Vaarsuvius' alignment

[KillItWithFire]

My friend and I both greatly enjoy OotS. However, my poor friend is misguided. While both of us can agree that prior to the soul-splice V hovered somewhere around true neutral, we diverge on where he is AFTER the splice. My friend feels that thanks to his actions during the splice V is more neutral evil, I feel that he is trying to attone for his mistakes during the splice and is making amends, placing him more on the good side of the spectrum. So I ask my fellow readers for their own opinions on the alignment of the abigously gendered elf.

[Kish]

Vaarsuvius has yet to indicate seeing anything wrong with the Xykonish atrocity s/he committed. S/he expressed remorse for neglecting his/her family, for dealing with fiends, and for an unspecified "what I have done." S/he still responds to insults with violence and requires a corvidian Jiminy Cricket to explain why s/he shouldn't advertise seeing explosions as an appropriate answer to every social situation.

Your friend is right.

[Marnath]

Another V alignment thread? Is it that time of the week again? :smallsigh:

I peg him at TN or NE.

[hamishspence]

If you see alignment as primarily about "general moral and personal attitudes" and not about acts- then the question becomes, what are V's current attitudes?

Does V "have qualms about harming the innocent"? (a trait most commonly associated with nonevil alignments)

Is V currently willing to commit evil acts against others? (a trait which IMO may imply an evil alignment even in the presence of other nonevil traits- if the evil acts are serious enough)

Is V willing to make personal sacrifices to help others? (a Good trait)

Does V "lack the commitment to make personal sacrifices to help strangers"? (a trait associated with nongood alignments)

Does V "protect the Innocent"? (a Good trait)

Does V have concern for the dignity of sentient beings? (a Good trait)

Does V have respect for life? (a Good trait)

You get the general idea.

If the dragons are deemed "innocent" (especially the unhatched or newborn ones) and if V's act is deemed to be done for the fun/pleasure gained by seeing the mother dragon's suffering, then it can qualify as:

"destroying the innocent for fun" - a strong symptom of Evil alignment in PHB.

It could also be deemed an act of "Extreme contempt for life"- and if "respect for life" is deemed a sign of Good, "contempt for life" may be a sign of Evil.


Another V alignment thread? Is it that time of the week again? :smallsigh:

Actually, I haven't seen a Vaasuvius alignment thread for quite some time.

[Conuly]

Both the IFCC and the deva who tried to talk to Roy seem to think that V's actions indicate a serious turn towards evil, and that there's a good chance of V's soul going DEEP down after death.

And really, they should know.

[Dr.Epic]

What's with all the neutral evil thoughts? Maybe during and at some points pre-soul splice, but s/he does seem to be doing better. Good: no, but I really doubt that V is evil, unless we're talking Codename V.

[hamishspence]

At the time of the act, a case could be made that V had:

"contempt for life"
"destroyed the innocent for fun"
"lacked qualms about hurting the innocent"
"contempt for the dignity of sentient beings" (expressed by behaviour toward the mother dragon)

And so far, V hasn't shown all that much evidence of having lost these traits.

[Dr.Epic]

At the time of the act, a case could be made that V had:

"contempt for life"
"destroyed the innocent for fun"
"lacked qualms about hurting the innocent"
"contempt for the dignity of sentient beings" (expressed by behaviour toward the mother dragon)

And so far, V hasn't shown all that much evidence of having lost these traits.

When has s/he shown evidence of still having those traits?

[hamishspence]

I tend to the view that once the traits have been shown, evidence of losing them needs to be present for us to say "V probably doesn't have those traits anymore"

A bit like, once we've seen that an Order member has an item, we assume they still have that item until we see evidence that they've lost it.

[Dr.Epic]

I tend to the view that once the traits have been shown, evidence of losing them needs to be present for us to say "V probably doesn't have those traits anymore"

The fact that we haven't seen them can be evidence that they're gone.

[hamishspence]

Absence of evidence for something being present (once we know it used to be present) is not evidence of absence.

Plus, as Kish mentioned here:


S/he still responds to insults with violence and requires a corvidian Jiminy Cricket to explain why s/he shouldn't advertise seeing explosions as an appropriate answer to every social situation.

there's actually evidence that some of the traits are still present.

[Dr.Epic]

Absence of evidence for something being present (once we know it used to be present) is not evidence of absence.

And sometimes it is.

[Sylthia]

V might be in danger of slipping into evil, but as the deva said, it's mostly that one tries to be a particular alignment. The fact that V is using his familiar as a guide in moral behavior indicate that he's trying to stay away from outright evil. He may slip-up occassionally but that just shows that he's not perfect. Most of V's new-found humility came after the deva's warning, so while V may be in dangerous territory, I think he's currently closer to neutral than evil.

[hamishspence]

And sometimes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_Absence_of_ evidence_from_Evidence_of_absence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

A possible way to show V may have "regained qualms about harming the innocent" might be to show a case where V has very good reason to harm a particular innocent- and does not do so.

(innocent in the sense that there's nothing to suggest they were not "the innocent")

[Ranylyn]

I plan to use this list of criteria to prove my reasoning:


If you see alignment as primarily about "general moral and personal attitudes" and not about acts- then the question becomes, what are V's current attitudes?

Does V "have qualms about harming the innocent"? (a trait most commonly associated with nonevil alignments)

With few exceptions, yes. Hell, if Vaarsuvius was evil, with how annoyed V has gotten at Elan, Elan would be dead.


Is V currently willing to commit evil acts against others? (a trait which IMO may imply an evil alignment even in the presence of other nonevil traits- if the evil acts are serious enough)

The only truly evil act V has committed was the Familicide spell. However, considering how V's spouse and children were threatened by the mother of a dragon the OOtS bested, it was probably the safest way of guaranteeing their safety. (Granted, calling Inkyrius a fool while appearing to cast something was really iffy too)


Is V willing to make personal sacrifices to help others? (a Good trait)

The whole reason Vaarsuvius made the deal in the first place was to protect his/her children. V also sacrificed the chance at reconciliation for the sake of the greater good.


Does V "lack the commitment to make personal sacrifices to help strangers"? (a trait associated with nongood alignments)

Once upon a time, yes (placing his/her own safety before the soldiers in Azure city) However, consider how badly it could have gone if Tarquin/Malak learned that Haley and V freed slaves. See my above comment about the chance of reconciliation, and then realize that V was gambling on their only chance at their only lead for the sake of helping strangers.


Does V "protect the Innocent"? (a Good trait)

Hell, in the OOtS, even Belkar protects the innocent, if only because of Roy.


Does V have concern for the dignity of sentient beings? (a Good trait)

Recent devellopments say yes (Blackwing is a prime example)


Does V have respect for life? (a Good trait)

Depends, really. Clearly, it depends on the life in question. But hey, Roy is Lawful Good, and he'd stomp on a spider that tried to bite him, right?



If the dragons are deemed "innocent" (especially the unhatched or newborn ones) and if V's act is deemed to be done for the fun/pleasure gained by seeing the mother dragon's suffering, then it can qualify as:

"destroying the innocent for fun" - a strong symptom of Evil alignment in PHB.

It could also be deemed an act of "Extreme contempt for life"- and if "respect for life" is deemed a sign of Good, "contempt for life" may be a sign of Evil.

It's basically been established that the black dragons are inherently evil in the OOtS lore (Hell, I've never played a D&D setting where they weren't!) While I'd take Miko saying they were evil (for not being shiny) with a grain of salt, the IFCC saying "We had to promise that five dragons of good would die for every black dragon that died that day" really reinforces it. (It should also be noted that V doesn't know about this.)

As well, Vaarsuvius stated that with no living relatives, no one could return to claim revenge. Yes, killing 1/4 the black dragons in the world with one spell is evil, regardless of whether the dragons are or not, However, I bring you again to the IFCC. When V first interacted with the imp on the island, V wanted nothing to do with the forces of evil. Desperation at the inevitibility of the death of his/her family drove V to that point. Can you say that you wouldn't kill someone who threatened your loved ones? Now what if they had a whole gang who could return to claim revenge on you? The world isn't sunshines and rainbows, and there's a reason not everyone is lawful.


Earlier, I may have been willing to go as far as Chaotic Neutral for V, but in light of the recent events, I'm willing to have to say V is currently more Neutral good. Why? Even Belkar can put on an act, right? Well, to quote Roy's interviewer, "You're trying." V's regret and remorse does not appear to be an act. Old habits may die hard (like the explosion line) but simply being willing to take advice from Blackwing, whose presence V rarely even acknowleged before, is proof alone that Vaarsuvius is trying, even if he/she has a long way to go.

[Burner28]

Personally, how I see it is that V started off as True Neutral and slipped into Neutral Evil when he killed all those dragons and has a lot of stuff to make up for. Currently? Maybe still having an Evil alignment?

[hamishspence]

It's basically been established that the black dragons are inherently evil in the OOtS lore (Hell, I've never played a D&D setting where they weren't!)

There is Eberron. Which also has Tiamat (though as a rakshasa rajah rather than a deity)

And even in more standard settings (Faerun, Dragonlance, Greyhawk) there are very rare exceptions to chromatic dragons being Evil despite their "always evil" alignment.

Plus, the issue isn't whether they were evil, but whether they were "innocent" in a D&D sense.

If "has never committed an evil act" can qualify- then the newborns and not-quite-hatched ones, would be "the innocent".


Hell, in the OOtS, even Belkar protects the innocent, if only because of Roy.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html
And on at least one occasion, even without Roy's "encouragement".



The only truly evil act V has committed was the Familicide spell.

Killing Kubota when (at the time) V had minimal evidence to believe it was necessary, may qualify.

[Gift Jeraff]

The 50-50 chance the fiends have at getting his/her soul anyway indicates, to me, that V is moderately into the [Neutral] Evil end of the pool, but since s/he hangs out with the (mostly) Good Guys, s/he has a decent chance of redemption (from our perspective, it's pretty much guaranteed, but you never know).

[Felhammer]

Attempted Genocide means Evil.

[Da'Shain]

And sometimes it is.Er, no it isn't. Absence of evidence = no evidence for anything, by definition.

That said, V's arrival at a plan for freeing slaves on her own, as a matter of course, is a strong point for Good in his favor, and she certainly seems to be attempting to change his ways. That said, though, alignment in D&D, from what I understand, does not change simply because behavior changes; atoning for past misdeeds is a necessity in order to effect an actual alignment shift, and as has been pointed out, V's shown no specific remorse for committing genocide.

How the alignment system views it really depends on the Giant; it could be that genocide is Always Evil no matter the target, or it could be that genociding an Always Evil species is subject to the same exemption a lot of Good people get for killing things that are marked Evil in the Monster Manual. Or some degree between the two (the IFCC certainly seems to think it was a major evil act, at least).

Myself, I'd place her at NE despite the fact that he clearly does not act like one, simply because my own feelings on her particular act means the burden on his soul is just too much for anything beyond the most selfless acts of heroism to expunge. She's certainly got a chance to redeem himself and is traveling with the right party to do it in, but right now she'd likely scan as Evil.

EDIT:

Can you say that you wouldn't kill someone who threatened your loved ones? Now what if they had a whole gang who could return to claim revenge on you? The world isn't sunshines and rainbows, and there's a reason not everyone is lawful.No, I can't say that. What I can say is that I wouldn't then proceed to kill their entire family, children, grandparents, fifth-cousins included. It's not a "gang". It's a species. The majority of which would have no idea of the ABD and son's manner of death and probably wouldn't care, considering how solitary dragons tend to be. The world doesn't have to be puppy dogs and gumdrop forests for that to be wrong.

[hamishspence]

Attempted Genocide means Evil.

Then, yes- the question is, what's V's alignment now?



Myself, I'd place him at NE despite the fact that he clearly does not act like one, simply because my own feelings on his particular act means the burden on his soul is just too much for anything beyond the most selfless acts of heroism to expunge.

an alternative view, is the moment you repent the evil act and resolve to start atoning for it (and to not do evil again), your alignment changes to Not-Evil- but, the debt still remains, and can send you to the Lower Planes despite a non-Evil alignment.

FC2 appears to work something like this- if you combine it with DMG.

Unatoned for Evil acts of considerable amount+Lawful alignment = Hell for afterlife, regardless of whether alignment is Evil or not.

Note that being truly repentant at time of death leads to being transformed into a hellbred, rather than condemned.

That's for Lawful though- may not work like that for NE and CE afterlives.

[Kish]

Can you say that you wouldn't kill someone who threatened your loved ones? Now what if they had a whole gang who could return to claim revenge on you?

Let me just rephrase this for a little more relevance to what you're arguing for.


Can you say that you wouldn't kill someone who threatened your loved ones? What about killing all their relatives too?

Yes. I can say I would not kill anyone for what I thought there was a possibility they would someday do. That's kind of one of the minimum requirements, one of the necessary but not sufficient conditions, that lets me think of myself as not being a monster.

[Da'Shain]

an alternative view, is the moment you repent the evil act and resolve to start atoning for it (and to not do evil again), your alignment changes to Not-Evil- but, the debt still remains, and can send you to the Lower Planes despite a non-Evil alignment.I don't know, I'd tend to think the unatoned-for act would make them actually still evil, not off-the-hook until the afterlife comes around. Like, a Holy Word would still affect you, simply because of the burden on your soul. Until you actually atone in some manner, you haven't yet, so why reap any benefits from it?

That's just my own personal view, though. I'm sure the FC2 says otherwise.

[hamishspence]

That's just my own personal view, though. I'm sure the FC2 says otherwise.

Actually, it's the DMG:

DMG page 134:

The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but is well on his way to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs.

on the same page:

it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.

Alignment can change without actually scrubbing away "the taint of sin" as the phrase in FC2 goes.

The whole concept of a "taint of sin" that can determine your afterlife, is FC2. rather than core.

I agree with the idea of it occuring in D&D- and I think something like that applies in OoTS from the IFCC's statements- but I can't prove it to be the case.

[Felhammer]

Actually, it's the DMG:

DMG page 134:

The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but is well on his way to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs.

on the same page:

it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.

Alignment can change without actually scrubbing away "the taint of sin" as the phrase in FC2 goes.

We're not talking about some evil Crime lord who may have killed a few merchants and a bunch of peasants to get to where he is. We're talking about a person who slaughtered 1/4 of an entire race because of a personal grudge. No DM in his right mind would ever, ever allow a sudden change in alignment. You have to prove you're atoning for your sins.

What has V done to atone? Get a divorce after willfully harming another person? Freeing a handful of slaves? Continuing on with a quest to "save the world" at the expense of his family's happiness? :smallconfused:

The road to atonement will be long and arduous process, one that will most likely take the rest of V's life to accomplish.

[hamishspence]

You have to prove you're atoning for your sins. What has V done to atone?

There is the statement on the same page:

Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players

but if V was to do an action that proved genuine repentance for all V's evil behaviour (even if it wasn't nearly enough for complete atonement),

then I'd say alignment change has happened, though the taint of sin would not yet be removed.

I haven't yet seen such an action though.



The road to atonement will be long and arduous process, one that will most likely take the rest of V's life to accomplish.

This I would definitely agree with- even if V's alignment changes to Neutral or Good long before that.

[KillItWithFire]

My opinion is that V only committed one truely evil act. The familicide. Now yes, that was a... signifficant event but I dont think he should be entirely condemned(thanks Burner28) for that one action. remember he was drunk with power at the time, and though I know it's a poor excuse, it still is one. Plus its better that he killed the dragons rather than say 1/4 the paladins on the earth. Taking the splice well defitnately come back to haunt him and V knows it, and regrets it seeing the megar things he accomplished with it. They say hindsight is 20/20 and V is definitely learning that. My question is though what is V's alignment NOW. V is actively trying to be good, if he wasnt he wouldnt be taking Blackwings advice. Think of it as a psychatrist, if he didnt want to attone he wouldnt be seeing him (meaning he'd still forget about him often) His dance with destiny was a major point of development for V and it taught him WHY throwing fireballs everywhere isnt a ubiquitous answer to life. His later actions do point to general selflessness and his recent outbursts (example: diamond dust scenario) are due more to a lack of self control than anything else. Is that evil? maybe, but I say it isn't. I say V is NG.

[Felhammer]

There is the statement on the same page:

Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players

but if V was to do an action that proved genuine repentance for all V's evil behaviour (even if it wasn't nearly enough for complete atonement),

then I'd say alignment change has happened, though the taint of sin would not yet be removed.

I haven't yet seen such an action though.

That makes sense :smallsmile:

[Burner28]

Now yes, that was a... signifficant event but I dont think he should be entirely condoned for that one action

You're right, he shouldn't be condoned for that one action but condemned:smalltongue:

[King of Nowhere]

Well, there is word of god that V was neutral at the beginning of the saga and until the soul splice (one of the ifcc saying "you have the good - or the neutral, as in this case").
I think there is also consensus that he slipped towards evil during the splice.
Now he's clearly trying to atone. He's trying to be good. Except, he needs practice with it. He's been quite a jerk for his whole life (even if he never refused to aid someone who really was in need, but it seems to me that part of his attitude was developed after all the people who went "hey, there's a powerful wizard, let's ask him to solve our problems instead of working on them ourselves"). So he may break in old habits, like someone who is trying to give up smoking. I'd say he's going through an alignment change over time. You don't become a different person overnigth.

Now, he's he evil now?
Don't know. It depends on how much we choose to weigth his actions during the splice (genocide is pretty serious, even with an "always evil" race), how much we consider the attenuating circumstances (was under extreme stress and pression and clearly not in a shape to make sound decisions - and had way too much power to associate with this unstable mind), and how much we weigth what he's doing now and what he wants to become eventually.

But I think everyone should acknowledge that V is trying to become a better person.

By the way, I tend to see V as more chaotic than lawful, due to his tendency towards law and obligation. He is loyal to a few people, but he picked those people to be loyal for personal, specific reasons, and that's a chaotic way of being loyal.
But that is quite debatable.

[AtlanteanTroll]

V just helped Prisoner's escape from Elan's dad's castle. (Right?) That goes for good in my book. Though, considering V knew ze was dealing with fiends or demons or whatever, I'd place V as True Neutral.

[hamishspence]

By the way, I tend to see V as more chaotic than lawful, due to his tendency towards law and obligation. He is loyal to a few people, but he picked those people to be loyal for personal, specific reasons, and that's a chaotic way of being loyal.
But that is quite debatable.

There is a great deal of overlap between Chaotic and Lawful traits.
In PHB, for Law vs Chaos, there is the statement for Neutral:

"Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority, and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel"

This might suggest, that "compulsion to obey authority" is the defining trait for Lawful, and "compulsion to rebel against authority" is the defining trait for Chaotic.

(With Good and Evil showing how that might be modified- with LG only feeling a strong compulsion to obey legitimate authority)

So, you could have many traits traditionally associate with Lawful, yet, because when faced with authority your first instinct (which you may or may not suppress) is to rebel, you are Chaotic.

[Marnath]

With few exceptions, yes. Hell, if Vaarsuvius was evil, with how annoyed V has gotten at Elan, Elan would be dead.


Not every evil person is a psychopath. Even Batman's Joker has Harley Quinn.

And I don't care how you rationalize it, killing 1/4 of an entire species for personal revenge against a single individual is one of the most staggeringly evil things you could do. Yes, even if they were evil too. Evil acts done to evil people is still evil.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Evil acts done to evil people is still evil.

So, when Roy presumably kills Xykon, will it make him evil?

[Marnath]

So, when Roy presumably kills Xykon, will it make him evil?

Don't be absurd. :smallannoyed:
Not all killing is evil..... there's a big difference between killing the evil lich that wants to enslave the world, and say, hunting down any family he might still have.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Don't be absurd. :smallannoyed:
Not all killing is evil..... there's a big difference between killing the evil lich that wants to enslave the world, and say, hunting down any family he might still have.

Is their? Really? Deontology says their isn't.

[Lord Bingo]

In my opinion V remains true neutral and while he has perpetrated some evil acts I still think that on the whole V tends towards good as have been recently demonstrated when he helped Haley free those prisoners. IMO V simply lacks the commitment to adhere to a moral standpoint. He does what he think is needed/best with little or no concern for law or moral objections.
A neutral person may still commit evil acts as well as good ones without instantly switching alignment to either evil or good. Rules wise, killing one or more evil creatures (which black dragons are) is not an evil act per se and neutral casters are not barred under pain of alignment shift from using evil aligned spells.

Edit: Also please note that while the means V utilizes might be of questionable moral worth his ends/intentions have always been good. When he killed the black dragon along with its entire bloodline the aim was to protect the innocent. When V killed Kobuta (that was his name, right?) he did so for the good of the people of Azure city.

[Marnath]

Is their? Really? Deontology says their isn't.

I don't know what that is, but real life religious discussion is forbidden here. I'd explain the difference between murder and other kinds of killing, but I think I will let someone more eloquent do that. Also, there. Not their.

[Da'Shain]

Only if you assume the rule that murder is bad doesn't change for demonstrably evil people who are rampant rule breakers themselves ... or for that matter, for people who aren't actually alive to murder.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I don't know what that is, but real life religious discussion is forbidden here. I'd explain the difference between murder and other kinds of killing, but I think I will let someone more eloquent do that. Also, there. Not their.

I hate that word. Hate it. Also, for you referece.

Deontological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) a la Wikipedia.

[Lord Bingo]

Is their? Really? Deontology says their isn't.

Now, that just does not make any sense to say. Deontology is an ethical doctrine which holds that the worth of an action is determined by its conformity to some binding rule rather than by its consequences. Unless you can define those rules relevant to V's actions and prove their veracity in the OOTS universe your statement is pointless.
-That is of course unless you are simply trying to say that Killing is Killing in some obscure way in which case everyone in OOTS are evil because Killing is evil which is just nonsense.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Now, that just does not make any sense to say. Deontology is an ethical doctrine which holds that the worth of an action is determined by its conformity to some binding rule rather than by its consequences. Unless you can define those rules relevant to V's actions and prove their veracity in the OOTS universe your statement is pointless.

Oh, well, I just got done reaing a chapter in a philosopy textbook saying that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because the means, so I sort of associate it with killing.


-That is of course unless you are simply trying to say that Killing is Killing in some obscure way in which case everyone in OOTS are evil because Killing is evil which is just nonsense.

Sure, why not.

[Marnath]

Oh, well, I just got done reaing a chapter in a philosopy textbook saying that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because the means, so I sort of associate it with killing.

He doesn't kill the Joker because he's an idealist. However in the end(there's a comic where batman gets old) he realizes that all the lives Joker has taken, are Batman's fault because he keeps sparing the Joker's life.




Sure, why not.

Because it's not even close to true? Morality isn't that easy.

[AtlanteanTroll]

He doesn't kill the Joker because he's an idealist. However in the end(there's a comic where batman gets old) he realizes that all the lives Joker has taken, are Batman's fault because he keeps sparing the Joker's life.

... Bah this argument can happen elsewhere.


Because it's not even close to true? Morality isn't that easy.

I'd like to think it is. Is Brutus just as bad as Ceasar? Is Jack Ruby as bad as Lee Harvey Oswald? Et cetera, et cetera?

I say yes.

[Lord Bingo]

Oh, well, I just got done reaing a chapter in a philosopy textbook saying that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because the means, so I sort of associate it with killing.

The main reason why Batman does not Kill the Joker in the end is because he has already won. No end apart from Batman's own selfish motive for revenge will be served by the Joker's death at that point. Thus if he kills the Joker he fears that he will be no better -that he will serve himself rather than the people of Gotham. Thus it would be Killing for Sport.
Deontology fails to recognize that circumstances play a role in dictating the worth of an action. This is why in modern societies we have judges to interpret law -because the law is blind.

[Water-Smurf]

I think we can agree that the 'killing a third of the black dragon race' was an Evil act. (Though, I have to say, it confuses me as to why the deva is concerned with it. The gods labeled black dragons as Evil so they could be cannon fodder without alignment ramifications, so by their twisted alignment system, V hasn't done anything wrong. Unless she was talking about making a deal with fiends, of course...)

I think V regrets how s/he behaved towards hir family, hir familiar, and hir friends/comrades, as evidenced by hir apologies to Blackwing and Durkon, as well as hir reaction to the divorce papers. But besides a vague 'please don't remind me of all that I have done' (which could easily be about wasting the magic and losing hir family), there's no evidence that V regrets killing the dragons, which is the most evil thing s/he did while high on magic by far.

V is trying to reform, but trying to reform what? By how s/he talks, it feels more like s/he is trying to learn from the loss of hir family and the waste of the magic, not the shocking evil which I think that, even if s/he does understand that it was wrong, s/he blames on the splices. That's not becoming Good, that's raising hir Wisdom score and trying to fix hir interpersonal problems.

S/he demonstrates caring about people s/he knows and has affection and/or respect for, and I think that hir problems with dealing with those people don't come from contempt so much as ignorance about social norms, but there's no care there for those s/he doesn't know, unless s/he specifically took some responsibility for their well-being, like with the Azure City guards. (Even then, I'm not sure it's so much caring about them as it is realizing that hir magic cannot do everything s/he expects of it.)

Care for those you know and indifference to those you don't is a Neutral trait, but the contempt and lack of remorse (in fact, I don't think it even occurs to hir to feel remorse) about the senseless genocide is an Evil trait (though that probably comes from the environment all humanoids grow up in: if the species is Evil, you can kill it as much as you want). Because of the care s/he shows for those s/he respects or loves, I'm not sure if I'm ready to label hir Evil yet, but the lack of remorse definitely does not speak for Good, or even Neutral.

I love V, and though it pains me to say it, I see no logical way to conclude that s/he is even close to being on the Good side of the spectrum. S/he won't be close until s/he recognizes that everyone, even those who aren't powerful or magical, has the fundamental right to life and freedom, and she develops a desire to protect that life and freedom. That's the traits of a Good person: not only the recognition of the rights of others, but also the drive to protect those very rights when the people can't protect them for themselves. V definitely doesn't have the latter, and I don't think s/he even has the former.

[KillItWithFire]

It would be interesting if there was any way to see if V actually SAVED any lives using familicide, that is, if he saved the lives of anyone who would have been killed by a black dragon, and if that number is greater than the number he killed. Assuming it isnt though, What type of good act are you guys in the evil club thinking of for redemption? It's pretty hard to do some form of reverse genocide. Most acts of good are simply little things. The fact that V legitimatly REGRETS the familicide and wants to curb his les-than-desireable tendencies is enough for me to throw him into NG.

[Marnath]

Well spoken, Water-Smurf. I agree heartily. Also, welcome back, haven't seen you around here for a while. :smallsmile:

[Water-Smurf]

It would be interesting if there was any way to see if V actually SAVED any lives using familicide, that is, if he saved the lives of anyone who would have been killed by a black dragon, and if that number is greater than the number he killed.

Does result negate the intent? Vaarsuvius didn't do it to save anyone, though she (screw this, I'm using a gender-specific pronoun!) would try to argue she did it to protect her family. (She didn't. It was a show and abuse of power, as well as a desire to torture the dragon who tortured her.) I don't think we can ever argue that genocide is okay. If the orange people tried to eradicate all green people based on skin color, and in doing so, they inadvertently saved hundreds of purple children from starvation because the green people weren't around to consume resources anymore, does that make their mass murder of green people alright?


Assuming it isnt though, What type of good act are you guys in the evil club thinking of for redemption? It's pretty hard to do some form of reverse genocide. Most acts of good are simply little things. The fact that V legitimatly REGRETS the familicide and wants to curb his les-than-desireable tendencies is enough for me to throw him into NG.

I don't think she legitimately regrets familicide. I don't think it even occurs to her to. But besides that...

Yes, regretting it when you do something bad is a good thing, but regret isn't enough to atone. If I bully a kid at school and feel bad about it, but kept bullying that kid (or even if I stopped and never apologized), then it doesn't make what I do any better. If you don't act on regret, then it means little to nothing. It's a feeling. Actions must accompany that feeling.

Yes, most Good acts are small, but that's the point of atonement. It doesn't happen overnight, and no matter what you do, it doesn't erase what you did. You have to bear your sins, but in doing so, you do good things to balance it out. It's slow, since little acts of Good aren't much against one huge act of Evil, but the weight on the Good side grows until it really does begin to even the scales out. Admitting that she did something wrong--not just thinking it, but openly admitting it--is the first step. She hasn't taken that first step. Since there has been no action to be Good (only to be a better comrade and master), there is no way Vaarsuvius has become NG.


Well spoken, Water-Smurf. I agree heartily. Also, welcome back, haven't seen you around here for a while. :smallsmile:

Thank you. It's good to be back. :smallsmile:

[137beth]

Vaarsuvius has yet to indicate seeing anything wrong with the Xykonish atrocity s/he committed. S/he expressed remorse for neglecting his/her family, for dealing with fiends, and for an unspecified "what I have done." S/he still responds to insults with violence and requires a corvidian Jiminy Cricket to explain why s/he shouldn't advertise seeing explosions as an appropriate answer to every social situation.

Your friend is right.

I agreed with all of that except the last sentence. Varsuvius has, in fact, admitted that some of what s/he did was wrong, along with continuing to fight evil (both after the splice ended, and by killing a huge number of EVIL dragons), so I think s/he is closer to neutrality. But NOT lawful neutral, working with fiends to accomplish good ends is not lawful. S/he also neglected his/her family, so I would put him/her at chaotic neutral.

[Water-Smurf]

Varsuvius has, in fact, admitted that some of what s/he did was wrong, along with continuing to fight evil (both after the splice ended, and by killing a huge number of EVIL dragons)

I think I'm going to stop right there for a moment. The whole underlying theme of OotS is one giant deconstruction of the Always Chaotic Evil trope in that it's a fantasy trope based on a human's desire to be able to clearly categorize groups of people into 'good' and 'bad', the same desire that causes racism and sexism and the like. In the OotS world, the gods labeled different species as 'Evil' without actually making them evil, not giving any thought to the ramifications. By their alignment system, yes, black dragons are Evil and thus V doesn't have consequences alignment-wise. But speaking with morality--not chosen by short-sighted gods, but by honest morality--V did something horrendously evil in killing the dragons. To try to justify it by saying that the dragons were black dragons and therefore evil misses the point of the entire comic.

And I don't think she's fighting Evil for the sake of Good--she's fighting Evil for the sake of power. Or at least she was; I think that Vaarsuvius is trying to understand her own motivations a little more now, and so that may be subject to change.


so I think s/he is closer to neutrality. But NOT lawful neutral, working with fiends to accomplish good ends is not lawful. S/he also neglected his/her family, so I would put him/her at chaotic neutral.

I don't think anyone was arguing that she was lawful. And again, I have to impress my point that you can't commit genocide and be completely Neutral afterwards. I'm hesitant to call her Evil, but I think to try to say that she's definitively Neutral is a mistake. I think saying that she's Neutral or Evil with total sureness is a mistake.

[CoffeeIncluded]

How about right now she's on the border, and there's two different paths s/he could take, and it's all up to hir now?

[Marnath]

How about right now she's on the border, and there's two different paths s/he could take, and it's all up to hir now?

That's much too reasonable a theory for the playground. :smalltongue:

[veti]

While under the effect of the Soul Splice, V was acting evilly. No argument there.

When the soul splice ended, she appeared to have, to some degree, a change of heart. There is not a great deal of evidence to show the extent or depth of that change, but I think the mere fact of the change, in itself, is important.

I see it like this. When spliced, she was temporarily insane. That insanity had been building for some weeks beforehand, with the PTSD from Azure City and the lack of trancing, and the dragon's threat to her family tipped her over the edge. Now, she shows every sign of having recovered from that state.

So the question is: would whoever's job it is to judge (and really, we have virtually no idea who is going to be doing that or what their agenda might be) consider 'temporary insanity' a defence?

I think yes. So I peg her alignment at LN. But you can make a case for virtually any Neutral-based alignment, and the answer remains "we don't have nearly enough data to make a clear call".

[Water-Smurf]

Of course we don't have the data to make the right call. V's state of mind is the reason why I'm willing to give her slack on the genocide thing--not only was her judgment severely impaired by things that usually leave people crippled, but I think that, if given that kind of power in that state of mind, it's really difficult to understand the magnitude of that spell, and that to some extent allows her to do something like that while still being morally ambiguous.

It doesn't excuse her lack of remorse afterwards, though. Until she makes some kind of definitive admission of guilt and does something to atone for the murders, I still think that you can't say for sure that she's Neutral.

[jidasfire]

With respect to good and evil, V's still neutral. To imply that he/she has changed alignment implies a permanent change in outlook and idea of what is acceptable behavior. It's hard to argue that the Familicide (which will be debated forever on this forum, as sure as the sun rises) was a demonstrably evil action, even if done to a bad species, but Vaarsuvius has not, as yet, decided that destroying the families of his/her enemies is acceptable behavior from here on out. But it's also true that he/she has not shown remorse for the deed. I think V would have been Neutral, but closer to the side of good before the events of Azure City and the Soul Splice, but now hangs much more in the balance. I believe it's a matter of what actions he/she takes from here. And to be honest, since his/her defeat at the hands of Xykon, V has been trying to be a better person. Starting with saving O-Chul and asking forgiveness from Blackwing, he/she has tried to be less arrogant and trigger-happy. Do smaller kindnesses undo a great evil? I don't suppose I know the answer, but since I do believe alignment is a matter of outlook and behavior rather than some sort of Knights of the Old Republic style Karma Meter, I'd say V has not become evil, even if he/she is still not good.

As for Lawful or Chaotic, V is neither. He/she has neither a great respect for order nor a great contempt for it. So yeah, True Neutral all the way.

[Marnath]

but Vaarsuvius has not, as yet, decided that destroying the families of his/her enemies is acceptable behavior from here on out.

That's not a requirement for your alignment to shift. Once the deed is done, your alignment is impacted, whether you think about the deed or not.

[KillItWithFire]

have we seen any evidence that V does not regret familicide? It's not exactly like he's shouting to the oreder "hey i murdered an entire species but it's ok I feel bad about it." This little secret of his is going to come back again and that point in time is going to require a major choice on Vs part that we'll either make or break him. So what if I posed a different question, similar but not identical. If it comes down do such a choice (I know I'm being vague here) What decision do you think V as we know him now would make and does he have a chance to see redemption. Perhaps water-smurf has it right and that no matter how much I love V I should admit that he's evil. But I'm not ready to give up quite yet. :smallamused:

[Marnath]

You have to provide a sample scenario before asking "which choice would X person make?"

[Kish]

have we seen any evidence that V does not regret familicide?

This is not logic. You don't ask for proof of a negative.

So what if I posed a different question, similar but not identical. If it comes down do such a choice (I know I'm being vague here) What decision do you think V as we know him now would make

Let's ask the elf himself/herself, shall we?
"It seems logical to me. As the size of an explosion grows, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero."
...annnnnd that's a wrap.

[KillItWithFire]

The point I was trying to make is though V may or may not regret it I don't think he's going to be sharing his feelings anytime soon.

As for the explosion line, that's just poor people skills. V has no idea how to appropriately react in social situations so he falls back on the one thing he knows, how to blow stuff up. Besides I saw that line as more of a joke anyway. But V has reconised his mistakes, his flaws in personality and is actively trying to fix them. (explained by Blackwings continued existance) It seems to me that the two biggest arguments for V being evil are this lack of ability to handle any social situation and the familicide; a horribly atrocious deed. I think that it's more important that he is on the steps to turning good, how far along is not important. He could have easily said "Oh well, tis a shame" and continued with his life. (and i'll think of an examble scenario for the question from eariler at some point when it's not 1 in the morning.)

[jidasfire]

That's not a requirement for your alignment to shift. Once the deed is done, your alignment is impacted, whether you think about the deed or not.

By that logic, all of V's subsequent good deeds impact his/her alignment as well. Either way, the case made for Vaarsuvius being evil, as opposed to someone who did something evil and is now trying in some capacity (admittedly debatable how successful) to change, is pretty weak. Unless, of course, one believes in a Manichean (or Miko-like if you prefer) idea that any evil deed is so damning that no good can undo it.

[KillItWithFire]

^^^^^^
This.

Why is the familicide so special that it permantly paints Vs alignment? I see intent as more important than deed here. remember alignment is a goal, sometimes we miss (in this case V missed the broadside of a barn by hitting a town house in england) but it doesnt matter becasue after that fact V is making an honest attempt to better himself, remember that the famicide is still fairly recent so we may only see marginal degrees of success but V is well on the path.

[Marnath]

By that logic, all of V's subsequent good deeds impact his/her alignment as well.

They do, to an extent. However, everything he's done so far that's good has been a drop in the bucket compared to that one evil act. It takes a lot of little or moderate sized acts to shift alignment normally. Something on the scale of familicide? That's big enough to be an instant, go straight to jail don't pass Go, type thing. Is it enough to overcome a lifetime of neutrality? Maybe not, but if not then he's darn close and it'll take a lot more good to get back to safely neutral, let alone actual good.

*edit@ KillIt: It's a matter of scale. Intent is important, but it cannot wash away the reality of the horror caused by the deed.

[KillItWithFire]

But here you assume that alignment is like a scale that you progress on. Something nominal. It isn't it's your view on life and how it should be lived. While you should strive to achieve this standerd as the deva said, "it's more important that you're trying"

[Marnath]

But here you assume that alignment is like a scale that you progress on. Something nominal. It isn't it's your view on life and how it should be lived. While you should strive to achieve this standerd as the deva said, "it's more important that you're trying"

You do know that there are rules for alignment in D&D right? All the striving in the world wont make you neutral if you do horrible evil things. It even says so. In Roy's case, his deviation from lawful good consists of not rescuing Elan right away from bandits, and being a little chaotic in how he gets stuff done. Thats not equivilant to genocide.

[KillItWithFire]

Except V isn't doing horrible evil things. The one example I can find is the familicide incident. Since then V has been behaving in a manner that more describes a good character.

1. not contesting the divorce to confront the greater evil (Xykon)
2. Was originally not going to escalate the diamond dust situation (That was self-control issues, not evil)
3.rescuing the slaves

And in either case, it's not exactly like V goes around killing peoples families for fun. The famicide had very special circumstances. V's family was threatened. At least the dragon's family is only dead, the dragon was going to take the very souls of V's children. imo, V did the dragon a favor, now you have that many more relatives to chill in the afterlife with. Secondly, V was stressed, drunk with power, and subimily influenced by 3 evil mages at the time, he was not thinking rationally at all. In conclusion, I never said that familicide was a good decision, but should V be punished so dearly for just one impulsive decision.

[Aruius]

I am the friend who originally started this debate, on the side that V was neutral evil. Let me start off by saying, Ha! More people agree with the fact that V is definitely not a good character and his so called "progress" towards good is dismissable, while still requiring a Jiminy Cricket (As stated earlier in this thread) to keep him in line and explain right from wrong.

I would also like to state that my determination of V's Alignment is not only based off of the one event of Familicide, but also on V's actions and behaviors leading up to and after the event as well. For example, When the Order first sees the Oracle, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html, he asks how s/he willl "Achieve complete and total ultimate arcane power?" That desire, in my mind, isn't exactly in line with good, and is selfish and falls toward evil/neutral.

Also, on the Ship after the fall of Azure City, V isn't the most hospitable party member, shutting himself in and refusing to work with Elan and Durkon or any of the refugees unless it suits his motives. While you may argue its because he's doing it to find Haley and that is a good characteristic, he makes reference on several occasions that his magical ability should be strong enough to achieve his task, which shows that he is doing it not entirely out of love or compassion, but out of a desire to prove to himself that he is "all that" and his magic can solve any problem.

I could probably come up with more examples outside of the familicide example, but the hour is quite late.

(edit:) Another example that just crossed my mind is how V treats hir mate and family. While he does indeed take the splice to get there, he had other options to pursue that were not nearly as evil that were even explained to him, He instead grabbed for the power that he would gain, and so that he wouldn't have to ask for help from the rest of the party. Not exactly good.

When he defeats and kills 1/4th of the black dragon population, He then disregards his family, who if I remember correctly, aren't exactly unwounded, declining to spend any time with them or meet their requests. As this scene would lead us to believe, V does not love his family as much as he should, and probably only keeps ties to them out of pride (his biggest attribute).

He also attempts to take Xykon on alone, and rescue O'chul. While this is a "good" action, it is done for the WRONG reasons, those being pride and a desire to prove himself to be more powerful than an epic level lich (which he fails, and is only spared by the actions of the MitD.)

Lastly, when the divorce papers from his mate comes in, he shows a lack of caring for the loss of his family, and makes no attempt at reconciliation. While you may say this is because he knows better, most of us know what its like to be under the pangs of love and know that you probably at least would have said something back if you cared at all.

That is all.

[KillItWithFire]

Hey Aruius is that campaign done yet:smalltongue:? (actually on topic) I never disagreed with you that V wasn't neutral before soul splice. He sought only arcane power and while thats not a desireable trait its certainly not an evil one. What if I met you in the middle saying that V may be NEUTRAL now (I still think evil is a stretch) he is on definite defined PATH to good.

edit: hey you're right rescuing O-Chul WAS a good action thanks for that example. As for his family, I hadn't considered that, he left saying that he "needed to fix everything" and then proceded to help the refugees by teleporting to the island and then (attempting) to reunite the order. I agree that all of these (except for the O-chul incident) were done for the wrong reasons. V did not expect the reaction he got from his family, he did not know what to do at that point. I guess he did whatever seemed most logical at the time. If someone could pull up the strip that has the divorce in it, V's face does not look like "he does not care" for his family, perhaps he even believes that they deserve better than him, reinforcing his decision.

[Marnath]

Rescuing O-chul was largely accidental, I don't really think it counts. And I don't think you're getting yet that the familicide incident was really bad, and the worse an act is, the more you shift in that direction alignment-wise.

[Zevox]

For myself: prior to the soul splice, V was True Neutral. She was never particularly good or evil, nor particularly lawful or chaotic, and was motivated just by her desire for greater arcane knowledge and power. There was no particular use she wanted to put that to (Roy's quest was largely incidental, as her decision to join it was based on the speed with which adventurers level up), but she was interested in it for its own sake. This is a True Neutral character.

During the soul splice, she acted Neutral Evil. Familicide makes that as obvious as can be, and casually committing a genocide like that is a huge blot on her record, which will not easily be overcome.

Since then, she has displayed a sense of guilt and a desire to atone and change her ways, not only from how she acted during the soul splice, but from how she acted before that. Hence we get her saving O-Chul at great risk to herself, no longer ignoring Blackwing, helping Haley rescue slaves, and changing even how she helps the group in combat to a less violent support role. She is, it seems to me, trying to hold herself to a higher standard than she ever did before - if she isn't working towards Neutral Good, she's certainly trying to be True Neutral with stronger good leanings than she had before.

Where is she now? I could see arguments for either True Neutral or Neutral Evil... but I think the Neutral Evil arguments only fly on the technicalities of the alignment system, where that one horrendous act could make her qualify as Neutral Evil in spite of the rest of her life and her current outlook. As far as her personality goes, she is True Neutral again, struggling to overcome the more violent tendencies she gave in to during the soul splice incident, and so far succeeding. As far as what she'd be judged in the afterlife or how she'd ping on a "detect <alignment>" spell, that could be either.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

For myself: prior to the soul splice, V was True Neutral. She was never particularly good or evil, nor particularly lawful or chaotic, and was motivated just by her desire for greater arcane knowledge and power. There was no particular use she wanted to put that to (Roy's quest was largely incidental, as her decision to join it was based on the speed with which adventurers level up), but she was interested in it for its own sake. This is a True Neutral character.

V has exhibited a propensity to violence even before the Soul Splice though- violence in situations where it wasn't necessarily demanded.

Trying to blow up Miko after Miko refused to pay V for participating in the fight against the ogres
Blowing up the stablehand when he refused to give V the horse because V didn't have the ticket
Killing Kubota with V knew nothing about him other than that he was tied up and about to go on trial

Maybe these violent tendencies are a sign that V was already close to the Neutral/Evil borderline?

[Pyron]

V has exhibited a propensity to violence even before the Soul Splice though- violence in situations where it wasn't necessarily demanded.

Blowing up the stablehand when he refused to give V the horse because V didn't have the ticket

If ask me, this a better example illustration of her tendencies than the familicide spell. All the extenuating circumstances with slaughtering the black dragons is not present. She's not experiencing PTSD, her family is not in any danger, nor is feeling the rush of the soul splice.

No. She could not find her ticket. Out of all the means she could resolve this conflict, her first resort was a spell that could had gotten the orc killed.

[Lord Bingo]

I think the real effect of the soul splice and V's subsequent actions is that he has realized that with (and I know this is lame to say) great power comes great responsibility and he is now trying to hold himself to a higher standard.
The thing is that V was never true neutral in the sense that she held herself to an ideal of maintaining an equilibrium between the cosmic powers of good and evil, rather he was simply uncommitted to either. Now I think he recognizes that his actions has moral worth and thus tries to act accordingly.

[Wymmerdann]

her first resort was a spell that could had gotten the orc killed.
Given V's excuse for using this later on Miko (She was in no real danger), and the detail of thought that went into assessing the threat before it was used, the reference made to Miko's hit dice in that instance would, for me, classify this instance as one of assault rather than attempted murder. Still an evil act based on a horrific case of hubris, but not attempted murder.

This debate really hinges on the kind of mechanic used for the concept of atonement. All we really have to work on for sure in the OOTS universe is Soon's comments (I'm inclined to trust the epic level Paladin on this point). The real distinction between V's and Miko's attempts to atone is that V is actually trying, and has admitted, in spite of his hubris, that he was wrong.

So, in my opinion V was sitting around Neutral Evil as of familicide (and probably before, ie Kubota) which was based on the guilt he felt at his uselessness at the battle of Azure City.
He's drifting toward Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good, showing more concern for his actions than at the beginning of the comic, but that journey is a long one and hard to pinpoint in a comic that focusses on the passage of events, rather than time.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Personally, whenever this comes up in my circle, I just say "Insufficient Data" and move on. While there is some interesting stuff regarding the splice we don't know what long term effect it has had on V. He could well be on the way to either damnation or salvation, time will tell. All we know is that he will likely not remain TN forever.

[Deliverance]

True neutral before, true neutral after.

He has shown tendencies towards both good and evil both before and afterwards without one of the two dominating and likewise with respects to law and chaos and that. He prefers good over evil in general and is in favour of helping people over hurting them (as a general notion but without any overriding desire to actually help on his own) but it really isn't something that is important to him: He deals with things as they are, not as people might wish them to be. He mostly does whatever he feels will resolve a problem without displaying any moral bias at all, and that, to me, is the essence of true neutral.


I don't know what the D&D sourcebooks say on this, nor do I much care. Rich's writing has made abundantly clear that in OOTS it is ultimately his vision that prevails and insofar as we have been given any evidence of how the system works in OOTS, it is that while acts matter, intent is important too - alignment is not simply a question of adding up actions and ruling based on the result. Then again, for the most important parts we only really have the words of a low- or mid-level functionary representing its own lawful good POV to go by, so perhaps one should be careful about reading too much into it. :smallbiggrin:

[Water-Smurf]

I don't think that the NE argument only flies on technicality. V committed genocide, and I think that even in the real world, people consider genocide to be pretty darn evil. There were extenuating circumstances and the world V lives in teaches her that killing however many black dragons is okay, so I don't think it really lines up to her personality on a normal day, but the fact remains that she did it and she hasn't really faced the evil of it. She thinks that it was okay because they were Evil, the same way the paladins that laid waste to Redcloak's village thought it was okay because goblins are Evil, so there's no remorse.

And even if you don't look at that specifically, you can see how V could be Evil. V has demonstrated indifference to the lives and well-being of others, exemplified by stuff like wanting to abandon the dirt farmers and killing Kubota without knowing anything about him. On its own it'd be a Neutral trait, but instead of leaving people to deal with their own problems, V actively hurts and shoves aside others in order to accomplish her goal easier. I think the latter behavior is what she is trying to reform, but I don't think that would extend to curbing her violent tendencies when around 'Evil' species. She hasn't acknowledged the evil in a way the reader can see, so it should be assumed that she hasn't acknowledged it at all.

And her feelings and recent actions towards her family does begin to creep into N or G territory, but it's still nothing compared to genocide. If a guy in the real world committed mass genocide, then went home and put a band aid on his son's cut, read a book to his daughter, and gave his wife a back rub, does that make him a good person?

Neutrality is defined by concern for people one personally knows and indifference to others. Evil is defined by a contempt for life. V is in both categories.



Rescuing O-chul was largely accidental, I don't really think it counts.

I'd disagree. Yes, getting in the position to save him was accidental, but one has to remember that Vaarsuvius went back. He's a stranger and she went back knowing that she would probably die so that he might escape. I don't think that courtesy would extend to 'Evil' species, but it does show a little ray of hope for the birth of her concern for others outside of herself. That shows that she has the potential to realize her mistakes and work to atone if she only makes the decision. Really, her alignment is up to her now.

[hamishspence]

I don't know what the D&D sourcebooks say on this, nor do I much care. Rich's writing has made abundantly clear that in OOTS it is ultimately his vision that prevails and insofar as we have been given any evidence of how the system works in OOTS, it is that while acts matter, intent is important too - alignment is not simply a question of adding up actions and ruling based on the result.

True- hence the argument that what V is/was willing to do is what determines V's alignment.

You can find some of support in the PHB for what a character is willing to do- to and for certain people (innocents, strangers) mattering- and some support in the splatbooks for what acts a character has been doing mattering regardless of the nature of the beings the acts have been committed against.

Hence, generally, both are seen as important.

The attack on the orc (or possibly half-orc) stablehand, may indicate willingness to harm the innocent (innocent in the sense of not demonstrated to be otherwise) for convenience- Evil-leaning.

Conversely, the slave rescue may indicate "willingness to make personal-sacrifices to help strangers"- which may imply Good-leaning, or non-Neutral leaning.

[Deliverance]

I don't think that the NE argument only flies on technicality. V committed genocide, and I think that even in the real world, people consider genocide to be pretty darn evil.

In the real world, killing off the family line, root and branch, of your enemies has a long and sordid history as a way of ending feuds and has traditionally been seen as good or evil primarily on the basis of whether the person making the judgement supported those exterminated or the one doing the extermination. It has tended to not go as far as V's spell, but that is more because of practicality than intent.

I guess you can call eliminating people based on their family genocide, but it seems to be watering down the term a bit to reclassify a classic way to end a feud as genocide. Perhaps you only consider eliminating a family genocide when the family is big enough?

Either way, I quite agree that the act is pretty damn evil giving 20th and 21st century western morality - but I don't see recognizing and atoning for it as a prerequisite for being overall a true neutral person. I see it as a prerequisite for being an overall good person.

[hamishspence]

In DMG, repenting your evil ways and deciding to not act that way anymore, is suggested as the "change of heart" needed to go from Evil to Neutral.

Resolving to atone, and maybe beginning to do so, is more for going from Neutral to Good.

"I'm not gonna be evil anymore" vs "I'm gonna fix the evil I did"

so to speak.

Earl in "My Name Is Earl" might be the second case- he doesn't just want to stop acting the way he used to- he wants to fix the wrongs he did, and apologize to those wronged.



I guess you can call eliminating people based on their family genocide, but it seems to be watering down the term a bit to reclassify a classic way to end a feud as genocide. Perhaps you only consider eliminating a family genocide when the family is big enough?

It is true that "members of a family" isn't on the main list of groups covered- but in a sense, what V did was

"destroy, in part, an ethnical group- black dragons"

which is covered.

Though the motive of the act, was to destroy one family.

(This is a tricky issue though- one needs to be careful not to stray into political discussion, when talking about crime definitions)

Interestingly, Familicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familicide

is defined as the destruction of one's own family.

Does that mean, that once the spell was cast, it magically gave the power to destroy her entire family to the black dragon mother- then compelled her to use it?

[Deliverance]

It is true that "members of a family" isn't on the main list of groups covered- but in a sense, what V did was

"destroy, in part, an ethnical group- black dragons"

which is covered.

That won't wash at all. Any individual person is a "part" of an ethnic group. If that was enough to qualify for genocide, every single murder committed in the world would be genocide.

Genocide, in all definitions I know of it (and there are many), is a crime not only of action but of intent - the deliberate attempted destruction of a specific group of people because of the membership of that group. Whether it succeeds in whole or only in part depends on how succesful the genocide is, it isn't genocide merely because a part of a group is killed.

As an example, if I kill a fourth of all Swedes as collateral damage from my invasion of Sweden because I am rather indiscriminate with respects to protecting civilians, I am certainly a mass murderer but it is not an act of genocide: I am not killing them because they are Swedes, I am killing them because they get in the way of my plans.

If, on the other hand, I set out to kill people because they are Swedes and I only succeed in killing one out of every hundred of them (whether for reasons of incompetence, lack of means, or being stopped by interfering busybodies), it is attempted genocide and, under the really lax definitions that have become popular, succesful genocide.

See e.g. the UN definition from the Convention on Genocide (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html) (my highlighting)


In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:



EDIT: That said, in this real world of ours, if there was any practical way to guarantee wiping out an entire extended family based on shared bloodlines to the n'th degree and if n was large enough to guarantee in some cases a bodycount way beyond most natural disasters, I would certainly expect the intended destruction of extended families to either end up on the genocide target list (bad solution due to the whole motivation/intent issue) or being classified as a unique crime of its own (good solution).

[Kaytara]

Wow. How long has it been since we've had one of these?

I predict that we won't be able to get anywhere by trying to analyse things through the DnD morality system. Morality is iffy, and something that's trying to reconstruct or imitate something that's already iffy will only be more iffy and unreliable and inapplicable as a result. Half the time we'll be debating differences between interpretations of the morality system (such as acts vs. intent or attitude vs. personal record) rather than judgement on the character himself.

You've been talking about whether and how much the Familicide made V evil, or indicated evilness.

Here's a question: Before the concept of gender equality, were men who beat their wives evil? Before the concept of culture and race equality, was every single British soldier who exterminated Native Americans or stole Australian Aboriginal children away from their parents evil? For that matter, before the concept of species equality (aka "the present"), is killing animals for luxuries like furs and hides considered evil? I'm not talking about acts (viewed through the lens of our modern view), I'm talking about people. Were all those people evil? And how do you know you aren't doing something that will be considered evil later?

Here's the thing - standards of morality fluctuate to accommodate the changes that occur in other directions. Similarly, acts that are (considered by the individual and their contemporaries to be) evil or not-evil result from a wide range of internal and external factors. Most importantly, morality tends to be dictated by "What's to be done?" questions. If someone comes from a culture that demands duels to the death over matters of honour, from their culture's perspective the person isn't evil, but from our perspective the person is dangerous and what "needs to be done" is locking them up, and so, to save time and thinking energy, we just call them "evil".

We don't live in a world filled with scaled sentient demi-gods who view us as snacks. We DO live in a world that, until recently, was filled with dangerous predators, only by now we've gotten rid of most of them. By exterminating them. And I'm willing to bet that if scaled sentient demi-gods with the ability to destroy entire villages without repercussions DID show up in our world, it wouldn't take long for people to start crying for mass extermination.

And so every attempt to call the Familicide and the person performing it EVIL EVIL EVIL seems to me like a somewhat hypocritic attempt to oversimplify and categorise things in order to divide the world into the condemned and the excused.

As Water-Smurf mentioned, the comic is in part a deconstruction of Always Chaotic Evil. Only I don't see categorising people based on actions as much better than categorising them based on race, because it is still categorising - you're still trying to make things simple for yourself and reduce complex issues into a binary, yes or no thing. You're just using different criteria for it.

V's not a very nice person. He doesn't seem actively malicious, either, from our perspective or that of his own society. He's a relatively normal person with strengths and weaknesses, with good sides and issues. Those issues do have the potential to manifest as something much more severe under the right circumstances, but other people are no different in that regard.

[137beth]

How about right now she's on the border, and there's two different paths s/he could take, and it's all up to hir now?

Agreed. Unless someone wants to insist that "the alignment system doesn't allow for borderlines!"

@above:
"And so every attempt to call the Familicide and the person performing it EVIL EVIL EVIL seems to me like a somewhat hypocritic attempt to oversimplify and categorise things in order to divide the world into the condemned and the excused."

Yes. If it is evil no matter what, then we have simple categories...and the people saying it is 100% evil are also the people saying that black dragons aren't entirely evil.

[Kish]

Yes. If it is evil no matter what, then we have simple categories...and the people saying it is 100% evil are also the people saying that black dragons aren't entirely evil.
Now you just have to establish moral equivalancy, or non-equivalancy in the direction of "being a black dragon is worse," between "wiping out an entire family line" and "being a black dragon."

(Pointless to bother actually trying. The forum is already thoroughly divided into "people who already believe that" and "people who will never believe that.")

[Da'Shain]

Agreed. Unless someone wants to insist that "the alignment system doesn't allow for borderlines!"Or if someone wants to insist that such borderlines exist, but V isn't on it. Because there are other reactions to such a statement, after all.


@above:
"And so every attempt to call the Familicide and the person performing it EVIL EVIL EVIL seems to me like a somewhat hypocritic attempt to oversimplify and categorise things in order to divide the world into the condemned and the excused."

Yes. If it is evil no matter what, then we have simple categories...and the people saying it is 100% evil are also the people saying that black dragons aren't entirely evil.Categories exist in the first place when we say that things like Good and Evil exist. It's a fundamental aspect to this argument. And again, your conclusion does not follow. Simply because people believe that such categories exist does not then mean it's hypocritical to believe that black dragons do not fall into one specific category.

[olthar]

Categories exist in the first place when we say that things like Good and Evil exist. It's a fundamental aspect to this argument. And again, your conclusion does not follow. Simply because people believe that such categories exist does not then mean it's hypocritical to believe that black dragons do not fall into one specific category.

Given the system, it actually is. If you follow the D&D alignment system, then all black dragon are evil. If you do not necessarily follow the rigid alignment system, then black dragons are not necessarily evil. What would you call someone who premised their argument on the basis of the system for one half of the argument and then ignored the same system that they used as the premise for the first half of the argument for the second half? I would call them a hypocrite.

2 cents: As a DM I wouldn't change someone's alignment based upon any single action. I know it mentions it in the dmg, but individual actions cannot be judged within the greater context of the alignment system. I would argue that Familicide is completely within V's version of TN. What the diva said while trying to decide if Roy should get into celestia using chaotic means to fulfill lawful obligations strikes me as fairly neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) is no less applicable here. Performing evil actions (committing partial genocide) to fulfill good obligations (killing xykon, saving innocents) is fairly neutral. You could even make the argument that the actions balance because killing xykon is the hypothetical equivalent of stopping genocide. It does not matter that the attempt to kill xykon failed. Success does not matter, it is that V tried that matters.

[octagon]

I'm pretty sure that Vaarsuvius' cannot be held responsible for hir actions during the Splice because s/he was under the influence (or control? or even possession?) of very strong Evil beings, and because of trance deprivation and the very complicated situation s/he was in, s/he could not resist them.
S/he had no choice when pacting with the fiends, and the pact could possibly be considered a sacrifice for a greater good... though s/he possibly underestimated hirself, thinking they could handle the fiends just with superior intellect.

Obviously, V is very egocentric and puts their own needs and the gathering of knowledge above the interests of others, but s/he still tries to do good, even though s/he lacks real ideas about what in fact IS good. I think s/he just needs a clear idea about good and evil and a merely logical and intellectual reason to care about other people.

[Kish]

I'm pretty sure that Vaarsuvius' cannot be held responsible for hir actions during the Splice because s/he was under the influence (or control? or even possession?) of very strong Evil beings,
Read the second half of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html). You've got it exactly backwards: Believing s/he would be unable to control the other souls, s/he used the Splice as an excuse to indulge his/her darkest impulses, despite them not actually exerting any influence on him/her.

Edit: Also, fourth panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html).


Given the system, it actually is. If you follow the D&D alignment system,

...then judging that an entire race deserves to die is a profoundly Lawful Evil attitude, and called out as such in the Player's Handbook.

On the other hand, if you don't follow the D&D alignment system at all, if, without bringing D&D into it at all, you started from, "This wizard cast a spell which killed an entire family of sapients to punish one of them for threatening her family," well, I can only speculate about where you'd wind up, but where I wind up, very quickly, is, "This was an atrocity of astounding proportions." The argument, "What Vaarsuvius did makes him/her technically irredeemable because s/he killed nonevil creatures" has been soundly defeated, but really, who expected a Frankenstein's monster made from the weakest straw parts of two different strawmen to put up much of a fight?

However.

Rich described Vaarsuvius as "speaking for all the players who say 'monsters are evil and exist to be killed.'" Those players, as exemplified in this thread, are no more inclined to recant that position than they were before the familicide. If Vaarsuvius still speaks for them, then portraying him/her as genuinely remorseful would fall very flat. If s/he doesn't, well..."You can't prove s/he doesn't feel remorse for the familicide which s/he has never indicated" is still no argument. Rich may depict Vaarsuvius as genuinely remorseful at some point. He has not yet. Rich may depict Vaarsuvius as unremorseful and damned, or unremorseful but not to be punished anyway. I obviously hope he doesn't pick the third.

[Da'Shain]

Given the system, it actually is. If you follow the D&D alignment system, then all black dragon are evil. If you do not necessarily follow the rigid alignment system, then black dragons are not necessarily evil. What would you call someone who premised their argument on the basis of the system for one half of the argument and then ignored the same system that they used as the premise for the first half of the argument for the second half? I would call them a hypocrite. If you follow the D&D alignment system, most black dragons are evil. Difference. By the same token, if you follow the D&D alignment system, killing beings simply for being evil is evil. So not all that much difference there.

Also, what premise that constitutes one half of the argument for V's slaying of 1/4th of the black dragon population being evil is based on the system? Aside from the fact that the system has a method for tracking morality, which I'm pretty sure is not the basis of the argument but merely used as a shorthand for the conclusion of the argument and its in-game ramifications.

[octagon]

Read the second half of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html). You've got it exactly backwards: Believing s/he would be unable to control the other souls, s/he used the Splice as an excuse to indulge his/her darkest impulses, despite them not actually exerting any influence on him/her.
Aargh... Possibly I somehow decided to forget/ignore this.

It is kind of shocking because Vaarsuvius was kind of a comic relief character you could sympathize with, until the Splice revealed that s/he isn't just ignorant, egoistic and socially inept, but has outright sadistic and cruel tendencies.

Now I don't think I can laugh about Explosive Runes anymore...

[Ninjaguineapig]

Uh, hey, this is my first post here, though I'm a longtime lurker. What motivated me to open an account here was because there's something I haven't seen mentioned regarding V's alignment. Yes, Vaarsuvius made a pact with Evil incarnate, but s/he bargained with his/her immortal soul to save innocent people. Yes, it was his/her family, but still...
After killing the dragon and her family, V then proceeded to attack Xykon, knowing full well that every minute s/he spent with the Splices, s/he would pay for dearly. Vaarsuvius sacrificed his/her afterlife for a chance to destroy Xykon. And that's important.

[hamishspence]

If you follow the D&D alignment system, most black dragons are evil. Difference.

Yup- the MM points out that "Always" simply means exceptions are "either unique or rare" - and "rare" can mean a variety of things.


The argument, "What Vaarsuvius did makes him/her technically irredeemable because s/he killed nonevil creatures" has been soundly defeated, but really, who expected a Frankenstein's monster made from the weakest straw parts of two different strawmen to put up much of a fight?

As written in D&D, nothing is completely irredeemable- and being evil does not make a being irredeemable.

Even fiends have been redeemed.

So even if a consensus had made that V's alignment is evil at the moment, that's a long way from "V is irredeemable".


Yes, Vaarsuvius made a pact with Evil incarnate, but s/he bargained with his/her immortal soul to save innocent people. Yes, it was his/her family, but still...
After killing the dragon and her family, V then proceeded to attack Xykon, knowing full well that every minute s/he spent with the Splices, s/he would pay for dearly. Vaarsuvius sacrificed his/her afterlife for a chance to destroy Xykon. And that's important.

This is more "V is willing to make personal sacrifices to help strangers" (by spending time trying to kill Xykon while Soul Spliced)- not much of a deciding figure one way or another- other than implying that V is less likely to be Neutral.

But that only fits the PHB stereotype of Neutral as "having qualms about harming the innocent but unwilling to make personal sacrifices to help strangers"

There are other kinds of Neutral- and even Evil characters can be willing to sacrifice to help strangers.

[Zevox]

She thinks that it was okay because they were Evil, the same way the paladins that laid waste to Redcloak's village thought it was okay because goblins are Evil, so there's no remorse.
Evidence, please. V has never indicated any such thing. She has shown guilt and remorse for her actions during the splice, and while she hasn't specified that it is familicide causing this, I seriously doubt any of her other actions during the splice would be the main cause. Most of what she did during the splice beyond that was simply being rude and arrogant. In any event there is certainly nothing I can recall which points to her actively thinking that familicide was okay for any reason once the soul splice wore off.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

Evidence, please. V has never indicated any such thing. She has shown guilt and remorse for her actions during the splice, and while she hasn't specified that it is familicide causing this, I seriously doubt any of her other actions during the splice would be the main cause.

V's conversation with Durkon:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html

seems to suggest that it is wasting and squandering that power- that makes V "almost weep".

[Zevox]

V's conversation with Durkon:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html

seems to suggest that it is wasting and squandering that power- that makes V "almost weep".
And yet after speaking with Durkon we get V requesting O-Chul that he "not remind me of all that I have done (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)" and speaking to Blackwing about how she has "recently begun to learn, the fact that you did not succeed does not diminish the nobility of your effort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html)." Further, she actively cites a desire to reign in her violent tendencies as her reason for taking on a more support-based role (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) in combat.

So yes: guilt, remorse, and efforts to learn from it and change her ways.

Zevox

[Kish]

Vaarsuvius sacrificed his/her afterlife for a chance to destroy Xykon. And that's important.
You're kidding?

Vaarsuvius, having been, as s/he saw it, cheated of the chance to single-handedly reunite the Order, extended the time of the Soul Splice to prove that his/her power exceeded Xykon's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html). If it's important, it's certainly not to Vaarsuvius' benefit!

[hamishspence]

It is possible that V's conversation with Durkon was phrased to ensure Durkon wouldn't find out about Familicide.

and that "please do not remind me of all I have done" refers to Familicide, and not, say, just consenting to the Soul Splice, or various other things.

Still- it's only very slightly suggests that it includes that particular act. Does V have a remorseful look after Blackwing reminds V of what was done?:

"The important thing is this needless conflict is now over without the loser's entire family line being totally eradicated. So, you know. Progress"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html



Vaarsuvius, having been, as s/he saw it, cheated of the chance to single-handedly reunite the Order, extended the time of the Soul Splice to prove that his/her power exceeded Xykon's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html).

Darth V does mention that the debt is mounting here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html

and that V must act, so as much is achieved with as little debt as possible.

So in a sense, V wants to maximize the benefit and minimize the sacrifice being made.

[Da'Shain]

And yet after speaking with Durkon we get V requesting O-Chul that he "not remind me of all that I have done (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)" and speaking to Blackwing about how she has "recently begun to learn, the fact that you did not succeed does not diminish the nobility of your effort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html)." Further, she actively cites a desire to reign in her violent tendencies as her reason for taking on a more support-based role (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) in combat.

So yes: guilt, remorse, and efforts to learn from it and change her ways.Which, again, does not mention Familicide in any way. O-Chul does not know about Familicide, learning that success is not the only measure of nobility does not concern Familicide, and V actually says "my less desirable tendencies" and later implies that such tendencies are a result of his ego, not any particular violent streak, which again does not directly concern Familicide.

V's had a large amount of time in which to express some sort of remorse over the act which had the most global significance, even if only to himself or his familiar, and yet hasn't yet. There's no support as yet for the idea that he even regrets it, let alone is genuinely repentant about it. There's no support the other way, either, of course, but claiming that he is definitely working to atone for that particular misdeed is premature at best.

[Zevox]

Which, again, does not mention Familicide in any way. O-Chul does not know about Familicide
No, but "all that I have done" does include familicide, so he doesn't have to.


and V actually says "my less desirable tendencies" and later implies that such tendencies are a result of his ego, not any particular violent streak,
Yes - and the result of that ego is her tendency to use flashy, destructive magic to show off and make use of her power. Hence her active decision not to use such spells. Really, I shouldn't have to point that out.


V's had a large amount of time in which to express some sort of remorse over the act which had the most global significance, even if only to himself or his familiar, and yet hasn't yet. There's no support as yet for the idea that he even regrets it, let alone is genuinely repentant about it. There's no support the other way, either, of course, but claiming that he is definitely working to atone for that particular misdeed is premature at best.
V is also, unsurprisingly, actively avoiding letting anyone else know what happened with the soul splice. Of course she's not going to actively express her feelings over specifics of the incident given that. That's to be expected. In any event, as I said before, I sincerely doubt that anything else V did during the splice would be the cause here, since most of it was simply acting rude and arrogant.

Zevox

[Kish]

In any event, as I said before, I sincerely doubt that anything else V did during the splice would be the cause here, since most of it was simply acting rude and arrogant.x
You're ignoring the fact Vaarsuvius has specifically called out other things s/he did. Not being a good companion to the Order, mate to his/her mate, or master to Blackwing. Wielding the power like a club rather than using it intelligently to destroy Xykon. Now, you can assume that "All that I have done" points solely or primarily to the Familicide, but don't claim that's anything but an assumption.

[Da'Shain]

No, but "all that I have done" does include familicide, so he doesn't have to. But by that logic, V also doesn't want to be reminded that he saved O-Chul himself, not to mention his family. Either V is speaking specifically of what he has done that O-Chul knows about, or "all that I have done" means "all that I have done which I regret" ... unless of course he legitimately does regret saving his family considering that he now thinks he's lost them, which I suppose is an idea that could be defended but I don't even remotely think is the case.

Yes - and the result of that ego is her tendency to use flashy, destructive magic to show off and make use of her power. Hence her active decision not to use such spells. Really, I shouldn't have to point that out.I am fully aware of the connection, but it, again, does not directly relate to Familicide, only to V recognizing flaws that became evident to her after the splice, that another event (specifically, her humiliating defeat at Xykon's hands because of her ego) is far more likely to explain.

V is also, unsurprisingly, actively avoiding letting anyone else know what happened with the soul splice. Of course she's not going to actively express her feelings over specifics of the incident given that. That's to be expected. In any event, as I said before, I sincerely doubt that anything else V did during the splice would be the cause here, since most of it was simply acting rude and arrogant.Is it really to be expected that he wouldn't even ruminate over committing an act of genocide (or mass murder, if you prefer) with himself or his familiar who knows exactly what happened if were truly regretful of it, though? You may doubt that Familicide was not what he regretted most, but there is literally no evidence that this is the case, just as there is no hard evidence that it is not the case (although circumstantially it's looking like he doesn't care all that much, so far). He has directly admitted to regretting his hasty decision to fight Xykon, to regretting neglecting his family, and to regretting not accomplishing more with his newfound power -- nothing else. The absence of a similar admission for Familicide, even to himself, does not look good.

[Zevox]

You're ignoring the fact Vaarsuvius has specifically called out other things s/he did. Not being a good companion to the Order, mate to his/her mate, or master to Blackwing.
All of those things were things she did before the Soul Splice as well. The companion part mostly during the post-Azure City time, but still. In fact, the soul splice cannot at all be said to have affected Blackwing, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue it was all that significant for those other two.


Now, you can assume that "All that I have done" points solely or primarily to the Familicide, but don't claim that's anything but an assumption.
I do not assume it points solely or primarily to familicide, but rather simply that familicide is a part of that, and by no means an insignificant one. That seems to me completely reasonable - far more so than assuming that she thinks familicide was perfectly acceptable when there is no evidence for that.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

Here's a question: Before the concept of gender equality, were men who beat their wives evil? Before the concept of culture and race equality, was every single British soldier who exterminated Native Americans or stole Australian Aboriginal children away from their parents evil? For that matter, before the concept of species equality (aka "the present"), is killing animals for luxuries like furs and hides considered evil? I'm not talking about acts (viewed through the lens of our modern view), I'm talking about people. Were all those people evil? And how do you know you aren't doing something that will be considered evil later?

It's worth remembering that:

"this person would qualify as evil using the D&D alignment system"

(based on "general and personal attitudes") does not equate to:

"this person deserves massive moral condemnation"

If someone beats "the innocent" for fun (which may include their wives) then- by D&D standards, they have a "general moral and personal attitude" consistant with evil alignment.

But that doesn't mean that social and cultural context can't be taken into account when judging them- we might say of people raised in a society that encourages "hurting/debasing/destroying the innocent for fun/profit" (and so do so themselves) that:

"they are evil by D&D rules- but this is primarily because of how they were raised- and they have the potential to change"

This may be one of the reasons why books like BoED and Champions of Valor suggest that wherever reasonably possible, people should try to redeem evildoers rather than kill them.

Yes, the moral compass we use for "harm" and "the innocent" and "debase" and so on is going to be a little modernocentric- but that's to be expected in a modern world.

We could even say:

"Yes, they are willing to debase/destroy the innocent for fun/profit- but that is through ignorance- they are not aware that their victims are The Innocent- so they should not be severely condemned"

Or, for that matter, future people (future D&D players 100 years on?) might say that of us.

[King of Nowhere]

Maybe V figures that since black dragons are evil, destroying a large number of them was among the good things he did under the splice.
I know, there's no evidence, but there's no evidence against either, so it is as good as any other hypotesis.

Actually, since V didn't mentioned the familicide specifically, we can argue that there's no proof for anything on the specific subject.
I wonder if that's just a case, or some plan by Rich. Maybe V feels particular about the familicide and that will be relevant at some point, and rich wants to keep it covered and reveal it only at the rigth time.
Or maybe it is included in the general feeling of regret. Only time will tell.

By the way, he hadn't mentioned much about the splice to anyone because he's afraid of the reaction other people may have (he says that in comic). Totally understandable, even if probably wrong.

[hamishspence]

Maybe V figures that since black dragons are evil, destroying a large number of them was among the good things he did under the splice.
I know, there's no evidence, but there's no evidence against either, so it is as good as any other hypotesis.

The souls do tell V that:

"They should melt down the gold to make a statue to you- out of gratitude! And fear."

so V might believe that Familicide is something other people would be feeling grateful for.

[Juggling Goth]

I tend to think V's turning point was when ze went back through the window for O-Chul.

And yes, it's unfortunate that ze still needs Blackwing to remind hir that solving social problems with explosions is wrong, but ze does keep Blackwing around and acknowledge him, suggesting that ze wants to be told when ze's crossing the line. Yes, it would be better if V could make those decisions hirself, but accepting that ze can't and seeking help with them is the next best thing.

[JRKlein]

As far as I'm concerned, V is True Neutral. Always has been, always will be. S/he just does what s/he thinks is the right thing to do.

[malloyd]

And I don't care how you rationalize it, killing 1/4 of an entire species for personal revenge against a single individual is one of the most staggeringly evil things you could do. Yes, even if they were evil too. Evil acts done to evil people is still evil.

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.

If V had decided to engage in a personal crusade to destroy all the world's evil black dragons because they were evil, well, there are doubtless plenty of Good characters out there with the right Favored Enemies trying to do that already, being more successful at it shouldn't change its morality. And if in the course of a just war some small number of innocents die, that's regretable, but ultimately an unavoidable consequence of a war which is not usually considered to automatically make all wars unjust, let alone evil.

It is doing it specifically to torture a defeated enemy that's the real evil V needs to repent, the killing itself is not a particularly Good act, but it's not more than borderline evil by D&D standards.

[Kish]

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.

If V had decided to engage in a personal crusade to destroy all the world's evil black dragons because they were evil, well, there are doubtless plenty of

Lawful Evil characters who delusionally believe themselves to be good trying to do that already, seeing as, y'know, the Player's Handbook is quite unambiguous about the alignment implications of judging an entire race as deserving to be wiped out.

It's mystifying how many people make grand proclamations about D&D morality without having apparently actually read it.

[malloyd]

Lawful Evil characters who delusionally believe themselves to be good trying to do that already, seeing as, y'know, the Player's Handbook is quite unambiguous about the alignment implications of judging an entire race as deserving to be wiped out.

Making an effort to hunt for your Favored Enemies makes you evil? That's a pretty strange interpretation, but I guess it's your campaign.

[Kish]

I'm sorry, did we start talking about house rules?

By the letter of D&D rules, clearly and unambiguously spelled out in the Player's Handbook, judging races rather than individuals is an example of Lawful Evil. You can house rule that every ranger hates their favored enemies to the point of desiring genocide and good-aligned rangers get a moral exemption for attempted genocide, if you want, but please don't try to pass that off as D&D rules.

[Feather Sigil]

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.

What wrong reasons? V was being pragmatic. Why else would she use a spell specifically designed not to kill a quarter of a species but kill anyone and anything that would show even the slightest interest in avenging the ABD's death? If V really wanted to boast her new power or torture the ABD, why not go for complete genocide?

V knew, thanks to the ABD's gloating, exactly how she was able to find out what V did and where Inkyrius and the kids live. There was nothing preventing such a scenario from occurring all over again--another Black Dragon would visit the ABD's home, search for her, eventually contact the Oracle, learn the truth and seek revenge (which was almost a certainty given the genetic alignment of Black Dragons). Perhaps that Black Dragon would be killed before it could harm V's family (what if it burned a few homes to the ground on the way there?). And then another Black Dragon would learn the truth and do the same thing again, or perhaps go to kill V herself first (what if she and the rest of the Order was fighting Xykon at the time?).

Lather, rinse, repeat. It doesn't necessarily vindicate her but her reasons were certainly not Evil.

[Maxios]

Here's my thoughts:
Before Soul Splice: Neutral Good
During Soul Splice: Either Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil
After Soul Splice: Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good

[Conuly]

Except, Maxios, when making the deal the IFCC specifically referred to V's soul as "the good - or the neutral, as it were" (not an exact quote), which indicates that V was never quite "good" in the first place.

[Maxios]

In which case, it can be assumed Vaarsuvius was Chaotic Neutral before the splice, or True Neutral.

[Larspcus2]

What wrong reasons? V was being pragmatic. Why else would she use a spell specifically designed not to kill a quarter of a species but kill anyone and anything that would show even the slightest interest in avenging the ABD's death? If V really wanted to boast her new power or torture the ABD, why not go for complete genocide?

V knew, thanks to the ABD's gloating, exactly how she was able to find out what V did and where Inkyrius and the kids live. There was nothing preventing such a scenario from occurring all over again--another Black Dragon would visit the ABD's home, search for her, eventually contact the Oracle, learn the truth and seek revenge (which was almost a certainty given the genetic alignment of Black Dragons). Perhaps that Black Dragon would be killed before it could harm V's family (what if it burned a few homes to the ground on the way there?). And then another Black Dragon would learn the truth and do the same thing again, or perhaps go to kill V herself first (what if she and the rest of the Order was fighting Xykon at the time?).

Lather, rinse, repeat. It doesn't necessarily vindicate her but her reasons were certainly not Evil.

Pragmatism taken to extremes is evil.

[Kish]

What wrong reasons? V was being pragmatic. Why else would she use a spell specifically designed not to kill a quarter of a species but kill anyone and anything that would show even the slightest interest in avenging the ABD's death?
I don't know, but since s/he didn't do that, it hardly matters, does it?

Vaarsuvius killed every blood relative of the ancient black dragon, who had "coincidentally" shown that she cared a great deal about her relatives. In so doing, s/he establishedly enraged a deity, and did nothing to either of the two dragons the ancient black dragon had already mentioned being on good terms with, the brother-in-law she had been visiting and "the nice green dragon girl from the next swamp over." You're treating a transparent, unbelievable excuse as Word of God and claiming the spell did something other than what it was described as doing to support that.

[Feather Sigil]

You're...claiming the spell did something other than what it was described as doing to support that.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html

"Anyone who could possibly make a claim to be part of your family is gone now."

"Now no one will come to avenge your defeat. No one will lament your passing."

The spell was designed to kill off the ABD's family. That it resulted in a quarter of the species being wiped out was coincidental.

I wasn't disputing its function, I was arguing that V didn't use it so that the ABD's family would die just for the sake of their deaths. V used Familicide specifically so that there would be as small a chance as possible of the events that drove her to accept the Soul Splice never happening again. In other words, she was being pragmatic...


Pragmatism taken to extremes is evil.

...which is not inherently evil. Taking the act and motive together, sure--as I said, that her reasons weren't evil doesn't vindicate the act.

She was not boasting her power or acting out of sheer malice or anything else. It is consistent with her spontaneous murder of Kubota pre-Splice and teleporting the fleet. She wanted anything that stood in the way of her fixing everything to be dealt with and buried, never to return.


Vaarsuvius...did nothing to either of the two dragons the ancient black dragon had already mentioned being on good terms with, the brother-in-law she had been visiting and "the nice green dragon girl from the next swamp over."

A minimal chance of something is nonetheless a chance but it's a lot different than an optimal chance. That has nothing to do with her reasons, though.

[Joerg]

I predict that we won't be able to get anywhere by trying to analyse things through the DnD morality system.

That is very likely, but people will try it anyway :smallsmile:



Here's a question: Before the concept of gender equality, were men who beat their wives evil? Before the concept of culture and race equality, was every single British soldier who exterminated Native Americans or stole Australian Aboriginal children away from their parents evil? For that matter, before the concept of species equality (aka "the present"), is killing animals for luxuries like furs and hides considered evil? I'm not talking about acts (viewed through the lens of our modern view), I'm talking about people. Were all those people evil?

And that's the problem, right there. Most ethics try to be absolute, independent of society and its established rules -- so e.g. beating the wife is always 'evil' (though 'wrong' may be a better term). But ethics always define whether an act is right or wrong (good or evil), they never judge the person.

Judging the person is much more difficult (while judging the act can already be difficult enough). D&D tries to give some rules for it, but there will always be plenty of cases where the result just can't be determined without arbitrary weighing and interpretation. I've never liked this alignment system, firstly because of that problem, secondly because it seems like a flimsy excuse for not really thinking about the morality of violence -- someone is 'evil', so it's alright to kill him. And I think the comic very much agrees with my position there.

Anyway: I wouldn't judge the current V based on her actions during the splice. She definitely had some change of opinion afterwards, and seems to be actively trying to act neutral or even good. That she needs help from outside in determining what is or isn't good isn't relevant there either IMO.



And how do you know you aren't doing something that will be considered evil later?

Well, there you can at least try to pick an ethic and try to judge the action. E.g. "treat others as you would like to be treated yourself in their place". Admittedly, it may be difficult sometimes to follow an ethic if it leads to actions which are judged as wrong (or stupid) by the society you live in. But that's another problem.

[Kish]

In other words, she was being pragmatic...

Insufficiently pragmatic. There are still sapient beings in the world, and each of them poses a threat to his/her family. To make them safe, s/he needed to kill them all.


She was not boasting her power

"This, and no less, is the consequences of threatening my family." That's not boasting about his/her power? Ignoring, just for the moment, the fact that the fiends made a big point of forcing him/her to recognize that his/her reason for accepting the Splice was because "I...I must succeed" was more important than anything else.


A minimal chance of something is nonetheless a chance but it's a lot different than an optimal chance. That has nothing to do with her reasons, though.
The one and only thing you've said that I agree with. It had nothing to do with his/her reason for the Familicide because "torture the ancient black dragon" was his/her reason. So s/he animated the ancient black dragon's head, slaughtered her family, and made sure she understood exactly what s/he had just done. In the process, s/he geometrically increased the number of entities with cause to howl for his/her blood. S/he paid no attention to the question "who is most likely to threaten my family again?" because, after all, that only related to the feeble excuse s/he offered for his/her actions, not the reason behind them.

[silvadel]

V has done exactly what Miko couldnt do -- admit that (s)he can be wrong and accept the advice of peers without condescending over them or ...

V is now a member of the team rather than an individual who happens to work for the team with loyalty to 1 and friendship to 1.

---

V is less selfish than V ever was.

---

As for what the elf on the other side would do with V's soul at death -- I would send it back in an infant for another turn on the wheel.

---------------------

Actually V reminds me a lot of Bastian in Neverending Story THE BOOK near the end. Note the book portions that cover the second movie are so far apart from the movie it is criminal.

[Larspcus2]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html



...which is not inherently evil. Taking the act and motive together, sure--as I said, that her reasons weren't evil doesn't vindicate the act.


Pragmatism taken to the point where one is killing sentients because they might harbor a grudge shows a clear "disregard for life" and is an example of destroying innocent life for profit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm), both of which are defined as evil in the D&D alignment system.

[Marnath]

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.


No, wrong. It doesn't matter why he did it, you don't do something like that and walk away unaffected.


Lather, rinse, repeat. It doesn't necessarily vindicate her but her reasons were certainly not Evil.

It is clear you have never read the rules on alignment. Your entire statement is patently false. His reasons were purely selfish and bloodthirsty, he was out for revenge not the protection of his family.

[tcrudisi]

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.

No, wrong. It doesn't matter why he did it, you don't do something like that and walk away unaffected.

So if 1/4 of the Orcs of the world were to form an army that attacked an epic wizard and he blew them all up, he's performed an evil act? According to "it doesn't matter why he did it", he did. Or if that same army went on a rampage, slaughtering entire cities and refusing to surrender, then killing them all is evil, no matter the reason?

[Marnath]

So if 1/4 of the Orcs of the world were to form an army that attacked an epic wizard and he blew them all up, he's performed an evil act? According to "it doesn't matter why he did it", he did. Or if that same army went on a rampage, slaughtering entire cities and refusing to surrender, then killing them all is evil, no matter the reason?

Again with the "all killing is evil.":smallsigh:

Killing a giant army that attacks people isn't evil, and it's not even comparable to killing a whole bunch of people who not only didn't hurt you, but mostly don't know you exist.

[Gandariel]

i think it has been veery clearly stated that the Familicide has been an Evil act. Very, very evil.

Yet, i still think V is Neutral.
why?

first of all, ok there are some "limitating factors": V was furious about hir children being slaughtered, then the "non-alcoholic beer effect", etc.

but hey, if this was all i would still say V is evil.

if I still think V is neutral it is for only one reason: (s)he is trying.
s/he is trying to be neutral (and we know this is the most important thing, at least in the Oots world)

[octagon]

Making an effort to hunt for your Favored Enemies makes you evil? That's a pretty strange interpretation, but I guess it's your campaign.

Wouldn't having an entire sentient race as your favored enemy in the meaning of wanting to extinct them just because they are what they are make you evil?

Denying this would mean justifying or approving genocidal racism... which isn't what anyone could want. :smalleek:

[hamishspence]

It is clear you have never read the rules on alignment. Your entire statement is patently false. His reasons were purely selfish and bloodthirsty, he was out for revenge not the protection of his family.

To quote BoVD:


Vengeance
Revenge is a powerful force. An act of vengeance does not have to be evil, but the evil mindset usually redefines the concept as "revenge at any price." Vengeance without limits can quickly lead to all sorts of evil acts.
...
Forgiveness and mercy are not traits that most evil creatures possess. Vengeance for wrongs committed against them- or even for perceived wrongs- is the only appropriate response

Which is not to say an evil creature can't possess the traits of forgiveness and mercy- just that most evil creatures don't.

[Lord Bingo]

Note though that the thing that makes it staggeringly evil is not killing 1/4 of an entire race, but doing it for the wrong reason.

V did not kill 1/4 of all black dragons for the wrong reasons! He did so to ensure that no one would seek out his family in order to exact revenge the way the black dragon in question did.

V simply believes that ends justify means.

[Larspcus2]

V simply believes that ends justify means.

Which, when taken to extremes, is evil.

[Zevox]

V did not kill 1/4 of all black dragons for the wrong reasons! He did so to ensure that no one would seek out his family in order to exact revenge the way the black dragon in question did.
Which is a "wrong reason." The assumption that someone may in the future be a threat to you or those you care about is no justification for killing them, much less for wiping out an entire family of individual creatures you know absolutely nothing about. Even if that were V's only reason - and as Kish has pointed out, there is substantial reason to believe it was not - it would still be a thoroughly evil one.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

Judging the person is much more difficult (while judging the act can already be difficult enough). D&D tries to give some rules for it, but there will always be plenty of cases where the result just can't be determined without arbitrary weighing and interpretation. I've never liked this alignment system, firstly because of that problem, secondly because it seems like a flimsy excuse for not really thinking about the morality of violence -- someone is 'evil', so it's alright to kill him.

There's nothing actually stating that "someone is evil, so it's alright to kill him" is a valid assumption in D&D. And some sources (BoED, Eberron Campaign Setting) state outright that it is not a valid assumption.

As to "rules for judging the person" the PHB gives a rule:

"Evil characters debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"

but this is extremely subject to interpretation.

Some examples:

1: "All beings that have debased or destroyed innocent life for fun or profit, and not repented it, are evil"

2: "All beings that are willing to debase or destroy innocent life for fun or profit, are evil"

3: All beings that are willing to debase or destroy innocent life for any reason, are evil"

4: "All beings that are unwilling to debase or destroy innocent life for fun or profit, are non-evil"

5: "All beings that are unwilling to debase or destroy innocent life for any reason, are non-evil"

1 and 2 I can get behind, 3, 4, and 5 I am much more skeptical of. Since not all evil acts, qualify as "debasing or destroying the innocent". And "destroying the innocent" can be argued as a nonevil act, or an act not mandating an evil alignment- under certain exceptionally rare circumstances.

[Lord Bingo]

Which is a "wrong reason."
I would like to think that acting to protect ones loved ones is a good motive. I agree that V's use of familicide is misguided -it is overkill in the extreme, but his reason for doing so was the protection of his family. V did the wrong thing for the right reasons -not the other way around.
I am not arguing that he should be forgiven because of that.

[Zevox]

I would like to think that acting to protect ones loved ones is a good motive.
Only when you're reasonable about it. But there was nothing rational about that event, neither in V's actions nor in her motive, even if her motive were actually to protect her family.

And again, as Kish has noted, there is substantial reason to believe that V's actual motive was not protection of her family, but rather that was a transparent excuse while her actual motive was the torment of the Dragon she killed and showing off her power.

For instance, just look at the panels before she actually does the deed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html):

:vaarsuvius: Because I am not done with the dragon.
Sou Splices: "The pain ended too soon."
- "We have only begun to bring misery."
- "There is still so much more we can do."
:vaarsuvius: I concur. Create Greater Undead.

Lets see here, the spirits encourage V to bring more pain and misery on the dragon, and she says "I concur." Yeah, no ambiguity there.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

- "There is still so much more we can do."
:vaarsuvius: I concur. Create Greater Undead.

Lets see here, the spirits encourage V to bring more pain and misery on the dragon, and she says "I concur." Yeah, no ambiguity there.

At the time of those strips, some people were claiming, vehemently, that it was only "There is still so much more we can do" that V was responding to.

I disagreed- but it is something to remember, that some people thought that it was the last statement that V was replying to.

"I am not done with the dragon" is a bit of a giveaway though- I'm not sure why those people didn't notice that.

[Zevox]

At the time of those strips, some people were claiming, vehemently, that it was only "There is still so much more we can do" that V was responding to.

I disagreed- but it is something to remember, that some people thought that it was the last statement that V was replying to.
An argument without meaning, since that last remark was plainly reinforcing the sentiments of the first two. One would have to ignore the context completely to argue otherwise.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

True- ignoring context does seem like it would have been required.

[Nimrod's Son]

There's also the look of utter glee on V's face throughout the whole thing, whilst ignoring the plight of his "loved" ones entirely. He doesn't even want to hear them speak, beyond a single syllable to indicate whether or not they need urgent medical assistance. He dismisses his mate and children with barely a single cursory glance and immediately sets about indulging in the torture of the dragon.

That people can read this scene as V showing concern for his family is just staggering to me. He stopped doing that at the moment the fiends suggested asking Aarindarius for help, and didn't really start again until the divorce request came through.

[Zevox]

Indeed. In fact, you understate it just a bit - she doesn't even give them a cursory glance, but rather has her back to them the entire time, not even bothering to look at them when asking if their injuries are life-threatening. Her attention was always squarely on the dragon, even after it was a ripped-up corpse.

Hell, she remained with her back to them even as she was trying to tell them she was leaving (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html) - it wasn't until Kyrie yelled at her and startled her so that she paid any real attention to them. Had Kyrie not done that, V might well have departed without so much as a glance at her family. That's rather telling of how flimsy the excuse that her concern was defending her family really is.

Zevox

[Marnath]

Did...did we just come to a reasonable conclusion in an alignment thread? I figured it would be locked by now, lol.

[Prowl]

Familicide has got to be pretty damned high up there on the "singluar evil acts" scale, and making a pact with demons/devils tends to be as well.

Whether that was a hit-bottom moment or a taste of what V is really about over the long term has yet to be seen. For rules purposes I would want to classify V as neutral evil until a major act of repentance has occurred.

[Larspcus2]

Did...did we just come to a reasonable conclusion in an alignment thread? I figured it would be locked by now, lol.

Don't be ridiculous. Only the reasonable people came to a conclusion.

[Marnath]

Don't be ridiculous. Only the reasonable people came to a conclusion.

And they said the exact same thing I was, just clearer. So "we." :smalltongue:

[Joerg]

There's nothing actually stating that "someone is evil, so it's alright to kill him" is a valid assumption in D&D.

Nevertheless, people seem to interpret it like that often enough. Miko, for example: "They were evil, so I killed them" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html). And there have been enough arguments here that the familicide wasn't evil because it (allegedly) targeted evil creatures.

[hamishspence]

Did...did we just come to a reasonable conclusion in an alignment thread? I figured it would be locked by now, lol.

Plenty of alignment threads never get locked- threads only get locked for breaking the rules.


Nevertheless, people seem to interpret it like that often enough. Miko, for example: "They were evil, so I killed them" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html). And there have been enough arguments here that the familicide wasn't evil because it (allegedly) targeted evil creatures.

Even the paladin's code doesn't say that. It says a paladin "punishes those who harm or threaten innocents"- but punishment doesn't have to involve death, those who harm or threaten innocents don't have to be Evil, and Evil characters, arguably, don't have to harm or threaten innocents to qualify as Evil.

[King of Nowhere]

Is it so hard to believe that V cast familicide for BOTH reasons? The arguments for him acting out of vengeance are incontestable, but can't someone have more than one motivation for his actions?

To those suggesting V don't really cares about his family, reread the part where the dragon appeared on the island until the point V actually got the splice. And then try suggesting that again.

The fact that V seems to ignore his family is because of his screwed up social issues. It is clear that V loves his family, even if he's not showing it too much. There are people like this. And remember why V lost his hold on haerta in the first place.

[hamishspence]

Nevertheless, people seem to interpret it like that often enough. Miko, for example: "They were evil, so I killed them" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html).

yes- there have been arguments over what exactly was meant by that.

Miko's more emphatic defenders said that what she meant was that she used whether they were evil or not, as a method of deciding whether or not to kill people she already knew had been doing things that could warrant killing them.


Is it so hard to believe that V cast familicide for BOTH reasons? The arguments for him acting out of vengeance are incontestable, but can't someone have more than one motivation for his actions?

On the subject of V, I do agree that mixed motivations is a reasonable possibility. Even if logic might indicate that killing all those dragons could make the risks for V's family higher rather than lower, V may not have been rational enough at the time to consider that.

[firemagehao]

V made a great sacrifice to help others (the pact)=Good
V made it, even though he knew it would be frowned upon=Chaotic

You end up with Chaotic Good, the norm for elves.

[Nimrod's Son]

To those suggesting V don't really cares about his family, reread the part where the dragon appeared on the island until the point V actually got the splice. And then try suggesting that again.
That wasn't what I suggested in the first place:


That people can read this scene as V showing concern for his family is just staggering to me. He stopped doing that at the moment the fiends suggested asking Aarindarius for help, and didn't really start again until the divorce request came through.
Of course V cares about his family. I don't think anyone's trying to argue otherwise. But at the moment of the events in question, they were FAR from his top priority. They barely even registered a blip.

[hamishspence]

V made a great sacrifice to help others (the pact)=Good
V made it, even though he knew it would be frowned upon=Chaotic

You end up with Chaotic Good, the norm for elves.

Thing is though, if a character who was in a similar situation to V, instead of agreeing to a soul splice, signed a Pact Certain (Fiendish Codex 2) for the power to save others,

they would immediately change alignment to LE, because "signing a Pact Certain is an irrevocable Lawful Evil act".

So "making a great sacrifice to help others, even though you know it will be frowned upon" isn't always CG behaviour.

[Zevox]

Is it so hard to believe that V cast familicide for BOTH reasons? The arguments for him acting out of vengeance are incontestable, but can't someone have more than one motivation for his actions?

To those suggesting V don't really cares about his family, reread the part where the dragon appeared on the island until the point V actually got the splice. And then try suggesting that again.
Of course things that V has said and done elsewhere indicate she does indeed care for her family, and a great deal. The thing is, however, that everything about the events during the soul splice indicate that they were just about the last thing on her mind from the moment she acquired her power until Kyrie shocked her by yelling at her to get away from them. If she barely bothers to ask if their injuries are immediately life-threatening - and even insists that Kyrie respond to that with just a simple yes or no - and otherwise completely ignores them, that's a strong indication of how little they're factoring into anything she's doing at the time.

Zevox

[silvadel]

It is obvious that the powers that be in the OOTS universe considered the familicide to be a massively evil act. Whether or not we agree with it, it is on THAT scale that V will be judged.

[hamishspence]

Yup- there's at least a couple of possibilities though.

1: Act changes V's alignment to Evil

2: Act changes V's afterlife destination to "The Lower Planes, unless atoned for, or V dies trying to atone for it"

If Act changed V's alignment to Evil- it's possible that V's alignment changed back- if V resolved to stop behaving Evilly, and start thinking of the needs of others, after losing to Xykon, and indicated this by going back to try and save O-chul.

If Act changed V's alignment destination to The Lower Planes, it's possible, that when the IFCC said "We have a 50/50 chance of ending up with V's soul anyway" they are referring to the possibility of V atoning enough, or trying hard enough and dying in the process, to get V's soul out of being destined for The Lower Planes.

[KillItWithFire]

I agree, Vaarsuvius' alignment does not suddenly change to evil due to one act. Especially given the circumstances. Yes he might be sent to the Lower Planes because of his actions, sort of the way Hel takes the dwarves that died of illness, except this is a much more serious transgression. V's alignment is entirely dependent on wheather or not he thinks what he did was right as of right now. If he has no regrets on the familicide then hes evil, if not, I'm willing to say true neutral. Considering the path to repentence he's on, I'm leaning toward neutral. Wheather or not it's enough to redeem himself in the eyes of the authorities is a seperate matter entirely from alignment (remember they judge based on how well you adhere to your alignment)


If she barely bothers to ask if their injuries are immediately life-threatening - and even insists that Kyrie respond to that with just a simple yes or no - and otherwise completely ignores them, that's a strong indication of how little they're factoring into anything she's doing at the time.



V was not thinking rationally at the time he comitted the familicide, he was showing off his newfound power. He was drunk off the stuff and while that can't excuse I think that it means that the familicide IS NOT a good measure of V's moral beliefs. I second everything Zevox has said.

[jidasfire]

I don't think anyone reasonable argues that the Familicide spell was the right thing to do, and while everyone seems to want to trip over themselves to point that out, it doesn't really address the point of where Vaarsuvius lies in the moral spectrum. Yes, one evil act can send someone over to evil, but did it?

To have some idea what is considered evil in the comic, we have to look at some characters who are demonstrably evil and what makes them so.

Xykon: Likes to cause pain, humiliation, and death to others because they're the only things that make him happy and alleviate his boredom.

Redcloak: Believes in his cause so deeply that he ignores how his methods are the same as those who hurt him, and is willing to sacrifice even his own friends and allies to achieve said cause.

Nale: Will engage in any act, no matter how treacherous or debased, to enact elaborate, petty revenge.

Belkar: Generally lacks a moral compass. Sees nothing wrong with stabbing others and causing fear in opponents.

IFCC and Sabine: Evil by their very nature. Not to say they're tragic victims, but they are basically made of evil itself. Living beings are seen as lesser.

Kubota: Willing to betray his own people (and allies) and traffic with devils for political power.

Tsukiko: Hates living beings and values dead and undead ones.

Tarquin: Kind to those he loves or respects, but willing to oppress "little people" and take disproportionate revenge on those who cross him.

The main common theme here, I think, is that each of these characters is willing to devalue other beings for their own purposes. Does Vaarsuvius fit this? Sort of. I don't believe he/she is willing to devalue anyone in the name of his/her goals, though he/she has shown indifference to the lives of nominally evil creatures and people. Obviously the black dragon family was treated in an extremely callous fashion, and one could argue Kubota was too(though personally I say good riddance to that mustachioed jerk), but Vaarsuvius also generally demonstrates a willingness to serve the greater good and protect the world from evil, as well as put her/himself at personal risk to help good people, usually without crossing lines to do so. She/he threatened Elan in a moment of anger, but didn't follow through on the threat. In my opinion, Vaarsuvius is hasty, sometimes to the point of negligence. She/he doesn't devalue others based on convenience, but will occasionally attack or eliminate perceived threats without seeking enough certain evidence. Funny enough, this puts somewhat on the footing of Miko. Where Miko made grandiose assumptions of her own moral superiority and everyone else's evil, Vaarsuvius tends to make grandiose assumptions about his/her own intelligence and thus ability to assess a situation instantly. This leads to mistakes. Both characters generally set out to do good, but often don't bother to see that there is a world outside their own perspective. Given this, I still can't see Vaarsuvius as anything other than Neutral. I do think V is trying now to rein in those tendencies, as she/he has paid a terrible price for them, and will continue to pay that price for some time to come, and that level of self-examination could eventually lead to him/her becoming good, but she/he's not there yet. From a meta-story perspective, I'm okay with that. Everyone else wears their morals on their sleeves, and someone who doesn't, and could go several ways, adds variety and suspense.

[Marnath]

Comparing V to Miko as a argument that he doesn't necessarily have to be evil doesn't help your case much. She fell for that sort of behavior, remember?

[rewinn]

... From a meta-story perspective, I'm okay with that. Everyone else wears their morals on their sleeves, and someone who doesn't, and could go several ways, adds variety and suspense.
Stories without conflict are usually boring. V's conflict with V are interesting!

[jidasfire]

Comparing V to Miko as a argument that he doesn't necessarily have to be evil doesn't help your case much. She fell for that sort of behavior, remember?

Yeah, for committing an evil act, not taking a full-on flying leap into depravity. I'm no Miko apologist, and I have no intention of derailing this further, but both committed evil acts, clearly so, while foolishly assuming they were doing good. The difference, if I seriously have to spell it out, is that V has gone on to reflect on his/her behavior and try to change, where Miko never really did. That's the comparison, not that they are identical.

[hamishspence]

Miko was in Good and V probably Neutral though (the Fiends said "You have the Good, or the Neutral, as the case might be").

If Miko was "pushing at what it means to be Lawful Good" (in War & XPs this phrase is used) on the Good/Evil axis, she might have been on the border between LG and LN, and could have fallen to LN.

In a similar fashion, V could have been on the border between Neutral and Evil before the soul splice- and could have fallen to Evil by committing Familicide.

When you're close to the borderline, one act might make the difference.

That said, Miko might have stayed LN till she died (because she never accepted what she did was wrong),

whereas V might be on the way back toward Neutrality from Evil, or even have reached it not long after the Soul Splice ended- by realizing that the behaviour exhibited was wrong, resolving not to do it again, and to show more concern for others- and rescuing O-chul could have been the act that proved it.

There's lots of ways of interpreting events.

[Kish]

Yeah, for committing an evil act, not taking a full-on flying leap into depravity. I'm no Miko apologist, and I have no intention of derailing this further, but both committed evil acts, clearly so, while foolishly assuming they were doing good. The difference, if I seriously have to spell it out, is that V has gone on to reflect on his/her behavior and try to change, where Miko never really did. That's the comparison, not that they are identical.
Might I venture that "killed one individual for reasons that, however skewed, were about him as an individual" vs. "committed quasi-genocide" should also be noted as a difference?

[jidasfire]

Might I venture that "killed one individual for reasons that, however skewed, were about him as an individual" vs. "committed quasi-genocide" should also be noted as a difference?

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. I said it was a clearly evil action. What I am trying to do generally is point out that Vaarsuvius shouldn't be said to be evil because of that one act, no matter how bad it is, because even if the deed is very hard to erase from one's conscience, V's general attitude has not changed to be consistently an evil one, where she/he considers the deaths of her/his enemies' families to be an acceptable practice. V did a terrible thing and has not atoned, but as I have said before, actual alignment is not a KOTOR-style karma meter, but an outlook on life. Does an evil deed lead one to damnation even in absence of an evil alignment in the OOTSverse? I don't know the answer to that, and I suspect no one but Mr. Burlew does either, but that isn't the question here. It's a question of alignment, and therefore outlook.

[hamishspence]

What I am trying to do generally is point out that Vaarsuvius shouldn't be said to be evil because of that one act, no matter how bad it is, because even if the deed is very hard to erase from one's conscience, V's general attitude has not changed to be consistently an evil one, where she/he considers the deaths of her/his enemies' families to be an acceptable practice.

...

It's a question of alignment, and therefore outlook.

Sometimes it's a bit of both.

According to Champions of Ruin, if you repeatedly commit evil acts to achieve your goals (regardless of other traits of non-evilness) you may eventually become evil aligned.

"one act can't make you evil" might be true if you'd never committed a significantly evil act before, and after committing it, didn't gain a willingness to keep committing evil acts.

But arguably, Familicide wasn't the first evil act V committed- it was just the latest in a trend.

[jidasfire]

Sometimes it's a bit of both.

According to Champions of Ruin, if you repeatedly commit evil acts to achieve your goals (regardless of other traits of non-evilness) you may eventually become evil aligned.

"one act can't make you evil" might be true if you'd never committed a significantly evil act before, and after committing it, didn't gain a willingness to keep committing evil acts.

But arguably, Familicide wasn't the first evil act V committed- it was just the latest in a trend.

I suppose that is a reasonable point. The Archon did tell Roy he would have been Neutral if he'd left Elan to die. I suppose I am pulling for V a bit, but I truly don't believe the character is evil, at least in part because of his/her actions taken since the Soul Splice to put at least some things right. Since the demons said they had a 50/50 chance of getting the soul regardless, I figure that means it's at least still in question, as opposed to Vaarsuvius being full-blown evil.

[My2Cents]

I find it really interesting that the use of the Familicide spell was considered an evil act. Of course the intention behind the use was bad, but the vicims were none the less black dragons.

If efficiently killing evil creatures is a crime, then every PC in D&D must be considered evil.

[hamishspence]

Killing evil creature in defense of others, is usually considered more justifiable than:

"killing newborn evil creatures, who have never harmed anybody, in order to revenge yourself on their relative"

It's not just "efficiently killing evil creatures" it's "killing evil creatures that haven't actually done anything to deserve killing for- that you know of"

It's a bit like killing every member of a werewolf family, including baby werewolves- in order to revenge yourself on one member.

[Da'Shain]

I find it really interesting that the use of the Familicide spell was considered an evil act. Of course the intention behind the use was bad, but the vicims were none the less black dragons.

If efficiently killing evil creatures is a crime, then every PC in D&D must be considered evil.Every PC who kills people in cold blood simply because of a label, yes.

[My2Cents]

The sapphire guard massacred goblin villages without alignment consequence.
And dont forget strip 207

It seems that any evil creature is a legitimate target.

[hamishspence]

Every PC who kills people in cold blood simply because of a label, yes.

Yup- a particularly Good PC might see killing as a primarily defensive thing- kill a monster that is launching unprovoked attacks on people, and so forth.

on Sapphire Guard destroying Goblin villages, in one of the previous threads, The Giant actually pointed out that some of the paladins might have Fallen, even if not in so dramatic a fashion as Miko:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

It's highly probable that Miko was wrong about all Evil beings happening to be legitimate targets- and that the only reason she hadn't Fallen already, was that every time she encountered Evil beings, there was a better justification than "they are Evil" for killing.

Such as "they are attacking."

[Larspcus2]

I think that there has been a conflation of two disparate things that both fall under the broad category of alignment: V's current outlook on life and moral principles and the total karmic value of all V's actions.

The first one can be changed by simply changing your outlook. The second...not so much.

[Marnath]

If you guys want an example of an evil person who it's not all right to kill:

Lets say there is a small city, and in this city is a baker. He is jealous at the greater success and skill of his competitor. He spreads lies about his competitor, disparages the quality of his product and bribes suppliers to cheat on prices charged to his competitor. Penniless and broken, the man loses everything he had, even the goodwill of the people. He starves in a gutter.

His opponent is a thoroughly evil man, and yet he has done nothing that would deserve a death sentence. In fact, he might not have commited a crime at all, depending on the rules for bribing officials.


I think that there has been a conflation of two disparate things that both fall under the broad category of alignment: V's current outlook on life and moral principles and the total karmic value of all V's actions.

The first one can be changed by simply changing your outlook. The second...not so much.

well stated.

[hamishspence]

Yup- Eberron Campaign Setting book pretty much uses this sort of thing- "scheming advocates" "greedy landlords" and so on,

who are evil-aligned, yet don't always deserve to be attacked by the PCs.

In these posts:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9674233&postcount=154

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9676793&postcount=26

I hypothesise an example of a character who could arguably be Evil-aligned- they torture people to death, a lot, and take pleasure in it,

and yet, the paladin's code says only that they "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

so it might not be alright to kill this evil character. Or at the very least, the code does not demand they be punished.

[Kish]

I find it really interesting that the use of the Familicide spell was considered an evil act. Of course the intention behind the use was bad, but the vicims were none the less black dragons.

If efficiently killing evil creatures is a crime, then every PC in D&D must be considered evil.
It's interesting, if somewhat annoying, the number of D&D players who speak as though "see green skin and fangs, kill" was the only way anyone played D&D.

[Wymmerdann]

I'm not so sure Kish. Normally I'd agree with your sentiment, but maybe the sheer number of people repeating the claim is getting to me.

Obviously killing evil beings without a specific and justifiable cause beyond their merely being evil is inexcusable.

However, I don't think you can apply racism in the same way in D&D as you would in real life. I understand the caveat of "always" or "mostly" evil races is that of course some may not be, and that being evil is not neccessarily justification for murder.

However if you say that a race being characteristically evil plays no part in moral calculus at all, you can't rely on real world examples to back you up. After all, the entire point of racial equality is that different races (on earth) are essentially morally equal, and have the same chance of being Good or Evil. For a race to be always or mostly evil implies a lot about their brain chemistry (if not merely their social customs), and really asks us to expand upon traditional concepts of morality. Familicide was still wrong, but I just thought that was worth saying.

Also, I would begin charting V's redemption from the 7th panel of the 657th comic, so that's nearly 100 comics. Comics don't chart specific chronology and he certainly isn't redeemed, but he's giving it a legitimate effort (unlike Miko or Belkar for example).

[jidasfire]

However, I don't think you can apply racism in the same way in D&D as you would in real life. I understand the caveat of "always" or "mostly" evil races is that of course some may not be, and that being evil is not neccessarily justification for murder.

However if you say that a race being characteristically evil plays no part in moral calculus at all, you can't rely on real world examples to back you up. After all, the entire point of racial equality is that different races (on earth) are essentially morally equal, and have the same chance of being Good or Evil. For a race to be always or mostly evil implies a lot about their brain chemistry (if not merely their social customs), and really asks us to expand upon traditional concepts of morality. Familicide was still wrong, but I just thought that was worth saying.


Yeah, it reminds me of a Drizzt book I read, where his friends talk about how wrong others are to judge him for the color of his skin. I was thinking, well no, it's not like drow are some poor, oppressed, misunderstood minority. They actually are a naturally evil race who worships an evil god and live in a society built around evil. Sure, Drizzt was the exception, but you really can't blame people in a D&D world for being afraid of them.

It's true that nowadays, we don't want our heroes killing people or beasts just for looking strange or being in natural competition for space, but the system is built around some creatures literally being made by dark gods or having a natural inclination towards malevolent behavior. The orcs and goblins in the Lord of the Rings series weren't misunderstood either. They were pretty much one-dimensionally evil. While I think it's cool that Order of the Stick works to subvert a lot of this stuff and make readers think about it critically, unless the system changes from top to bottom, there are just going to be some creatures in fantasy that are bad by nature. Hence, I think it's a bit oversimplified to assume most gamers fight goblins and orcs out of some sense of racism. It's more because they're uncomplicated bad guys who do bad things for bad reasons and give the heroes a chance to be heroic in combat without all that real world relativism and guilt.

[wizuriel]

V didn't make the pact to help hir family, s/he made it for more power to help hir family. As full of holes as the IFCC alternate plan was, they did show V an alternate way to help hir family which s/he didn't accept. The pact was a pure evil act.

Also not sure genocide is an always evil act in OOTS. Look at the sapphire guards crusade against goblins at the start of SoD.

[Nimrod's Son]

Also not sure genocide is an always evil act in OOTS. Look at the sapphire guards crusade against goblins at the start of SoD.
...Which Rich has since said some of the paladins may have Fallen for, although it wasn't shown because it wasn't the focus of the story. As hamishspence pointed out just a few posts back.

[KingMerv00]

Deleted. My point was already addressed.

[Marnath]

Yeah, it reminds me of a Drizzt book I read, where his friends talk about how wrong others are to judge him for the color of his skin. I was thinking, well no, it's not like drow are some poor, oppressed, misunderstood minority. They actually are a naturally evil race who worships an evil god and live in a society built around evil. Sure, Drizzt was the exception, but you really can't blame people in a D&D world for being afraid of them.

this one I agree with. He's the only good drow in the whole freaking world, they're right to judge him for it because how can they know he's good?


It's true that nowadays, we don't want our heroes killing people or beasts just for looking strange or being in natural competition for space, but the system is built around some creatures literally being made by dark gods or having a natural inclination towards malevolent behavior. The orcs and goblins in the Lord of the Rings series weren't misunderstood either. They were pretty much one-dimensionally evil. While I think it's cool that Order of the Stick works to subvert a lot of this stuff and make readers think about it critically, unless the system changes from top to bottom, there are just going to be some creatures in fantasy that are bad by nature. Hence, I think it's a bit oversimplified to assume most gamers fight goblins and orcs out of some sense of racism. It's more because they're uncomplicated bad guys who do bad things for bad reasons and give the heroes a chance to be heroic in combat without all that real world relativism and guilt.

You missed the point. It doesn't matter if they are all evil, you still don't get to slaughter them all just for being evil. At most killing them all before they can hurt innocents would be neutral, but on the scale we're talking about? That goes well beyond what would be reasonable.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, it reminds me of a Drizzt book I read, where his friends talk about how wrong others are to judge him for the color of his skin. I was thinking, well no, it's not like drow are some poor, oppressed, misunderstood minority. They actually are a naturally evil race who worships an evil god and live in a society built around evil. Sure, Drizzt was the exception, but you really can't blame people in a D&D world for being afraid of them.

In the R. A. Salvatore short story Dark Mirror, in Realms of Valor, a nonevil goblin explains to Drizzt why the fact that he's getting out from under the reputation of his people, doesn't mean that the goblin could:

I tried to remind Nojheim again that I had escaped a similar fate, that I had walked out of a desperate situation. I explained that I had travelled among peoples who surely hated me and feared me for my heritage.

"You are drow, not any goblin," he replied again, and this time I began to understand the meaning behind his words. "They will never understand that I am not evil in heart, as are other goblins. I don't even understand it!"

"But you believe it," I told him firmly.

"Am I to tell them that this goblin is not an evil sort?"

"Exactly that!" I argued. It seemed reasonable enough to me. I thought that I had found the opening I needed.

Nojheim promptly closed that door, promptly taught me something about myself and about the world that I had not previously considered.

"What is the difference between us?" I pressed, hoping he would see my understanding of the truth.

"You think yourself persecuted?" the goblin asked. His yellow eyes narrowed, and I knew that he thought he was being shrewd.

"I no longer accept that definition, just as I no longer accept the persecution," I declared. My pride had suddenly got in the way of understanding what this pitiful wretch was getting at. "People will draw their own judgements, but I will no longer accept their unfair conclusions."

"You will fight those that do you wrong?" Nojheim asked.

"I will deny them, ignore them, and know that in my heart I am right in my beliefs."

Nojheim's smile revealed both an honest happiness that I had found my way, and a deeper sorrow- for himself, I came to know.
continued:
"Our situations are not the same," he insisted. I started to protest, but he stopped me with an upraised hand. "You are drow, exotic, beyond the experiences of the vast majority of people you meet."

"Almost everyone of the surface has heard horrible tales of the drow," I tried to reason.

"But they have not dealt directly with dark elves!" Nojheim replied sharply. "You are an oddity to them, strangely beautiful, even by their own standards of beauty. Your features are fine, Drizzt Do'Urden, your eyes penetrating. Even your skin, so black and lustrous, must be considered beautiful by the people of the surface world. I am a goblin, an ugly goblin, in body if not in spirit."

"If you showed them the truth of that spirit..."

Nojheim's laughter mocked my concern. "Showed them the truth? A truth that would make them question what they had known all their lives? Am I to be a dark mirror of their conscience? These people, Rico included, have killed many goblins- probably rightly so," he quickly clarified, and that addition explained to me everything Nojheim had been trying to get through my blind eyes.

If these farmers, many of whom had often battled goblins, and others who had kept goblins as slaves, found just one creature who did not fit into their definitions of the evil race, just one goblin who showed conscience and compassion, intellect and a spirit akin to their own, it might throw their entire existence into turmoil. I, myself, felt as if I had been slapped in the face when I'd learned of Nojheim's true demeanor. Only through my own experiences with my dark elven kin, the overwhelming majority of whom well deserved their evil reputation, was I able to work through that initial turmoil and guilt.

These farmers though, might not so easily understand Nojheim. They would surely fear him, hate him all the more.

[Marnath]

In the R. A. Salvatore short story Dark Mirror, in Realms of Valor, a nonevil goblin explains to Drizzt why the act that he's getting out from under the reputation of his people, doesn't mean that the goblin could:

continued:

I must be missing the punchline? I'm not seeing the goblins point.

[hamishspence]

Sorry- I was splitting it up into two spoilers in case there wasn't room in one post.

Check the second spoiler- which I've put in the same post.

[Themrys]

What has V done to atone? Get a divorce after willfully harming another person? Freeing a handful of slaves? Continuing on with a quest to "save the world" at the expense of his family's happiness? :smallconfused:


Hey! V isn't doing that at the expense of his family's happiness. V doesn't have a family anymore. V is divorced. Inky can now look for a new partner and become happy without V. The children probably hardly knew V, so it won't matter much to them. Anyaway, not seeing their other parent for a couple of years will be better than being destroyed by the snarl.

You have to take into account that the dragon not only threatened to kill V's family but also to do something nasty to their souls. And V. had no way to find out whether there was a daddy dragon or other relative that would do the same thing without being stupid enough to announce it beforehand.
V didn't commit genocide for the sake of genocide but just used the easiest way to get rid of the dragon's family.

V is certainly not a nice person, but I don't think s/he is evil.

[Shale]

That just sends us back to genocide not being the best way to do....well, anything V ostensibly wanted to do. Killing a lot of people (well, dragons) results in MORE vendettas against you. V and his/her family got in trouble thanks to the death of a single dragon that had one living family member. Now, Vaarsuvius has killed dozens of dragons, and since Familicide only reaches two degrees of separation, most of them will have friends and/or family left untouched by the spell to seek revenge. V leaped to mass-murder as the best way to solve his/her problems without taking even a second to think the idea through, because any critical thought at all would have shown the plan to be nonsense. That's capital-E Evil.

[Zevox]

Not to mention that, as previously discussed, there is substantial evidence against the notion that V's purpose was the protection of her family; and even if that had been her purpose, wiping out vast numbers of beings she knows nothing about on the assumption that they may possibly one day be a threat to her family would still be thoroughly and completely evil.

Zevox

[Kish]

However if you say that a race being characteristically evil plays no part in moral calculus at all, you can't rely on real world examples to back you up. After all, the entire point of racial equality is that different races (on earth) are essentially morally equal, and have the same chance of being Good or Evil.

That's rather absurd. I don't know what, if any, I can safely name on this board, but there are any number of human cultures, historically and currently, that really shouldn't be described as "has no alignment tendencies."


For a race to be always or mostly evil implies a lot about their brain chemistry (if not merely their social customs),

See, here you put something that negates the rest of your argument in a parenthetical and act like it doesn't exist. :smalltongue: Clearly a goblin who was raised in a traditional goblin culture, in by-the-book D&D, is likely to be evil. More or less likely than a human who was raised in Nazi Germany? I don't know, and if you think you do, you're wrong. What I do know, and anyone who has read the Player's Handbook should know as well, is that judging races rather than individuals is evil in by-the-book D&D; and what I know that anyone who has read Don't Split the Party should know is that what Vaarsuvius did was not something Rich meant to be justifiable.


Also, I would begin charting V's redemption from the 7th panel of the 657th comic, so that's nearly 100 comics.

I might* begin charting Vaarsuvius' redemption when and if s/he makes a clear, unambiguous statement that s/he sees something wrong with the Familicide, and wouldn't reply "Bwuh? But they were black dragons!" if someone suggested that was something s/he should feel guilty about. That is in the future, if it ever happens. Right now, s/he is no longer a family-neglecting mass murderer, which gets a /golfclap from me.

*This originally read "will." Then I realized that I didn't want to write something that could be taken as committing to considering it "redemption" if Vaarsuvius says, "Oh, I was so careless to traumatize my children like that, I should have annihilated the dragon's family somewhere they couldn't see."

[Gd8908]

Well, my view on things is that, as last time I checked, an alignment is a way of thinking, like a state of mind, not what you may or may not have done, V is Neutral Good, as she has been at least trying to change things (acknowledging ?Blackwing's existence, for one example) and has resented what she did, even avoiding speaking about it when Blackwing brought it up. Go Good Guys!
EDIT: Of course, my definition of alignments may not be the same as everyone else's.

[hamishspence]

Even within a category (like Usually X Evil) there will be variation.

PHB page 104:


Creatures and members of classes shown in italic type on Table 6-1 are always of the listed alignment. Except for paladins, they are born into that alignment. It is inherent, part of their nature. Usually, a creature with an inherent alignment has some connection (through ancestry, history, or magic) to the Outer Planes or is a magical beast.

For other creatures, races, and classes, the indicated alignment on Table 6-1 is the typical or most common one. Normal sentient beings can be of any alignment. They may have inherent tendencies toward a particular alignment, but individuals can vary from this norm. Depending on the type of creature, these tendencies can be stronger or weaker. For example, kobolds and beholders are usually lawful evil, but kobolds display more variation in alignment than beholders because their inborn alignment tendency isn't as strong.

Also, sentient creatures have cultural tendencies that reinforce alignment tendencies. For example, orcs tend to be chaotic evil, and their culture tends to produce chaotic evil members. A human raised among orcs is more likely than normal to be chaotic evil, while an orc raised among humans is less likely to be so.

And for those that are interested, dragons (the listed ones are red, gold, copper, and blue) are not in italic type, despite those ones being Always X Alignment.

This tells us that they are normal sentient beings- they can vary from the listed alignment- even if the exceptions might be "unique or very rare"

They are not like, say, unicorns, or lammasu- which are beings of inherent alignment- theirs is probably inborn tendencies, + cultural tendencies, massively reinforcing each other.

(There are bugs- troglodytes are in italic despite only being Usually CE, vampires are in italic CE despite being changed in 3.5E to vary in alignment, whereas in 3.0E all vampires were CE, but otherwise, the chart works. The 3.0 chart worked the same way, and on that, dragons weren't in italic either- and nor were troglodytes.)

Also- in splatbooks and on the WoTC site, there have been exceptions to angels always being Good, or demons always being Evil. But these always involve some sort of special redemption or corruption.


Well, my view on things is that, as last time I checked, an alignment is a way of thinking, like a state of mind, not what you may or may not have done, V is Neutral Good, as she has been at least trying to change things (acknowledging ?Blackwing's existence, for one example) and has resented what she did, even avoiding speaking about it when Blackwing brought it up. Go Good Guys!
EDIT: Of course, my definition of alignments may not be the same as everyone else's.

It can be a mixture of things. It can be what you are willing to do, what you have done and not repented, and "general moral and personal attitudes".

A being can be evil-aligned without ever having committed an evil act- evil solely because of its personality. People hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment (from DMG), and newborn creatures listed in the MM as Always Evil, may qualify.

But committing evil acts, and not being repentant, but willing to commit more evil acts of the same kind, may be enough to make a being Evil-aligned despite not being willing to commit certain subsets of evil acts. Champions of Ruin suggests this.

There is also Afterlife Destination- which while related to alignment- is not dependant on it. Using Fiendish Codex 2 mechanics, a being can go to the Nine Hells despite not actually being of Evil alignment. Using Complete Divine rules, a cleric of a deity tends to go to the deity's domain even if their alignment does not match it. And so on.

[Larspcus2]

Clearly a goblin who was raised in a traditional goblin culture, in by-the-book D&D, is likely to be evil. More or less likely than a human who was raised in Nazi Germany? I don't know, and if you think you do, you're wrong.

In a "usually evil" race, both their nature and their society (i.e. "nurture") are evil, as defined in D&D
In Nazi Germany, the dominant paradigms are indeed evil. However, the D&D alignment system is from a human perspective, so we take the average to be the baseline, and set that to Neutral. Since the goblins have both an evil nature and upbringing, and the Germans only have the upbringing, I say with some confidence that the goblin society has more evil members.

[Conuly]

And V. had no way to find out whether there was a daddy dragon or other relative that would do the same thing without being stupid enough to announce it beforehand.

Except that the mom *said* her mate had been killed already.

And V's plan makes sense because those dragons V killed don't have grieving relatives of their own? Don't have friends and loved ones?


V didn't commit genocide for the sake of genocide but just used the easiest way to get rid of the dragon's family.

The easiest way to show off, you mean.

V had a shoddy excuse for V's actions. Killing the ABD made sense - although saying sorry may have made more sense and could potentially have helped avoid this mess. Perhaps not invading the ABD's home and killing her son to steal their treasure, maybe that would've made sense. But it's clear from V's thoughts and internal commentary that V's motives for using Familicide were less than squeaky clean - even if it hadn't been such an ultimately stupid, stupid thing to do!

At any rate, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you commit mass murder of innocents (and no matter how evil they might become, everybody is innocent when still within the egg!), even with more than the flimsiest of pretexts, you're doing something evil.

[rokar4life]

tl;dr so i don't know if its been brought up, but why would any of the actions of the soul splice be considered evil? She saved an entire nation, tried to kill Xykon, and protected her family. On the last one she may have over reacted but I wouldn't consider it an alignment shifting act. Aren't those Dragons evil anyways?

[Kish]

tl;dr so i don't know if its been brought up, but why would any of the actions of the soul splice be considered evil?

Because Vaarsuvius slaughtered an entire family for revenge on one of its members. And that's one of the most horrifically evil things anyone has done in the comic, not excluding Xykon, the number of people who seem not to grasp why it was wrong aside. If you've read the commentary in Don't Split the Party, you know "the number of people who seem not to grasp why it was wrong" doesn't include Rich Burlew.

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.

[firemagehao]

Thing is though, if a character who was in a similar situation to V, instead of agreeing to a soul splice, signed a Pact Certain (Fiendish Codex 2) for the power to save others,they would immediately change alignment to LE, because "signing a Pact Certain is an irrevocable Lawful Evil act".

But he didn't.

[hamishspence]

True. The point to be made is that some acts, involving getting power from fiends, involve an instant alignment change.

This one doesn't- but characterizing it as Chaotic Good behaviour simply because "it was a sacrifice for others" may be a bit of a stretch.

BoVD portrays dealing with fiends in general as highly dubious- though on the subject of "letting fiends live" it's a bit harsher than other sources.

[NegativeFifteen]

V is, what I would estimate, True Neutral.
V had been good all this time, but committed two really evil acts:
-Selling her soul, though this one can be brushed off because she did it just so she could fight the dragon and save her family
-Casting familicide, this one can't be brushed off because the reasons were poor and it was SUPER evil
However, V is repentant, (look at her face is 671) and is trying to become good again. Neutral. This may change as she may become more and more good (freeing the slaves) but she hasn't really done enough to cover for the familicide.
(As for law and chaos, I have no idea)

[hamishspence]

-Selling her soul, though this one can be brushed off because she did it just so she could fight the dragon and save her family


Technically it's "renting" rather than selling, still, it is at least dubious, and one of the things brought up in Celestia- V's "alarming dealings with the forces of evil":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html

On whether "please do not remind me of all that I have done" is indicating repentance for Familicide-

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html

this is a bit harder to be sure about.

[NegativeFifteen]

Technically it's "renting" rather than selling, still, it is at least dubious, and one of the things brought up in Celestia- V's "alarming dealings with the forces of evil":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html

On whether "please do not remind me of all that I have done" is indicating repentance for Familicide-

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html

this is a bit harder to be sure about.

I'm pretty sure the first one could be discussed when they're judging her soul, but I personally would let it slide for the whole protecting her family thing. It is debatable though, I'll acknowledge that. The second one, I considered that V's head just cleared from having evil spirits shackled on to her and wasn't dealing with an insane epic level lich, and got back to thinking about what she did under the soul splice, hence ALL that I've done.

[hamishspence]

The second one, I considered that V's head just cleared from having evil spirits shackled on to her and wasn't dealing with an insane epic level lich, and got back to thinking about what she did under the soul splice, hence ALL that I've done.

While that might be a slightly generous judgement- I'll agree that a case can be made for it.

[Marnath]

V is, what I would estimate, True Neutral.
V had been good all this time, but committed two really evil acts:
-Selling her soul, though this one can be brushed off because she did it just so she could fight the dragon and save her family
-Casting familicide, this one can't be brushed off because the reasons were poor and it was SUPER evil
However, V is repentant, (look at her face is 671) and is trying to become good again. Neutral. This may change as she may become more and more good (freeing the slaves) but she hasn't really done enough to cover for the familicide.
(As for law and chaos, I have no idea)

1) V started at neutral, I think it's confirmed in a book.

2) I don't agree that V is necessarily repentant, because a feeling of guilt is only the first step, it does not always follow that you act on that guilt.

[Kish]

1) V started at neutral, I think it's confirmed in a book.
Telephone Game. However, "Nothing indicates Vaarsuvius was ever good" is nearly as compelling an argument.

[hamishspence]

Wasn't it in the OoTS board game that it was listed as "Arrogant Neutral"?

[Kish]

Indeed.

(Belkar was Selfish Evil, Haley was Chaotic Greedy, Roy was Beleaguered Good, Elan was Foolish Good, and Durkon was Lawful Bland.)

I consider it pretty close to certain that Vaarsuvius has never been good-aligned in his/her life...but it's still Telephone Game to say that one of the books explicitly says so.

[hamishspence]

Way back in Dorukan's Dungeon, V's reaction to Unholy Blight was, I think, taken by some posters to imply that V was nauseated by it (rather than the more minor effects that Neutral characters get)- and so, was Good aligned.

That's the closest I can think of though.

EDIT:- Found the original post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=274412&postcount=308

Not sure if The Giant changed his mind later.

[Larspcus2]

Way back in Dorukan's Dungeon, V's reaction to Unholy Blight was, I think, taken by some posters to imply that V was nauseated by it (rather than the more minor effects that Neutral characters get)- and so, was Good aligned.

That's the closest I can think of though.

EDIT:- Found the original post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=274412&postcount=308

Not sure if The Giant changed his mind later.

I believe that The Giant has said that that is not representative of V's alignment, as it was back when the character's personalities were not yet well-defined.

[Mystic Muse]

I personally think that Genocide is evil in almost all circumstances and we don't know that black dragons are always evil in this world. So, the act was one of fairly deep evil and that's a rather hard to remove stain on your alignment.


I may be biased though since 90% of dragons in my campaigns are good aligned along with most of the dragon gods.

[hamishspence]

I believe that The Giant has said that that is not representative of V's alignment, as it was back when the character's personalities were not yet well-defined.

That's what I think- but I'm not sure where that particular post of The Giant's is.

[ShinyRocks]

Eh, my two cents. Why not?

Pre-Soul Splice was neutral.

Familicide (and maybe even taking the soul splice in the first place) was Evil. Capital E, do not pass go, your alignment changes now, Evil. It just was. So V is currently (probably Neutral) Evil.

And even though V has seemingly repented (if you choose to read things that way), and is behaving differently, and cast different spells, and freed a few slaves, she's still Evil. She's going to have to earn it back if she wants to stop being Evil-aligned.

Changing alignment is more than just wanting to. Roy gets to stay Lawful Good because he's trying and wants to, but it's his actions and life overall that made him Lawful Good in the first place. Trying is good for alignment inertia, so to speak, but you need more than that to change to begin with.

Despite her changed in attitude and behaviour, V hasn't 'earned back' the familicide yet. She might do eventually. But at the moment, she'd still ping as evil because of her actions under the soul splice.

[hamishspence]

Familicide (and maybe even taking the soul splice in the first place) was Evil. Capital E, do not pass go, your alignment changes now, Evil. It just was. So V is currently (probably Neutral) Evil.

And even though V has seemingly repented (if you choose to read things that way), and is behaving differently, and cast different spells, and freed a few slaves, she's still Evil. She's going to have to earn it back if she wants to stop being Evil-aligned.

Changing alignment is more than just wanting to. Roy gets to stay Lawful Good because he's trying and wants to, but it's his actions and life overall that made him Lawful Good in the first place. Trying is good for alignment inertia, so to speak, but you need more than that to change to begin with.

That's certainly one way of interpreting it- and fits with DMG's "Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players"

A slightly modified version, is to have alignment-changing be easier- following PHB's "Alignment is general moral and personal attitudes" but afterlife-changing be much harder.

In this paradigm, regardless of V's actual alignment currently, V's acts earned V a place in the Lower Planes after death- and to lose that place, and thus go to one of the Neutral or Good planes, V has to do some serious atoning- just changing "general moral and personal attitudes" (and thus, alignment) is not enough.

[Skull the Troll]

Attempted Genocide means Evil.

If that were always true, the the Azure Order would be evil too. (the whole order not just Miko) The reason why you do something is often more important than the act. Soldiers on the battlefield regularly commit 'murder' but I wouldn't classify the allied soldiers of WWII as evil.

That said, for 20 minutes there V was acting pretty evil, but as a parent myself, I can kind of understand the whole overreacting where it comes to your children thing. If someone seriously said they were going to kill (and worse) my kids, I'd use a much force as I could arrange for to do them in.

[hamishspence]

If that were always true, the the Azure Order would be evil too. (the whole order not just Miko) The reason why you do something is often more important than the act. Soldiers on the battlefield regularly commit 'murder' but I wouldn't classify the allied soldiers of WWII as evil.

That said, for 20 minutes there V was acting pretty evil, but as a parent myself, I can kind of understand the whole overreacting where it comes to your children thing. If someone seriously said they were going to kill (and worse) my kids, I'd use a much force as I could arrange for to do them in.

There's a big difference between Homicide and Murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

And the problem with V's action wasn't "doing Mama Dragon in" it was "doing her whole family in", some of whom hadn't been born yet and, as far as is known, none of whom besides her had ever heard of V.

[firemagehao]

Eh, my two cents. Why not?

Pre-Soul Splice was neutral.

Familicide (and maybe even taking the soul splice in the first place) was Evil. Capital E, do not pass go, your alignment changes now, Evil. It just was. So V is currently (probably Neutral) Evil.

Still, during the splice, s/he was not him/her self. Actions such as Familicide were because of the evil that was put into him/her. HIS/HER soul remained separate, along with HIS/HER alignment. During the splice, it was not V, but a V-evil temporary hybrid.

[Mystic Muse]

Still, during the splice, s/he was not him/her self. Actions such as Familicide were because of the evil that was put into him/her. HIS/HER soul remained separate, along with HIS/HER alignment. During the splice, it was not V, but a V-evil temporary hybrid.

:Qarr: wow, you guys weren't kidding when you said the splice would affect her alignment

:IFCC: Actually we were. The splices have about as much effect on your alignment as cheerleaders do on the outcome of a football game.

[Shale]

Wrong, per the fiends. "They have about as much effect on what the elf does as a cheerleader has on the final score of a game." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

[Marnath]

Still, during the splice, s/he was not him/her self. Actions such as Familicide were because of the evil that was put into him/her. HIS/HER soul remained separate, along with HIS/HER alignment. During the splice, it was not V, but a V-evil temporary hybrid.

Third in a row, but yeah this is explicitly not true, as per the above link.

[Nimrod's Son]

That said, for 20 minutes there V was acting pretty evil, but as a parent myself, I can kind of understand the whole overreacting where it comes to your children thing. If someone seriously said they were going to kill (and worse) my kids, I'd use a much force as I could arrange for to do them in.
Though presumably if that person then went and broke your children's legs, you wouldn't gleefully massacre the assailant's entire family without so much as giving your distraught kids a glance.

Once again: there was no care whatsoever for his family demonstrated during the soul splice. It was ALL about the power.

[Marnath]

Though presumably if that person then went and broke your children's legs, you wouldn't gleefully massacre the assailant's entire family without so much as giving your distraught kids a glance.

Once again: there was no care whatsoever for his family demonstrated during the soul splice. It was ALL about the power.

Right, he didn't even bother teleporting them to a healer. He left his mate to carry two children with broken legs, with hands that had been impaled.

[The Pilgrim]

Once again: there was no care whatsoever for his family demonstrated during the soul splice. It was ALL about the power.

In fact, the IFCC went the extra mile in #634 to force V admit (s)he was doing it by all the wrong reasons.

Of course, not even the fact that the strip in witch V bites the ball is named "THE WRONG REASONS" itself, will prevent people to keep arging that (s)he accepted the deal for altruist reasons, and not out of plain pride.

[Reverent-One]

Of course, not even the fact that the strip in witch V bites the ball is named "THE WRONG REASONS" itself, will prevent people to keep arging that (s)he accepted the deal for altruist reasons, and not out of plain pride.

At the same time, to argue that V accepted the deal out of plain pride is an overly simplistic view of the matter. For one thing, why couldn't it be a mix of the two? How easy is it for someone to simply sit back when their family is in danger and let their fates rest in someone else's hands? Second, look at what V was going through at the time. He was literally being tormented by his failure at Azure City and in finding Haley, unable to trance. And now his family is in danger and he's given a option to finally not be a useless failure anymore. Did he still do it for the wrong reasons? Yes, but it wasn't for plain pride anymore than it was for purely altruistic reasons.

[The Pilgrim]

The truly masteful lesson from the IFCC in that deal, is how they cornered V to force it accept the deal for full egoistical motivations.

Yes, at first V got into it for mixed reasons. When it first was gonna touch the ball, V rationalized it's motivations as altruistic, what had to be done to save it familiy.

That's where the IFCC inmediately objected, and set up things so that V's final words when accepting the deal are nowhere the noble self-sacrifice speech, but a plain and blunt "I... I must succeed".

Also, we have it's dialoge with Inkyrius, after slaying mama dragon and 25% of the Black Dragon population. V did not drop the splice, choose to stick to the ultimate arcane power, as it was what it had always looked for.

As I said, that's where the IFCC went from regular faustian-tempter wanabees, to full masters of perdition. There is little merit in forcing an already corrupt soul to fall. But there is many in exploiting the chance to do so with a decent one.

After V crashed, it realized the fooliness of the way it had driven it's life, and is struggling to improve. How far has been able to do so, is of course open to interpretation.

[Captainocaptain]

Just out of curiosity, could V's alignment be in the Neutral range now anyway?
V shows remorse etc.
But more importantly, in a world where paladins can slaughter a village of helpless goblins (including defenseless children) with no alignment change, it seems okay to kill even a very large population of Evil dragons.

Yes, V did something very bad, from an ethics standpoint, but in this world, what did V do that other adventurers and even PALADINS have not done without changing alignment (aside from being a lot more effective).

As for the standpoint of the Soul-splice effect on V's alignment, yes, definitely evil trend, but not enough to permanently change, I would say that, V's alignment is probably neutral.

[Marnath]

*something that's already been covered*

Rich has indicated those paladins DID fall. We covered this earlier in the thread, even.

[Larspcus2]

Rich has indicated those paladins DID fall. We covered this earlier in the thread, even.

This seems a bit dubious. Generally if an action is causing paladins to fall, they will stop doing that action.

[Marnath]

This seems a bit dubious. Generally if an action is causing paladins to fall, they will stop doing that action.

Yes, since no fallen paladin could believe so much in themselves and their infallibility to the point they destroy a seal on the God-killing Abominations cell![/sarcasm]

I'd say, if a paladin did something fall-worthy, they have at least an equal chance of thinking they did nothing wrong to deserve the fall, and blame their diety.

[Zevox]

Rich has indicated those paladins DID fall. We covered this earlier in the thread, even.
Minor correction: he indicated some of those Paladins may have fallen, and left it up to us to puzzle on which ones specifically may have rather than spelling it out precisely. Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21).

Zevox

[Conuly]

This seems a bit dubious. Generally if an action is causing paladins to fall, they will stop doing that action.

What Rich said, I believe (I'm sure somebody has the exact link and quote) was that any or all of those paladins may have fallen, but he's not going to tell us which ones and the specifics of why they did (or did not) fall.

At any rate, at least some of the paladins who did horrific things (by my estimation, anyway) died pretty much right then and there. They may have not had *time* to fall afterwards. If paladins who fall because of slaughtering goblins often die in the same battle, it makes sense that others will still do the same stupid thing. Other paladins, who survive, might stop associating with their old comrades out of shame or self-pity or who knows what. And how exactly do they know what the cause was? Is it possible for a paladin to fall for killing innocent children but *think* it was for a bad attitude or something? That's another thing that might muddy the issue when the paladins talk about it at home.

And for all we know, the paladins *don't* go around slaughtering goblin children by the village anymore. The elves who murdered that goblin they found in the dungeons, and the Azurites who witnessed this, opted not to tell Thanh about this, indicating that he may not approve. Remember, the destruction of Redcloak's village happened *decades* ago. Maybe it used to be common practice until a number of paladins killed one too many innocents in too much of a bloodthirsty or careless way, and then enough of them fell all at once as to create a change in rules for large-scale actions such as that.

[Larspcus2]

Yes, since no fallen paladin could believe so much in themselves and their infallibility to the point they destroy a seal on the God-killing Abominations cell![/sarcasm]

I'd say, if a paladin did something fall-worthy, they have at least an equal chance of thinking they did nothing wrong to deserve the fall, and blame their diety.
To clarify, I was speaking of paladins as a group. While individual paladins (i.e. Miko) are certainly misguided enough to continue believing that they are right even after a fall, if a paladin society sends some people to slaughter village #1, and afterwards find that some of the people can't use their class abilities anymore, they aren't going to send people to village #2, as their gods just told them that what they did was not okay. This even applies during battle to some extent, but under The Giant's word, the falls were not visually noticeable, and it's easy to ignore things when you're swinging swords at stuff.

[Conuly]

if a paladin society sends some people to slaughter village #1, and afterwards find that some of the people can't use their class abilities anymore, they aren't going to send people to village #2, as their gods just told them that what they did was not okay.

If only SOME of the paladins fall, your argument doesn't work, though. If some fall, but others don't fall, they wouldn't conclude that it's killing off a village of vermin (as they consider it, no doubt), they'll figure it's some private thing those individual paladins did that caused the problem. A little strange, but then life would be even stranger if there were no coincidences, right? Maybe those three paladins were a little too hasty in whom they killed, or a little too excited by it all, or used foul language that really bugged the gods.

[Sylthia]

Some of the Paladins may have crossed the line, but weren't goblins put into the world by the OotS world gods expressly for adventurerers to kill? It doesn't make it "good" by our standards, but Miko used the "they were evil, so I killed them" mentality for years and was only undone by killing her unarmed Chaotic Good Ruler. This system lead to the Dark One and Redcloak seeking to change the system, but under the current cosmic rules, most of the paladins probably didn't suffer any adverse effects.

[hamishspence]

That's Redcloak's story in SoD, but it is possible that he was spinning it to make the goblins look sympathetic, or that he himself was lied to by The Dark One.

Similarly, Miko's "they were evil, so I killed them" has been argued before as only applying to beings that were attacking her, or others, anyway.

[FlamingScales]

I think that V is actually a lot like a magical version of Belkar. They are both forces which need to be guided. They could both turn their alignment either way (Good/Evil, but mostly Neutral), but it depends on the company they are with. Whenever V is around Roy and the rest of the order, the only problems which could possible lean to a Neutral Evil alignment would be the constant pranks on Belkar (which stopped for quite a while now). However, by fleeing the Order, V was only in the company of Evil alignment characters. It was being guided (as we know by the IFCC) towards the Evil aligned actions that they had pre-empted for V.

Belkar is much the same way. On his own, he probably leans towards Chaotic Evil, but when he's being guided by Roy (or by his recent rewards post-Symbol of Justice) he has shown that he has some Chaotic Good/Neutral in him.

[Burner28]

Belkar is much the same way. On his own, he probably leans towards Chaotic Evil, but when he's being guided by Roy (or by his recent rewards post-Symbol of Justice) he has shown that he has some Chaotic Good/Neutral in him.

Nope, Belkar is very much being Chaotic Pragmatic around the others now, not Good or even Neutral.

[KillItWithFire]

Don't even try to lump Belkar in the same group as V. They are different for a number of reasons. V committed his evil acts out of love for his family. Belkar does it for love of violence. V actively WANTS to be good, to make a change for no other reason than to better himself. Belkar is faking it to gain more sympathy and rewards from others.

[Kish]

V committed his evil acts out of love for his family.

Really, stop treating his/her transparent excuse as though it's universally accepted gospel.

[Sylthia]

V may have been corrupted by his power and continued to abuse it after his family was safe, but his family being threatened was the tipping point for him. Before that, he did not even want to hear anything Qarr wanted to say.

[Conuly]

V may have been corrupted by his power and continued to abuse it after his family was safe, but his family being threatened was the tipping point for him. Before that, he did not even want to hear anything Qarr wanted to say.


V actually had an extensive conversation with Qarr. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0625.html) Seems to me that V's main reason for rejecting Qarr's advice was that it was unlikely to be helpful - and that accepting help would mean that V wasn't powerful enough to succeed alone.

Oh, sure, after the fact V made a few comments about damnation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0626.html) (although I'd argue that avoiding evil acts JUST to avoid being damned isn't very good at all, no more than doing good deeds JUST to rack up brownie points is really the most moral option), but V's *first* comments had to do with being able to handle these tough magical problems *without help*.

In fact, V's comment about damnation is not "do you really think I'm so amoral" but "do you really think I'm that stupid". The choice to be good or bad isn't a moral choice, but an intellectual one.

[veti]

Third in a row, but yeah this is explicitly not true, as per the above link.

You're assuming the fiends are telling Qarr the unvarnished truth.

To say that the spliced souls have no influence on V is stretching credulity. We actually see them whispering, or shouting as the case may be, in her metaphorical ears. Sure, they don't control her actions, but there is very clearly influence there.

The fiends will deny this, because of the added leverage it gives them over V. They want V to believe that the evil came from herself. And they probably want Qarr believing that, too, because it will affect how Qarr treats V in future, and hence how V thinks of herself.

One of the fiends says "A good way to get a decent person to do something horrible is to convince them that they're not responsible for their actions". If they're insightful enough to know that, then they also know that another good way is to convince the person that they somehow "are" Evil. That's a common literary theme, you can see it in (e.g.) the stories of Macbeth, and Faust. Or, if you want a pop-culture reference, Faith in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. Initially she plays by the rules, but once she breaks them, she seems determined to be unremittingly evil from then on. But when Angel convinces her that there is a "redemption" option, she's overjoyed.

[Sylthia]

I'm not agruing that V's motives were pure, and he had the conversation with Qarr mostly because the little bugger wouldn't die. It just seems that the pact became a viable option for V after his family was threatened. Extreme cases called for extreme measures. Not wanting to be damned is not an uncommon reaason for not wanting to put one's lot in with evil and fits with the neutral alignment V had before the pact. He didn't reliquish his power because in a way he had always wanted it, as his mate said, but the he had to be pushed into a situation where he needed to accept the fiends' help. They offered an alternative, but that relied on others and V wanted to be as directly as possible in charge of his own fate.

[Zevox]

You're assuming the fiends are telling Qarr the unvarnished truth.
They have absolutely no reason not to, so yes, he is making that assumption, an it is a safe one.


To say that the spliced souls have no influence on V is stretching credulity. We actually see them whispering, or shouting as the case may be, in her metaphorical ears. Sure, they don't control her actions, but there is very clearly influence there.
As the fiends said, about as much as a cheerleader has on the result of a football game. All they could do was talk.


The fiends will deny this, because of the added leverage it gives them over V. They want V to believe that the evil came from herself. And they probably want Qarr believing that, too, because it will affect how Qarr treats V in future, and hence how V thinks of herself.
That makes no sense whatsoever. They told V that the splices would affect her actions ("alignment feedback," remember? That's what Qarr was talking about in the previously-linked segment), and their comments to Qarr indicate that this was so she could rationalize actions she would otherwise not take as being influenced by the splices. That makes sense. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to tell V her actions would be affected by the splices if they wanted her to believe they wouldn't be. Nor would they have more leverage over V if they had told her that her actions would not be affected.


One of the fiends says "A good way to get a decent person to do something horrible is to convince them that they're not responsible for their actions". If they're insightful enough to know that, then they also know that another good way is to convince the person that they somehow "are" Evil.
Which they have not tried to do. They did the opposite - convince her that she wasn't responsible for her actions, as that quote said.

Zevox

[Kish]

You're assuming the fiends are telling Qarr the unvarnished truth.
Without a desire for Vaarsuvius not to have been as bad as s/he was, there is absolutely no reason to think they would have lied, to Qarr, about that one thing in particular.

[veti]

That makes no sense whatsoever. They told V that the splices would affect her actions ("alignment feedback," remember? That's what Qarr was talking about in the previously-linked segment), and their comments to Qarr indicate that this was so she could rationalize actions she would otherwise not take as being influenced by the splices. That makes sense. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to tell V her actions would be affected by the splices if they wanted her to believe they wouldn't be. Nor would they have more leverage over V if they had told her that her actions would not be affected.

That was then. They told her at the time that her actions would be influenced, to make her more suggestible. But after the splice is over, the situation changes. "Suggestible" is no longer relevant: now, their only hope of securing V a permanent place in the nether planes rests on turning her willingly evil. Which, they think, is best done by letting her conscience torment her until she can no longer face it, and renounces it completely. That's quite a common development for tragic characters.

Note that it costs them no (further) investment at all. They don't even need to communicate with V - they know she's smart enough to know for herself what she did, and she's certainly introspective enough to beat herself up over it. (That was what led to the PTSD and lack of trancing that made her so vulnerable in the first place.) But if (when) they do communicate again, they don't want anything clouding her self-image as a genocidal monster. And that is why they do have a motive to lie to Qarr.

Finally: c'mon, they're Evil. Pretty much the ultimate Evil, in fact. Exactly how much motivation do you think they need to tell a lie to a 3-hit-dice underling?

[Kish]

Exactly how much motivation do you think they need to tell a lie to a 3-hit-dice underling?
A little more than, "It will invalidate the statement we're making about Vaarsuvius' moral culpability, and we don't want the statement to be valid."

[Pyron]

That was then. They told her at the time that her actions would be influenced, to make her more suggestible. But after the splice is over, the situation changes. "Suggestible" is no longer relevant: now, their only hope of securing V a permanent place in the nether planes rests on turning her willingly evil. Which, they think, is best done by letting her conscience torment her until she can no longer face it, and renounces it completely. That's quite a common development for tragic characters.

If the soul splice really did sway V's evil actions, then the IFCC wouldn't need to tell her anything about the 'alignment feedback'. Wouldn't it be better to let the splices would be calling the shots, force V to do evil and let her guilty conscience eat her from the inside afterward? The mere fact that the IFCC wanted V to be 'suggestible' implies that it's Vaarsuvius, not the splices, who decided to commit the evil acts.

Plus, I thought the IFCC just wanted unrestricted access to her V's souls for just enough time to control the gate. Do we have evidence that they care if she's becomes 'willingly evil'?

[hamishspence]

Plus, I thought the IFCC just wanted unrestricted access to her V's souls for just enough time to control the gate. Do we have evidence that they care if she's becomes 'willingly evil'?

According to them, they don't:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html

"it is little more than the free soup-or-salad to our main course of wickedness".

[Zevox]

That was then. They told her at the time that her actions would be influenced, to make her more suggestible. But after the splice is over, the situation changes. "Suggestible" is no longer relevant: now, their only hope of securing V a permanent place in the nether planes rests on turning her willingly evil. Which, they think, is best done by letting her conscience torment her until she can no longer face it, and renounces it completely. That's quite a common development for tragic characters.
As Pyron pointed out, this makes no sense. If the splices really had that influence, there was no point to telling her - it would be better not to, or to imply that they didn't have such influence, so that she would be shocked by what the splices made her do and blame herself all the more. In fact, telling her about such influence if it were real would be counter-productive, because then she won't blame herself as much as she otherwise would, precisely because she believes the splices were at least in part at fault - plus it would make her aware of the influence, increasing any chance she may have at resisting it.

Yeah, your argument makes no sense.


They don't even need to communicate with V - they know she's smart enough to know for herself what she did, and she's certainly introspective enough to beat herself up over it.
Except that if they don't communicate with V, she will continue believing that the splices had an affect on her. Which, according to you, they do not want her to believe. Again, makes no sense.


And that is why they do have a motive to lie to Qarr.
Except that it doesn't explain why they would have such a motivation at all.


Finally: c'mon, they're Evil. Pretty much the ultimate Evil, in fact. Exactly how much motivation do you think they need to tell a lie to a 3-hit-dice underling?
Much more than you've supplied, to be sure. Lying for no reason at all isn't evil, it's stupid. It would would be pointless at best, counter-productive at worst.

Plus there's the fact that making V not guilty of her actions during the soul splice would run counter to the whole point of the sequence for her character development, as well as the point the Giant was getting across with the Familicide, showing the horrifying extremes that the "all monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill" mindset of adventurers can lead to.

Zevox