were killed? Maybe by doing the strip exactly this way- with the last pics being very very tiny.

BoED also puts chromatic dragons on a different level from demons (which, canonically, do include redeemed members) with "Demons are best slain, or at least banished" compared to "Chromatic dragons may not be entirely beyond salvation (but there is only a glimmer of hope)"

It's also worth remembering that even within "Always Chaotic Evil" there may be variation, from those which are only a short way from CN, to those which are only a short way from NE, to those which are both strongly Chaotic and strongly Evil.

The existance of a few redeemed, ex-evil dragons, does not affect the demographic- MM refers to them being born with the alignment- but says nothing about how many have changed alignment.

Really though, this belongs in another thread- to avoid further derailment.

[Dark Matter]

Inferred, not proven, from the strip. The scene shows pictures getting smaller and smaller- so its entirely possible it was just to communicate the message that it was a lot.

How do you fit thousands of dragons into one strip? You can't. So how would you communicate in-strip that this sort of number were killed? Maybe by doing the strip exactly this way- with the last pics being very very tiny.Can the world reasonably have thousands of each color of dragon, for 10's of thousands of dragons total?


Really though, this belongs in another thread- to avoid further derailment.Yes, agreed. And as luck would have it, I'm seriously slammed in RL so should beg off anyway for a while.

Good luck to and speaking with you all.

[pendell]

:Wanders in:


Do you wish to go on record with the stance that real-world humans have been a Usually Evil race for most of our history? :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, yes.

Which is why I oppose the idea of 'detect evil + kill on sight if it's positive'. The body count might be uncomfortably large. Redemption is a better choice, even if it is rare.

:Wanders out:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Which is why I oppose the idea of 'detect evil + kill on sight if it's positive'. The body count might be uncomfortably large. Redemption is a better choice, even if it is rare.


I tend to take a similar view- and quite a lot of the splatbooks seem to work the same way.

[tomandtish]

Back to something said much earlier:


Originally Posted by Souhiro
To cast a Maximized Energy Drain (Last Panel Here) Xykon needs a Cha of 32-33.

If Xykon is so charismatic ¿Why everybody hates him?


Originally Posted by Soc175
Actually he only needs a Cha of 19 (10 + spell level). Applying metamagic to a spell doesn't change the spell's level (the only metamagic feat doing so is heighten spell, which does nothing else but increasing the spell's level by 1), only the required spell slot (the DC is also still only 19 + Mods). Even if it did, it would only require Cha 22). And to gain a level 12 spell slot he only needs to take Improved Spell Capacity thrice.


Actually Souhiro is closer. A Maximized Energy Drain uses a 12th level spell slot. This requires taking the Improved Spell Capacity Feat 3 times. Since the only spells gained by this feat are the bonus spells for a high stat, Xykon must have a Charisma of 34-35 through some means to cast it. In fact, even if you have the feat, you gain no spells at all from it until your casting stat hits 30.

[Kish]

Since the only spells gained by this feat are the bonus spells for a high stat,

No.


Benefit

When you select this feat, you gain one spell slot per day of any level up to one level higher than the highest-level spell you can already cast in a particular class.
Mind you, I'm sure Xykon's Charisma is over 30.

[tomandtish]

Yep, you are right. You do gain the one spell of that slot. We'd been playing a house ruled version for so long that I forgot it wasn't the standard anymore. I stand corrected.