The Bouncing Ball

[Lord_Gareth]

I am given to understand that folks here consider Xykon's bouncing ball trick to have been an evil act in and of itself.

Why?

Symbol of Insanity is not an [Evil] spell. If the Bouncing Ball had been turned on demons, goblins, drow, giants, or even LG fighters with bonus feats and all, it would have been equally effective. Yes, it was an underhanded (read: probably non-Lawful) tactic used by a villain, but how does that make it evil?

[Nimrod's Son]

I think the fact that he used it to slaughter a roomful of paladins might have something to do with it. Not to mention that he made them all kill friends and colleagues.

[Lord_Gareth]

I think the fact that he used it to slaughter a roomful of paladins might have something to do with it. Not to mention that he made them all kill friends and colleagues.

So dominating a drow wizard into killing his allies is now evil? The paladins were foes to his interests. Now, killing good-aligned beings is, in fact, evil, but the ball was merely his weapon; saying that the tactic itself was evil is like saying that the blade used to kill Lord Shojo is evil, or that the Meteor Swarm that took Roy out was evil.

[Nimrod's Son]

He made an entire roomful of virtuous people, people who care about each other, brutally murder each other for his own personal gain. It's so glaringly one of the more evil acts perpetrated in the comic that I really can't be bothered to debate the semantics of it. The very fact that the paladins are "foes to his interests" is itself part of what makes it evil in the first place, but the fact that he had them kill each other rather than doing it himself (which he likely could have done) is the icing on the cake.

[Lord_Gareth]

He made an entire roomful of virtuous people, people who care about each other, brutally murder each other for his own personal gain. It's so glaringly one of the more evil acts perpetrated in the comic that I really can't be bothered to debate the semantics of it. The very fact that the paladins are "foes to his interests" is itself part of what makes it evil in the first place, but the fact that he had them kill each other rather than doing it himself (which he likely could have done) is the icing on the cake.

My problem is not that the act itself is considered evil (also: it's possible to have paladins against you without being evil, but that's a whole 'nother thread) but that the weapon itself is considered to be evil. Would it have been evil if V used the same trick on a room full of drow? I'm willing to bet that the Playground would say no.

An attack like Familicide is evil because it's utterly excessive and harmful to innocents by its very nature. The Bouncing Ball, on the other hand, can be used in a fashion which harms no innocents whatsoever.

Basically, the fact that he killed a room full of paladins is evil, but the weapon he used is not; it would not have been more or less evil if he'd simply used a chained Finger of Death on them (though it would have been more honorable (read: lawful)).

[Lvl45DM!]

Its evil because it caused undue suffering.
what really cemented it for its evil pedigree was the girl committing seppuku after it. He caused such horror to these people that they took their own life. Its not evil to do it to drow cos a drow wouldnt care. Few evil beings would care. So yeah. Evil as can be

[Nimrod's Son]

Would it have been evil if V used the same trick on a room full of drow?
Yeah, maybe. It would depend entirely on his reasons for doing so. Making them kill each other if it was within his ability to do the job himself would make it rather questionable, too - particularly if his victims' humiliation is part of the aim, as it is here.


I'm willing to bet that the Playground would say no.
The Playground says a lot things.


An attack like Familicide is evil because it's utterly excessive and harmful to innocents by its very nature. The Bouncing Ball, on the other hand, can be used in a fashion which harms no innocents whatsoever.
By that logic, what Tarquin did in the latest strip isn't evil because fire can have many practical applications. :smallwink:

[Lord_Gareth]

By that logic, what Tarquin did in the latest strip isn't evil because fire can have many practical applications. :smallwink:

I think you're somewhat missing my reasoning, friend; what Tarquin did was the mass-murder of innocent beings, but the act of lighting something on fire is not necessarily evil in and of itself. As a combat tactic in a world where HP functions as a reality rather than an abstraction? Lighting something on fire is a great idea. As a method of execution? It's painful and prolonged torture, and is thusly evil.

Does that make somewhat more sense? As, say, a form of entertainment the Bouncing Ball is really, truly, deeply evil. But as a combat tactic, it's no more evil than a confusion spell or dominate monster would be.

[Gralamin]

Its evil because it caused undue suffering.
No more then a dominate could of. If I dominate someone who isn't evil or good, say Durkon and got him to kill his allies, it wouldn't be that different from this and it would not be evil.

what really cemented it for its evil pedigree was the girl committing seppuku after it.
That was an action that she choose to take after seeing the results. Plus, the culture the Sapphire guard is based off of had such a tradition in place - it isn't bad to take your own life in such a society, merely lawful. And pretty foolish if you had no control over yourself.


He caused such horror to these people that they took their own life. Its not evil to do it to drow cos a drow wouldnt care. Few evil beings would care. So yeah. Evil as can be

Caring has nothing to do with evil.

[Lvl45DM!]

Oh and if familicide was used in such a way that it only killed evil people? Like you use it on a demon and it kills a bunch of cambions who are all evil wouldnt that be a purely good use of the spell?

[GodotIsW8ing4U]

I'd say the act was Chaotic HILARIOUS.

[Giggling Ghast]

It feels … wrong. I can't give a better reason than my own gut feeling. It doesn't feel like a tactic the good guys should ever employ, not if they want to be called "the good guys."

Still, the main fault is with Xykon. Sure, he could have achieved the same result with Fireballs, but the fact that he chose to eliminate the paladins by magically compelling them to slaughter each other …*that's just vile.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh and if familicide was used in such a way that it only killed evil people? Like you use it on a demon and it kills a bunch of cambions who are all evil wouldnt that be a purely good use of the spell?

One of the tenants of being a good person (and, more specifically, Good in D&D) is that you need proof before you act to harm another being's rights or violate their person. Familicide does not gather such proof; it merely kills. You have no guarantee that every single descendant of this demon or that devil prince is evil, nor any such promise that everyone related to aforementioned being is evil. Even if they are evil, there's no telling that they've done something sufficiently heinous as to deserve death. What if they're just an inveterate thief? What if they're considered evil because they keep casting animate dead to get up a work force for their soup kitchen? What if they're some tiefling that isn't even evil in the first place?

Familicide doesn't make exceptions and it doesn't spare lives. It is an irresponsibly destructive tactic that does not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, and is an evil tactic to use because of this fact. There is only one situation where I could possibly justify casting that spell, ever, and it's so construed as to be laughable.

[Lvl45DM!]

Caring has nothing to do with evil.

You can't be serious.
First of all Roy disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html). Concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which, judging by the quotation marks, is RAW. So since Xykon did that tactic and chose the tactic because it was worth going the extra mile. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)
He didnt do it cos it was efficient he did it cos it was funny. He is evil and that is an evil action

[Sylthia]

No more then a dominate could of. If I dominate someone who isn't evil or good, say Durkon and got him to kill his allies, it wouldn't be that different from this and it would not be evil.


Wait, Durkon's not Good? Sure, he seems to lean more to the Lawful side at times, but he seems to be LG for the most part.

[Gralamin]

Oh and if familicide was used in such a way that it only killed evil people? Like you use it on a demon and it kills a bunch of cambions who are all evil wouldnt that be a purely good use of the spell?

Hard to say, since we do not know the spell descriptors on it, so it may in fact be [Evil], in which case in D&D base universes it is evil by default, and no argument can change that - keep in mind that knowing when your allies are close to death is evil in D&D.

On the other hand, we can assume it did not have the descriptor. In this case, it could have a good use, but with a spell that deals purely in overkill, I'd be hard pressed to find one. Demons, for example, can have decedents which are good people (Not including the <5% of Demons who are not Chaotic evil), such as Half-fiendish creatures, or Planetouched. In this case, killing them could not possibly be justified, and so this could not be considered a good use.

If we claim that none of those exist, and that you were purely eliminating evil things only, you then have to ensure you are not killing anything that isn't just a greedy merchant, or some equivalent who isn't causing real harm to world. Pushing this argument to the extreme, we could say that if it only killed baby-eating demons of doom, it would yes, be a good use. But this is a very constrained case at this point.

[Lvl45DM!]

One of the tenants of being a good person (and, more specifically, Good in D&D) is that you need proof before you act to harm another being's rights or violate their person. Familicide does not gather such proof; it merely kills. You have no guarantee that every single descendant of this demon or that devil prince is evil, nor any such promise that everyone related to aforementioned being is evil. Even if they are evil, there's no telling that they've done something sufficiently heinous as to deserve death. What if they're just an inveterate thief? What if they're considered evil because they keep casting animate dead to get up a work force for their soup kitchen? What if they're some tiefling that isn't even evil in the first place?

Familicide doesn't make exceptions and it doesn't spare lives. It is an irresponsibly destructive tactic that does not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, and is an evil tactic to use because of this fact. There is only one situation where I could possibly justify casting that spell, ever, and it's so construed as to be laughable.

Oh i agree that its evil. Just pointing out that it has potential for good just the same as the bouncing ball of evil. So does animate dead as you pointed out. I'm sayin that just cos something CAN do good, doesn't mean its not a horribly evil act when it doesn't do good

[Lvl45DM!]

Hard to say, since we do not know the spell descriptors on it, so it may in fact be [Evil], in which case in D&D base universes it is evil by default, and no argument can change that - keep in mind that knowing when your allies are close to death is evil in D&D.

On the other hand, we can assume it did not have the descriptor. In this case, it could have a good use, but with a spell that deals purely in overkill, I'd be hard pressed to find one. Demons, for example, can have decedents which are good people (Not including the <5% of Demons who are not Chaotic evil), such as Half-fiendish creatures, or Planetouched. In this case, killing them could not possibly be justified, and so this could not be considered a good use.

If we claim that none of those exist, and that you were purely eliminating evil things only, you then have to ensure you are not killing anything that isn't just a greedy merchant, or some equivalent who isn't causing real harm to world. Pushing this argument to the extreme, we could say that if it only killed baby-eating demons of doom, it would yes, be a good use. But this is a very constrained case at this point.

Right, so theres a tiny window of good. Otherwise its evil. Likewise the bouncing ball of insanity could be good. But it was evil in this case

[Gralamin]

Wait, Durkon's not Good? Sure, he seems to lean more to the Lawful side at times, but he seems to be LG for the most part.

He is usually pegged as Lawful Neutral From what I've seen, and he is not identified as "Good" like Roy or a few other characters are in the Order of the Stick Board game. There is nothing for sure though.


You can't be serious.
First of all Roy disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html). Concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which, judging by the quotation marks, is RAW. So since Xykon did that tactic and chose the tactic because it was worth going the extra mile. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)
He didnt do it cos it was efficient he did it cos it was funny. He is evil and that is an evil action
Not good is not the same as evil. D&D Operates on trinary logic - not caring makes you, in fact, neutral, unless taken to extreme lengths.

Edit: also, it's not about WHY Xykon did it, since that was evil. It is about the TACTIC itself.

[Sylthia]

So it seems it's the humor that Xykon derived from it that made it an evil act and not the tactic itself, since getting pleasure in causing others harm is an evil act.

[Lvl45DM!]

Right but Xykon does the opposite of care about dignity. He goes out of his way to use a tactic that might not even work, according to Redcloak, that maximises the...opposite of dignity. Shame or something. So he, and the tactic he used to acheive this shaming, is evil

[GodotIsW8ing4U]

You can't be serious.
First of all Roy disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html). Concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which, judging by the quotation marks, is RAW. So since Xykon did that tactic and chose the tactic because it was worth going the extra mile. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)
He didnt do it cos it was efficient he did it cos it was funny. He is evil and that is an evil action

Then the lich himself is evil. Does that make the action evil? Hitler's soldiers used guns and tanks in WW2 and killed enemy soldiers with them (among many other people, but let's focus on the soldiers for a second). Does that make guns and tanks evil?

The bouncing ball trick MIGHT be evil, but saying that it's evil because it was used by an evil character is flawed logic.

I will agree with you, though, that it was absolutely hilarious. Xykon's an evil bastard who deserves to be utterly destroyed, but he's got a GREAT sense of humor.

[Gralamin]

Right but Xykon does the opposite of care about dignity. He goes out of his way to use a tactic that might not even work, according to Redcloak, that maximises the...opposite of dignity. Shame or something. So he, and the tactic he used to acheive this shaming, is evil

Intentions do not matter that much in D&D Morality, unfortunately. Among the many objectively evil things in D&D are: Knowing when your allies are close to death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm), or Using long dead animals skeletons as work animals in a famine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatedead.htm).

[Lvl45DM!]

Then the lich himself is evil. Does that make the action evil? Hitler's soldiers used guns and tanks in WW2 and killed enemy soldiers with them (among many other people, but let's focus on the soldiers for a second). Does that make guns and tanks evil?
Ah but when people talk about how evil hitler was do they say "He tried to conquer Europe." or do they say " He salughtered millions of helpless jews in gas chambers."
Gotta say the seconds, so I'm up for calling gas chambers evil. Not to say they can't be used for good, but they are still evil.

[Lvl45DM!]

Intentions do not matter that much in D&D Morality, unfortunately. Among the many objectively evil things in D&D are: Knowing when your allies are close to death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm), or Using long dead animals skeletons as work animals in a famine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatedead.htm).

On the other hand BoED clearly states that there is a big difference between actively causing a mudslide to kill a town, accidentally causing a mudslide without knowing it is a risk and accidentally causing a mudslide whilst being aware that its a risk but climbing a mountain anyway. So intentions are the be all and end all, but they are a factor

[Gralamin]

On the other hand BoED clearly states that there is a big difference between actively causing a mudslide to kill a town, accidentally causing a mudslide without knowing it is a risk and accidentally causing a mudslide whilst being aware that its a risk but climbing a mountain anyway. So intentions are the be all and end all, but they are a factor

Book of Exalted Deeds is a bad source. According to it poison is always evil. So it doesn't matter if you intend to crumble the evil empire with minimum bloodshed, it's evil to use poison. D&D Morality is very contradictory, with the rule basically being:

Intentions matter, If and only if something isn't [Evil] or we say otherwise.

[GodotIsW8ing4U]

Ah but when people talk about how evil hitler was do they say "He tried to conquer Europe." or do they say " He salughtered millions of helpless jews in gas chambers."
Gotta say the seconds, so I'm up for calling gas chambers evil. Not to say they can't be used for good, but they are still evil.

Yes, but there's a reason why I specifically focused on his efforts to conquer Europe here. Those paladins that Xykon drove mad? They weren't helpless prisoners working in a camp. They were armed soldiers. Using the bouncing ball to force helpless prisoners to tear each other apart with their bare hands? Most likely evil. Using the bouncing ball against armed enemies who are trying to kill you? That's a different matter, and that's the point I was making by focusing on the war effort. Xykon's evil, of course, unashamedly so. Xykon was pursuing evil ends, definitely. He certainly had evil intentions with his act. But does that make the act itself evil in the given context? Not on its own.

I'm not saying the bouncing ball trick is or isn't evil. My point is that saying it's evil because it's being used by someone for evil ends is flawed logic. Basically, my point isn't that your conclusion is wrong, because I honestly don't know if it is. My point is that you are REACHING that conclusion wrong. My point is that there is a problem with the logic you are using.

[Nimrod's Son]

I think you're somewhat missing my reasoning, friend
No I'm not, hence the smiley. I don't really see what difference it makes though; Xykon did a very nasty thing and he happened to use a rubber ball to do it. I don't think I've ever read anyone suggest that what Xykon did was evil because he used a rubber ball - that would be a rather silly argument.

[hamishspence]

On the other hand BoED clearly states that there is a big difference between actively causing a mudslide to kill a town, accidentally causing a mudslide without knowing it is a risk and accidentally causing a mudslide whilst being aware that its a risk but climbing a mountain anyway. So intentions are the be all and end all, but they are a factor

Actually, that's BoVD.

And BoED is a very good source, with a few bad points. The reason poison was considered evil in it, was that it inflicts "unnecessary and excessive suffering" (and only poison that does Hit Point damage, or Ability damage/drain, counts for this).

The weirdness, is that not all ability damage, is considered to cause excessive suffering (such as a strength-draining spell, or a ravage (poison-like substance).

Aside from that though, it tends to be the main go-to source for those who wish to argue, that slaughtering "innocent" baby monsters, alongside "not-innocent" monster bandits- is evil.

Or, that torture is evil.

[Nimrod's Son]

He is usually pegged as Lawful Neutral From what I've seen.
I don't believe I've ever seen Durkon described as Lawful Neutral before; it appears pretty much unanimous that he's Lawful Good. The Geekery (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131219) thread certainly thinks so, at any rate.


Intentions do not matter that much in D&D Morality, unfortunately.
I'm not going to speak for D&D but according to OotS morality, intentions matter very much. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

If Xykon hadn't been interrupted he'd have set right about zomibfying the dead. Starting with the women, just because he wanted to upset O-Chul as much as he possibly could.

From the beginning of his attack to the point of Soon's intervention, Xykon went all-out for humiliation with actual effectiveness a distant consideration. It was a horrible thing to do, and the fact that he used tactics that could conceivably be used for good in a hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

[Lvl45DM!]

I never said the bouncy ball thing was evil cos Xykon is evil. I said "He didnt do it cos it was efficient he did it cos it was funny." and thats why its an evil action. The reason i said "He is evil" was to reinforce my point that caring matters in D and D morality to at least some degree.

Oh and saying that BoED (I did mean BoVD!) isnt a good source cos it says that sometimes intentions dont matter (Poison and evil spells) and sometimes intentions do (my mudslide example) doesn't make sense. Yes its slightly contradictory but it doesn't affect the conversation. I proved that at least occasionally intentions matter using the RAW, if not core. And I'm saying that Xykon's despicable intentions in the scene, the intent to humiliate the Guild as much as kill them, shows a active disregard for the dignity of sentient beings and as such the method is evil.

Saying that in a different context it wouldn't be evil is a valid point. Perhaps it wouldn't be. But if it was the same action with the same intentions, no matter who is was against is, in my book and by RAW, Evil

[Procyonpi]

Because torture is evil. As is killing for amusement

But really, I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. I've never seen anyone be particularly adamant about the idea that this was the thing that makes Xykon Evil. Actually, I've never even seen it sighted as an example of his evil behavior before now.

[Azuyomi244]

As, say, a form of entertainment the Bouncing Ball is really, truly, deeply evil. But as a combat tactic, it's no more evil than a confusion spell or dominate monster would be.

But it was entertainment. It was combat too, but Xykon could have killed them a thousand other ways, like lighting or chain finger of death or whatever. He just wanted them to suffer that extra little bit.

[Silverlocke980]

Dude, he killed a roomful of people by having them all murder each other. People who cared about each other. If he'd done it to goblins it'd be Evil. Doing it to bloody mindless beasts would be squicky, if not evil.

Really, it's so obviously Evil that there's no way you are being serious in this thread. You trolling?

[Uncertainty]

See trope: For the Evulz (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz).

I don't think that anybody is arguing that it is the Symbol of Insanity that made this act by Xykon evil. The argument is that he chose this method of killing the Paladins (A method that involves getting a set of close friends and virtuous people to slaughter each other) over any other he could have used simply because he thought it would be funny.

He knew that it would, inflict a great amount of undue shame, humiliation, and horror upon those that survived: which is precisely why he did it. This is not merely a case of practicality or self-defense - he had plenty of other options... He just did not think that they were as funny as this one.

[Dr.Epic]

It drives people insane. Can you name an instance where destroying someone's rationality is good?

[Dvandemon]

I am given to understand that folks here consider Xykon's bouncing ball trick to have been an evil act in and of itself.

Why?

Symbol of Insanity is not an [Evil] spell. If the Bouncing Ball had been turned on demons, goblins, drow, giants, or even LG fighters with bonus feats and all, it would have been equally effective. Yes, it was an underhanded (read: probably non-Lawful) tactic used by a villain, but how does that make it evil?

What exactly are you asking? Because the way he did it was sadistic and the perfect definition of evil; It doesn't matter if the spell is evil, the act is evil. Science isn't evil, yet people can and have used it to kill efficiently on a grand scale. I reiterate, what exactly are you debating?

[Larspcus2]

What exactly are you asking? Because the way he did it was sadistic and the perfect definition of evil; It doesn't matter if the spell is evil, the act is evil. Science isn't evil, yet people can and have used it to kill efficiently on a grand scale. I reiterate, what exactly are you debating?

I believe his point is--correct me if I'm wrong--that the act is not inherently evil; i.e. a Good character could decide that this is the best tactic for eliminating the Evil necromancers guarding the artifact of plot and still retain all of their MoralityPoints.

[SaintRidley]

I believe his point is--correct me if I'm wrong--that the act is not inherently evil; i.e. a Good character could decide that this is the best tactic for eliminating the Evil necromancers guarding the artifact of plot and still retain all of their MoralityPoints.

It doesn't become evil until someone produces the effect because they find it personally amusing despite having more probable to work and simpler ways of achieving the same end.

Intent sort of enters into it. Just a smidgen.


Not saying that you need this explained to you, but I think it's what the OP needs explained about it.

[Lord_Gareth]

I started the thread because of numerous friends and relatives claiming that using the tactic ever is evil and a quick scan-through of the Playground revealed a strong trend towards agreeing with the idea.

[calar]

Technically, while use of insanity is not evil, it certainly nears the border. In general, mind control is a morally gray area, which Xykon made decidedly evil when he unleashed it on the room of paladins who were all comrades in arms, thus making them brutally murder each other. In fact there are very few way in which one could use insanity without it being considered evil, since forcing a person to go on a killing spree is very hard to justify, evil or no. Still, there are uses to which it could be put which do not have evil ends, thus keeping it from being a true evil spell.

[Felixc-91]

I am given to understand that folks here consider Xykon's bouncing ball trick to have been an evil act in and of itself.

Why?

Symbol of Insanity is not an [Evil] spell. If the Bouncing Ball had been turned on demons, goblins, drow, giants, or even LG fighters with bonus feats and all, it would have been equally effective. Yes, it was an underhanded (read: probably non-Lawful) tactic used by a villain, but how does that make it evil? its evil because it forces people to kill, indiscriminately... no thought for who they kill or why.

[Killer Angel]

Basically, the fact that he killed a room full of paladins is evil, but the weapon he used is not.

Agreed. The act is evil, the spell isn't.
Is like a 1° lev blackguard using a normal weapon.
The blackguard is evil, does evil things, but the weapon isn't.

[megabyter5]

Honestly, I'm still not certain this isn't a troll topic, but I'll bite.

Those Paladins were like family.
Xykon. Made them. Kill. Each other.
I don't freaking care if it kills evil creatures or good creatures, IT'S A GODS-DAMNED EVIL ACT.

[Killer Angel]

I don't freaking care if it kills evil creatures or good creatures, IT'S A GODS-DAMNED EVIL ACT.

By this reasoning (which I approve, in a lot of ways), please explain why Symbol of Insanity isn't listed as an [evil] spell.

Even if the spell itself does horrible things, by RAW it's not evil; it appears that is evil only if...
There is a contradiction.

There aren't so many different uses of a Symbol of Insanity: you always made peoples go mad.

[SaintRidley]

By this reasoning (which I approve, in a lot of ways), please explain why Symbol of Insanity isn't listed as an [evil] spell.

Even if the spell itself does horrible things, by RAW it's not evil; it appears that is evil only if...
There is a contradiction.

There aren't so many different uses of a Symbol of Insanity: you always made peoples go mad.

I think he's hinging it a little on the "they're like family" part of it. You know, that complete non-factor.

[Lvl45DM!]

THe thing about the [Evil] Descriptor is not that a spell with that descriptor is immoral, or bad. Its that it is pure Evil. Remember that Evil in D+D isn't an abstract philosophical concept. Its a very real power source. Spells that are [Evil] actually draw on this power, negative energy. So while the symbol of insanity might not be purest evil in a metaphysical sense it can be immoral to our sensibilities.
So in this context the spell was evil. Not [Evil] as in drawing on dark powers like the spell descriptor means. Just really really sick and cruel.

[Killer Angel]

I think he's hinging it a little on the "they're like family" part of it. You know, that complete non-factor.

But this falls in the loop "it's evil if done to good friends guys, it's good if done to selfish bad guys".


THe thing about the [Evil] Descriptor is not that a spell with that descriptor is immoral, or bad. Its that it is pure Evil. Remember that Evil in D+D isn't an abstract philosophical concept. Its a very real power source. Spells that are [Evil] actually draw on this power, negative energy. So while the symbol of insanity might not be purest evil in a metaphysical sense it can be immoral to our sensibilities.


I can buy that. :smallwink:
But in the end, it's what I've said before: the spell itself isn't evil, the use of it certainly is.

[SaintRidley]

But this falls in the loop "it's evil if done to good friends guys, it's good if done to selfish bad guys".



Nah. If the bad guys all truly care for each other it's still evil.

[Lvl45DM!]

Symbol of Insanity: Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast at a room of paladins: Evil use of a Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast on a bouncy ball: Some new sicko whacked out kinda evil use of a Neutral spell
EDIT! I forgot funny. Cos man! it was the funniest bit of villany since the magic trick!

[Killer Angel]

Nah. If the bad guys all truly care for each other it's still evil.

Hence my previous use of the adjective "selfish" for the bad guys. :smallwink:


Symbol of Insanity: Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast at a room of paladins: Evil use of a Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast on a bouncy ball: Some new sicko whacked out kinda evil use of a Neutral spell

I think we have an agreement, here. :smallsmile:

[SaintRidley]

I do think it's the caring about each other part which was the important part in the first place anyway.

But yeah, self-centred bad guys who want to kill you? Bouncy ball away. Just don't enjoy it.

[Felixc-91]

Symbol of Insanity: Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast at a room of paladins: Evil use of a Neutral spell
Symbol of Insanity cast on a bouncy ball: Some new sicko whacked out kinda evil use of a Neutral spell
EDIT! I forgot funny. Cos man! it was the funniest bit of villany since the magic trick! technically, yes, but the fact that it forces 3 out of 10 of the people it effects to go on killing sprees, means it really should be evil. come on, killing without remorse or care for who you kill, if that was volentary it would be evil, since its forced (and will happen if you use it on enough people) then i would consider that evil (by D&D standards).

[Lvl45DM!]

technically, yes, but the fact that it forces 3 out of 10 of the people it effects to go on killing sprees, means it really should be evil. come on, killing without remorse or care for who you kill, if that was volentary it would be evil, since its forced (and will happen if you use it on enough people) then i would consider that evil (by D&D standards).

Frequent unnessecary use of the spell would be definitly chaotic and probably evil. But not intrinsically evil. If i use it on a group of drow that are planning to assassinate the elf king its a good action. It doesnt call upon the powers of darkness themselves like some spells so it isn't [Evil]. Its like swinging a sword. Some circumstances its good, some neutral some evil. Thats why it is definitly a spell without alignment.
Plus insanity is purest CN so not evil anyway

[Saph]

I started the thread because of numerous friends and relatives claiming that using the tactic ever is evil and a quick scan-through of the Playground revealed a strong trend towards agreeing with the idea.

You're missing the point.

The act isn't "killing people with a Symbol of Insanity."

The act is "killing people with a Symbol of Insanity because it's the cruellest and most sadistic way of killing them that you can think of."

The 'because' is part of the act. Xykon could have wiped the paladins out in quite a lot of other and much more efficient ways - he used that one because, as Rich pointed out in the Start of Darkness, he's a ****.

[Burner28]

Plus insanity is purest CN so not evil anyway

Insanity isn't necessarily chaotic.

[Swordpriest]

Well, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. The act of killing the paladins, however it was accomplished, was evil.

The weapon used to achieve it, however, was not -- it's neutral, like most other weapons (except the sapient, malign ones, of course).

[Lvl45DM!]

Insanity is totally chaotic! Find one god of madness that isnt Chaotic

[hamishspence]

On gods of madness- Wasn't Tharizdun Neutral Evil in D&D for quite a while?

[AstralFire]

This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but insane people IRL don't run around screaming things in a surreal fashion and when mixed with obsessive-compulsive disorders, might actually be very orderly.

[hamishspence]

Yup. "realistic" insanity is very different from the effects of the "Insanity" spell.

The Dread Emperor in BoVD, is specified as insane but "very different from cackling, madcap insanity".

[Lvl45DM!]

Tharizdun, as is my understanding from the Gord novels, is the god of Evil. Thus NE
OCD is not quite an insanity though its a neurosis

EDIT: Coming from the philosophy major so i really have no idea

[Boogastreehouse]

Bouncy ball away. Just don't enjoy it.

This right here sums up what really makes it an evil act. It's true that forcing a group of virtuous people that love one another like family to kill one another is an evil use of a neutral spell, but doing it just because you think it's hilarious? That's extra bonus evil.

[Dalek-K]

Saying that the bouncy ball is evil is like saying a sword is evil (not counting evil enhancements to the sword). Both are used to kill. SO since Tarquin used a sword, shield, BFA, and a dagger does that mean all other characters who use them are evil? No. Bouncy ball is not evil, its what you do with it that is.


Throw symbol of insanity bouncy ball in a orphanage? Evil

Throw the same ball into a room full of evil goblins guarding a room full of slaves? Not evil.

[Thufir]

Jumping back to page 1 for a second...


Caring has nothing to do with evil.


You can't be serious.
First of all Roy disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html). Concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which, judging by the quotation marks, is RAW.

He most definitely can be serious. It is entirely possible for evil characters to still care about other people, at least on an individual level. See for example: Tarquin. He certainly seems to care about Elan. Redcloak cared about his family. Also, I draw your attention to this article by Rich Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html).


Throw the same ball into a room full of evil goblins guarding a room full of slaves? Not evil.

Leaving aside for a moment the unnecessary cruelty of driving them insane and possibly causing them to kill people for whom they may care to some degree, that's not a very good idea, since what's to stop them killing the slaves as well as each other?

[Lvl45DM!]

He most definitely can be serious. It is entirely possible for evil characters to still care about other people, at least on an individual level. See for example: Tarquin. He certainly seems to care about Elan. Redcloak cared about his family. Also, I draw your attention to this article by Rich Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html).

Right so evil people can care. But NOT caring is definitly evil. Also, only caring about a select group of people isn't Good.

[Dalek-K]

Unnecessary? Totally not, if I shoot someone with an arrow, they will be in lots of pain before they die. And remember in OoTS and D&D people will get hit by more than one arrow (sticks in) and they will move... What a horrible thing to do! They are moving around and getting attacked while they have an arrow stuck in them! Think having a splinter on your palm/finger and grabbing something with the hand...times about 999^123

You use what you got.

[veti]

If there's one message that OOTS has gone out of its way to bludgeon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html) home (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html) again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html) and again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) and again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html), it's this: the morality of an action is not dependent on the alignment of the victim.

Read the alignment rules. Good characters are supposed to respect life and dignity, regardless of its alignment. What this implies, although a lot of people don't seem to have grasped it, is that if it's evil to do something to a paladin, then it's just as evil to do that exact same thing to an assassin. An alignment is not a "fair game" tag.

(On the other hand, your reasons for doing it are all-important. You can mount a defence, of sorts, for Haley's murder of Crystal as a form of self-defence. That would be a lot more difficult to do if Crystal were a paladin, but not unthinkable - if she had sworn to hunt Haley down and kill her at any cost, for instance.)

That's why Familicide would still be unequivocally evil, even if you could know beyond a shadow of doubt that every single victim was evil. It's why wiping out goblin villages is evil, it's why Miko would have Fallen for killing Belkar when she had him at her mercy, it's why selling Samantha and her father into slavery would have been evil, it's why callously slaughtering your own evil underlings is evil. It's why even Belkar, evil little git that he is, still needs to be charged with a specific crime before he can be lawfully tried and punished. (And if Roy or Hinjo committed that same crime, they should get the same punishment.)

[Felixc-91]

Right so evil people can care. But NOT caring is definitely evil. Also, only caring about a select group of people isn't Good. this is a fair way to describe the alignments, i mean it leaves out some stuff, but as far as it goes...
edit: so is the post above mine

[Mr. Snuggles]

Familicide doesn't make exceptions and it doesn't spare lives. It is an irresponsibly destructive tactic that does not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, and is an evil tactic to use because of this fact.
Except for the inconvenient truth that dragons are color-coded for your convenience. Quote: "Black dragons are far and away the most vile tempered and cruel of all chromatic dragons." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Black_dragon)
Much like Xykon in page 1 of Start of Darkness, they are evil to the core, from birth. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[Lvl45DM!]

Dude. The spell killed eggs. Those things hadn't been born yet.
Evil
EDIT: And as has been stated time and time again in this thread, the bouncing ball of insanity was not evil cos it was used on LG people. It was cos he did it for the giggles

[Killer Angel]

Except for the inconvenient truth that dragons are color-coded for your convenience.

:smallsigh:
That only indicates the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. It's not a 100% guarantee.

[hamishspence]

And even in 4E, which plays up "Black Dragons kill their prey primarily for sadism, not for food, making sure it dies slowly and painfully", there's still exceptions.

In Draconomicon I, it mentions a repentant black dragon that became a servant of Moradin and spent the remainder of its life atoning for the destruction of a dwarven city.

[Dalek-K]

:smallsigh:
That only indicates the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. It's not a 100% guarantee.

Psh the only most-likely my party comes across is "We will most likely get XP for this... Lets kill it!!!!! :smalltongue:

[Killer Angel]

Psh the only most-likely my party comes across is "We will most likely get XP for this... Lets kill it!!!!! :smalltongue:

That approach works regardless of the colour... :smallwink:

[Thanatosia]

Except for the inconvenient truth that dragons are color-coded for your convenience. Quote: "Black dragons are far and away the most vile tempered and cruel of all chromatic dragons." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Black_dragon)
Much like Xykon in page 1 of Start of Darkness, they are evil to the core, from birth. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
Go look at the Familicide page. Look at some of the creatures killed. A common theme in D&D is that Dragons like to mate with just about anything and somehow produce viable offspring with just about anything, and so half-dragons are freakn' everywhere in every imaginable variety, and although half-dragons tend to lean towards their draconic parents alightment, it's not 100%. So right there any hope of saying that every victem of the spell was automatically evil is shot to hell, no matter how set in stone you feel that Black Dragon alignment is.

[hamishspence]

And even within the class of Evil, there can be variation.

Some black dragons might be Complete Monsters, but others might only subscribe to Pragmatic Villainy.

[The Pilgrim]

I am given to understand that folks here consider Xykon's bouncing ball trick to have been an evil act in and of itself.

Why?

Symbol of Insanity is not an [Evil] spell. If the Bouncing Ball had been turned on demons, goblins, drow, giants, or even LG fighters with bonus feats and all, it would have been equally effective. Yes, it was an underhanded (read: probably non-Lawful) tactic used by a villain, but how does that make it evil?

Let the Master explain it to you:



:xykon:
"I tell you, Ugly [O'Chul], nothing's funnier than false hope. You really thought you had a chance there for a second.

I mean, sure, I could've just blasted you all from above with fire and lightning and such...

... but I've always felt that when it's really important, it's worth it to go that extra mile.

Don't you agree?"

( Xykon in #448 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html), last two panels. )

That's why it's an evil act.

It's not that the spell is Evil, or the user was Evil, or the victims where Lawful Good.

It's because the Caster did it in order to take pleasure from the suffering of other sentient beings.

[hamishspence]

It's because the Caster did it in order to take pleasure from the suffering of other sentient beings.

While "debasing and destroying the innocent for fun" (one of the behaviours of Evil mentioned in the PHB) might be clearly Evil behaviour, it can be harder to say it's Evil when the victims are "Not Innocent".

At least, there's little to explicitly say so other than "Good implies respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings".

The classic example is Dexter from Darkly Dreaming Dexter.

He kills people for pleasure, taking pleasure in their suffering.

But those people, are always "Not Innocent" people- serial killers and the like.

So are Dexter's acts Evil, and his alignment Evil?

I personally would say "Yes, he is evil, as are his acts"
But I've seen numerous arguments that because Dexter "does not harm the innocent" he must be Neutral.

[Thanatosia]

It's because the Caster did it in order to take pleasure from the suffering of other sentient beings.
I suppose that Roy is Evil then, for the clear Joy and Pleasure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html) he is deriving from being about to inflict damage and suffering against another sentient being (seriously, that smile really sells it!)

[AstralFire]

I suppose that Roy is Evil then, for the clear Joy and Pleasure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html) he is deriving from being about to inflict damage and suffering against another sentient being (seriously, that smile really sells it!)

It is a known fact that Roy in the first half of the comic is borderline Neutral.

[The Pilgrim]

I personally would say "Yes, he is evil, as are his acts"

Looks like we are on the same page here. :smallsmile:

Batman too (http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Batman_Alignment.jpg) :smallbiggrin:

[Maxios]

I look at it like this:

The act itself was evil, causing the slaughter of numerous paladins.

The method was not evil, as the very same trick could have been used to slaughter numerous evil-aligned monsters.

[Nevereatcars]

You should all get together and write a book: "Good, Bad, and Webcomics". :smallbiggrin:

[B. Dandelion]

The thing about the ball is, it's getting dinged I think because it is perceived as a method more cruel and degrading than other sources Xykon had at his disposal, and used for that very purpose. It's not so much "it's intrinsically evil," as "it's worse than other methods especially if you selected it to be cruel on top of achieving your objective". You're arguing pragmatism and they're seeing sadism.

You could argue a pragmatic use. You could argue a pragmatic use here -- Xykon takes out a room full of paladins burning up only one spell slot on a measly Magic Missile, that's impressive. But the impression is sent through the comment that "going the extra mile" because "nothing's funnier than false hope", that he did it because it was the cruelest thing he could come up with so thus it doesn't really matter if you can come up with a pragmatic use. It comes down to intent.

[turkishvan2]

I know this makes me a bad person, but I actually found that scene quite amusing. I do feel bad for the members of the sapphire guard, but some of their crazed smiles just looked to funny. Especially the 2 paladins at the bottom of the last three panels on the first page.