On dragons and the killing thereof

[Darcy]

What is the reason people break into dragon caves and kill the inhabitants therein? Lust for treasure seems to be the common excuse, and maybe that's part of it. That's certainly how people seem to view the typical adventurer these days. Some idiot with a sword or a spellbook mindlessly killing ugly things and taking their loot.

But what kind of dragon are we talking about? There are many different kinds of dragons after all, and some of them are pretty nice. The ones we've been dealing with, however, are angry, hateful creatures that kill and eat anything they please (which is EVERYTHING), who relish the pain and sorrow they cause. There are all kinds of rich, powerful creatures in the world. Evil ones are targeted because they acquire their hoards of loot by slaughtering other creatures at will. Because they're evil. That's who they are. That's what they do.

Let's talk about Tiamat for a minute. She is the goddess of all chromatic dragons, and considered to be the mother of all the evil dragon races. Her primary characteristics are destruction, greed, and hatred. She is the twin of Bahamut and younger sister of Vorel, Io's perfect first daughter. The three of them equally enjoyed the love of their father Io, supreme god of all dragons. Tiamat couldn't stand not being the favourite however, so she killed her sister and tried to blame Bahamut for it. Io saw through her deception, and banished her, with Bahamut fleeing after her to oppose her forever. Chromatic dragons are basically mortal manifestations of her jealousy, her cruelty, and her greed.

It's also worth noting that they're not just there, waiting to be killed. They're an active threat to everyone around them, and it seems the problem is not that we ignore the rights of the poor little dragons in our quest for loot and XP, but that we tend to gloss over the fact that if there is a dragon living in an area, they have as a matter of course been tormenting everything and everyone in their territory- which happens to be "wherever they feel like." What we imagine poorly-written 'heroes' to think of evil NPC's, evil dragons actually do think of everything that isn't them- that those creatures are simply there for them to kill at their convenience. This isn't explicitly stated in the comic because anyone who's taken a glance through the Monster Manual already knows this about chromatic dragons. One may as well ask why Belkar doesn't wear shoes. It's because he's a halfling, and that's what halflings do. They have quite a bit of leeway when it comes to alignment, but they are barred from wearing things on their feet. Perhaps some of the "always chaotic evil" creatures have more options when it comes to footwear. That's the trade-off.

Someone's going to bring this up, so I'll admit right now that it is possible for a chromatic dragon to occasionally be good-aligned. However, this is exceptionally rare, and I would imagine if the family of good, black dragons living in the swamp were actually benevolent creatures, someone would probably know about it. It's regrettable, from a literary standpoint, that there wasn't more time spent discussing all the evil stuff the dragons had done over the years, but the absence of this doesn't mean we can assume these dragons were a rare exception of their kind and had suppressed their murderous urges and adopted a more peaceful lifestyle instead. It would be much more of an oversight to omit the fact that these dragons are a rare (or perhaps even unique, in OOTS-land) example of good- or even just neutral-aligned dragons who can be reasoned or bargained with, than to simply not bother assuring the reader that these highly predatory and "always chaotic evil" creatures are, as always, chaotic evil and predatory. If you have a problem with this, take it up with their sororicidal hate-goddess.

[hamishspence]

Reasoning with, or bargaining with, chromatic dragons is quite common in D&D fiction. Even the chaotic evil red dragons and black dragons have been known to make bargains with humans or elves, and respect those bargains.

However, most of these examples have been "We fight, and if you win, you get what you want, and if I win, you must do something I ask"

[SPoD]

I think it's funny that you're assuming that the author merely failed to adequately explain how bad all these dragons were rather than consider that the author showed us exactly what he intended to show us, and it simply does not match your expectations.

In other words: Killing hundreds of beings, including infants, for no reason other than their race is genocide, no matter how many justifications you want to hang on it.

Oh, and the whole story about Tiamat is irrelevant; Tiamat is a goddess of the Babylonian-inspired Western Gods, there's no evidence that Bahumut even exists, much less those other dragons. Using a story that didn't necessarily happen in the OOTS world as part of your point is a pretty poor debate opener.

[Kish]

What is the reason people break into dragon caves and kill the inhabitants therein?

There is one example, in the comic, of people going into a dragon's cave and killing the dragon.

It was because the dragon had something the adventuring group wanted. Which of them attacked first? We don't know, it was off-camera. Neither showed any sign of attempting to negotiate at any point, although the dragon did begin a dialogue with a nearby small purple lizard, whose response was to immediately start casting spells on the dragon. One member of the adventuring party used a spell to enslave the dragon for hours and killed him at the end of it. They did not know anything evil the dragon had done prior to their entering the cave; they did not express any interest in such. The leader of the group later justified killing the dragon with "its scales weren't all shiny." The author of the comic wrote this in his latest compilation:


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

Those are facts. "People kill chromatic dragons primarily or solely because of evil things the chromatic dragons do in the OotS universe" is speculation.


Let's talk about Tiamat for a minute. She is the goddess of all chromatic dragons, and considered to be the mother of all the evil dragon races.

Probably true in OotS.

Her primary characteristics are destruction, greed, and hatred. She is the twin of Bahamut and younger sister of Vorel, Io's perfect first daughter.

The D&D deity Bahamut might be the same as the OotS god Marduk. Then again, he might not. There is not the slightest indication that Io or Vorel exists in this universe or ever has.


Someone's going to bring this up, so I'll admit right now that it is possible for a chromatic dragon to occasionally be good-aligned. However, this is exceptionally rare, and I would imagine if the family of good, black dragons living in the swamp were actually benevolent creatures, someone would probably know about it.

That's awfully convenient, isn't it? "If it's not common knowledge that this dragon is good, then we can assume the dragon is horrifically evil"? It also hinges on a false dilemma fallacy. The possibilities are not, "Paladin-level heroic dragon" or "legitimate target for anyone who wants to kill it." What if a dragon hasn't done the generalized "horrible things" you attribute to "the [dragons] we've been dealing with," but is a rather selfish Chaotic Neutral? Or, hell, is evil enough to glow red if someone casts Detect Evil at him/her?

It's regrettable, from a literary standpoint, that there wasn't more time spent discussing all the evil stuff the dragons had done over the years,

See, no. It's not regrettable at all. It goes perfectly with what Rich chose to write. It's just not what you would have chosen to write.

but the absence of this doesn't mean we can assume these dragons were a rare exception of their kind and had suppressed their murderous urges and adopted a more peaceful lifestyle instead. It would be much more of an oversight to omit the fact that these dragons are a rare (or perhaps even unique, in OOTS-land) example of good- or even just neutral-aligned dragons who can be reasoned or bargained with, than to simply not bother assuring the reader that these highly predatory and "always chaotic evil" creatures are, as always, chaotic evil and predatory. If you have a problem with this, take it up with their sororicidal hate-goddess.
Are we talking about OotS or D&D now?

'Cause if it's OotS, I'll take it up with the person who decided, in contravention of the divine origin described by Shojo, that Vorel ever existed in that universe, thanks. That would be you.

If it's D&D, I'll take it up with the person who is seemingly insisting, in contravention of the Player's Handbook's description of "judges by race" being a Lawful Evil quality, that it's morally correct to kill chromatic dragons on sight for being chromatic dragons in anything which is based on D&D, even in a D&D-based work in which the author is on record as not agreeing. That would, again, be...you.

[Darcy]

I'm not talking about V's familicide spell, which was pretty damn terrible- whether there was a net benefit for the world or not, it was done in the spirit of hatred and anger, and that puts it firmly on the side of evil. I'm talking about simply the act of hunting down evil dragons. This should have been clear in my first sentence:

What is the reason people break into dragon caves and kill the inhabitants therein?

As for Tiamat, everything about her in OOTS suggests she's pretty similar to the standard D&D goddess.

More generally- I'm addressing the overall sympathy for creatures which, by and large, are one of the foremost causes of suffering in the worlds in which they exist.

[SPoD]

Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I felt the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much.

I've said it before, but every time I think Rich has hit us a little too hard over the head with his moral point, someone like this comes along and proves that he didn't hit us hard enough.

[NerfTW]

I have absolutely no idea what you were saying, exactly, but there has only been ONE instance of an unprovoked dragon fight in the comic. And it was very much motivated by greed and a disregard for the dragon they found. We see no evidence that this dragon was tormenting surrounding villages in the comic. For all we know, they lived perfectly fine off the swamps normal wildlife. And even if it was, killing a murderer because you wanted his wallet is still an evil act. It was the motivation that mattered, not the outcome.

The only other attack was without a doubt provoked by the Order's first act.

We also know there are "good" aligned dragons, because the IFCC agrees to kill some for Tiamat.

[Kish]

More generally- I'm addressing the overall sympathy for creatures which, by and large, are one of the foremost causes of suffering in the worlds in which they exist.
There is no indication that chromatic dragons are, quote unquote, "one of the foremost causes of suffering" in the OotS universe. Or, as far as I know, anywhere but in a campaign world run by you and/or other DMs who choose to have all chromatic dragons be "one of the foremost causes of suffering" in their campaign worlds.

[SPoD]

I'm not talking about V's familicide spell, which was pretty damn terrible- whether there was a net benefit for the world or not, it was done in the spirit of hatred and anger, and that puts it firmly on the side of evil. I'm talking about simply the act of hunting down evil dragons. This should have been clear in my first sentence:

Then...who cares? If you're not talking about the specifics of the events of the OOTS comic, why is this thread in the OOTS section? Why are we even having a conversation about it?


As for Tiamat, everything about her in OOTS suggests she's pretty similar to the standard D&D goddess.

Really? Does the D&D goddess have the ability to see the future, and allow her minion to use this service even on behalf of Good-aligned adventurers? Would the D&D goddess cooperate with Good-aligned gods to trap the Snarl, and then warn the Dark One away from investigating it?


More generally- I'm addressing the overall sympathy for creatures which, by and large, are one of the foremost causes of suffering in the worlds in which they exist.

Oh, so it's a straw man argument. Despite no one on this forum expressing sympathy for any dragons other than the specific ones depicted in the strip, you decided to put forth an argument against it anyway. OK, got it.

[Darcy]

My point is that yes, genocide is evil no matter what, but not because black dragons are nice happy creatures that would be just great if people would just stop running into their caves and killing them all the time. I think Tsukiko is the perfect example of that mentality.

[SPoD]

black dragons are nice happy creatures that would be just great if people would just stop running into their caves and killing them all the time.

Again, no one is making that argument. No one.

Congratulations, point made, we all agree! Thread over, let's go home.

[Darcy]

See, now I can't find the post that inspired this thread when I first typed it out an two hours ago. I initially figured it was too much of a thread derailment and ought to go elsewhere, and now I've arsed up the whole thing. Thanks, internet.

[hamishspence]

One of the things I liked about 4E chromatic dragons, is that there isn't this "always" issue- they're usually Evil, but there are exceptions.

And even the Evil ones aren't always ravaging destroyers- some are sneaky masterminds, who manipulate from behind the scenes.

Same's true of 3rd ed, if you look at Draconomicon. There's a black dragon who is the head of a thieves guild, in her human disguise.

[Volthawk]

See, now I can't find the post that inspired this thread when I first typed it out an two hours ago. I initially figured it was too much of a thread derailment and ought to go elsewhere, and now I've arsed up the whole thing. Thanks, internet.

Probably something Closak posted. He's very...passionate about this kinda thing.

[Darcy]

Make up your mind already dammit, is it or is it not okay to break into people's homes and kill them just like that?
Here it is!

And I say: maybe? What I was saying before was, evil dragons don't just end up with a bunch of loot. Usually it ends up there because they killed tons of people. And maybe this puts me at odds with Rich and most of OotS's fans, but I'm not too shaken up about the party walking into a cave under direction from a disguised Sabine, coming across a black dragon, and defeating it.

Who knows? Maybe if they'd encountered the actual blacksmith he would have said something like, "the starmetal is guarded by a family of black dragons who have ravaged the uplands for decades, so maybe don't go" or in fact, "the starmetal is guarded by a family of black dragons who really aren't that bad once you get to know them, but I wouldn't suggest trying, maybe just get a regular upgrade on your sword instead."

[Mystic Muse]

Wait, Vorel's a girl? I thought it was Io's son. Guess I should read Draconomicon or whatever that book was again.

[Kish]

Here it is!

And I say: maybe? What I was saying before was, evil dragons don't just end up with a bunch of loot. Usually it ends up there because they killed tons of people.

...in games you run.

You don't have the power to make that assertion for games you don't run, and you sure don't have the power to do so for a world created by Rich. If where the dragons' hoard came from is ever part of the plot, Rich will clarify it. (OotS being what it is, I'd say there's at least a 50% chance that the answer will be, "It appeared out of thin air when they moved into the cave, 'cause, you know, dragons have hoards.")


Maybe if they'd encountered the actual blacksmith he would have said something like, "the starmetal is guarded by a family of black dragons who have ravaged the uplands for decades, so maybe don't go" or in fact, "the starmetal is guarded by a family of black dragons who really aren't that bad once you get to know them, but I wouldn't suggest trying, maybe just get a regular upgrade on your sword instead."

Setting aside the fact that there's no indication he would have mentioned starmetal at all, :smalltongue: you appear to be betting a great deal that he would not, in fact, have said the second thing in your example.

[Darcy]

Even if that is closer to the truth, I would imagine the humble blacksmith would be just as ignorant about the subtleties of dragons and their personal lives as any of the other humanoid PC races in OotS-land and just assumes they're terrible. I guess what I'm asking is, at what point is it acceptable to kill a dragon? Like... do you have to see them eat a virgin with your own eyes? Do you have to ask the townspeople if the virgin was cool to her neighbours?

[SPoD]

Here it is!

And I say: maybe? What I was saying before was, evil dragons don't just end up with a bunch of loot. Usually it ends up there because they killed tons of people. And maybe this puts me at odds with Rich and most of OotS's fans, but I'm not too shaken up about the party walking into a cave under direction from a disguised Sabine, coming across a black dragon, and defeating it.

Well, again: even in that post, I don't think anyone is arguing that the young black dragon was a cuddly soft bunny who ate tofu. They're arguing that regardless of how good or bad that young dragon is, if you invade its home you shouldn't be surprised or shocked when its mom invades yours.

[SPoD]

I guess what I'm asking is, at what point is it acceptable to kill a dragon?

At the exact same point it is acceptable to kill a human for the same behavior. No more, no less.

[Darcy]

No, that's true. They even remark that the dragon was an adolescent and its parents were probably around somewhere. It was foolish not to be wary of repercussions for killing the dragon, but I don't think that itself was such a terribly immoral act. They walked out of the darkness and he was waiting for them- at which point they tried to retreat. The next thing you see is them fighting the dragon.

[Kish]

I guess what I'm asking is, at what point is it acceptable to kill a dragon?
The same point it's acceptable to kill any other sapient. When else would it be? Would you kill a human who you saw eat a virgin* with your own eyes?

*Of whatever species the virgin in your question was, since you didn't specify; I presume the answer is "no" if it's a virgin chicken.

This is not ambiguous in D&D. Judging by races rather than individuals is a defining quality of the Lawful Evil alignment. I admit that might cause me pain if I really wanted to be able to play "see X, kill," but it's really not complicated, hard to apply, or counterintuitive. For an example, in Baldur's Gate 2, killing Firkraag (red dragon, terrorizes innocent humans and treats his own minions' lives as valueless) and Thaxll'sslyia (shadow dragon, serves the Shade Lord who is in the process of converting the village of Umar Hills to undead) is justifiable and killing Saladrex (red dragon, rests peacefully in Watcher's Keep; has a very high opinion of himself but is friendly and helpful) is not.

[Darcy]

Then I would say, the dragon's death was a consequence of its unwillingness to allow the adventurers to retreat. They didn't know a dragon was there, and when they found out it was they turned tail. As was mentioned, there's no panel between Haley pushing Roy back into the orb of darkness and full-fledged combat, but what seems most likely? That they turned back around again to fight the thing they had just been running from, or the highly predatory monster decided to kill them despite how little a threat they were presenting at the moment?

What I'm suggesting is that the adolescent black dragon was just such a one as I described in my first post, and the Order, having come into its home unknowingly, being unable to retreat and in mortal peril, were justified in killing it. After all, if we are to hold the dragons to the same moral standard, I would definitely not say that unwittingly entering someone's home is crime worthy of death.

[veti]

In mythology, when the great classical heroes - St George, Beowulf, Sigurd, the Archangel Michael, even Bard the Bowman - fought and killed dragons, it wasn't for treasure, and it wasn't because the dragon was big and scaly and lived in a cave. It wasn't even because the dragon was Evil. They did it in defence of their own people - because the dragon was a clear and present danger.

In fact that's not only true of dragons, but of mythological monsters in general. Medusa and the gorgons, Odysseus's sirens, the Minotaur, the Sphinx, Perseus's vaguely defined sea monster, Grendel and his mother... in each case, the classical story goes out of its way to give a detailed history of the beast's depredations against humanity.

"Evil" is irrelevant. What matters is "hostile". Most villagers would be perfectly happy to live next to an evil dragon - which, let's face it, beats a village militia any day of the week - if it weren't for the dragon's appetite for their cattle and/or virgins.

In D&D, the same justification is often used when setting up a scenario - whether it's kobolds raiding the village or the drow invading from the Underdark. Fighting them is nothing to do with morality, it's all about defence.

Back at the beginning of OOTS, the same justification is used for the Order's original crawl through the Dungeon of Dorukan: Elan says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html) it's "to make the countryside safe again". This story is later revised in the prequel book - but back at the beginning, it's the standard classical story being trotted out. We see it again with the bandits (self-defence), and the ogres (defence of innocents). (I'm not including Azure City here, because by that point the 'real' plot has taken over as the driving force.)

The thing is - as long as you've got that straightforward, unarguable justification - that defeating the monster is a necessity - there is no question about the morality. A lot of D&D scenarios are like that.

But a lot of other D&D scenarios don't have that element - they're quests to raid, kill, loot and/or retrieve goodies from monsters who, as far as we know, are no threat to anyone. We are so accustomed to seeing the two types of scenarios mixed into a campaign that I don't believe anyone remarked on it when the OOTS emerged from the dungeon (a "defensive" quest) and set off to find the starmetal (a "pure greed" quest). It's only much, much later that we've started to discuss the moral difference between these.

[Kish]

I don't know who attacked first, and neither do you. At this point we seem to be at the same place where we started this thread: You're asserting that the dragon can be assumed to have done things that justified killing him because he was a dragon.

[SPoD]

As was mentioned, there's no panel between Haley pushing Roy back into the orb of darkness and full-fledged combat, but what seems most likely?

That you will continue to make baseless assumptions about things you could not possibly know about, based on your own view of how dragons should be portrayed?


What I'm suggesting is that the adolescent black dragon was just such a one as I described in my first post, and the Order, having come into its home unknowingly, being unable to retreat and in mortal peril, were justified in killing it. After all, if we are to hold the dragons to the same moral standard, I would definitely not say that unwittingly entering someone's home is crime worthy of death.

In some states, it is legal to shoot intruders into your home on sight. And if you kill someone to defend yourself while you are committing a felony, you pretty much don't get to play the self-defense card. So, not everyone is going to agree with your interpretation.

And maybe, just maybe, you would have a point if the killing had occurred in the heat of battle. It didn't. It occurred HOURS later, when the party could have easily left with their lives intact during the entire period that V had the dragon under a Suggestion spell. No matter what happened in those "lost panels" at the beginning of the fight, the OOTS had every opportunity to leave unchallenged later. They could have even searched for the starmetal, grabbed a few gems from the hoard, and still had plenty of time to be miles away. Or, they could have decided that the Starmetal was not worth killing over, since they had less claim to it than the dragon did. Vaarsuvius (and Vaarsuvius alone) chose to execute the dragon when it was of no threat to them and they knew of no other acts that it had committed.

If you innocently walked into a house you thought was abandoned, and a man shot at you for doing so, you may be able to argue that killing him in the struggle that followed was justified. You cannot argue that you would be justified if the man shot at you, you successfully subdued him, tied him up, sat around his house playing guessing games for eight hours, and then shot him twice in the head before robbing the place and leaving. That is what the OOTS—specifically, Vaarsuvius—did.

[veti]

If you innocently walked into a house you thought was abandoned, and a man shot at you for doing so, you may be able to argue that killing him in the struggle that followed was justified. You cannot argue that you would be justified if the man shot at you, you successfully subdued him, tied him up, sat around his house playing guessing games for eight hours, and then shot him twice in the head before robbing the place and leaving. That is what the OOTS—specifically, Vaarsuvius—did.

It's a bit unreasonable to blame that on V "specifically", since the entire Order is right behind her in doing it. None of them raise so much as a glimmer of a hint of an objection. The impression is that any one of them would have done exactly the same, if they'd had V's spells.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone on this discussion board raised any objection at the time. Because I suspect it's only with the hindsight of the Familicide episode that we've begun to even question it.

[SPoD]

It's a bit unreasonable to blame that on V "specifically", since the entire Order is right behind her in doing it. None of them raise so much as a glimmer of a hint of an objection. The impression is that any one of them would have done exactly the same, if they'd had V's spells.


They were threatened with being eaten if they so much as moved during that period, and then V shot the dragon without telling them that he/she was about to do so. I don't see where the rest of the OOTS had an opportunity to object to the killing until after the fact. Up until panel 6 of OOTS #186, Roy is under the impression that the dragon is safely contained. V shoots the dragon in panel 7.

The fact that they don't object afterwards is not the same as saying they participated.

[Kish]

What I'd like to know is whether anyone on this discussion board raised any objection at the time. Because I suspect it's only with the hindsight of the Familicide episode that we've begun to even question it.
It started bothering me as soon as Vaarsuvius' response to the young black dragon talking to him/her was "Suggestion! Suggestion! Suggestion!" rather than any effort at negotiation.

I don't remember whether I mentioned that on the board at the time or not.

[Gift Jeraff]

What I'd like to know is whether anyone on this discussion board raised any objection at the time. Because I suspect it's only with the hindsight of the Familicide episode that we've begun to even question it.

Well, at that point, it was probably assumed that Rich was just telling the story of a typical D&D campaign. It probably wasn't until Miko, the Crayons of Time, and/or SoD that it had become apparent that Rich was also writing a critique of player behaviour.

[Darcy]

What I'd like to know is whether anyone on this discussion board raised any objection at the time. Because I suspect it's only with the hindsight of the Familicide episode that we've begun to even question it.
This is an excellent question.

Also: a cave inhabited by a dragon is not nearly so obviously a domicile as a house. It is reasonable to walk into a cave (which is marked on your map simply as "starmetal") and not expect to see a dragon there. Not all caves have dragons. It is not reasonable to walk into a house and be surprised to see someone lives there. Nor is immediately killing an intruder a reasonable course of action.

[SPoD]

Also: a cave inhabited by a dragon is not nearly so obviously a domicile as a house. It is reasonable to walk into a cave (which is marked on your map simply as "starmetal") and not expect to see a dragon there. Not all caves have dragons. It is not reasonable to walk into a house and be surprised to see someone lives there.

You're sidetracking the issue into a discussion of what is a reasonable domicile. The situation doesn't change if you walk into a cave and find a squatter there. If you get into a fight with that squatter, but then tie him up, wait around until dawn, and then shoot him, you are in the wrong.


Nor is immediately killing an intruder a reasonable course of action.

As I said, the laws of some parts of the US would disagree.

All of which matters not one bit, because it is not really the point. The battle was over, the foe subdued, and then it was executed needlessly hours later. You are arguing about a "self-defense" scenario that did not actually occur. If you want to argue that IF Roy had killed the dragon with his sword while the dragon was fighting them AND he didn't know that V was successfully communicating with it at the time, then I would be a lot more likely to agree that it was possibly justifiable. That's not what happened.

If you can come up with a single justification for Vaarsuvius blasting it between the eyes that does not hinge on an unsupported assumption of "what dragons are like," let's hear it.

[Darcy]

I'm not sure if I can. I think V's decision to use the dragon to threaten hir teammates and make them sit around until Durkon's spells were ready, rather than run off (with or without starmetal) was pretty unnecessary. My biggest gripe is the idea that they invaded his home to rob when they clearly had no idea anything lived there at all. They were looking for starmetal, with no real idea of the circumstances it would be found in.

I'm also not convinced that the transition from 181 to 182 is so ambiguous, but maybe I'm just racist against dragons..? All I'm saying is that at the end of 181, the dragon looks eager to fight and the party does not.

[Kish]

I'm also not convinced that the transition from 181 to 182 is so ambiguous, but maybe I'm just racist against dragons..? All I'm saying is that at the end of 181, the dragon looks eager to fight and the party does not.
You're basing this on your great knowledge of stick figure dragonish facial expressions and Haley's expression being a telepathically conveyed indication of the consensus opinion of all six members of the Order on fighting the dragon? (No one but Haley had even seen the dragon.)

Yeah, I think you should consider the "this is about you wanting to decide the dragon is in the wrong" hypothesis. :smalltongue:

[Phoenix Xul]

This argument won't just remain unsettled. It HAS to remain unsettled, because there are two separate points of view to be had here. There are two separate points of view to ANYTHING, and neither will ever be "right" or "wrong."

1. The motivations make an act good or evil, regardless of the outcome.

2. The outcome is all that matters, regardless of the motivations.

It all comes down to a cognitive vs. behavioral psychological problem in humans. Some humans want to know what, some want to know why.

[Kish]

This argument won't just remain unsettled. It HAS to remain unsettled, because there are two separate points of view to be had here. There are two separate points of view to ANYTHING, and neither will ever be "right" or "wrong."

1. The motivations make an act good or evil, regardless of the outcome.

2. The outcome is all that matters, regardless of the motivations.

It all comes down to a cognitive vs. behavioral psychological problem in humans. Some humans want to know what, some want to know why.
Accepting, just for the moment, that this is true and not something that might be better described as "pop psychology," it is entirely possible to argue that both the outcome and the motivations were bad--or, for that matter, to argue that both the outcome and the motivations are good.

[Darcy]

Is it too late to point out that when Roy dies and is judged by an omniscient spirit of morality, they don't mention this incident at all?

Kish: Basing this on that the only person who saw the dragon was one of the more gung-ho members of the party, the most bloodthirsty of them all was a lizard at the time, and the dragon had gnarly green smoking coming from his nostrils.

[veti]

If you want to argue that IF Roy had killed the dragon with his sword while the dragon was fighting them AND he didn't know that V was successfully communicating with it at the time, then I would be a lot more likely to agree that it was possibly justifiable.

Why?

Okay, let's break this down a bit. If Roy had killed the dragon with his sword during the initial combat, you're saying that "might" have been justifiable.

How about if V had not been handicapped by being a lizard, and she'd Disintegrated the dragon during that combat? Would that have been just as justifiable? If not, why not?

Eight hours later, at the moment when V gets her full faculties back, the dragon is just about to emerge from its Suggestive state. At which time, everyone assumes, it would "resume its attempts to devour us". So basically, when V casts the spell, she assumes - and from the look on Roy's face, he agrees - that the combat has effectively resumed. V has one round - equivalent to a surprise round - to save her friends. So how is the Disintegrate "not justifiable" at that stage?

The whole tied-up-squatter analogy fails, unless you're talking about a squatter who (a) is forty foot long with teeth like an Iron Maiden, and (b) has just broken out of its bonds. As the ABD demonstrates so vividly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) to V all that time later - species matters.

[Kish]

Rich's opinion on the morality of the situation is not ambiguous at all. "If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons."

The deva didn't bring it up on-camera, that's true. Because s/he considers it Vaarsuvius' karma, not Roy's? Because she considered it less worth making an issue about than his continued association with Belkar--or because the fight started when Belkar charged the dragon, such that making an issue of what Roy did wrong there was part of making an issue of his association with Belkar? Because the dragon attacked first? Because she's not "an omniscient spirit of morality" and her morality is not the same as Rich's? Any of these, or something else, could be possible. Why are you insisting we speculate about something we don't know about, always and only to make the young black dragon look bad, when to move away from "We don't know who attacked first" would be to become less accurate? Where on earth do you get the idea that Haley would be most likely of the Order to want to fight the dragon or that any other member of the Order could be called more bloodthirsty than Belkar?

Veti: The only reason they were still there, was because Vaarsuvius had already decided to kill the dragon in cold blood. S/he knew the duration of the spell. They had hours to leave. Their continued presence when it wore off was his/her choice, not the dragon's. So, no, the tied-up squatter analogy doesn't fail.

[SPoD]

Is it too late to point out that when Roy dies and is judged by an omniscient spirit of morality, they don't mention this incident at all?

Sure, you can mention it. But you should realize that there is a time gap between #489 and #490 in which they could have had a conversation about anything at all.

Also, since Roy didn't kill the dragon and we didn't see Roy attack it first, I'm not sure how it would help your argument either way.

[Darcy]

The quest itself is mentioned. She does mention that he tricked the party into the quest, which was a no-no in her book- but participating in the slaughter of a dragon out of greed is not brought up at all. This suggests to me that either a) the Lawful Good afterlife is hip to the wanton slaughter of evil-aligned creatures, or b) the fight wasn't so needless and greedy as is being suggested.

[Reverent-One]

Rich's opinion on the morality of the situation is not ambiguous at all. "If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons."

Unfortunately, Rich is less clear on if V killed the dragon simply because it was a dragon.

[SPoD]

Why?

Okay, let's break this down a bit. If Roy had killed the dragon with his sword during the initial combat, you're saying that "might" have been justifiable.

How about if V had not been handicapped by being a lizard, and she'd Disintegrated the dragon during that combat? Would that have been just as justifiable? If not, why not?

Sure. Or at least, no less justifiable than if Roy had done it.


Eight hours later, at the moment when V gets her full faculties back, the dragon is just about to emerge from its Suggestive state. At which time, everyone assumes, it would "resume its attempts to devour us". So basically, when V casts the spell, she assumes - and from the look on Roy's face, he agrees - that the combat has effectively resumed. V has one round - equivalent to a surprise round - to save her friends. So how is the Disintegrate "not justifiable" at that stage?

Because Vaarsuvius knows how long his/her spell lasts, down to the second. Because Vaarsuvius could have used the dragon, while it was under Suggestion, to communicate with the party, told them how long the spell would last, and made a plan to escape before it ended. Because Vaarsuvius deliberately takes longer explaining what is going on to Roy than he/she needs to, so that he has no time with which to lodge an objection. Because it is so very, very pre-meditated at that point.

To continue my analogy, it's like watching the guy you tied up struggle for hours against his bonds and then, just as he's about to break them, you shoot him for trying to escape. Instead of, oh, let's say, retying the rope before he breaks out.

What makes it unjustifiable is the fact that V has so much time to get them out of this situation and chooses not to do so. This is not self-defense, this is the just illusion of self-defense.


The whole tied-up-squatter analogy fails, unless you're talking about a squatter who (a) is forty foot long with teeth like an Iron Maiden, and (b) has just broken out of its bonds. As the ABD demonstrates so vividly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) to V all that time later - species matters.

As Xykon explained recently, power is power. The difference between fangs and spells and handguns is insignificant. A dragon is as dangerous to V as a man with a gun is to you or me, but not more so.

[SPoD]

This suggests to me that either a) the Lawful Good afterlife is hip to the wanton slaughter of evil-aligned creatures, or b) the fight wasn't so needless and greedy as is being suggested.

Or c.) the bad karma is on Vaarsuvius' record, not Roy's.

EDIT: Oh, wait, Kish already gave five alternate explanations that you're ignoring. Never mind.

[Kish]

The quest itself is mentioned. She does mention that he tricked the party into the quest, which was a no-no in her book- but participating in the slaughter of a dragon out of greed is not brought up at all. This suggests to me that either a) the Lawful Good afterlife is hip to the wanton slaughter of evil-aligned creatures, or b) the fight wasn't so needless and greedy as is being suggested.
Is there anything that wouldn't suggest to you that killing the young black dragon was perfectly good and justified?

[Reverent-One]

As Xykon explained recently, power is power. The difference between fangs and spells and handguns is insignificant. A dragon is as dangerous to V as a man with a gun is to you or me, but not more so.

You can take away someone's handgun and be reasonably certain you'll nullified the threat, hard to do that with fangs and spells. Just saying.

[SPoD]

You can take away someone's handgun and be reasonably certain you'll nullified the threat, hard to do that with fangs and spells. Just saying.

I swear, no one understands the purpose of analogies anymore.

Fine, let's say that the squatter is also a black-belt in karate. Does that make it more morally acceptable to shoot him in the face while he's tied up? No? OK, then. Let's stick to the real argument.

[Reverent-One]

I swear, no one understands the purpose of analogies anymore.

Don't blame others when you use bad analogies.


Fine, let's say that the squatter is a black-belt in karate. Does that make it more morally acceptable to shoot him in the face while he's tied up? No? OK, then. Let's stick to the real argument.

Is he about to become untied and then kill you with his black belt skills? That's a rather important consideration.

[Kish]

Is he about to become untied and then kill you with his black belt skills? That's a rather important consideration.
Did you deliberately hang around for hours, somehow knowing exactly how long he'd stay tied, planning to kill him before you left?

Beyond that, this is silly. It wasn't a morally ambiguous situation--it was an evil one. Multiple posts dedicated to nothing more than poking semantic holes in the analogy broadcasts, "I know I can't actually defend what Vaarsuvius did, so I'm reduced to doing this instead."

[Reverent-One]

Did you deliberately hang around for hours, somehow knowing exactly how long he'd stay tied, planning to kill him before you left?

Beyond that, this is silly. It wasn't a morally ambiguous situation--it was an evil one. Multiple posts dedicated to nothing more than poking semantic holes in the analogy broadcasts, "I know I can't actually defend what Vaarsuvius did, so I'm reduced to doing this instead."

Except there are far too many unknowns of the situation for us to make that judgment.

[SPoD]

Analogies are not intended to be an exact representation of every detail of a situation. That's why they are analogous and not THE SAME.


Is he about to become untied and then kill you with his black belt skills? That's a rather important consideration.

It's an important consideration that I have already addressed. V knows the EXACT SECOND that her spell will expire. The only reason the dragon is "about to become untied" is because VAARSUVIUS LET IT HAPPEN. She watched and waited and then killed it.

[Darcy]

Is there anything that wouldn't suggest to you that killing the young black dragon was perfectly good and justified?

For one, I didn't say "perfectly good and justified." I think I've made it clear that it's my interpretation that they walked in, saw a dragon, tried to leave and had to fight it instead. That's not "perfectly good," that's just "better than robbery and murder."

I'm not satisfied with just saying, "well, I don't know." I don't like having blank spaces in the middle of the story. When I see a party of mostly good adventurers who have generally acted decently towards most non-aggressors they've come across (admittedly, with some exceptions) encounter a creature that is known for its violent territoriality, and we do not see who instigates combat, I am willing to jump to conclusions.

So no. I guess I don't have any further justifications than that "black dragons are nearly always evil, this one seems like one of the evil ones, it probably attacked first." I mean... who stands DIRECTLY outside an orb of darkness waiting for people to come through?

[Kish]

Except there are far too many unknowns of the situation for us to make that judgment.
Oh? Then you'll have no trouble naming one that doesn't amount to, "I don't like SPoD's analogy."

Again, they hung around for hours with a captive dragon, with Vaarsuvius knowing exactly how long the Suggestion spell would remain in effect. Then Vaarsuvius blasted the dragon with two Disintegrate spells. What "unknowns" make this anything but blatantly evil?

[SPoD]

For one, I didn't say "perfectly good and justified." I think I've made it clear that it's my interpretation that they walked in, saw a dragon, tried to leave and had to fight it instead. That's not "perfectly good," that's just "better than robbery and murder."

I can't help but notice that you continually fail to address the fact that they waited around for hours before V killed it. All of your justifications amount to, "They HAD to fight it!"

So explain to me: Why did V have to kill it hours after the fight was over?


I am willing to jump to conclusions.

Reminds me of a paladin I once knew...

[Stille_Nacht]

didnt miko, the upright righteous-to-the-end paladin say that dragons without shiny scales were necessary kills?

also, if somebody enters your "house" you are not alowd to kill them. If you friend went into someone elses house, which is actually a cave that could have nothing in it, would it be ok for the person to shoot him/her in cold blood? no. I do not give a wit about what some state's laws say. If someone entered my house, and i shot them, my friends would all think i was a lunatic. Especially if that someone was clearly weaker than me. The dragon attacked first, with deadly force, and without restraint. The dragon was also clearly stronger than the foes before it. This is because this is D&D not real life, and almost all non mettalic dragons are evil. That is what alignments are for

[Darcy]

The first thing V does when s/he wakes up is asks about the starmetal, but realizes the dragon only listens to hir in lizard form. Then s/he decides to re-cast suggestion to continue the conversation. It's only then s/he does the calculations and realizes how close the first spell is to wearing off.

Now, if it is too speculative to assume a black dragon wants to kill anyone who walks into his lair, it is certainly too speculative to assume that V is just playing some cruel charade where s/he "forgets" to ask about the starmetal while in lizard form, and when s/he is returned to elven form, pretends to have another plan in mind, then just kills the dragon for the evulz.

[Darcy]

I can't help but notice that you continually fail to address the fact that they waited around for hours before V killed it. All of your justifications amount to, "They HAD to fight it!"

So explain to me: Why did V have to kill it hours after the fight was over?
Kindly read the second post of mine which appears on this page.

[Reverent-One]

Analogies are not intended to be an exact representation of every detail of a situation. That's why they are analogous and not THE SAME.

Doesn't mean you can compare two notably different things and then blame others for your own mistake.


It's an important consideration that I have already addressed. V knows the EXACT SECOND that her spell will expire. The only reason the dragon is "about to become untied" is because VAARSUVIUS LET IT HAPPEN. She watched and waited and then killed it.

Which brings me to the next question, do you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone? In today's world, we could call the police for such a circumstance, but in the OotS world, V and the party don't have that option.

This, Kish, is one of the unknowns I'm talking about. We don't know V's mindset at the time, we don't know if the dragon then ambushed them as they were retreating with an evil cackle and a "I have you now!" or if V talked to the dragon in the eight hours they waited and made sure it was a stereotypical evil black dragon that enjoys raping, pillaging, and murdering. As such, we don't know enough about to situation to say whether or not it was justified. NOTE: This is NOT to say that the action had to be justified, just that it is is entirely possible for such a circumstance to exist and so we can't definitely say that it isn't. It is also entirely possible that the action wasn't justified, but since we CAN'T know with any certainty at all whether or not it was, we can't simply dismiss either option out of hand.

[Phoenix Xul]

Accepting, just for the moment, that this is true and not something that might be better described as "pop psychology," it is entirely possible to argue that both the outcome and the motivations were bad--or, for that matter, to argue that both the outcome and the motivations are good.

Psych major. I know, no reason to believe me over the internet, but you can check my facts. :P

But that's just the thing. No two people will ever agree on all issues of morality, because morality is a subjectivity. Do you think genocidal perpetrators believed what they were doing was wrong? It all comes down to who gets to decide what IS right and wrong. Personally, I have a very critical view of normal morality and would've probably cast the Familicide myself in a similar situation. But that's not the point AT ALL, because I can sit here typing twenty pages on why what he did was right and it won't convince a single person. Morals are one of the most ingrained aspects of a person, and to argue that one moral belief is TRUE is impossible.

There is exactly one fact to be had in the familicide incident. Vaarsuvius killed no less than 64 black dragons with familicide. The party killed a single black dragon earlier in the campaign.

Whether the dragons deserved death or not cannot ever be determined concretely, because someone will always believe they did and someone will always believe they didn't. Whether what he did was right in motive, whether the result was right, whether the result/motive mattered, whether V can be redeemed, and whether the act was of evil or good in general are all in the eye of the beholder, and no amount of debate will ever change that.

I'm not saying we should end the moral debates, but getting up in arms and acting like any point of view is more "right" than another is closed-minded and unproductive.

[Kish]

...This is your idea of an "unknown"? We "don't know" that the same character who committed quasi-genocide because of being completely unwilling to treat dragons as people didn't, off-camera, never referenced, question his/her captive, whom s/he had already sworn to kill, and determine that said captive was a Xykonish cartoon villain?

You know what? You win. You don't have to know anything you want to call unknown.

For some mysterious reason, I have no trouble dismissing the "possibility" that killing the dragon was justified out of hand. I can't imagine how I would not dismiss it, in fact.

[SPoD]

Now, if it is too speculative to assume a black dragon wants to kill anyone who walks into his lair, it is certainly too speculative to assume that V is just playing some cruel charade where s/he "forgets" to ask about the starmetal while in lizard form, and when s/he is returned to elven form, pretends to have another plan in mind, then just kills the dragon for the evulz.

Not for the evulz, no, but because V puts her own personal needs—getting the polymorph dispelled—above any other considerations, such as leaving the cave before the dragon wakes up from the spell. She decides that leaving the dragon in peace while it's subdued is not as important as getting Durkon to reverse the spell on her as soon as dwarvenly possible.


Kindly read the second post of mine which appears on this page.

You address her decision to use the dragon to threaten her teammates, not her decision to kill the dragon itself.

[Darcy]

Her decision to kill the dragon was a direct result of her decision to use the dragon for "security." If they'd run off, they would have had a few hours lead on the dragon. As they stayed, they had two rounds.

I also want to ask this; I agree that it's wrong to kill a creature based strictly on the "normal" alignment of their species. Is it wrong to kill a creature whom you know is evil and possibly a threat? Is the right thing to do, to leave the dragon there, knowing that it's an evil, nasty, sapient being-crunching dragon?

[Reverent-One]

...This is your idea of an "unknown"? We "don't know" that the same character who committed quasi-genocide because of being completely unwilling to treat dragons as people didn't, off-camera, never referenced, question his/her captive, whom s/he had already sworn to kill, and determine that said captive was a Xykonish cartoon villain?

Oh please, V committed genocide on the dragons after one of them tried to torture, murder, and soul bind his family, that does not show that for all other interactions with dragons V (especially for an interaction prior to said event) will respond with similar hatred. Additionally, V questioning the dragon is only one of the ways I mention for the party to know the dragon was evil and killing it was justified. Are you saying there is absolutely no way for the party to know the young black dragon was the raping, pillaging, and murdering type?

[SPoD]

Doesn't mean you can compare two notably different things and then blame others for your own mistake.

I didn't make a mistake. I simply don't require analogies to be exact carbon copies of the original situation before considering the value they might bring to a debate.


Which brings me to the next question, do you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone?

This brings us back to the idea that it's a murderer just because it is a black dragon.


This, Kish, is one of the unknowns I'm talking about. We don't know V's mindset at the time, we don't know if the dragon then ambushed them as they were retreating with an evil cackle and a "I have you now!" or if V talked to the dragon in the eight hours they waited and made sure it was a stereotypical evil black dragon that enjoys raping, pillaging, and murdering. As such, we don't know enough about to situation to say whether or not it was justified. NOTE: This is NOT to say that the action had to be justified, just that it is is entirely possible for such a circumstance to exist and so we can't definitely say that it isn't. It is also entirely possible that the action wasn't justified, but since we CAN'T know with any certainty at all whether or not it was, we can't simply dismiss either option out of hand.

Of course, you're ignoring authorial intent here. These are actions that are taking place in a fictional narrative. The author chooses what to show us and what not to show us. Therefore, we can assume that he showed us the events that were relevant to the conclusion he wanted us to draw. And the events that he showed us add up to Vaarsuivus executing a dragon in a ruthless manner—an idea that is further supported by a very long story arc being devoted to the fallout from that event.

If the author intended V to be justified, all he had to do was show us one more panel that made it clear. The panels that exist, however, fail to do so.

[Kish]

I also want to ask this; I agree that it's wrong to kill a creature based strictly on the "normal" alignment of their species. Is it wrong to kill a creature whom you know is evil and possibly a threat? Is the right thing to do, to leave the dragon there, knowing that it's an evil, nasty, sapient being-crunching dragon?
This is a meaningless hypothetical. Even if Vaarsuvius acted really unlike himself/herself and prepared Detect Evil and wanted to cast it, s/he couldn't cast it in lizard form. The image of Vaarsuvius questioning the hypnotized dragon and discovering he's really evil is powered by a higher grade of wishful thinking than the image of the bureaucratic deva telling Roy "and you participated in the entirely morally correct killing of an evil dragon, and Rich Burlew says so, too."

[Voice of Reason]

I also want to ask this; I agree that it's wrong to kill a creature based strictly on the "normal" alignment of their species. Is it wrong to kill a creature whom you know is evil and possibly a threat? Is the right thing to do, to leave the dragon there, knowing that it's an evil, nasty, sapient being-crunching dragon?

Where exactly are you deriving that the black dragon was an "evil, nasty, sapient being-crunching dragon?" I see no evidence of this anywhere, except that a discussion may have occurred off-screen.

To use your own example, wouldn't the townsfolk have said something to a wandering group of adventurers if they were besieged by a family of "evil, nasty, sapient being-crunching dragons?"

[veti]

For the record, I'm not (currently) arguing that V was justified. What concerns me at this point is the argument that Roy was justified.

Roy also knows perfectly well that spells have limited duration. He spends eight hours sitting around, not even needing to relearn spells, during which he has nothing to do but play word games with Elan. He knows that staying around "until dawn, when the dwarf will break the baleful polymorph" is very likely to mean that V intends to deal with the dragon permanently then. If he has any objections - any desire to walk away - there's nothing to stop him from saying so.

After all, V respects Roy. He could talk her into it. But he doesn't try; heck, it doesn't even seem to occur to him.

If what V did was "unequivocally evil", then how can you excuse Roy from sharing her guilt?

[Darcy]

The dragon's dialogue during the fight seems like a pretty clear indicator of its temperament. This dragon is a jerk.

[Kish]

For the record, I'm not (currently) arguing that V was justified. What concerns me at this point is the argument that Roy was justified.

Roy also knows perfectly well that spells have limited duration. He spends eight hours sitting around, not even needing to relearn spells, during which he has nothing to do but play word games with Elan. He knows that staying around "until dawn, when the dwarf will break the baleful polymorph" is very likely to mean that V intends to deal with the dragon permanently then. If he has any objections - any desire to walk away - there's nothing to stop him from saying so.
You mean, other than that the dragon had already stated unequivocally that Vaarsuvius had told him to eat anyone who tried to leave?

The dragon's dialogue during the fight seems like a pretty clear indicator of its temperament. This dragon is a jerk.
Oh wow, a jerk? Disintegrate every member of the Order, then. Except maybe Durkon, I don't remember him trash talking during combat, except maybe with Leeky Windstaff.

[Voice of Reason]

The dragon's dialogue during the fight seems like a pretty clear indicator of its temperament. This dragon is a jerk.

With respect (and I mean that) I have good friends who use language much worse than that on a day-to-day basis.

[Darcy]

Dragons do everything by an order of magnitude, a jerk dragon is not equal to a jerk human. In the same way a "nice" dragon is probably on par with a human saint.

I wasn't talking about the dragon's vulgarity. It likes to eat people. That's pretty clear evidence of it being a "sapient being-crunching" whatever I said before.

[Kish]

...Do you really think your unsupported generalizations about dragons are a good argument at this point? Does the Empress of Blood really seem like her personality traits are amplified by an order of magnitude?

Of course the dragon trash talked; he was a teenage boy.

And no, "Tries to eat enemies during a fight" doesn't say anything about anyone's alignment. We're not debating whether the dragon was a vegetarian.

[SPoD]

Roy also knows perfectly well that spells have limited duration.

He doesn't know what they are, and he doesn't know that they won't have time to discuss the dragon's fate before the spell expires. Look at what they did with the bandit leaders; Roy likely expected a similar "let's talk about it" scene after V regained her elf shape.


After all, V respects Roy. He could talk her into it. But he doesn't try; heck, it doesn't even seem to occur to him.

One could say that at the point when that person who respects you orders a dragon to eat you if you move, all attempts at reasonable discussion are likely moot.


If what V did was "unequivocally evil", then how can you excuse Roy from sharing her guilt?

I don't, necessarily. I just think he has a lot less accountability. Failing to stop an evil act is not nearly as bad as committing one.

[Voice of Reason]

It also likes to eat corn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0184.html). We have no evidence that it enjoys eating people on a regular basis, only that it can, and that the "food" is not all that undesirable. In addition, said person that it enjoyed eating just shot it's eye out. Under any circumstances, shooting someone's eye is going to strain relationships.

[Reverent-One]

This brings us back to the idea that it's a murderer just because it is a black dragon.

No, that's an assumption you're making, note I said "do you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone?"


Of course, you're ignoring authorial intent here. These are actions that are taking place in a fictional narrative. The author chooses what to show us and what not to show us. Therefore, we can assume that he showed us the events that were relevant to the conclusion he wanted us to draw. And the events that he showed us add up to Vaarsuivus executing a dragon in a ruthless manner—an idea that is further supported by a very long story arc being devoted to the fallout from that event.

If the author intended V to be justified, all he had to do was show us one more panel that made it clear. The panels that exist, however, fail to do so.

Except I could use the same argument against you. Since Rich didn't show anything between the Order retreating into the darkness and the fight, then we can assume that the order continued retreating and the dragon attacked them. And given that the OotS world is mostly based off a standard D&D setting and generally follows the D&D books, since we haven't seen Rich show that black dragon's are not Always (for D&D's definition of always) chaotic evil, that we can assume black dragons are similar in the OotS world, something the Order (and V) would know. This combined with an ambush from the dragon (which as I said we can assume to be the case since Rich doesn't show the main characters entirely switching their actions) helps indicate that the young black is a standard evil D&D dragon to the party, which means if they don't kill it, it will go along raiding and killing other defenseless individuals, justifying V's killing it to prevent this. And I'm not done yet, since we also see no reprimands from the other party members, we can assume there weren't any, and if V was in the wrong and simply under the influence of his Dragon hating ways, Roy (who has shown doesn't simply follow the kill monsters just for being monsters mentality), Elan (who has been shown to also not support unnecessary killing, see the Kabuto incident), or Durkon at least SHOULD have said something. That they didn't means there should be justification for the action, otherwise they were all horribly out of character, which Rich is not likely to do. Such would be an analysis of the situation considering authorial intent.


...Do you really think your unsupported generalizations about dragons are a good argument at this point? Does the Empress of Blood really seem like her personality traits are amplified by an order of magnitude?

Of course the dragon trash talked; he was a teenage boy.

And no, "Tries to eat enemies during a fight" doesn't say anything about anyone's alignment. We're not debating whether the dragon was a vegetarian.

And now you're making a double standard, no one can make any assumptions about dragons in the OotS world, but you can make assumptions about V's mindset.

[Darcy]

...Do you really think your unsupported generalizations about dragons are a good argument at this point? Does the Empress of Blood really seem like her personality traits are amplified by an order of magnitude?
um, yes, she eats people who make her angry.

also, "unsupported generalizations"- no, very well supported generalizations, the problem seems to be the use of generalizations of any kind. black dragons are known to be some of the most cruel of the chromatic dragons, who are nearly universally evil, but because of the lack of evidence that this one is such a one, I understand we ought to act as though it is equally likely that our heroes are acting in the wrong.

Of course the dragon trash talked; he was a teenage boy.
I presume this is a hilarious joke about the whole "unsupported generalizations" thing.

And no, "Tries to eat enemies during a fight" doesn't say anything about anyone's alignment. We're not debating whether the dragon was a vegetarian.

It also likes to eat corn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0184.html). We have no evidence that it enjoys eating people on a regular basis, only that it can, and that the "food" is not all that undesirable.
AHA! Now we are. But still, it eats people, for pleasure and nourishment. The poor thing just wanted a snack I guess?

[SPoD]

And now you're making a double standard, no one can make any assumptions about dragons in the OotS world, but you can make assumptions about V's mindset.

It's not an assumption if it's supported by the hundreds of pages of insight into the character at our disposal. It's a conclusion.

The young black dragon appeared in six pages, and was hypnotized in two of them. We don't have enough evidence to draw any conclusions.

[Reverent-One]

It's not an assumption if it's supported by the hundreds of pages of insight into the character at our disposal. It's a conclusion.

I only see people referencing the handful of pages of the fight to assume V's mindset, not hundreds. On the other hand,...


The young black dragon appeared in six pages, and was hypnotized in two of them. We don't have enough evidence to draw any conclusions.

EXACTLY! We definitely don't, but we also can't say V and the party didn't. Therein lies the problem, we are judging V's actions when V could have knowledge we don't.

[SPoD]

black dragons are known to be some of the most cruel of the chromatic dragons, who are nearly universally evil,

Known by who? Please stop bringing material from the flavor text of some D&D sourcebook into this discussion. In the OOTS world, goblins and sylphs are Medium-sized, elementals are based on the periodic table, and flumphs are lovable losers who make good cushions. None of your beliefs about monsters are true in the comic until the comic tells us so.

[Voice of Reason]

AHA! Now we are. But still, it eats people, for pleasure and nourishment. The poor thing just wanted a snack I guess?

:smallsigh: Apparently, we are. What I was trying to convey was merely that the dragon ate an aggressor in combat. This does not prove that the dragon is evil because it eats people. The comment about the corn was to demonstrate that an equally strong hypothetical could be drawn that the dragon was vegetarian. The bottom line of the argument was that we don't know if the dragon did or did not eat "innocent" people, which you seemed to be implying it did.

[Kish]

um, yes, she eats people who make her angry.

That's an amplified personality trait?


also, "unsupported generalizations"- no, very well supported generalizations, the problem seems to be the use of generalizations of any kind.

Oh? Then you can quote where you got "dragons' personality traits are amplified by an order of magnitude," I'm sure.

black dragons are known to be some of the most cruel of the chromatic dragons, who are nearly universally evil, but because of the lack of evidence that this one is such a one, I understand we ought to act as though it is equally likely that our heroes are acting in the wrong.

Only if you want to not be engaging in what the Player's Handbook describes as Lawful Evil reasoning.

Again, I admit that having to judge individuals rather than entire races might cause me pain if I really wanted to be able to play "see X, kill," but it's really not complicated, hard to apply, or counterintuitive.

[SPoD]

EXACTLY! We definitely don't, but we also can't say V and the party didn't. Therein lies the problem, we are judging V's actions when V could have knowledge we don't.

By this logic, Xykon is justified in conquering the world because there could have been a scene omitted from Start of Darkness showing his true motives. And Roy could be a Go'uld. And Haley is really Patrick McGoohan, because we haven't seen any scenes telling us that she isn't.

Come on. Use the material that is in the comic to interpret it, and nothing more. Not scenes that never happened, not descriptions from a D&D rulebook that PROVE that dragons are extra-evil, just the comic and nothing but the comic. Rich shows us everything we need to know about this scene, and until he adds material contradicting it, it's an open and shut case.

[Darcy]

SPoD, the world and characters of OotS have routinely demonstrated that the rules of D&D govern the universe, with a few exceptions. It's not "flavor text from some D&D sourcebook," it's been a fact of the game since dragons first appeared in it decades ago. I personally think that most of the things we know about D&D which haven't been directly contradicted in the comic are fairly reliable. If you disagree... woohoo, wonderful, I guess.

[Reverent-One]

Come on. Use the material that is in the comic to interpret it, and nothing more. Not scenes that never happened, not descriptions from a D&D rulebook that PROVE that dragons are extra-evil, just the comic and nothing but the comic.

Except that's the problem. Our view of the world is limited, as you said, the only things we can know for sure are what are shown in the comic, but that does not mean that the things we are shown are the ONLY things to know, the characters can and should better know more than we do if they've lived in the world their whole lives. You are trying to assume our incomplete knowledge is all there is to know and all we need to judge the situation, when it is neither.

[SPoD]

SPoD, the world and characters of OotS have routinely demonstrated that the rules of D&D govern the universe, with a few exceptions. It's not "flavor text from some D&D sourcebook," it's been a fact of the game since dragons first appeared in it decades ago. I personally think that most of the things we know about D&D which haven't been directly contradicted in the comic are fairly reliable. If you disagree... woohoo, wonderful, I guess.

Damn it, I wish I remembered where that quote from the Giant saying that he ignores all of the D&D rules at whim and does whatever he feels like would make a good story was.

I'll try to find it, but suffice to say that the author disagrees with you.

[Darcy]

Come on. Use the material that is in the comic to interpret it, and nothing more. Not scenes that never happened, not descriptions from a D&D rulebook that PROVE that dragons are extra-evil, just the comic and nothing but the comic. Rich shows us everything we need to know about this scene, and until he adds material contradicting it, it's an open and shut case.

And in the comic, the heroes were caught in a trap of absolute darkness by a black dragon, attempted to retreat, and shortly afterwards were in combat with it. This suggests that this dragon is one who is interested in fighting them, even more than they may be in fighting it.

[Darcy]

Damn it, I wish I remembered where that quote from the Giant saying that he ignores all of the D&D rules at whim and does whatever he feels like would make a good story was.

I'll try to find it, but suffice to say that the author disagrees with you.
He ignores them on a whim, ie. when they are inconvenient for the story. Otherwise- they are the rules of the world. It makes sense, as an author, not to let rules-lawyering ruin a good dramatic moment or plot hook. It does not make sense to assume that all rules not confirmed as "in effect" by the comic do not count by default.

ps. This has been thrilling, but I'm outta here. Looking forward to the size of my first new thread tomorrow morning!

[Reverent-One]

And in the comic, the heroes were caught in a trap of absolute darkness by a black dragon, attempted to retreat, and shortly afterwards were in combat with it. This suggests that this dragon is one who is interested in fighting them, even more than they may be in fighting it.

On top of that, we never see any one of the heroes who should be opposed to needless killing say anything. Which implies it wasn't needless, or Rich was writing them in styles that were out of character. And the second option makes no sense to me.

[SPoD]

And in the comic, the heroes were caught in a trap of absolute darkness by a black dragon, attempted to retreat, and shortly afterwards were in combat with it. This suggests that this dragon is one who is interested in fighting them, even more than they may be in fighting it.

We're officially going in circles. Because I've already explained that what happened in the initial moments of the encounter has little bearing on V's decision to shoot it twice in the face hours later. So I'm not going to argue whether or not the black dragon was interested in fighting when they walked into its home, because it doesn't change what happens later.

[SPoD]

He ignores them on a whim, ie. when they are inconvenient for the story. Otherwise- they are the rules of the world. It makes sense, as an author, not to let rules-lawyering ruin a good dramatic moment or plot hook. It does not make sense to assume that all rules not confirmed as "in effect" by the comic do not count by default.

Rich has specifically explained that he is writing a story in which a character assumes it's OK to kill a monster for being a monster, and then finds out differently. Changing the default personality of black dragons falls well within the scope of "doing it for the story" if that is the story he wishes to tell (and it is).

[Reverent-One]

We're officially going in circles. Because I've already explained that what happened in the initial moments of the encounter has little bearing on V's decision to shoot it twice in the face hours later. So I'm not going to argue whether or not the black dragon was interested in fighting when they walked into its home, because it doesn't change what happens later.

Yes it does! To use the earlier analogy, if an action makes "you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone" then that action certainly is important when attempting to justify your own action toward said black belt person later.

[SPoD]

Yes it does! To use the earlier analogy, if an action makes "you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone" then that action certain is important when attempting to justify your own action toward said black belt person later.

No, it doesn't, because there is no proof of "going around" and killing people. Just killing people who invade your home with weapons visibly strapped to their back when your father was killed by just such people.

No one in the town or the bandit camp warned the OOTS about a mean black dragon in the area, did they? Even when they provided a map of the exact area the dragon lived! So why do we assume it was going to leave its lair and suddenly start killing innocent humans if the OOTS didn't do something?

Oh, right, because a sourcebook told us it would.

[Reverent-One]

No, it doesn't, because there is no proof of "going around" and killing people. Just killing people who invade your home with weapons visibly strapped to their back when your father was killed by just such people.

There's no proof it wouldn't either. And again, they walked into an unmarked cave, they did not "invade the dragon's home".


No one in the town or the bandit camp warned the OOTS about a mean black dragon in the area, did they? So why do we assume it was going to leave its lair and suddenly start killing innocent humans if the OOTS didn't do something?

Oh, right, because a sourcebook told us it would.

Why a sourcebook? This is one of those things that V and the party would know that we can't. Are black dragon's virtually always murderers and pillagers in the OotS world? You're right we have no idea, but that doesn't mean we should assume the answer is no, and if the answer isn't no, that makes a difference. If they are, the Order would know, whether we do or not.

[SPoD]

Why a sourcebook? This is one of those things that V and the party would know that we can't. Are black dragon's virtually always murderers and pillagers in the OotS world? You're right we have no idea, but that doesn't mean we should assume the answer is no, and if the answer isn't no, that makes a difference. If they are, the Order would know, whether we do or not.

The OOTS may well have known that black dragons are VIRTUALLY always murderers and pillagers, but they did not know that they were ALWAYS murderers and pillagers, and they certainly did not know THIS dragon was a murderer and pillager. So we're right back to judging an individual based on its race.

You seem to think it's OK to kill someone if there's a 90% chance of them having done something at some point that was bad, even if we don't know what it is, because other people of their race have done a lot of bad things. I personally only think it's OK to kill someone when there's a 100% chance of them having done something specific that we know about that was bad, and that race shouldn't even enter into the equation. Which one of us do you think the law agrees with?

[Reverent-One]

The OOTS may well have known that black dragons are VIRTUALLY always murderers and pillagers, but they did not know that they were ALWAYS murderers and pillagers, and they certainly did not know THIS dragon was a murderer and pillager. So we're right back to judging an individual based on its race.

Except for the possibly of it luring them into a trap and ambushing them, despite your claims that it has "little bearing" on anything.

[SPoD]

Except for the possibly of it luring them into a trap and ambushing them, despite your claims that it has "little bearing" on anything.

A trap inside its own home. Yes. It still does not tell us anything about this dragon beyond the fact that it understands basic tactics and is willing to use them to defend itself. It certainly does not tell us that the dragon deserves to die unequivocally.

[Reverent-One]

A trap inside its own home. Yes. It still does not tell us anything about this dragon beyond the fact that it understands basic tactics and is willing to use them to defend itself.

Really? A area of random blackness, a defense mechanism? Looks more like a method to get tasty snacks closer to where they can be more easily caught. If the dragon shouted something like "Leave my home or be consumed/destroyed/obliterated!" or anything while they were in it, then I could agree on it being a reasonable defense mechanism, but if I were an adventurer living in a world in which black dragons are virtually always evil murderers, I'd see it as a attempt to kill me.

[veti]

You mean, other than that the dragon had already stated unequivocally that Vaarsuvius had told him to eat anyone who tried to leave?

I'm not accusing Roy of failing to try to leave. I'm accusing him of failing to try to talk Vaarsuvius into a different course of action. Failing even to think about trying to talk to Vaarsuvius. If he had any reservations about what V might do to the dragon when she was restored, he had every opportunity to say so. He even had a motive to say so, since it would have got him out of playing 'I Spy' with Elan for a few minutes.

But he didn't.

So once again: if V is Evil here, then so is Roy.

[derfenrirwolv]

We don't know that roy was doing with his 24 hours. My guess is he was still letting his brain recover from the absurdity of the situation.

[Kish]

Kish, I have great respect for you, but please read what I wrote again.

I'm not accusing Roy of failing to try to leave. I'm accusing him of failing to try to talk Vaarsuvius into a different course of action. Failing even to think about trying to talk to Vaarsuvius. If he had any reservations about what V might do to the dragon when she was restored, he had every opportunity to say so. He even had a motive to say so, since it would have got him out of playing 'I Spy' with Elan for a few minutes.

But he didn't.

So once again: if V is Evil here, then so is Roy.
As SPoD said, Roy may have expected that they would discuss what they were going to do with their prisoner. Or he may simply have believed that it was pointless to attempt to argue with someone who had had the dragon threaten to eat anyone who disobeyed him/her. Or he may have never thought to care what happened to the dragon. In any case.

You're making multiple assumptions I won't grant. That Roy knew the duration of Vaarsuvius' Suggestion spell (he was shocked when Vaarsuvius said it was about to expire). That he knew Vaarsuvius planned to kill the dragon any time sooner than Vaarsuvius doing so. That he could actually have any sort of conversation with Vaarsuvius, bearing in mind that the dragon would have had to translate for Vaarsuvius, and that the dragon might well have broken free of the Suggestion had Vaarsuvius said that s/he intended to kill him. That, if Roy could have had a conversation with Vaarsuvius, his not doing so is indicative of a choice not to oppose Vaarsuvius killing the dragon, and not him stupidly not putting the "I can talk to the party member I've been ignoring ever since he got Baleful Polymorphed now" together. Any of those might be true. Any of them might be untrue. I am certainly not willing to take them all for granted.

I suspect you might have a vested interest in reaching a "no member of the Order thought it was wrong to kill monsters at that time" conclusion.

[veti]

Or he may have never thought to care what happened to the dragon.

My point exactly.


You're making multiple assumptions I won't grant. That Roy knew the duration of Vaarsuvius' Suggestion spell (he was shocked when Vaarsuvius said it was about to expire).

He knew it would have a finite duration. He's an intelligent guy. Is it that unreasonable to assume it might have occurred to him, during eight hours of nigh-terminal boredom, that a more long-term solution would be needed at some point? And having thought that far...


That he knew Vaarsuvius planned to kill the dragon any time sooner than Vaarsuvius doing so.

See above. What do you imagine he thought Vaarsuvius was planning to do when she was restored? Loot the dragon's hoard and walk away, leaving its righteous vengeance contained only by a spell that was just about to run out?


That he could actually have any sort of conversation with Vaarsuvius, bearing in mind that the dragon would have had to translate for Vaarsuvius, and that the dragon might well have broken free of the Suggestion had Vaarsuvius said that s/he intended to kill him.

He could talk to Vaarsuvius just fine - the dragon would only have to translate V's replies. And for Roy to reason that "the dragon might break free of the suggestion if V mentions that she intends to kill him" - would require Roy to suspect that V, in fact, did intend to kill him. As well as assuming that V was incapable of communicating with him without cluing in the dragon.
:roy: "What are we going to do about the dragon?"
:vaarsuvius: "I was thinking along the lines of what Elan did with Dorukan's dungeon."


That, if Roy could have had a conversation with Vaarsuvius, his not doing so is indicative of a choice not to oppose Vaarsuvius killing the dragon, and not him stupidly not putting the "I can talk to the party member I've been ignoring ever since he got Baleful Polymorphed now" together.

This one, I have to grant you. But it just brings us back to proposition 1: that Roy didn't really care what happened to the dragon, so long as the OOTS weren't on its menu.


I suspect you might have a vested interest in reaching a "no member of the Order thought it was wrong to kill monsters at that time" conclusion.

And I suspect you have a vested interest in reaching a "Vaarsuvius's instinctive alignment is Thoughtless Evil" conclusion. But even if we were both right - what difference would that make?

[Kish]

And I suspect you have a vested interest in reaching a "Vaarsuvius's instinctive alignment is Thoughtless Evil" conclusion.

Oh, make no mistake--that's a starting point at the time this thread went up, not a conclusion. Even if I granted your arguments about Roy (and while I don't, I do think it says something negative about him that his answer to Miko was "its scales weren't all shiny," and not anything about the dragon attacking them), it would only lead me to "and Roy acted nearly as badly in the cave," not anything positive about Vaarsuvius.

[Garwain]

... if there is a dragon living in an area, they have as a matter of course been tormenting everything and everyone in their territory- which happens to be "wherever they feel like."

Nah, they are just top predators, bored to death. I think they actually enjoy a bunch of heros from time to time.

[hamishspence]

In Races of the Dragon- it states that kobolds mine lots of treasure- and donate it to dragons, in return for alliance with the dragons.

So "It was all stolen by the dragon" isn't necessarily a valid assumption.

[Forum Staff]

At this time, we have a moratorium on threads whose sole discussion point is whether a certain character was "morally justified" in taking a certain action in the comic. Please do not start new topics to discuss such issues.