Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?

[Sunken Valley]

Title says it all really.

[thereaper]

There's never been any evidence either way, which probably indicates TN.

[jidasfire]

V is neither impulsive or free-spirited like Elan, Haley, and Belkar, nor honorable or steady like Roy and Durkon. S/he has aspects of both, but is ultimately neither. That puts the androgynous mage squarely in the True Neutral camp.

[NYCharlie212]

I think V's Neutral Good. V's a good wizard but V is neither Lawful nor Chaotic.

[Great Dane]

We don't know the effects of V's rampage with soul splices on hir alignment.

[rbetieh]

We know what true nuetral looks like, its Roys sister. Now ask yourself, does V behave like that? She seems very loyal and very much devoted to me. I fall into the lawful camp on this one.

[hamishspence]

Not everyone with the same alignment has the same traits- compare Roy, Miko, Hinjo, Durkon, and so on.

Being loyal and devoted to your fellow party members isn't necessarily evidence of Lawfulness. It might be a Good aspect (that's outweighed by V's relatively disinterested attitude to helping strangers, and ruthlessness toward enemies).

[rbetieh]

Well there are differnt types of LG sure. But lets be sure we catalog these. Roy and Hinjo are very much alike in their level of responsibility, Hinjo is just less likely to break code. Miko was a bit on the crazy side, if you consider alignment thoughts and deeds then she technically should have lost her powers right before the throne room incident. Durkon is Lawful Dwarf as opposed to Lawful Human.

The more interesting Lawful character is O-Chul. He is willing to make friends with a member of team Evil, seemed to stay civil even when being tortured by Redcloak, and took every chance he got to defeat the forces of evil. Talk about examplary Paladinhood. He even helped out a crazy elf who should have been screaming evil to his detect evil at the time (if not her, the splices were known criminals and his detect should have seen that) just because the elf was challenging Xykon. O-chul is a serious action Hero (with capital H).

But to your bigger point. Elan and Haley have friendships they are protecting, I can see that V may be loyal out of friendship as well. I am not convinced that V isnt lawful yet, but I concede that she may not be acting out of loyalty for loyaltys sake.

[zimmerwald1915]

She's neutral evil.

[Kaeso]

I don't get why some people still debate V's alignment on the Good-Evil axis, it's an in-canon fact (as admitted by the fiends) that V is neutral on that axis. While it's true his actions during the soul splice may have knocked him to the deeper end of the alignment pool he's by no means moustache-twirlingly evil.

As for the Law-Chaos axis, I have no real idea. He seems to be somewhat loyal to Roy and Haley, but being loyal to your friends says nothing about your alignment, it at best says something about your perception of friendship. Then again, he was willing to leave Durkon and Elan behind when they really needed him, which would imply a more self-centered attitude. I'd say he's TN with some chaotic and evil tendencies.

IMHO TN would fit best for another reason as well: he's androgynous, making TN a very good alignment for him: he's in no way inclined towards good, evil, law, chaos, masculinity or femininity.

[hamishspence]

It was admitted by the fiends before the Splice "You have the Good. Or the Neutral, as the case might be".

After the V arc ended "we have a 50% chance of ending up with the elf's soul anyway"- doesn't really come across as "still Neutral".

Seems more like "Evil- 50% chance of redeeming self".

[t209]

I think V's Neutral Good. V's a good wizard but V is neither Lawful nor Chaotic.
He is not good or is good until he wiped out a whole family. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

[hamishspence]

Killing Kubota while being unaware of any particular wrongdoing by him- just guessing, may count as well, for "lack of respect for life" (with respect for life being a trait Good characters need).

[zimmerwald1915]

As for the Law-Chaos axis, I have no real idea. He seems to be somewhat loyal to Roy and Haley, but being loyal to your friends says nothing about your alignment, it at best says something about your perception of friendship. Then again, he was willing to leave Durkon and Elan behind when they really needed him, which would imply a more self-centered attitude. I'd say he's TN with some chaotic and evil tendencies.
She was also willing to go out of her way to save Elan when he needed her, back at the bandit camp. She said explicitly it was because she did not want to sacrificer her "hard-earned friendship with him so easily". Coupled, however, with her leaving the boat, this speaks to either character growth in one direction or willingness to make a judgment based on an appreciation of the current circumstances. The latter certainly suggests Neutrality.

[Klear]

After the V arc ended "we have a 50% chance of ending up with the elf's soul anyway"- doesn't really come across as "still Neutral".

Seems more like "Evil- 50% chance of redeeming self".

To me it seemed more like "neutral with 50% chance of falling into evil".

[hamishspence]

A celestial does mention V's "dramatic turn toward evil"- but Roy misses that it was V, not Belkar, that was being talked about.

However, Eugene, when it's explained, decides not to tell Roy.

It is one of those things that's a bit subjective- but a case can be made that V is close to the Evil/neutral borderline.


Which side, however, may be interpreted differently depending on the viewer.

[KingFlameHawk]

As I see it at the beginning V as squarly true neutral at the begining and after V dealings with the fiends he became neutral evil under the splice and after the splice and after he learns what he has done wrong I feel that V is at least trying to become neutral good.

[rbetieh]

But he doesnt really "go both ways", is my greater point. Besides purposefully messing with Belkar, V pretty much always sides with the Order. Even leaving Elan and Durkon to research new spells was not an abandonment of the order, it was a means to help the greater Order (the whole team, not just some of the members). V is a big picture thinker that runs into the trees because he is focused on the forrest. As far as I can tell, V has never abandoned his personal philosophy out of convenience, nor betrayed a family member due to a small slight. If he was true nuetral, I dont think he would have signed the divorce papers so quickly.

[lio45]

We know what true nuetral looks like, its Roys sister. Now ask yourself, does V behave like that? She seems very loyal and very much devoted to me. I fall into the lawful camp on this one.

Honestly? Yes, I think V behaves more or less like Roy's sister.

Look at the bottom half of this strip... that attitude is mighty incompatible with Lawful IMO:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0323.html

[iBear]

True Neutral. If V was good, he wouldn't have taken the IFCC up on the soul splice, especially after they presented him with a viable alternative. If V was evil, he wouldn't have hesitated to take the soul splice.

If V was lawful, he wouldn't have disintegrated Kubota after he'd been captured. V's too much of a team player (usually) to be chaotic.

[Zevox]

True Neutral. V does not display any of the traits of lawful or chaotic individuals to sufficient degree to fall into one of those alignments.

As for good/evil, I'd say V has never been good. Up until the soul splice, she was certainly neutral on that axis. Now though, it's arguable whether her actions during the soul splice were sufficient that her alignment now qualifies as evil in spite of the rest of her life. Given how she has reacted to the soul splice events, I doubt she'll remain such if it does, however.

Zevox

[zimmerwald1915]

V's too much of a team player (usually) to be chaotic.
This doesn't necessarily matter. Elan's chaotic, and is elated when allowed to participate in team activities.

[Hazzardevil]

She made a Faustian Pact, so therefore she is lawful evil, but no-one else seems to have relised that.
(I always refer to V as she, mostly because otherwise Haleys the only girl in the group.

[Esprit15]

True Neutral with Chaotic tendencies.

[lio45]

It was admitted by the fiends before the Splice "You have the Good. Or the Neutral, as the case might be".

After the V arc ended "we have a 50% chance of ending up with the elf's soul anyway"- doesn't really come across as "still Neutral".

Seems more like "Evil- 50% chance of redeeming self".

I would disagree; Roy's officially and unarguably Good, yet his file almost got chucked into the Neutral bin... in the exact same way, even if V's still Neutral post-splice, the Neutral afterlife (assuming such a thing exists -- I'm a D&D n00b) personnel could decide that V's file should end up in the Evil bin.

It seems to be done on a case-by-case basis, with a personal record evaluation in which the evaluator has a lot of leeway. (At least that's how it's done in the Good afterlife.)

So, the way I read it, that 50% statement means that the fiends think there's a ~50% chance the people at the Neutral afterlife check-in evaluation will ultimately decide to send V's file their way... which IMO is a pretty reasonable guess.

[Darthteej]

To those using V's behavior towards the order as evidence for a specific alignment, it must be pointed out that a common racial trait of elves is fierce loyalty to their friends. I see it as a racial trait that doesn't really speak to alignment one way or the other.

[Demonic1000]

True Neutral! :vaarsuvius:

[iBear]

This doesn't necessarily matter. Elan's chaotic, and is elated when allowed to participate in team activities.

Elan is Chaotic, but he doesn't venture into Lawful territory very often. V does both Chaotic and Lawful actions based on his own thoughts and opinions. He'll disintegrate Kobuta and ditch the party to continue his research uninterrupted, but he'll also bill someone for spell components and agree to sign divorce papers.

True Neutral is about doing your own thing regardless of whether it's good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.


She made a Faustian Pact, so therefore she is lawful evil, but no-one else seems to have relised that.

V toook the soul splice (an evil, selfish act) so he could save his family, teleport the refugee fleet to the abandoned elven outpost, and try to kill Xykon to save the world (all good acts).

The splice may have had an affect on V's alignment, but not enough to push him into Evil territory. If anything, the experience made him want to be a better person (which is not Evil thinking).

[ORione]

Since the soul splice V has been trying to be nonevil, and that's important.

I do agree that there isn't much indication on the Law-Chaos axis, which implies neutrality.

[lio45]

True Neutral.

(I realized I had posted twice already in the thread, but still hadn't yet given my opinion on the OP question.)

That seems so clear to me in the story, I actually kinda expect Rich to show up and confirm it the way he did with Durkon's alignment recently. (And then lock the thread :P) Too bad he won't drop us a hint of V's original gender at the same time...

[Warmage]

He was True Neutral and keeps trying to be, but that familicide incident probably dumped him down to Neutral Evil, at least until he can atone for.

[rbetieh]

And handing a Bill to Miko explaining that since His original contract with Roy only implies that he needs to act to defeat Xykon, that Miko should provide recompense for services rendered doesn't smell lawful to anyone? Ok, yes the whole "try to blow Miko up, when she says no" doesnt smell lawful either.....you guys have nearly convinced me to swtich from lawful...im teetering on the edge now.

[Holy_Knight]

As I see it at the beginning V as squarly true neutral at the begining and after V dealings with the fiends he became neutral evil under the splice and after the splice and after he learns what he has done wrong I feel that V is at least trying to become neutral good.

This seems basically right. A lot of people seem to be acting as if his alignment must be static, but that's the wrong way to look at it. At first, V was probably neutral with more good than evil tendencies. But from the time that Azure City fell and the Order got split up, V began a descent into evil, which at its apex culminated in the Familicide. After losing the power and seeing that he had failed not only morally but intellectually, he's now trying to improve himself both as a wizard and as a person. This could lead to him moving toward neutral good in alignment, but its ultimate effects (and whether redemption is possible) have yet to be fully seen.

[zero]

Yeah, well, V's understanding of the wrongness of tampering with the fundamental natural order when bored (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html) is a strong indicator that (s)he's firmly on the lawful side, right? :smallwink:

[Domius]

Maybe he is True Neutral but I'd say -- although I'm not a big D&D fan -- that it's more like Chaotic Neutral, at least before recent events as now he's kind of trying to redeem himself. V isn't a thief like Haley or a sociopath like Belkar but he doesn't have any respect for laws per se. It just so happens that he mostly merely read books or something.

I don't think Varsuuvius has ever done anything lawful in the comic but there were some pretty chaotic acts. For example:

He killed Kubota without even thinking about it, while Elan was going to take him to court.
He left Durkon and Elan on the ocean. This was not an evil act, as he didn't make any harm to anyone, but a lawful character would stay just because for him or her it would seem like a right thing to do -- aiding community rather than escaping.
He went with Miko to Azure City but only to find out more about gates and not because he was accused of a crime.
He wanted Miko to pay him for magical components he used and other stuff -- so it's something iBear called a lawful act. But V didn't do it because he's some crazy anal bureaucrat but because he didn't like being used by Miko. I think it's quite chaotic -- he wanted to do whatever he wanted, not what Miko -- who was a paladin and could be taken as a authority figure -- was telling him.
He was having this prank fight with Belkar, just to make the halfling hate him again -- but he also apparently liked it. I don't think he considered what was good for the team and he was also going to continue even though Roy told him and Belkar to stop.
He went to the bandit camp to rescue Elan -- the fact that zimmerwald1915 used as an argument towards lawful alingment. But V, as zimmerwald noticed, did this because he didn't want to lose this "hard-earned friendship". He didn't do it because it was a man who needed help, or just because it was his friend -- but because he had to put an effort into this friendship and just didn't want to waste his own energy.


And so on...

I mean, imagine that the Order is in some country where some sort of knowledge is forbidden. It isn't evil knowledge, just something that people there think is a taboo subject. Maybe their religion forbids it. You think Varsuuvius wouldn't try to get these books and knowledge anyway? I bet he wouldn't even for a moment considered what he was doing to be something wrong.

[Warren Dew]

He was True Neutral and keeps trying to be, but that familicide incident probably dumped him down to Neutral Evil, at least until he can atone for.
As shown by the previously extensively discussed strip #11, Vaarsuvius was good at the beginning. I'm inclined to think Vaarsuvius might be neutral now, but not because of the familicide especially.

[Ninja Dragon]

V is True Neutral, but is trying to be Neutral Good. But unlike Roy (who can be what he wants to be, Lawful Good, because he tries hard), V has done a lot more evil things, so he/she is still struggling to become Good.

That's what I think.

[TheMac04]

True Neutral. You know why? Mostly because I think V has sociopathic tendencies. Not a sociopath, mind you, but has some leanings towards it. See, for the most part, V operate on the "Do what is rational, not what is moral" system, until his own emotions eventually overcome him, like Spock. He usually does whatever he thinks will be the most efficient and effective, rather than what would be "right". However, he still has strong loyalties to his friends and mate. The tie to Inky is actually very important, because it shows that he is not completely devoid of emotion. When he got those divorce papers, he FELT it. It was emotionally hurtful. He has emotions, but he tries to hide them.

Furthermore, it sort of astounds me that people think he's evil. During the soul splice? Maybe, but certainly not now. You all realize that's sort of the whole point, right? He's trying to better himself, because he realized what he had become. Calling him still evil now is sort of...I don't know, it seems wrong to me.

[rbetieh]

TheMac, I think you have used sociopath wrong. A sociopath lacks the ability to empathize with others. That is they cannot put themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how they would feel if someone did something bad to them. We know that the elf has some level of empathy, he just puts mission before compassion (like Eugene Greenhilt actually).

Back to the discussion, Understand in DnD Lawfullness isnt about following the laws, its about your willingness to break your principles. Anyone that refuses to compromise on their beliefs is Lawful. V has never come down and said "I would never do ..." but as far as I can tell, she very much obeys contracts (something we know Belkar and Haley dont do). I couldnt go so far as take her into the chaotic bracket.

[TheMac04]

TheMac, I think you have used sociopath wrong. A sociopath lacks the ability to empathize with others. That is they cannot put themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how they would feel if someone did something bad to them. We know that the elf has some level of empathy, he just puts mission before compassion (like Eugene Greenhilt actually).


As far as my research (read: ten seconds on Wikipedia) has been able to tell, there is no clear consensus among psychologists about what exactly entails a sociopath. However, someone with sociopathic tendencies is generally regarded to be someone who has trouble empathizing with others, yes, which I do believe V has. It doesn't mean he's completely incapable of showing feelings towards others, but he has trouble understanding why the things he says could hurt people. Much like Belkar actually. Hooray for irony.

[Zevox]

Back to the discussion, Understand in DnD Lawfullness isnt about following the laws, its about your willingness to break your principles.
Actually, it's not about that, either. Law and chaos in D&D actually describe viewpoints that some would hold as principles in and of themselves. Law in D&D is about the values of order, stability, respect for authority, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, chaos in D&D is about the values of freedom, individualism, adaptability, that sort of thing. It is very possible for people to hold chaotic values as principles in and of themselves - for instance, that is precisely what I do when I argue about the treatment of mages in the Dragon Age setting in this forum's threads about those games.

Whether you're willing to break your principles has nothing to do with your particular alignment per se, but rather would indicate how strongly you ascribe to that alignment.

Zevox

[rbetieh]

As far as my research (read: ten seconds on Wikipedia) has been able to tell, there is no clear consensus among psychologists about what exactly entails a sociopath. However, someone with sociopathic tendencies is generally regarded to be someone who has trouble empathizing with others, yes, which I do believe V has. It doesn't mean he's completely incapable of showing feelings towards others, but he has trouble understanding why the things he says could hurt people. Much like Belkar actually. Hooray for irony.

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

[TheMac04]

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

Really, it could be either a psychiatric thing, or simply a defense mechanism of sorts. Maybe OOTS-verse elves are like Vulcans, and they frown upon showing feelings and praise rationalism and knowledge. Actually...that seems pretty plausible to me.

[rewinn]

At the beginning of the comic, V's interests were in gaining Ultimate Arcane Power - not with the intent of doing anything in particular with it, but just with that as a goal. Is that Good or Evil? Lawful or Chaotic? It sounds pretty much True Neutral to me.

The soul splice lead to the Big Character Change. As rbetieh said ...


Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

... so I think that, although V did a pretty evil Familicide, V's trying to be Good and in the end that will be what matters ... unless V's concealment of the IFCC's leash leads to complications.

On the Law/Chaotic axis V doesn't seem to have a strong alignment. V's big trick is telling the laws of physics to "sit down and shut up" which suggests an element of chaos, but that may just be a characteristic of wizardry in general.

[NNescio]

Neutral Evil trying to move back to True Neutral.

[rbetieh]

Actually, it's not about that, either. Law and chaos in D&D actually describe viewpoints that some would hold as principles in and of themselves. Law in D&D is about the values of order, stability, respect for authority, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, chaos in D&D is about the values of freedom, individualism, adaptability, that sort of thing. It is very possible for people to hold chaotic values as principles in and of themselves - for instance, that is precisely what I do when I argue about the treatment of mages in the Dragon Age setting in this forum's threads about those games.

Whether you're willing to break your principles has nothing to do with your particular alignment per se, but rather would indicate how strongly you ascribe to that alignment.

Zevox

I have a hard time with that particular interpretation (which I know is commonly used by even some in the Wizards boards). Some reasons

1) Orcs (chaotic evil) live in a society where the biggest-baddest Orc tells the rest what to do and they obey out of fear because thats what the orc gods tell them society should be like (might = right) (should be Lawful Evil by the above interpretation).
2) Elves love individuality above all else they shouldnt have cities, towns, or villages then as none could ever agree on how to form community and beyond that their insistance on doing things their own way should have gotten themselves killed in the monster-infested forrests of DnD. At the very most, you might get enough elves to agree to a confederacy style of government, which as students of US history might tell you, dont last too long. They certainly wouldnt choose Democracy as no one elf could accept the decision of the majority if they disagreed with it. Seems to me that for all that love of freedom, those elves have to break principle to survive.
3) Halflings, who favor the rogue class, tend to be lawful, not chaotic. They are said to have lazyness as a common trait, yet they live in exclusive halfling communities and dont all starve. Seem lawful enough to me, and yet tons of halling rogues running around....
4) We know Dwarves in this strip have a very different idea of what Lawful means than Humans do, because Durkon says so.

It just smells of Lawful = No Compromise, Chaotic = Be pragmatic.

[rbetieh]

Really, it could be either a psychiatric thing, or simply a defense mechanism of sorts. Maybe OOTS-verse elves are like Vulcans, and they frown upon showing feelings and praise rationalism and knowledge. Actually...that seems pretty plausible to me.

V's mate didnt show those characteristics. That elf was concerned for V's soul and family, not for V saving the world.

[Zevox]

I have a hard time with that particular interpretation (which I know is commonly used by even some in the Wizards boards).
You might want to consider that you've badly misinterpreted alignments in general, then. Re-read the basic description of them in the SRD/PHB - much of what I said was taken straight from there.


1) Orcs (chaotic evil) live in a society where the biggest-baddest Orc tells the rest what to do and they obey out of fear because thats what the orc gods tell them society should be like (might = right) (should be Lawful Evil by the above interpretation).
I have no idea where you come up with that notion. "Might makes right" is fundamentally chaotic evil, and more chaotic than evil at that. The strongest individual leads and holds power because the weaker individuals cannot stop them from doing so. It doesn't even really qualify as a society - it's the way things are without any real governing body to restrain things.


2) Elves love individuality above all else they shouldnt have cities, towns, or villages then as none could ever agree on how to form community and beyond that their insistance on doing things their own way should have gotten themselves killed in the monster-infested forrests of DnD. At the very most, you might get enough elves to agree to a confederacy style of government, which as students of US history might tell you, dont last too long. They certainly wouldnt choose Democracy as no one elf could accept the decision of the majority if they disagreed with it. Seems to me that for all that love of freedom, those elves have to break principle to survive.
It seems you badly misinterpret what valuing individuality means if you honest think that makes any sense. What you describe there is a ludicrous extreme worthy of a Slaad, not any mortal sapient.


3) Halflings, who favor the rogue class, tend to be lawful, not chaotic.
Actually, like Humans, Halflings have no particular alignment tendencies. Also, rogues can be any alignment as well - the class is not just a thief class you know.


4) We know Dwarves in this strip have a very different idea of what Lawful means than Humans do, because Durkon says so.
Not that I've ever seen. Dwarven society tends to be very lawful, as exhibited by what Durkon has told us of it, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the alignment changes between the races. Alignments are broad categories encompassing plenty of variations of their viewpoints, not a single viewpoint that everyone who falls into that alignment shares.


It just smells of Lawful = No Compromise, Chaotic = Be pragmatic.
Actually, that's what your previous description sounded like. You said lawful meant not compromising on your principles*, which would imply chaos involved being willing to do that, which many would argue is pragmatism.

*Which incidentally is further obviously wrong since it fails to specify what those principles tend to be - you could hold anarchism up as your principles and, as long you refused to compromise on them, be lawful by your interpretation.

Zevox

[SowZ]

And handing a Bill to Miko explaining that since His original contract with Roy only implies that he needs to act to defeat Xykon, that Miko should provide recompense for services rendered doesn't smell lawful to anyone? Ok, yes the whole "try to blow Miko up, when she says no" doesnt smell lawful either.....you guys have nearly convinced me to swtich from lawful...im teetering on the edge now.

This is more a case of V knowing that Miko is lawful and manipulating her. It doesn't mean V is lawful. Using laws when they benefit you is very neutral.

[rbetieh]

You might want to consider that you've badly misinterpreted alignments in general, then. Re-read the basic description of them in the SRD/PHB - much of what I said was taken straight from there.


I have no idea where you come up with that notion. "Might makes right" is fundamentally chaotic evil, and more chaotic than evil at that. The strongest individual leads and holds power because the weaker individuals cannot stop them from doing so. It doesn't even really qualify as a society - it's the way things are without any real governing body to restrain things.


It seems you badly misinterpret what valuing individuality means if you honest think that makes any sense. What you describe there is a ludicrous extreme worthy of a Slaad, not any mortal sapient.


Actually, like Humans, Halflings have no particular alignment tendencies. Also, rogues can be any alignment as well - the class is not just a thief class you know.


Not that I've ever seen. Dwarven society tends to be very lawful, as exhibited by what Durkon has told us of it, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the alignment changes between the races. Alignments are broad categories encompassing plenty of variations of their viewpoints, not a single viewpoint that everyone who falls into that alignment shares.


Actually, that's what your previous description sounded like. You said lawful meant not compromising on your principles*, which would imply chaos involved being willing to do that, which many would argue is pragmatism.

*Which incidentally is further obviously wrong since it fails to specify what those principles tend to be - you could hold anarchism up as your principles and, as long you refused to compromise on them, be lawful by your interpretation.

Zevox

Ah but Might makes right is the rule of dictatorships covered up with false elections. If you think Orc chief doesnt then start making rules to ensure he stays chief, then you fail to understand how societies are formed. Moreover, you know Orc chief is taking the best cuts of food, best treasure, and best magic items for himself - de facto taxation. And that is my point with Elves, their fervent belief in individuality and freedom should very much prevent them from forming any meaningful society at all. People give up some rights in order to gain the protections of society, elves find that kind of thinking repulsive. Of course that whole "elves share" thing also makes no sense, if they are as libertarian as they are made out to be, they should be strict defenders of property rights (which means they should also find the Robin Hoods of the world repulsive). I am sure Durkon telling hylgia that she thinks like a Human, when Durkon is traveling with a LG Human fighter and would know what a Lawful Human thinks like should be proof that there are various definitions of Lawfullness. How do you explain the WotC people repeatedly telling us that the Batman (a vigilante that only follows his own laws, and used to shoot people with the gun that killed his parents) is LG? I see no reason to not claim strict Libertarians, Anti-war Leftists, and Full-on Communists as all Lawful. I choose to make no value judgment on whether they are good/evil but respect their fervor in arguing their own philosophy even in situations where the idea sounds impractical to others, because they measure every situation with the same yardstick. And it would seem that an Anarchist would fit the bill depending on the kind of anarchist as well. One that acknowledges the government and seeks to destroy it isnt lawful (because he acknowledged something he believes shouldnt exists in the first place). One that refuses to accept the governments legitimacy (believer in the Sovereign Citizen concept) is Lawful. Again, without making Value judgements along the G/E scale. Same could be said of violent fundamentalists, also Lawful. Just because they dont obey your laws or your societies laws doesnt give you the right to call them chaotic. Lawful in the USA isnt the same thing as Lawful in China. It just isnt.

[rbetieh]

This is more a case of V knowing that Miko is lawful and manipulating her. It doesn't mean V is lawful. Using laws when they benefit you is very neutral.

Good point.

[derfenrirwolv]

My analysis says LN (and evil after that bit with the dragons)

My sense of story says TN (evil after the drakes)


-Analysis: V actively likes order. He loves the rules of magic, the intricate patterns of doilies, and is personally affronted when chaotic things happen (like the 1 in a million chance of a Devil being summoned) His entire belief in rationality requires a logical, orderly universe to make sense out of.

-Sense of story: roy is trying to be LG. Durkon is lawful good. Haley is Chaotic (and now good) Elan is Chaotic Good, and Belkar is chaotic evil. Without V being TN there's NO neutrality in the party.

[MoonCat]

I would disagree; Roy's officially and unarguably Good, yet his file almost got chucked into the Neutral bin... in the exact same way, even if V's still Neutral post-splice, the Neutral afterlife (assuming such a thing exists -- I'm a D&D n00b) personnel could decide that V's file should end up in the Evil bin.

Just a wee bittie correction, I don't really intend to get involved with v's alignment, but Roy was being possibly considered Neutral not Lawful, not Neutral not Good.

[VanBuren]

Since the issue of Law/Chaos invariably comes up, I'll just quote what I usually quote when this happens.


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[Zevox]

Ah but Might makes right is the rule of dictatorships covered up with false elections.
Not at all. Dictatorships certainly require force - usually military - to ensure their rule isn't overthrown, but so do all governments. That is not the same as a true "might makes right" situation, where the physical power of the individual (or group) that leads is all that allows them to lead.


If you think Orc chief doesnt then start making rules to ensure he stays chief, then you fail to understand how societies are formed. Moreover, you know Orc chief is taking the best cuts of food, best treasure, and best magic items for himself - de facto taxation.
And those rules and "taxation" remain in place only because the Orc in chief cannot be stopped by those under him, not because anyone submits to his authority voluntarily. Big difference from actual societies, wherein the people agree to follow a governing body in exchange for the benefits it provides (or out of manipulated loyalty to the nation/leader in question, or a few other reasons).


And that is my point with Elves, their fervent belief in individuality and freedom should very much prevent them from forming any meaningful society at all. People give up some rights in order to gain the protections of society, elves find that kind of thinking repulsive.
And you are taking that notion to an extreme that only a pure incarnation of chaos (i.e. Slaad) would. Of course chaotic individuals are still going to be perfectly fine with forming a basic society - for instance, giving up one's right to kill others in exchange for protection from being killed by others (i.e. agreeing to outlaw murder) is pretty much the most basic purpose of societies, and is something that almost no one, regardless of alignment, wouldn't agree to. The difference is that chaotic societies would favor minimizing restrictions on individuals' personal rights - the idealized chaotic good society, for instance, would more or less be one that allows individuals to do anything they want so long at it doesn't harm anyone else (or their property) against their will.


Of course that whole "elves share" thing also makes no sense, if they are as libertarian as they are made out to be,
This perhaps is part of your problem - equating D&D alignments to real-world political ideologies. Unfortunately it's also one that we cannot discuss here, since real-world politics is a forbidden topic on these boards.


I am sure Durkon telling hylgia that she thinks like a Human, when Durkon is traveling with a LG Human fighter and would know what a Lawful Human thinks like should be proof that there are various definitions of Lawfullness.
No, that would be evidence that Durkon thinks of Humans in general as being chaotic, or at least not as lawful as Dwarves. The latter would even be correct.


How do you explain the WotC people repeatedly telling us that the Batman (a vigilante that only follows his own laws, and used to shoot people with the gun that killed his parents) is LG?
I don't explain it, since I don't know much about Batman (don't care for the character), but have seen enough alignment debates about him to know that his alignment is probably very debatable.


[An anarchist] that refuses to accept the governments legitimacy (believer in the Sovereign Citizen concept) is Lawful.
And that is absolutely preposterous. Anarchism, by its very definition, is obviously a very extreme chaotic philosophy, because it rejects all government in favor of total liberty for individuals. Again, re-read the PHB/SRD definition of the chaotic alignment - this is about as cut-and-dry as alignment assignment gets.

Edit: Heck, here's one for you to think about: if the alignment definitions you advocate here were correct, Girard would be Lawful. I don't think you'll find anyone on these boards willing to support a viewpoint like that.


Lawful in the USA isnt the same thing as Lawful in China. It just isnt.
Then I'm afraid you've badly misread D&D rules on the matter. One thing D&D definitely wants its alignments to be is objective - even the gods themselves get categorized that way. Each alignment is a broad category, but an unchanging one which gets applied to the whole D&D setting equally, and does not change no matter where you are, what you're doing, what you believe, etc. Again, by D&D's definitions of them.


Just a wee bittie correction, I don't really intend to get involved with v's alignment, but Roy was being possibly considered Neutral not Lawful, not Neutral not Good.
Actually he was specifically told that he would have been judged True Neutral had he not made up for abandoning Elan to the bandits by rescuing him and learning his lesson from the experience.

Zevox

[SadisticFishing]

I'll tackle the Batman problem! ooh, ooh, I love this one.

Batman is LG because he cares about the ideas of Law and Good more than anything else in the world.

But that does not mean one must uphold a broken law.

The reason Batman is often considered the Law in Gotham isn't because he's made his own law - it's because the other law officers do not uphold the law. It's a broken system, so he is attempting to fix it in the best way possible.

Even Kant, potentially the most Lawful man to have ever lived, believed that it is everyone's DUTY to fix a broken law by acting outside it.

Basically, Batman is LG because he's as LG as he can possibly be in the system that he is in. He uses Fear as a weapon not because he's Evil, but because... There are no other weapons that are nearly as effective, considering the sizes of the armies.

Oh, and him shooting and killing people was retconned away. Not at all a part of the Batman we all know and love.

[Burner28]

As I see it at the beginning V as squarly true neutral at the begining and after V dealings with the fiends he became neutral evil under the splice and after the splice and after he learns what he has done wrong I feel that V is at least trying to become neutral good.

This is similar to what I think.



Now though, it's arguable whether her actions during the soul splice were sufficient that her alignment now qualifies as evil in spite of the rest of her life. Given how she has reacted to the soul splice events, I doubt she'll remain such if it does, however.

Yeah, V could still make up for the Familicide he did, though it obviously won't be easy.

[ThePhantasm]

I'll tackle the Batman problem! ooh, ooh, I love this one.

Batman is LG because he cares about the ideas of Law and Good more than anything else in the world.

But that does not mean one must uphold a broken law.

The reason Batman is often considered the Law in Gotham isn't because he's made his own law - it's because the other law officers do not uphold the law. It's a broken system, so he is attempting to fix it in the best way possible.

Even Kant, potentially the most Lawful man to have ever lived, believed that it is everyone's DUTY to fix a broken law by acting outside it.

Basically, Batman is LG because he's as LG as he can possibly be in the system that he is in. He uses Fear as a weapon not because he's Evil, but because... There are no other weapons that are nearly as effective, considering the sizes of the armies.

Oh, and him shooting and killing people was retconned away. Not at all a part of the Batman we all know and love.

This post gets two Phantasm thumbs up! Great analysis.

Also, has anyone noticed there's a lot of "alignment" threads lately? I thought we used to have one big thread for alignment questions. Maybe we should just have one for all the characters instead of having one each for Girard, Haley, V, Durkon, etc....

[Warren Dew]

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family.
To the contrary, the divorce papers were signed because it was the best thing for the world, not because it was best for the family. Freedom from family meant Vaarsuvius wouldn't have split loyalties between family and saving the world from the god eating abomination.

[lio45]

My analysis says LN (and evil after that bit with the dragons)

(...)

-Analysis: V actively likes order. He loves the rules of magic, the intricate patterns of doilies, and is personally affronted when chaotic things happen (like the 1 in a million chance of a Devil being summoned) His entire belief in rationality requires a logical, orderly universe to make sense out of.

I agree with everything but your conclusion: to me, extreme rationality is Neutral, not Lawful.

I will offer the following anecdotal evidence... during the two years I spent as an Army reserve officer, I've often heard my uni friends (all of them physicists) say they could NEVER stand a system in which you're expected to obey without being first given rational reasons (and explanations) for it, and, if need be, have the possibility to discuss those orders before executing them.

I just know that V wouldn't last long in the Army. On the other hand, characters like Durkon or Miko would be like a fish in water there. Roy, also somewhat.

[Iuris]

By my reckoning, V used to be an arrogant True neutral, however, his recent experiences have made V quite a bit more humble and I think taught V a bit about needing, and needing to care about, other people.

So, I expect V to be leaning a bit toward good these days, but with a heavy burden.

[Techhead]

My viewpoint on the Law-Chaos axis is that Law is deontological while Chaos is consequentialist (aka Teleological). The following is a gross simplification of the two moral systems.

Deontology is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. A good act (eg. Thou shall not kill) is good in and of itself. A moral person's response to a situation is based on their moral ruleset, and negative consequences are a result of the circumstances and not their actions themselves. See: Kantian Ethics

Consequentialism contrasts to this in saying that the consequences of the action are what matters, and that rules can (and should) be bent if the result is a positive outcome. Consequentialism can focus solely on the actor (Ethical Egoism), on society on a whole (Utilitarianism), or only on others while ignoring the actor (Ethical Altruism).

[rbetieh]

Zevox, if my way of thinking is Slaadlike, why do slaads form society? You can say CE rule by strength all you want, but 2 blue slaads could kill the death slaad and then duke it out amoungst each other for the leadership position. And that would go down the pecking order until 1 Slaad is left. Belkar should prove this to you, his leader who should be good enough to give him a sound spanking (Belkar is the lowest level chr in the group) tells him to do something, and Belkar still says no, chaotic at its best i'd say. Lets face it, that definition of the Law-Chaos axis leads to internal inconsistency in the world in that all Chaotics should have already become extinct because chaotics simply cannot get along. The other definition allows for the DnD worlds to exist as written. It makes chaotics the glue that holds the world together when people dont agree and still allows for pure Lawful societies to exist since they all do agree.

As for Batman, I choose a very simple explanation for why he is Lawful. He puts all criminals in jail regardless of circumstance. The troubled youth in drug gang, the 7-11 robber stealing to feed his family, and any other such tragic criminal ends up at the precinct right along with the Joker. That Bruce Wayne then helps out the criminals that could be reformed shows that he is Good. And the opposite is true, Batman doesnt just catch the hood on the street because he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time and happens to match the description", no evidence, no criminal. Thats the crux of it, all criminals go to jail, no case-by-case analysis, thats Lawfulness. But understand, Batman does these things so that the people will be FREE from the OPRESSION of the crime bosses, that should make him less Lawful under the srd view, but seems rather consistent under other views.

Back to V, under no circumstances could he be called chaotic.

[FujinAkari]

(Belkar is the lowest level chr in the group)

Wha? No he isn't... that's Roy you're thinking of...

[rbetieh]

You sure? Belkar has been taking XP penalty even before the group met Miko....I mean unless he is some unusual form of halfling. He has Ranger 9 and only 2 or 3 Barbarian levels right?

[Holy_Knight]

I'll tackle the Batman problem! ooh, ooh, I love this one.

Batman is LG because he cares about the ideas of Law and Good more than anything else in the world.

But that does not mean one must uphold a broken law.

The reason Batman is often considered the Law in Gotham isn't because he's made his own law - it's because the other law officers do not uphold the law. It's a broken system, so he is attempting to fix it in the best way possible.

Even Kant, potentially the most Lawful man to have ever lived, believed that it is everyone's DUTY to fix a broken law by acting outside it.

Basically, Batman is LG because he's as LG as he can possibly be in the system that he is in. He uses Fear as a weapon not because he's Evil, but because... There are no other weapons that are nearly as effective, considering the sizes of the armies.

Oh, and him shooting and killing people was retconned away. Not at all a part of the Batman we all know and love.


This post gets two Phantasm thumbs up! Great analysis.

It get two Holy Knight thumbs up, too. Very well stated, SadisticFishing.

[Zevox]

Zevox, if my way of thinking is Slaadlike, why do slaads form society?
I did not say your way of thinking was Slaad-like, but that the way of thinking you ascribe to the notion of valuing individualism was so hyperbolic as to be Slaad-like. Which was used because Slaadi are outsiders literally composed of chaos - a means of showing you exactly how hyperbolic and unrealistic what you describe is.

Also, to my knowledge, Slaadi do not form societies. Certainly there is no mention of such in the Monster Manual entries about them.


You can say CE rule by strength all you want,
The "might makes right" discussion was not about CE in general, but your specific example of Orcs. A society which you described as run by the "might makes right" principle, then preposterously claimed that under the alignment definitions I gave would be lawful.


Lets face it, that definition of the Law-Chaos axis leads to internal inconsistency in the world in that all Chaotics should have already become extinct because chaotics simply cannot get along.
And I have no idea how you come to that conclusion, as nothing whatsoever about the existing definition of the chaotic alignment (which again, I took largely from the PHB/SRD description of it) precludes chaotics from getting along.


The other definition allows for the DnD worlds to exist as written.
No it doesn't - it contradicts the definitions of the alignments as written, and is quite frankly completely nonsensical in its entirety.


It makes chaotics the glue that holds the world together when people dont agree and still allows for pure Lawful societies to exist since they all do agree.
That entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. "Pure Lawful societies" do not exist (outside of Outsiders), nor do societies or those within them all agree, nor does your definition of chaotic in any way make sense as "the glue that holds the world together when people don't agree" (I honestly have no idea what that is even supposed to mean).

Zevox

[Callista]

I think I might have an idea what they are talking about... part of why a two-axis system makes sense.

Okay, Law is tradition/order/honor/predictability. Basically. A government run by Lawful people would be all about doing things in an orderly, predictable way, the way they've always done it, and it would be pretty resistant to change.

If your Lawful government is Good-aligned, then they use that honor, predictability, etc., to support the well-being of their citizens.

But, assuming that we're not dealing with Outsiders here, and that this is a society where people aren't always Lawful or always Good, the society can "drift" toward Evil as people try to seize power for themselves. The most successful Evil in a LG society will be the LE people--those who care about honor, predictability, and order, and will follow the laws of the land to the letter, but do not care about the well-being of the citizens.

The LG members of the government will be trying to hinder the new LE leaders, and usually that works just fine--until a LE person comes along who is too skilled for the LG government. In that situation, the LG government can fall easily to LN and then LE as it is corrupted from within; and the Lawful nature of the government means they do not like radical change and do not want to unseat legitimate authority.

That's where Chaos comes in. Unlike the LG individual and his preference for order and stability, CG people don't mind shaking things up, taking chances, being unconventional. These CG individuals will start a revolution to get rid of the newly LE government all at once and create a new government--hopefully one that cares about the citizens.

However, CG people don't really make good bureaucrats. They don't like to be tied down and they don't like to organize all the minutiae of government. So, eventually, the government becomes more and more Lawful as those who are more suited to a bureaucracy take power, and the cycle starts again.

Where does CE come in? That's what happens when the CG revolution goes too far, the altruistic leaders lose control of it, and everything goes to Hell in a handbasket. Which, in D&D, may be literal.

[VanBuren]

FWIW, a lawful mindset will likely tend towards "this worked before, it might work again" whereas a chaotic mindset would probably say "this situation is different, so let's just figure it out"

[The Glyphstone]

She made a Faustian Pact, so therefore she is lawful evil, but no-one else seems to have relised that.
(I always refer to V as she, mostly because otherwise Haleys the only girl in the group.

Strictly speaking, he didn't make a Faustian bargain, because that requires selling your soul. She only rented/leased his soul for a set time period.

[hamishspence]

As shown by the previously extensively discussed strip #11, Vaarsuvius was good at the beginning. I'm inclined to think Vaarsuvius might be neutral now, but not because of the familicide especially.

Actually, at the time, The Giant stated that everyone except Belkar was Good- but then, somewhat later, stated that this was not binding.

It's also notable that Neutral characters can suffer from Unholy Blight too- they just aren't sickened by it.

Not to mention that V's alignment in the tabletop game is Arrogant Neutral.

These may hint that V was Neutral rather than Good in the Dungeon of Durokan.

[Onyavar]

If this were a poll, you could count another vote. My judgment is based on the current strip 798 and all previous - and it's subjective, of course.

Good vs evil axis: borderline neutral/evil, tending back to neutral (obviously)
Law vs chaos axis: borderline lawful/neutral, tending towards neutral (I refuse to give a breakdown, neither of us has so much time to write/read)

[James Lu]

He is not good or is good until he wiped out a whole family. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

That was under the effects of the Soul Splice and he was doing it to protect his family. But then again, those dragons kinda were tormenting the parts of the world in which they resided as the numerous panels do depict.

[hamishspence]

The three fiends point out that the soul splices have no effect on V's morality- though encouraging V to thing they do, does increase V's chance of behaving immorally- because now V has an excuse.

While some of the dragons might have been "tormenting parts of the world" some were half-dragons, some were still in the egg, and some didn't appear to be interacting with anything.

[Burner28]

Hamishspence is right, what V did there was still Evil.

[MoonCat]

That was under the effects of the Soul Splice and he was doing it to protect his family. But then again, those dragons kinda were tormenting the parts of the world in which they resided as the numerous panels do depict.

What.

I'm pretty sure the baby dragons in their eggs were not tormenting anyone, and actually, looking back at it, the only characters being torment were the bunny and the fish and the dragons themselves, seeing as they were just genocided for a crime that their sisters cousins brothers uncles mothers aunt just did.

[Gift Jeraff]

As several others have said, True Neutral -> Neutral Evil, but I wouldn't say V is necessarily trying to be Good. I'd say s/he is trying to be an effective, non-Evil party member more than anything else. Though I'd say Blackwing is trying to make him/her Good.

[lio45]

So if a paladin of the Sapphire Guard happens to find an egg in the woods which they know with absolute certainty is from an Always Evil species, and destroys it, even though that egg clearly wasn't tormenting anyone, they're not Lawful Good any more?

[Burner28]

What do you think?:smallannoyed: Seriously, do you think killing a defenless being that hasn't done any evil deeds yet is a Good thing? No really?

[lio45]

In a context in which we know the (currently) defenseless being is Evil (and that it will not remain defenseless growing up), I would say it could pass off as Good, yes.

We know Miko's done that many times (use Detect Evil on a creature, and then kill the creature if it's Evil, for no other reason) and she's kept her paladinhood, which means she remained Good. QED.

[Craft (Cheese)]

In a context in which we know the (currently) defenseless being is Evil (and that it will not remain defenseless growing up), I would say it could pass off as Good, yes.

We know Miko's done that many times (use Detect Evil on a creature, and then kill the creature if it's Evil, for no other reason) and she's kept her paladinhood, which means she remained Good. QED.

The Book of Exalted Deeds' definition of Good alignment has this to say on that:


In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily a good act if the attack is without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

[Holy_Knight]

In a context in which we know the (currently) defenseless being is Evil (and that it will not remain defenseless growing up), I would say it could pass off as Good, yes.
No. It's still defenseless at the time of killing, which is what matters. Additionally, even if we do know that it won't remain defenseless growing up, we don't know that it will remain evil, because even "always evil" allows for exceptional cases. Finally, one of the things that distinguishes good from evil is treatment of other creatures--i.e. evil creatures murder defenseless opponents who haven't actually done anything wrong, while good creatures do not.



We know Miko's done that many times (use Detect Evil on a creature, and then kill the creature if it's Evil, for no other reason) and she's kept her paladinhood, which means she remained Good. QED.
Um... DO we know that? When did this actually happen?

[zimmerwald1915]

Um... DO we know that? When did this actually happen?
She Detected Evil on Roy before attacking, and she says she does so habitually when confronted by Jones Esq. at the Weary Travellers' Inn. Not that it's anything other than tangential to the thread topic.

[SowZ]

I don't believe in always evil races. There are races who are always evil in the eyes of X god or pantheon and there are races who tap into universal energies many races deem 'evil' energies but to be evil philophically there has to be choice. If someone was thralled and made to stab a baby it wouldn't make the stabber evil. They could have done nothing else.

No, an always evil race cannot act differently and so obviously the actions it takes that are interpreted as evil are just part of how that race evolved/was created. It may still have ethics, but is is silly to assume that all beings will judge right on wrong based on the same principles humans use.

[lio45]

She Detected Evil on Roy before attacking, and she says she does so habitually when confronted by Jones Esq. at the Weary Travellers' Inn. Not that it's anything other than tangential to the thread topic.

Also consider the two last panels of this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

[hamishspence]

The MM definition of "Always X alignment" mentions that "the creature is born with the listed alignment. Exceptions are either unique or very rare."

That said, there's plenty of room for alignment change. Being raised by beings with a different alignment helps (crystal dragons sometimes seize and raise white dragon eggs themselves).

And sometimes a being will seek to change its own alignment and worldview.

[Kojiro]

"Always <whatever>", in my opinion, represents some sort of inherent, possibly magic or genetic, set of behavior. Inevitables, they are programmed to be absolute Law, Angels rise from the very nature of the Good planes, Slaad are fueled by the Chaos of Limbo, and so on. They almost seem to have less free will, unlike "Usually <whatever>" races, which are the way they are due to culture and perhaps some inborn tendencies.

Also, topic of V: True Neutral, committed a major evil action in a fit of rage and passion (that semi-rhyme was not intentional), and is now actively working towards something like Good, at least. So, still True Neutral on the whole, although depending on how you value the individual actions and things like intention and effort, possibly something above or below that. Really, this debate is becoming one of general morality rather than V's, and I don't think that's the best place to go.

[hamishspence]

While this is true- they still have some free will, since there are Fallen Angels and Risen Demons.

"General D&D morality" is a part of how we assess the morality of OoTS characters- so it helps if we have an idea of what it is.

What's required to be Evil, Good, Neutral, and so on.

Sometimes it's personality (which is why a newborn Always Evil monster has an Evil alignment despite not having had time to do something evil).

Sometimes it's actions (which is why a compassionate, altruistic person who has embarked on evil actions "for the greater good" may end up crossing the line into Evil alignment).

[Kish]

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


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

[lio45]

Really, this debate is becoming one of general morality rather than V's, and I don't think that's the best place to go.

It's the same thing. You have to define the alignments if you want to talk about V's alignment.

In other words, "how Evil, exactly, is Familicide when used on an Evil species to kill a large group of individuals, of which any member might eventually want to threaten your family in the future?" is a pretty relevant question in any V alignment thread.



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.

That (obvious) argument is exactly the one that was being used, but in the opposite way: if Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a creature simply because it registered as Evil when scanned, then Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a thousand creatures simply because they registered as Evil when scanned.

The exact same argument could also be made with the paladins and the goblin village...

[Warmage]

So if a paladin of the Sapphire Guard happens to find an egg in the woods which they know with absolute certainty is from an Always Evil species, and destroys it, even though that egg clearly wasn't tormenting anyone, they're not Lawful Good any more?

Actually happened to me in a campaign once. My paladin found a red dragon egg. He raised it with his own moral values and the dragon turned out Lawful Good. Unfortunately, my paladin was long dead before his lawful good red dragon could actually be useful in combat. That said, the DM decided to have him return in the next campaign to help us out.

In another premade campaign, The Sunken Citadel, the players decided to save and free a white dragon from it's kobold captors. It turned out to still be evil, but returned to aid the party regardless.

[Holy_Knight]

Also consider the two last panels of this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

Yes, but that doesn't prove that she killed them for no other reason than that they detected as evil, which was your claim. Her statement is consistent with pursuing leads on creatures that were accused of active malice, and using Detect Evil on them as a check before actually attacking (which is what she did with the Order, actually).

[SowZ]

It's the same thing. You have to define the alignments if you want to talk about V's alignment.

In other words, "how Evil, exactly, is Familicide when used on an Evil species to kill a large group of individuals, of which any member might eventually want to threaten your family in the future?" is a pretty relevant question in any V alignment thread.




That (obvious) argument is exactly the one that was being used, but in the opposite way: if Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a creature simply because it registered as Evil when scanned, then Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a thousand creatures simply because they registered as Evil when scanned.

The exact same argument could also be made with the paladins and the goblin village...

Which is exactly why alignment in D&D doesn't make sense when you look at it this way. Alignment works if A. you are talking about which energies people channel that other people have, (rather arbitrarily,) designated good, evil, lawful, and chaotic or B. how well someone follows their own code/conscience or their gods code for paladins and clerics. I think B is the only one that deals with philosophical good and evil.

Whereas V admits the familicide was wrong and may be evil, (though atoning,) because of how he would judges his own actions and Belkar may be evil as he freely admits to himself that he enjoys suffering and has no morals someone else who commits the same actions as V and Belkar may have a 'good' alignment because those same actions that put V and Belkar into the evil range line up perfectly with their own morality.

This also means someones morality is based on perspective. I can look at Miko and if I casted Detect Good on her it would register as negative, (I do not view her as good,) but another worshipper of Miko's gods would use Detect Good and it would be positive.

[archon_huskie]

I think I can imagine what V's responce to this would be.

:vaarsuvius: "The answer to the question in the title is without a doubt, Yes."

[zimmerwald1915]

Whereas V admits the familicide was wrong and may be evil
V has, in fact, acknowledged no such thing. In fact, she believes that her actions "started out well". What she regrets is that she let the power go to her head and expose and widen the rifts in her personal relationships.

[MoonCat]

It's the same thing. You have to define the alignments if you want to talk about V's alignment.

In other words, "how Evil, exactly, is Familicide when used on an Evil species to kill a large group of individuals, of which any member might eventually want to threaten your family in the future?" is a pretty relevant question in any V alignment thread.

I'm very sure that no three times removed by marriage whatever dragon is going to try to have revenge on V.


I think I can imagine what V's responce to this would be.

:vaarsuvius: "The answer to the question in the title is without a doubt, Yes."

Thank you so much for that. :smallbiggrin:

[Klear]

I think I can imagine what V's responce to this would be.

:vaarsuvius: "The answer to the question in the title is without a doubt, Yes."

That would rule out neutral good and neutral evil, though.

[SowZ]

V has, in fact, acknowledged no such thing. In fact, she believes that her actions "started out well". What she regrets is that she let the power go to her head and expose and widen the rifts in her personal relationships.

Not only does V regret her actions, she has acknowledged the immorality of using mass violence to solve problems. (As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is inacapable of solving approaches zero... And that would be wrong.) She has also shown greater willingness to examine her own actions and ask for advice as well as a conscious attempt to be a reasonably good person. This was all a direct result of the familicide incident and while V may not have come out and said, "That was evil of me to do" to the rest of the party out of what is presumably pride, I find it fairly clear that she believes it was wrong.

It is possible that she justifies it to herself, but even then the action would have been evil by her own standard of ethics. So if she witnessed someone else commit the same crime, objectively, V would think it was wrong. Following their own code/having a code is usually what makes someone good or evil in their own eyes

[Burner28]

The exact same argument could also be made with the paladins and the goblin village...

What when did that happen?

[Warmage]

What when did that happen?

It was in Start of Darkness
Redcloak's entire village was wiped out by a bunch of paladins from the Sapphire Guard. This included killing noncombatants, including children running away or hiding from the paladins.

[hamishspence]

The Giant has already mentioned that it is possible that some of those Paladins may have fallen for doing that:


Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

[John Cribati]

That (obvious) argument is exactly the one that was being used, but in the opposite way: if Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a creature simply because it registered as Evil when scanned, then Miko can remain Lawful Good after killing a thousand creatures simply because they registered as Evil when scanned.

So long as she personally scanned each and every one of those thousand creatures first, and they were capable of being a threat, I can see her retaining her Lawful Goodness.

And egg is not a threat. A baby is not a threat. A child is (usually) not a threat.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not only does V regret her actions, she has acknowledged the immorality of using mass violence to solve problems. (As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is inacapable of solving approaches zero... And that would be wrong.)
It did not occur to V that the sentiment she was expressing was wrong. It did occur to Blackwing, who informed V that that was the case. V then repeated it out loud to the party, passing it off as something she meant to say. Judging from the weird looks the party gave V they did not believe she meant to say it all along, just like they can see right through Belkar's "ploy". Let's look at some of the other times V's used violence to solve her problems since coming to the Western Continent.

1. She responds to Drawmij's goading with force. Indeed, her first response to his attacks on her pride is to boast about the power she held under the splice (presumably before it became "naught but sound and fury") and to threaten violence. Once again, Blackwing steps in and tries to calm V down, at first successfully, but V eventually succumbs to Drawmij's taunts and attacks him with what could easily have been lethal force. V did not even attempt self-control, and what control there was over her actions was exercised by Blackwing. What's more, Blackwing doesn't seem to realistically expect better of V. He admits, resignedly, that "what's important is that this needless conflict was resolved WITHOUT the loser's entire family line getting totally eradicated".

2. After the fight with Drawmij, V resolves to "be more judicious in my application of my magical might". She repeats this resolution to herself at the beginning of the fight with the slavers, and sticks to it for less than a minute before wiping out all the slavers near her (at least four) with Chain Lightning. Her explanation for this is an end-of-strip joke, and really can't be used as evidence of her mindset one way or the other, though it's a pretty weak excuse for backsliding. However, Blackwing's setup to that joke was also meant to remind V of her resolution, and how quickly she went back on it.

3. The encounter with the Purple Worm can be interpreted to support your point: V chose to enchant the Worm rather than lash out with destructive force. However, I would point out that, unlike the last two encounters, V was not acting on her own initiative. She was given an order by her leader, someone to whom she feels bonded and chose to stay bonded after being served papers. This goes to support my points: V's primary regret is not having wiped out the black dragons, but having neglected personal relationships, and her actions are oriented towards repairing or maintaining those relationships rather than atoning for that big evil act.

4. Here we get to V's reaction to Girard's explosion trap, to which we have both posted reactions.

5. The opening of the encounter with Ganjii and Enor takes V mostly out of the fight, but gives her the chance to make some pointed philosphical observations. These observations, which involve V explicitly marking out what is in her view the "correct" philosophy, state that personal relationships should be prioritized over power. This goes to support my argument that V most regrets having prioritized power at the cost of her personal relationships. V does use Suggestion as opposed to a more flashy effect on Enor, but as she points out that is a product of her learning to prepare some spells without somatic components, and a product of the necessity to use a spell without somatic components in this case, not a matter of choice between several available spells. Blackwing then gets worried that V will sell her soul again to get out of her predicament, and from his v-shaped "angry" as opposed to u-shaped "smug" eyebrows seems to take the possiblity seriously. V, to her credit, does not try to do so, which could go to support your point. However, I would point out that Blackwing's attitude towards V selling her soul is clear and that V is loath to break up her relationship with Blackwing, especially since they just reconciled, for what she described after her fight with Drawmij as "fleeting power". Blackwing's continued harping on the subject in the last panel, like V's statement in the last panel of the slaver encounter, is best understood as a joke. V then STUN's Ganjii in order to allow Haley to intervene, which unambiguously goes to support your point that V has become, and/or is trying to become, more of a team player. I will concede that. However, that point feeds into my point: V's priority is to maintain and heal her existing personal relationships.

6. Haley and Elan enact an escape from the Empress' throne room, and take V along. Before they get out of the throne room, V's only contribution to the escape is a snarky comment or two, mostly because she's paralyzed and can't do anything else. There's a case to be made that her reference to "'our' most historically successful strategem" is a sign of her team spirit, but it's a weak one and as I said before saying that V is trying to be a team player supports my argument. V then saves Haley from what Tarquin says (and she has no reason to disbelieve) is a fall to her death, but again this goes to support both our points. I will again point out that V relying on Feather Fall isn't a choice. It is her solitary castable spell remaining.

7. V helps Haley rescue a number of slaves. She makes herself invisible, and possibly makes Haley invisible as well, allowing Haley to incapacitate the first guard. V then creates an illusion of several guards to obscure the fact that Haley is picking the locks on the slaves' shackles. V then distracts, incapacitates, or kills, we're not shown, at least three guards with an unnamed spell, and is shown nondescript as the slaves walk into the sunset. She is not shown to care much about their fate, and from the beginning was in this to help Haley with her pet project, not because she had any qualms with slavery necessarily. V was in it for Haley's sake, not for the slaves'. Once again, doing things for the sake of a personal relationship. However, with the exception of one already-mentioned ambiguity, we do not see V engage in destrutive activity or lethal violence, which does work for your point. All I can offer for refutation is that Haley might have asked V to incapacitate rather than kill in order to aid their not being detected, but I admit that's almost entirely speculation (although consistent with Haley's use of a sap and her MO).

8. This isn't an encounter per se, but V instructs Blackwing not to talk to her about "Polozius'" glaring at her. This can be evidence for your point, in that V feels guilty over something that happened in the Elven Lands. However, it can also be evidence for mine, and is more probably so, since one thing that happened in the Elven Lands that we know V feels guilty about is that Inkyrius divorced her. We don't really know what V thought "Polozius" was glaring at her about, however, and we'll probably never find out since "Polozius" revealed his true identity and the fact that the glares had nothing to do with happenings in the Elven Lands at all.

9. Now we come to the fight with the Linear Guild. Z appears, petrifies Haley. V's first action is to get Haley and information to Durkon, by means of Elan, demonstrating again her thinking in terms of the team. V then buffs herself up and proceeds to trade spells, and counterspells, with Z over several rounds, the spells she manages to land failing to pierce SR (like Hold Person, Prismatic Spray, Maximized Fireball) or falling to some tactic (Forcecage v. Dimension Door). A little less than half of the spells V employs are fairly destructive evocations (Prismatic Spray, Maximized Fireball), slightly undercutting your point that V has learned not to lash out with destructive force. However, she does eventually, after a number of rounds, recognize the futility of this approach in this given situation, and adopt her tactics accordingly. We have yet to see what she's planning or how it pans out.

On balance, you have a point that over the time V has spent on the Western Continent, she has relied on lashing out with destructive force less as time has gone on. I have offered reasons for why that might be so other than the reason you offered (lashing out with destructive force is wrong, and V realizes this), ranging from inappropriateness under given circumstances to orders by her leader, but ultimately it doesn't much matter. Even if V learned this lesson, it is the wrong lesson. The right lesson would be "I have committed a great evil, and I must make it right to the survivors of that evil" not "I must be more judicious in my application of magical might" or "I ought to treat my friends and allies better".


She has also shown greater willingness to examine her own actions and ask for advice as well as a conscious attempt to be a reasonably good person.
More accurately, she has shown a willingness to take advice when offered, mostly from Blackwing. We have not seen V seek advice at all: only accept it. Surely, this is a step up from ignoring "unwanted advice and misguided chastisements", and from forgetting her familiar existed, but it is not evidence of goodness. It instead backs up my main point: that V's character changes revolve around her learning to appreciate her personal relationships rather than regretting and atoning for her evil deeds.


This was all a direct result of the familicide incident and while V may not have come out and said, "That was evil of me to do" to the rest of the party out of what is presumably pride, I find it fairly clear that she believes it was wrong.
As I have said, any lessons V might have learned from the Familicide, and identifying the lessons she learned is an open discussion, pale in comparison to the lesson V has not yet learned. That it was indeed evil for her to commit genocide. Regardless of how much more she values her relationships or how restrained her application of force, the taint of that act will not go away until V acknowledges it explicitly. As you say, she would have to overcome her pride, her desire not to be reminded of "all that I have done", fess up, and do whatever the wronged parties desire of her to make it right. Until then, that act will be balanced against her soul, and will always outweigh it.


It is possible that she justifies it to herself, but even then the action would have been evil by her own standard of ethics. So if she witnessed someone else commit the same crime, objectively, V would think it was wrong.
This is pure speculation. What we have seen is that V wants to sweep her evil act under the rug, to keep it a secret. That could suggest she feels what she did was wrong, or that she fears that the party, the people who she has chosen to maintain her relationships with, will shun her because they feel it is wrong. According to V's new philosophy, maintaining a relationship trumps everything else. We know she thinks life can be legitimately sacrificed for the sake of love: why not the truth?


Following their own code/having a code is usually what makes someone good or evil in their own eyes
1. This is a D&D world, and has been stated - by Elan's shoulder devil, by the Astral Deva who judged Roy - to have an objective morality. There are literal cosmic forces who decide whether something is evil or not: it's not up to mortals. Tarquin doesn't consider himself evil, but according to D&D, and heck, most real-world morality, he unquestionably is.

2. Having a personal code and adhering to it (as opposed to, say, judging each situation on its own merits) is what makes someone lawful, not good.

[Kish]

I agree with zimmerwald1915.

Was Vaarsuvius horrifically wrong to kill those dragons? Both obvious from the comic and made clear by Word of God.

Does Vaarsuvius recognize this? I would expect his/her response to the concept to be, "Bwuh? But they were black dragons!" only, you know, more wordy.

[lio45]

Which is exactly why alignment in D&D doesn't make sense when you look at it this way. Alignment works if A. you are talking about which energies people channel that other people have, (rather arbitrarily,) designated good, evil, lawful, and chaotic or B. how well someone follows their own code/conscience or their gods code for paladins and clerics. I think B is the only one that deals with philosophical good and evil.

Whereas V admits the familicide was wrong and may be evil, (though atoning,) because of how he would judges his own actions and Belkar may be evil as he freely admits to himself that he enjoys suffering and has no morals someone else who commits the same actions as V and Belkar may have a 'good' alignment because those same actions that put V and Belkar into the evil range line up perfectly with their own morality.

This also means someones morality is based on perspective. I can look at Miko and if I casted Detect Good on her it would register as negative, (I do not view her as good,) but another worshipper of Miko's gods would use Detect Good and it would be positive.

Alignment in D&D is an extremely limited system, yes. FWIW, there was at least one OotS strip where the Giant joked about that fact explicitly (I don't remember exactly which one, I'd say it's around #0100-#0200).

But if you had casted Detect Good on Miko before she Fell, she'd have registered as Good.




The Giant has already mentioned that it is possible that some of those Paladins may have fallen for doing that:



Yeah, that's pretty reasonable. I completely agree with him about giving priority to the narrative flow there. Anyway, it doesn't prove anything either way.

On the other hand, if you consider that someone with Miko's attitude has remained Good for years...



Yes, but that doesn't prove that she killed them for no other reason than that they detected as evil, which was your claim. Her statement is consistent with pursuing leads on creatures that were accused of active malice, and using Detect Evil on them as a check before actually attacking (which is what she did with the Order, actually).

Can "monsters" even be accused of/charged with anything?

You think Miko would actually TRACK "thousands of monsters" (exact quote from the strip) while making sure that she knows the exact nature of the official accusation(s) of active malice for EACH Evil monster before any is killed?

The way that strip's written, it seems clear to me that if you're any Evil creature, you shouldn't cross Miko's path. Regardless of what you've done or not in the past.

The point of all this being, looking at Miko to help gauge what will and what won't downgrade one from Good to Neutral, I personally don't think that under the in-comic standards, V's use of Familicide is THAT Evil. Somewhat Evil, sure, but not enough to prevent V from keeping his True Neutral alignment. That's JMO and of course it's not something that can be proven either way (unless the Giant speaks on V's current alignment).

[SowZ]

It did not occur to V that the sentiment she was expressing was wrong. It did occur to Blackwing, who informed V that that was the case. V then repeated it out loud to the party, passing it off as something she meant to say. Judging from the weird looks the party gave V they did not believe she meant to say it all along, just like they can see right through Belkar's "ploy". Let's look at some of the other times V's used violence to solve her problems since coming to the Western Continent.

1. She responds to Drawmij's goading with force. Indeed, her first response to his attacks on her pride is to boast about the power she held under the splice (presumably before it became "naught but sound and fury") and to threaten violence. Once again, Blackwing steps in and tries to calm V down, at first successfully, but V eventually succumbs to Drawmij's taunts and attacks him with what could easily have been lethal force. V did not even attempt self-control, and what control there was over her actions was exercised by Blackwing. What's more, Blackwing doesn't seem to realistically expect better of V. He admits, resignedly, that "what's important is that this needless conflict was resolved WITHOUT the loser's entire family line getting totally eradicated".

2. After the fight with Drawmij, V resolves to "be more judicious in my application of my magical might". She repeats this resolution to herself at the beginning of the fight with the slavers, and sticks to it for less than a minute before wiping out all the slavers near her (at least four) with Chain Lightning. Her explanation for this is an end-of-strip joke, and really can't be used as evidence of her mindset one way or the other, though it's a pretty weak excuse for backsliding. However, Blackwing's setup to that joke was also meant to remind V of her resolution, and how quickly she went back on it.

3. The encounter with the Purple Worm can be interpreted to support your point: V chose to enchant the Worm rather than lash out with destructive force. However, I would point out that, unlike the last two encounters, V was not acting on her own initiative. She was given an order by her leader, someone to whom she feels bonded and chose to stay bonded after being served papers. This goes to support my points: V's primary regret is not having wiped out the black dragons, but having neglected personal relationships, and her actions are oriented towards repairing or maintaining those relationships rather than atoning for that big evil act.

4. Here we get to V's reaction to Girard's explosion trap, to which we have both posted reactions.

5. The opening of the encounter with Ganjii and Enor takes V mostly out of the fight, but gives her the chance to make some pointed philosphical observations. These observations, which involve V explicitly marking out what is in her view the "correct" philosophy, state that personal relationships should be prioritized over power. This goes to support my argument that V most regrets having prioritized power at the cost of her personal relationships. V does use Suggestion as opposed to a more flashy effect on Enor, but as she points out that is a product of her learning to prepare some spells without somatic components, and a product of the necessity to use a spell without somatic components in this case, not a matter of choice between several available spells. Blackwing then gets worried that V will sell her soul again to get out of her predicament, and from his v-shaped "angry" as opposed to u-shaped "smug" eyebrows seems to take the possiblity seriously. V, to her credit, does not try to do so, which could go to support your point. However, I would point out that Blackwing's attitude towards V selling her soul is clear and that V is loath to break up her relationship with Blackwing, especially since they just reconciled, for what she described after her fight with Drawmij as "fleeting power". Blackwing's continued harping on the subject in the last panel, like V's statement in the last panel of the slaver encounter, is best understood as a joke. V then STUN's Ganjii in order to allow Haley to intervene, which unambiguously goes to support your point that V has become, and/or is trying to become, more of a team player. I will concede that. However, that point feeds into my point: V's priority is to maintain and heal her existing personal relationships.

6. Haley and Elan enact an escape from the Empress' throne room, and take V along. Before they get out of the throne room, V's only contribution to the escape is a snarky comment or two, mostly because she's paralyzed and can't do anything else. There's a case to be made that her reference to "'our' most historically successful strategem" is a sign of her team spirit, but it's a weak one and as I said before saying that V is trying to be a team player supports my argument. V then saves Haley from what Tarquin says (and she has no reason to disbelieve) is a fall to her death, but again this goes to support both our points. I will again point out that V relying on Feather Fall isn't a choice. It is her solitary castable spell remaining.

7. V helps Haley rescue a number of slaves. She makes herself invisible, and possibly makes Haley invisible as well, allowing Haley to incapacitate the first guard. V then creates an illusion of several guards to obscure the fact that Haley is picking the locks on the slaves' shackles. V then distracts, incapacitates, or kills, we're not shown, at least three guards with an unnamed spell, and is shown nondescript as the slaves walk into the sunset. She is not shown to care much about their fate, and from the beginning was in this to help Haley with her pet project, not because she had any qualms with slavery necessarily. V was in it for Haley's sake, not for the slaves'. Once again, doing things for the sake of a personal relationship. However, with the exception of one already-mentioned ambiguity, we do not see V engage in destrutive activity or lethal violence, which does work for your point. All I can offer for refutation is that Haley might have asked V to incapacitate rather than kill in order to aid their not being detected, but I admit that's almost entirely speculation (although consistent with Haley's use of a sap and her MO).

8. This isn't an encounter per se, but V instructs Blackwing not to talk to her about "Polozius'" glaring at her. This can be evidence for your point, in that V feels guilty over something that happened in the Elven Lands. However, it can also be evidence for mine, and is more probably so, since one thing that happened in the Elven Lands that we know V feels guilty about is that Inkyrius divorced her. We don't really know what V thought "Polozius" was glaring at her about, however, and we'll probably never find out since "Polozius" revealed his true identity and the fact that the glares had nothing to do with happenings in the Elven Lands at all.

9. Now we come to the fight with the Linear Guild. Z appears, petrifies Haley. V's first action is to get Haley and information to Durkon, by means of Elan, demonstrating again her thinking in terms of the team. V then buffs herself up and proceeds to trade spells, and counterspells, with Z over several rounds, the spells she manages to land failing to pierce SR (like Hold Person, Prismatic Spray, Maximized Fireball) or falling to some tactic (Forcecage v. Dimension Door). A little less than half of the spells V employs are fairly destructive evocations (Prismatic Spray, Maximized Fireball), slightly undercutting your point that V has learned not to lash out with destructive force. However, she does eventually, after a number of rounds, recognize the futility of this approach in this given situation, and adopt her tactics accordingly. We have yet to see what she's planning or how it pans out.

On balance, you have a point that over the time V has spent on the Western Continent, she has relied on lashing out with destructive force less as time has gone on. I have offered reasons for why that might be so other than the reason you offered (lashing out with destructive force is wrong, and V realizes this), ranging from inappropriateness under given circumstances to orders by her leader, but ultimately it doesn't much matter. Even if V learned this lesson, it is the wrong lesson. The right lesson would be "I have committed a great evil, and I must make it right to the survivors of that evil" not "I must be more judicious in my application of magical might" or "I ought to treat my friends and allies better".


More accurately, she has shown a willingness to take advice when offered, mostly from Blackwing. We have not seen V seek advice at all: only accept it. Surely, this is a step up from ignoring "unwanted advice and misguided chastisements", and from forgetting her familiar existed, but it is not evidence of goodness. It instead backs up my main point: that V's character changes revolve around her learning to appreciate her personal relationships rather than regretting and atoning for her evil deeds.


As I have said, any lessons V might have learned from the Familicide, and identifying the lessons she learned is an open discussion, pale in comparison to the lesson V has not yet learned. That it was indeed evil for her to commit genocide. Regardless of how much more she values her relationships or how restrained her application of force, the taint of that act will not go away until V acknowledges it explicitly. As you say, she would have to overcome her pride, her desire not to be reminded of "all that I have done", fess up, and do whatever the wronged parties desire of her to make it right. Until then, that act will be balanced against her soul, and will always outweigh it.


This is pure speculation. What we have seen is that V wants to sweep her evil act under the rug, to keep it a secret. That could suggest she feels what she did was wrong, or that she fears that the party, the people who she has chosen to maintain her relationships with, will shun her because they feel it is wrong. According to V's new philosophy, maintaining a relationship trumps everything else. We know she thinks life can be legitimately sacrificed for the sake of love: why not the truth?


1. This is a D&D world, and has been stated - by Elan's shoulder devil, by the Astral Deva who judged Roy - to have an objective morality. There are literal cosmic forces who decide whether something is evil or not: it's not up to mortals. Tarquin doesn't consider himself evil, but according to D&D, and heck, most real-world morality, he unquestionably is.

2. Having a personal code and adhering to it (as opposed to, say, judging each situation on its own merits) is what makes someone lawful, not good.

As to your points 1-9, I have only considered some of these before and I accept your explanation for Vs actions is just as likely as mine. Possibly more likely as it is consistent with Vs personality throughout the strip.

As for the part about morality...

1. This doesn't defeat my position about non-concrete morality. All that proves is that there are astral beings who call themselves evil and astral beings who call themselves good. A divine creature serving at the gates of heaven naturally has a black and white view of the world. This doesn't mean anything except the gate judges accept their gods outlook on good evil. But even then, what is good and evil is up to the individual gate clerks opinions! (The clerk stated that she knows judges who would have already thrown Roy into the TN pile.) So it is obviously at least a little subjective.

I accept there are universal energies called good and energies called evil. Different spells use different energies and different actions may channel different energies. But the energy labelled good and the energy labelled evil is not the same as philosophical good and evil. Let me offer some proof. Deathwatch is an 'evil' spell. It channels the energy called evil. But what if a city of innocent villagers is defending themselves from an army of creatures whose only motivation is to kill and raid and a hero is the primary healer, (keeping as many villagers alive as possible?) Deathwatch is used to see who needs healing, saving fathers and mothers from death.

Okay. Let's use a more blatantly 'evil' spell. Raise Dead. The first wave of assaulting creatures is dead and many villagers are, too, despite the healers best efforts. The healer then decides that the only way to beat the second wave without losing nearly all the villagers is to make an army of zombies to fight for them. The zombies beat the attackers off. Whether you are a deontologist, (intent matters,) a consequentialist, (results matter,) or somewhere inbetween, this action is hard to condemn.

Energy good and energy evil is not right and wrong or positive and negative. You mention that there are authorities who say what is good and evil. You mean the gods? If there was one universal creator who was also the sentience of the universe in D&D I would heavily consider that this is the case. But there are different pantheons and different gods who 'decide' what is good and evil.

By what virtue do those gods decide this? Is it by virtue of power? If that is the case, does a 15th level character have more authority to decide what is ethical then a 2nd? Might makes right? OR what about when gods disagree? (They do quite a bit.) Not only are gods not always good, (there are many evil gods and even the good gods are often lousy people, even in OOTS,) they contend what is right. So, which god should people believe? The one who they are worshipping? If that is the case, it supports my argument.

Maybe it is the general consensus of the gods? Not only is that subjective and arbitrary but there are alot of issues. What happens when the celestial balance of power shifts? Does right and wrong shift, too? Or what if a god most people call an 'evil' god becomes the most powerful of all? Are good and evil switched? I don't see how good and evil can be decided by a bunch of divine authorities.

You may argue there are inherent parts of the universe deeper then even gods making good and evil. This fails to Humes 'is-ought' problem. Just because something is a certain way does not mean it should be.

[SowZ]

Alignment in D&D is an extremely limited system, yes. FWIW, there was at least one OotS strip where the Giant joked about that fact explicitly (I don't remember exactly which one, I'd say it's around #0100-#0200).

But if you had casted Detect Good on Miko before she Fell, she'd have registered as Good.

Nah, if I had casted detect alignment she would have registered as lawful neutral. If I was the caster it would have judged her by my standards. (If it had been a divine spell, it would have been my dieties definition of good/evil.)


Yeah, that's pretty reasonable. I completely agree with him about giving priority to the narrative flow there. Anyway, it doesn't prove anything either way.

On the other hand, if you consider that someone with Miko's attitude has remained Good for years...

In my interpretation, no, she hasn't. Someone could cast detect good on Benito Mussilini and it could test positive all day long. By my standards, that's bull.


Can "monsters" even be accused of/charged with anything?

You think Miko would actually TRACK "thousands of monsters" (exact quote from the strip) while making sure that she knows the exact nature of the official accusation(s) of active malice for EACH Evil monster before any is killed?

If it is evil to track and kill thousands of humans without knowing their crimes and accusing them/giving them a trial, it is evil to do that to an orc.


The way that strip's written, it seems clear to me that if you're any Evil creature, you shouldn't cross Miko's path. Regardless of what you've done or not in the past.

The point of all this being, looking at Miko to help gauge what will and what won't downgrade one from Good to Neutral, I personally don't think that under the in-comic standards, V's use of Familicide is THAT Evil. Somewhat Evil, sure, but not enough to prevent V from keeping his True Neutral alignment. That's JMO and of course it's not something that can be proven either way (unless the Giant speaks on V's current alignment

I agree. If it is okay for Miko to kill monsters without knowing for sure they deserve it then what V did was A-Okay. The easier explanation is that they were both wrong.

[VanBuren]

Nah, if I had casted detect alignment she would have registered as lawful neutral. If I was the caster it would have judged her by my standards. (If it had been a divine spell, it would have been my dieties definition of good/evil.)



In my interpretation, no, she hasn't. Someone could cast detect good on Benito Mussilini and it could test positive all day long. By my standards, that's bull.



If it is evil to track and kill thousands of humans without knowing their crimes and accusing them/giving them a trial, it is evil to do that to an orc.



I agree. If it is okay for Miko to kill monsters without knowing for sure they deserve it then what V did was A-Okay. The easier explanation is that they were both wrong.

Er... alignment is not subjective in DnD. Which is to say that there is no indication that two detect alignment spells would have different results simply because one of them has a different definition of Good.

[SowZ]

Er... alignment is not subjective in DnD. Which is to say that there is no indication that two detect alignment spells would have different results simply because one of them has a different definition of Good.

Different good gods have different ideas of good and evil. So how could it be any other way?

[hamishspence]

Because being a deity in D&D, doesn't mean being infallible. Good deities are not perfect, they may be willing to rationalize away certain dubious actions as "justified".

Thus, a paladin with a deity, might end up discovering that their deity's morality is slightly out of synch with the actual morality of the setting.

They might follow their deity's command- and end up Falling.

and thus, conclude that in this one aspect, their deity is wrong- and atone, and make a note of what their deity was wrong about, so they don't Fall again.

[lio45]

Nah, if I had casted detect alignment she would have registered as lawful neutral. If I was the caster it would have judged her by my standards. (If it had been a divine spell, it would have been my dieties definition of good/evil.)

In my interpretation, no, she hasn't. Someone could cast detect good on Benito Mussilini and it could test positive all day long. By my standards, that's bull.



Because being a deity in D&D, doesn't mean being infallible. Good deities are not perfect, they may be willing to rationalize away certain dubious actions as "justified".

Thus, a paladin with a deity, might end up discovering that their deity's morality is slightly out of synch with the actual morality of the setting.

They might follow their deity's command- and end up Falling.

and thus, conclude that in this one aspect, their deity is wrong- and atone, and make a note of what their deity was wrong about, so they don't Fall again.

Hmmm, OK, if you two are right, then the "contradiction" (in quotation marks) does disappear.

(just to make sure it's as clear as possible, what I call the "contradiction" is the fact that V's familicide has got Paladin-seal-of-approval in the comic's setting, as killing dragons whose scales aren't all shiny is "just and necessary" according to someone Lawful Good.)



If it is evil to track and kill thousands of humans without knowing their crimes and accusing them/giving them a trial, it is evil to do that to an orc.

I'm evil, then. The other day, a mosquito was annoying me and I killed it without giving it a trial. :P





I agree. If it is okay for Miko to kill monsters without knowing for sure they deserve it then what V did was A-Okay. The easier explanation is that they were both wrong.




Different good gods have different ideas of good and evil. So how could it be any other way?

Because if it's written "Good" on the character sheet, then the character is Good? The same way, if it's written "blue eyes" on the character sheet, and someone casts "Detect Eye Color" on that character, the result will be "blue".

That's how I thought alignment worked in D&D, but maybe not.

So Belkar could actually be Chaotic Neutral in someone's own referential? That's what you're saying?

[hamishspence]

I lean to the view that Miko was wrong in that particular case-

since being Good does not preclude one from holding an erroneous view that if acted on could lead to morally wrong actions.

But until the character acts on that view- and commits a morally wrong act- they aren't in too much danger of forfeiting their Goodness.

[Warmage]

I lean to the view that Miko was wrong in that particular case-

since being Good does not preclude one from holding an erroneous view that if acted on could lead to morally wrong actions.

But until the character acts on that view- and commits a morally wrong act- they aren't in too much danger of forfeiting their Goodness.

You mean like acting on your view that your liege is actually working together with an evil lich to destroy the entire world? By Miko's point of view, she was doing what was good and lawful. We all know how that worked out for her.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. Which may support my view that: "Being Wrong" doesn't change one's alignment or status, but acting based on that, may, depending on the particular actions.

So- if Miko was wrong about that- she might be wrong about dragons, or a few other things.

[Warmage]

Indeed. Which may support my view that: "Being Wrong" doesn't change one's alignment or status, but acting based on that, may, depending on the particular actions.

So- if Miko was wrong about that- she might be wrong about dragons, or a few other things.

Exactly. Using Miko as a basis for good morals in the OOTS verse isn't exactly wise.

[lio45]

I lean to the view that Miko was wrong in that particular case-

since being Good does not preclude one from holding an erroneous view that if acted on could lead to morally wrong actions.

But until the character acts on that view- and commits a morally wrong act- they aren't in too much danger of forfeiting their Goodness.

Sure, but then that would require assuming that Miko has never committed such "morally wrong" acts over the years. I prefer the opposite assumption, i.e. Miko has done such things, but they're not actually wrong enough to make one lose their Goodness.

Yes, I realize I'm using some things that were written because they were funny and basing the whole argument on them, but I still think the obvious limitations of the alignment system, which is how it works in-comic, DO truly make V's act not as bad as some think. In-comic.



Edit to avoid double post:


Indeed. Which may support my view that: "Being Wrong" doesn't change one's alignment or status, but acting based on that, may, depending on the particular actions.

So- if Miko was wrong about that- she might be wrong about dragons, or a few other things.


Well, again... I think it's very likely that Miko has actually acted following her views over the years.

Miko's character strikes me as the type who will definitely DO what she thinks is right... not think one thing, and do another. If she thinks that Evil monsters deserve to be killed solely because they're Evil, then my opinion is that we can pretty safely assume she's acted accordingly in the past.

[hamishspence]

In the case of monsters, doing morally wrong things to them, may be a bit dependant on the circumstances.

If every chromatic dragon Miko's encountered has been on the offensive, the possibility that Miko might kill a relatively innocent chromatic dragon in its sleep, might never come up.

She might think it's OK to smash chromatic dragon eggs, or slaughter sleeping hatchlings, but not have had the opportunity to do so.

Might be interesting to see how common "monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill" is in the OoTS world.

There's the "They're listed as CE so we can kill them without alignment problems" paladin in Origin of PCs.

There's the "only good goblin is a dead goblin" Team Peregrine leader.

I wonder what others?

[Holy_Knight]

Can "monsters" even be accused of/charged with anything?
Sure they can. Sentient ones could even be legally charged (which seems to be the sense of "charged" you're using) but what I really meant was in the general sense of there being claims that they committed some malice, which could apply to anything.



You think Miko would actually TRACK "thousands of monsters" (exact quote from the strip) while making sure that she knows the exact nature of the official accusation(s) of active malice for EACH Evil monster before any is killed?
Yes. Miko wasn't really an adventurer per se; she was either sent on solo missions with specific objectives, or worked with other members of the Sapphire Guard. She definitely wasn't just wandering around looking for things to smite. And we know for a fact that she spent a long time tracking the Order itself, gathering additional information along the way. There's no reason to think that isn't typical of her usual approach.



The point of all this being, looking at Miko to help gauge what will and what won't downgrade one from Good to Neutral, I personally don't think that under the in-comic standards, V's use of Familicide is THAT Evil. Somewhat Evil, sure, but not enough to prevent V from keeping his True Neutral alignment. That's JMO and of course it's not something that can be proven either way (unless the Giant speaks on V's current alignment).
While the Giant hasn't commented on Vaarsuivius' alignment specifically, he has actually stated the the Familicide was unquestionably evil.

[Kish]

Different good gods have different ideas of good and evil. So how could it be any other way?
What do gods have to do with it?

Why would only the good gods be allowed to vote, if any of them are? All the gods would be listed as some form of Good, with clarifications like, "Chaotic Good, which means he believes in valor in war...Lawful Good, which means he wants the living eradicated to make way for the undead..."

No, morality is objective in D&D--objective objective, not "these characters who happen to be gods have a ton more votes than other characters." Neutral gods are less good than good gods, evil gods are less good still, and good gods have their share of blind spots and flaws, which are still flaws, not places where objective good gets redefined.

In the case of monsters, doing morally wrong things to them, may be a bit dependant on the circumstances.

If every chromatic dragon Miko's encountered has been on the offensive, the possibility that Miko might kill a relatively innocent chromatic dragon in its sleep, might never come up.

Actually, Rich addressed that a while ago, when someone on this forum claimed that Miko would mow down a kobold on sight, and said that while Miko was prepared to let the Order slide on killing a black dragon, she, herself, would actually not have killed the young black dragon the Order met without casting Detect Evil first.

[Burner28]

Actually, Rich addressed that a while ago, when someone on this forum claimed that Miko would mow down a kobold on sight, and said that while Miko was prepared to let the Order slide on killing a black dragon, she, herself, would actually not have killed the young black dragon the Order met without casting Detect Evil first.

Where did he say that?:smallconfused:

[SowZ]

What do gods have to do with it?

Why would only the good gods be allowed to vote, if any of them are? All the gods would be listed as some form of Good, with clarifications like, "Chaotic Good, which means he believes in valor in war...Lawful Good, which means he wants the living eradicated to make way for the undead..."

No, morality is objective in D&D--objective objective, not "these characters who happen to be gods have a ton more votes than other characters." Neutral gods are less good than good gods, evil gods are less good still, and good gods have their share of blind spots and flaws, which are still flaws, not places where objective good gets redefined.

Actually, Rich addressed that a while ago, when someone on this forum claimed that Miko would mow down a kobold on sight, and said that while Miko was prepared to let the Order slide on killing a black dragon, she, herself, would actually not have killed the young black dragon the Order met without casting Detect Evil first.

On what standard is morality objective? It obviously isn't the gods, that was my point, or else it is arbitrary. The idea of inherent good and evil energies doesn't define moral right and wrong as evil energies can be used for good and good energies can be used for evil. So it isn't that, either. How could an abstract philosophical idea like right and wrong be objective? 'Because that's how D&D is' get's caught up in the 'is-ought' problem. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it is right or that it should be. So what makes one persons view on morality and right and wrong more valid then any other persons view if both are equally supported by logic?

In a world with fallible gods and sentient beings the way D&D is set up, the only way for right and wrong to make any sort of sense is with subjectivity. If D&D was made with the idea that 1 and 1 equals 3 in the D&D world, but everything that happens in the D&D world suggests 1 and 1 is still 2, I would say no, 1 and 1 don't equal 3 even in D&D. If a creator of an alternative history film on Benito Mussilini said that in the context of his movie, Benito Mussilini is a good person but he still acts like Benito Mussilini, 'word of god' wouldn't change the fact that even in that film, I view Benito Musslini as evil.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

On what standard is morality objective? It obviously isn't the gods, that was my point, or else it is arbitrary. The idea of inherent good and evil energies doesn't define moral right and wrong as evil energies can be used for good and good energies can be used for evil. So it isn't that, either. How could an abstract philosophical idea like right and wrong be objective? 'Because that's how D&D is' get's caught up in the 'is-ought' problem. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it is right or that it should be. So what makes one persons view on morality and right and wrong more valid then any other persons view if both are equally supported by logic?

In a world with fallible gods and sentient beings the way D&D is set up, the only way for right and wrong to make any sort of sense is with subjectivity. If D&D was made with the idea that 1 and 1 equals 3 in the D&D world, but everything that happens in the D&D world suggests 1 and 1 is still 2, I would say no, 1 and 1 don't equal 3 even in D&D. If a creator of an alternative history film on Benito Mussilini said that in the context of his movie, Benito Mussilini is a good person but he still acts like Benito Mussilini, 'word of god' wouldn't change the fact that even in that film, I view Benito Musslini as evil.

Actually, there's a very good article about this over at the Escapist.
Essentially, the author posits that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are certainly all detectable energies in Dungeons and Dragons but the only reason the rules consistently refer to them as such is author bias (the book is written assuming you're playing good guys).
To a Chaotic Evil person "Detect Good" would be called "Detect Unreasonable" and "Detect Evil" called "Detect Reasonable".
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment
It honestly makes a lot of sense, since only some evil people actually acknowledge their own evil (even if more do in D&D than reality)


Well, we've wandered a bit off topic. I'd argue V is a True Neutral with Lawful and Evil tendencies (he's very orderly and can be quite ruthless) who is trying hard to reform towards Good now that he's seen where that can take him.

[SowZ]

Actually, there's a very good article about this over at the Escapist.
Essentially, the author posits that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are certainly all detectable energies in Dungeons and Dragons but the only reason the rules consistently refer to them as such is author bias (the book is written assuming you're playing good guys).
To a Chaotic Evil person "Detect Good" would be called "Detect Unreasonable" and "Detect Evil" called "Detect Reasonable".
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment
It honestly makes a lot of sense, since only some evil people actually acknowledge their own evil (even if more do in D&D than reality)


Well, we've wandered a bit off topic. I'd argue V is a True Neutral with Lawful and Evil tendencies (he's very orderly and can be quite ruthless) who is trying hard to reform towards Good now that he's seen where that can take him.

Never read it, but yeah, no, this is mostly where I am at. There are energies that exist commonly called good, evil, chaotic, and lawful, but to call good and evil objectively right and wrong is silly. If good and evil are objective in DnD, good and evil are energies not philosophical concepts and not right and wrong.

Based on my ethics, I would call V neutral evil, but reforming towards TN and maybe someday neutral good.

[martianmister]

I think true neutral is still suits his/her post-familicide personality.

[veti]

There are energies that exist commonly called good, evil, chaotic, and lawful, but to call good and evil objectively right and wrong is silly. If good and evil are objective in DnD, good and evil are energies not philosophical concepts and not right and wrong.

SowZ - thank you, that's a very succinct expression of an argument I've been making for years.

As for V, I've always seen her as Lawful Neutral, based on (what I see as) her deep-rooted faith that there is an underlying order to the universe. That's what drove her to become a wizard - the belief that she could master the secrets of the universe using intelligence (logic). She hasn't always lived up to the ideal, but that's her self-image, so I believe that's what it says on her (hypothetical) character sheet.

[VanBuren]

On what standard is morality objective? It obviously isn't the gods, that was my point, or else it is arbitrary. The idea of inherent good and evil energies doesn't define moral right and wrong as evil energies can be used for good and good energies can be used for evil. So it isn't that, either. How could an abstract philosophical idea like right and wrong be objective? 'Because that's how D&D is' get's caught up in the 'is-ought' problem. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it is right or that it should be. So what makes one persons view on morality and right and wrong more valid then any other persons view if both are equally supported by logic?

In a world with fallible gods and sentient beings the way D&D is set up, the only way for right and wrong to make any sort of sense is with subjectivity. If D&D was made with the idea that 1 and 1 equals 3 in the D&D world, but everything that happens in the D&D world suggests 1 and 1 is still 2, I would say no, 1 and 1 don't equal 3 even in D&D. If a creator of an alternative history film on Benito Mussilini said that in the context of his movie, Benito Mussilini is a good person but he still acts like Benito Mussilini, 'word of god' wouldn't change the fact that even in that film, I view Benito Musslini as evil.

To use DnD's framework, it's built into the very fabric of the universe itself. You can agree or disagree that the idea is a good one or that it works. But you're not given the freedom to say that it's not explicitly something it definitively is.

[SowZ]

To use DnD's framework, it's built into the very fabric of the universe itself. You can agree or disagree that the idea is a good one or that it works. But you're not given the freedom to say that it's not explicitly something it definitively is.

Good and evil as energies or good and evil as abstract philosophies? No one has yet explained to me how or why good and evil in DnD mean right and wrong- even 'within it's framework.' There would need to be some standard. If it is arbitrary, then it would be arguable even inside the universe itself that good and evil are not aboslutes or at least are wrong to be so- once again going back to the is-ought problem. So we are right back to subjective again.


SowZ - thank you, that's a very succinct expression of an argument I've been making for years.

As for V, I've always seen her as Lawful Neutral, based on (what I see as) her deep-rooted faith that there is an underlying order to the universe. That's what drove her to become a wizard - the belief that she could master the secrets of the universe using intelligence (logic). She hasn't always lived up to the ideal, but that's her self-image, so I believe that's what it says on her (hypothetical) character sheet.

Yeah, I know I'm not the only one. Can I hear a Hoo-rah for moral ambiguity?

[VanBuren]

Good and evil as energies or good and evil as abstract philosophies? No one has yet explained to me how or why good and evil in DnD mean right and wrong- even 'within it's framework.' There would need to be some standard. If it is arbitrary, then it would be arguable even inside the universe itself that good and evil are not aboslutes or at least are wrong to be so- once again going back to the is-ought problem. So we are right back to subjective again.



Yeah, I know I'm not the only one. Can I hear a Hoo-rah for moral ambiguity?

Someone who is defined by the laws of the universe itself as Lawful Good will ping as Lawful Good whenever Detect Alignment is cast. Whether it's you or the Cleric of Bane two blocks over, the result of the spell will not change.

[SowZ]

Someone who is defined by the laws of the universe itself as Lawful Good will ping as Lawful Good whenever Detect Alignment is cast. Whether it's you or the Cleric of Bane two blocks over, the result of the spell will not change.

Although I don't DM that way in my setting, I accept that is probably the designers intent. But even if it is the case, it does not advance the cause that 'good' means right or 'evil' means wrong.

[Hbgplayer]

Hard question. :vaarsuvius:
As an Elf, she... She is female, because in one of the earlier cartoons, I forget which one, she and Haley share a room in an inn and the boys were in another. During the next few panels, a provocative sounding, though innocent sequence of events take place, which cause the guys to listen next to the walls in lust... any way, she is predisposed to be Chaotic, but as a Wizard, she is more likely to be Lawful. :smallsigh:
That being said, I say that she is Lawful. She is very loyal to both Roy and to Haley, and is often fed up with Belkar's chaos.
As with her Good v. Evil alignment, she has almost exclusively been good, with the single incident of the soul splicing being evil, but that was in defense of her family, and she used part of her powers to try to defeat :xykon:, so one could argue that it was good.

[VanBuren]

Although I don't DM that way in my setting, I accept that is probably the designers intent. But even if it is the case, it does not advance the cause that 'good' means right or 'evil' means wrong.

That's not what I've been debating.

[Kish]

Although I don't DM that way in my setting, I accept that is probably the designers intent. But even if it is the case, it does not advance the cause that 'good' means right or 'evil' means wrong.
All the advancement that "cause" needs is found in a standard dictionary, under "good," and "evil." Not that I'm clear on how we got here anyway, and you've acknowledged that D&D (and, by extension, OotS) don't use your "the Detect spells go by the caster's or the caster's god's moral code" house rule.

[James Lu]

Vaarsuvius is Lawful Good, from what I've seen in the comics and what Hbgplayer says, V has always been loyal to the Order, and attempts to do what xe thinks is right (good at heart, but in practice some of xe's actions may be questionable), as Hbgplayer notes about the Soul Splice, that was to protect xe's family, arguably the destruction of the dragon's family could be considered an act of good as the panels afterward show those dragons were also terrorising the rest of the plane.

[hamishspence]

as Hbgplayer notes about the Soul Splice, that was to protect xe's family, arguably the destruction of the dragon's family could be considered an act of good as the panels afterward show those dragons were also terrorising the rest of the plane.

"To protect one's family" does not turn evil deeds into nonevil ones.

Nor does "some of them were terrorizing people" make it OK to destroy a whole group for the crimes of a few.

Especially since V had no idea about what any of those dragons were doing. So the fact that a few may have been terrorizing people doesn't factor into V's decision making.

[James Lu]

True, but all of them were terrorising the plane. So he didn't really do a disservice to the plane, the comment about xe protecting his/her family was an observation, I didn't say that meant xe was good by virtue of that act, only that xe's heart was in the right place.

[hamishspence]

When?

Take a look at the pic with all the dragons and half-dragons- how many of them are doing something that qualifies as "obviously terrorizing the plane"?

"V's heart was in the right place"- look at the strip afterwards. V's statement was not "This was the only way to protect my family" but "This was the price of threatening my family"- suggesting a big part of the motivation was revenge on the mother dragon.

[Burner28]

V did not even know that all of them did anything wrong and that is the important thing.



As with her Good v. Evil alignment, she has almost exclusively been good, with the single incident of the soul splicing being evil, but that was in defense of her family, and she used part of her powers to try to defeat :xykon:, so one could argue that it was good.

No, killing that Black dragon was done in defense of V's family. The killings of the other dragons at that time was not as at that time they were not threatening V or his family so that excuse is out.

[lio45]

Vaarsuvius is Lawful Good, from what I've seen in the comics...

I guess we don't read the same comic...

- Considers blowing other people up is an acceptable way of solving problems
- Rationally accepts a bargain with fiends
- Disintegrates someone solely because that person happens to be Elan's captive
- Doesn't give a whit about those dreadfully tedious Azurites; teleports them only because they'll be less annoying then
- Doesn't think twice before doing familicide

...and I'm sure that list could be quite a bit longer if I wasn't forgetting plenty.

That's not a Good character.

[Burner28]

By the way, how come we are still arguing about whether or not Familicide was evil or not?

[hamishspence]

It may be to do with a playstyle that involves it never being evil to kill Always Evil monsters, no matter how genocidal the means.

Or to do with a "the results justify the means" viewpoint.

Or some other reason entirely.

Given how much argument there was shortly after it happened, it's not entirely surprising that it's still argued over even after Word of Giant, in DSTP.

[Hbgplayer]

Ok, The Famicide event was, without question, evil.
That being said, that does not make Vaarsuvius evil. Going back and reading some of the comments, yes, she is likely not to be good, because she acts for the good of her party and family. Before the soul-splice, however, nothing she did was evil; she did what she thought would be the best course of action, but did nothing to harm others deliberately.:vaarsuvius:

[SowZ]

I think some people are downplaying Vs good traits. She does have a moral code and does care about people and helping them, (even people she doesn't know,) though she cares about herself more. That is the case with most people.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think some people are downplaying Vs good traits. She does have a moral code and does care about people and helping them, (even people she doesn't know,) though she cares about herself more. That is the case with most people.
Posted from blackberry:

Having a code and following it is lawful, not good. As for V caring about people to whom she doesn't consider herself bonded, she didn't care about helping the dirt farmers or the Azurites. If she had her way, she wouldn't interact with them at all, as demonstrated by the tirade she delivered to Roy when asked to help with the dirt farmers, and her seclusion from the Azurites and refusal to help them on Orc Island. Even the aid she did deliver the Azurites was incidental to furthering her own goals, among which goals were "never having to interact with these petty concerns again" (paraphrased). As for most people caring more for themselves than others, that is disputable (brain scans say we feel better helping others thab when we only help ourselves) and even if true says more about what's common than what's good. Claiming most people are neutral doesn't say anything about V's goodness.

[Hbgplayer]

Wait, have we all decided that :vaarsuvius: is lawful?

[zimmerwald1915]

Wait, have we all decided that :vaarsuvius: is lawful?
Posted from blackberry:

We have decided nothing, and aren't really in a position to decide anything. Like most alignment debates, barring Word of Rich it will probably continue in perpetuity. Some people involved in this discussion have posited that Vaarsuvius is Lawful, and a few have tried to demonstrate Vaarsuivus' alleged goodness or good qualities balancing out to neutrality using alleged lawfulness as evidence.

[hamishspence]

Before the soul-splice, however, nothing she did was evil; she did what she thought would be the best course of action, but did nothing to harm others deliberately.:vaarsuvius:

Trying to blow up Miko, blowing up Belkar numerous times, and, depending on your interpretion of V's motives, the killing of Kubota, could all qualify.

[Hbgplayer]

- Considers blowing other people up is an acceptable way of solving problems
- Rationally accepts a bargain with fiends
- Disintegrates someone solely because that person happens to be Elan's captive
- Doesn't give a whit about those dreadfully tedious Azurites; teleports them only because they'll be less annoying then
- Doesn't think twice before doing familicide

...and I'm sure that list could be quite a bit longer if I wasn't forgetting plenty.

That's not a Good character.

Vaarsuvius was not exactly rational when she accepted the deal with the fiends. Remember that she had not slept... or tranced, as the case may be, for months, since they had evacuated Azure city. Also, she was desperate to protect her family, and good people will do desperate things to protect their family.
Also, this is not based in today's world. This is supposed to be a medieval times type setting, where even good people thought that violence was an acceptable solution. And what else was he supposed to do? Just let them catch them after finding the Trapdoor? :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

This is supposed to be a medieval times type setting, where even good people thought that violence was an acceptable solution.

D&D often subverts "medieval type setting" and OOTS, even more so.

BoED points out that just because torture, discrimination, and so on, were considered acceptable in medieval times, doesn't make them Not Evil in a D&D context- even if the population might have medieval-ish views in some games.

[SowZ]

Posted from blackberry:

Having a code and following it is lawful, not good. As for V caring about people to whom she doesn't consider herself bonded, she didn't care about helping the dirt farmers or the Azurites. If she had her way, she wouldn't interact with them at all, as demonstrated by the tirade she delivered to Roy when asked to help with the dirt farmers, and her seclusion from the Azurites and refusal to help them on Orc Island. Even the aid she did deliver the Azurites was incidental to furthering her own goals, among which goals were "never having to interact with these petty concerns again" (paraphrased). As for most people caring more for themselves than others, that is disputable (brain scans say we feel better helping others thab when we only help ourselves) and even if true says more about what's common than what's good. Claiming most people are neutral doesn't say anything about V's goodness.

Eh, having a rigid code is lawful. But all good characters have a code of some sort because there is something they value that they want to mantain. Even chaotic good characters have a code, (though it may be flexible,) often moreso then neutral good characters.

For the record, I think V was neutral with a leaning towards good up until she started obsessing over the failed scrying attempts. It is difficult to talk about alignment for someone in a manic state. After the soul splice? I think V shifted towards neutral evil and has more or less stayed there but is moving back towards true neutral on a path to possible goodness. Of course, that is based on my moral code.

This is not the only example, but the first one I found, that displays Vs compassion for random people whom she felt obligated to protect.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html

[Hbgplayer]

Trying to blow up Miko, blowing up Belkar numerous times, and, depending on your interpretion of V's motives, the killing of Kubota, could all qualify.

Well at the time that she tried to blow up Miko, Miko was her enemy, so that doesn't count, blowing up Belkar is one of her Elven Chaotic streaks, more of a prank that everybody, with exception of Belkar, found funny, and I don't recall who Kubota is.

[hamishspence]

They had a truce at the time, and had just worked together to fight monsters.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html

V and Kubota:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html

[MoonCat]

Well at the time that she tried to blow up Miko, Miko was her enemy, so that doesn't count, blowing up Belkar is one of her Elven Chaotic streaks, more of a prank that everybody, with exception of Belkar, found funny, and I don't recall who Kubota is.

The dude who killed Therkla, tried to killed Kazumi and Diago and Hinjo, and was aiming for possession of the throne. Also, classist.

[zimmerwald1915]

This is not the only example, but the first one I found, that displays Vs compassion for random people whom she felt obligated to protect.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html
Posted from Blackberry

She did not feel obligated to protect the Azurites. She had set herself the task of winning the battle all by herself using her magic. She was traumatized by that memory because that Azurite soldier explicitly called her out on not being able to win the battle with her magic. She felt like a failure bacause, strictly speaking, she was: she had failed at her self-appointed task of winning the battle with her magic. She did not feel like a failure because she failed to protect the Azurites. That was purely incidental to what she felt was her real failure.

[Hbgplayer]

Ok, now I remember. But again, that was after she had not tranced for months, and not necessarily evil, just another of her chaotic streaks, since he was obviously evil.
As for Miko, it was also like with Belkar, just a prank, as she said, he has d10 HD, so she was not in danger.

[hamishspence]

"pranks" involving 6d6 of lethal force damage, are a bit sadistic.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm

There's also this scene:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html

[SowZ]

Ok, now I remember. But again, that was after she had not tranced for months, and not necessarily evil, just another of her chaotic streaks, since he was obviously evil.
As for Miko, it was also like with Belkar, just a prank, as she said, he has d10 HD, so she was not in danger.

He was not obviously evil to V. V admits the only reason she killed him was because she knew he was a significant figure of some kind and that he was going to have to go to trial for something. As far as V knew, he was the head conspirator for a group commiting tax fraud.

[Hbgplayer]

That may be true, but not necessarily evil. Also, remember that when Miko cast detect Evil, she registered as Not Evil Even the best of people have the occasional sadistic streak. She does have evil streaks, but she as good that neutralizes it.

[Kish]

True, but all of them were terrorising the plane.
That makes three times you've posted this inaccurate claim in this thread. Is there a reason you're repeating it over and over, even in the face of its inaccuracy being pointed out?

[hamishspence]

"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.

Balancing good acts and intentions with evil acts to be Neutral aligned is a possibility- but we don't see Good acts by V to suggest that V is of this balance.

[SowZ]

"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.

Balancing good acts and intentions with evil acts to be Neutral aligned is a possibility- but we don't see Good acts by V to suggest that V is of this balance.

Yeah, and my example of compassion and guilt was only to show that V has redeemable qualities. Even an average, (neutral,) person would typically feel bad if they witnessed a bunch of good people get slaughtered and they felt as if they should have been able to stop it.

You can justify Vs killing of black dragons as an act that, in the end, helped the world despite parts of it being evil but that is not the reason V did it at all. She was on a bloodthirsty power trip and enjoyed torturing the Black Dragon. IF V had killed the dragons with moral justification in mind, not only would she have most likely have given half a second to contemplate if it is wrong or right, she would have tried to kill all black dragons best she could. One could argue Familicide isn't that powerful, but I think the intention was clear.

V also said, "This, and nothing less, is the price you pay for threatening my family." I have no reason to believe that she would not have commited familicide to a goblin if said goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

[Icedaemon]

Killing Kubota while being unaware of any particular wrongdoing by him- just guessing, may count as well, for "lack of respect for life" (with respect for life being a trait Good characters need).

Come to think of it, just such an offhand murder of a captured foe with no prior knowledge is enough to suggest evil tendencies before the soul spice. V is neutral evil, if not quite so obviously a bastard as Belkar. I would guess that the elf was TN until (after?) the battle for Azure city, but the failure there and subsequent inability to get a message to Haley shifted its alignment to evil as focus drifted off aiding the party and more to proving and increasing one's own power.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right. V seems somewhat Neutral rather than Good in Origin of PCs- and combined with the Arrogant Neutral alignment in the OoTS tabletop game,

I'd say that despite saying "Overwhelmed by pure Evil" in strip 11, V is not in fact sickened- but is suffering the effects a Neutral character would.

While "lack of sleep" might be a mitigating factor, I'd say V is very close to the Neutral/Evil borderline by the time of Kubota's death.

Whether V is over it or not is a bit harder to define- a valid case could be made for either side of the line.

[Holy_Knight]

Posted from Blackberry

She did not feel obligated to protect the Azurites. She had set herself the task of winning the battle all by herself using her magic. She was traumatized by that memory because that Azurite soldier explicitly called her out on not being able to win the battle with her magic. She felt like a failure bacause, strictly speaking, she was: she had failed at her self-appointed task of winning the battle with her magic. She did not feel like a failure because she failed to protect the Azurites. That was purely incidental to what she felt was her real failure.
I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Being haunted by a recurring nightmare like that seems indicative of guilt, not just of personal failure. That is to say, I think the two are connected--Vaarsuvius felt guilty about not being able to save them, which was part of the impetus for his growing obsession with becoming more powerful, as well as what I take to be an actual fear of going to sleep (or trance), not really thinking it was "inefficient" like he tells himself.


"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.
I think going back to help O-Chul instead of running away could count.

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

[SowZ]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Being haunted by a recurring nightmare like that seems indicative of guilt, not just of personal failure. That is to say, I think the two are connected--Vaarsuvius felt guilty about not being able to save them, which was part of the impetus for his growing obsession with becoming more powerful, as well as what I take to be an actual fear of going to sleep (or trance), not really thinking it was "inefficient" like he tells himself.


I think going back to help O-Chul instead of running away could count.

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

At the very least, there is a good chance that Roy's gods believe V is evil. Right before Roy was rezzed, a deva or something urgently tried to tell him that one of his party members took a drastic turn towards evil. This wouldn't have happened if she meant, 'One of your allies is in morally questionable territory!' as V has always been there. According to the celestial beings, I think that means V turned evil.

Being evil doesn't mean you don't care about your responsibilities, don't feel compassion/human emotion, or don't have deep, personal relationships. Evil is rarely so stereotypical.

[hamishspence]

True- that's one example way back before lack of sleep was a factor.

V does eventually yield to the temptation to exploit their stupidity after resisting it for a while.


Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

It was closed- but was it locked?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html

[rbetieh]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

Actually, he has a change of heart and comes back for O-chul after Xykon mentions that he's going to really really torture O-chul now. V was about to climb down the hole he created during the fight.

[SowZ]

True- that's one example way back before lack of sleep was a factor.

V does eventually yield to the temptation to exploit their stupidity after resisting it for a while.



It was closed- but was it locked?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html

You are right. It probably wasn't... Anyway, even if it was opened it might as well have been locked.

[zimmerwald1915]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.
Actually, Holy Knight's right. She went invisible and went to climb down the tower, but heard Xykon talking about upgrading O-Chul to "prisoner first class". She then turned around, fed him a few healing potions, and attempted to exit through the - now-closed - door. She then beelined for the hole in the tower she had tried to climb out in the first place, but was intercepted by Xykon.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Holy_Knight]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

He wasn't locked in the room--he started to escape through the hole in the wall, but after hearing what Xykon was going to do to O-Chul, turned back to help him instead.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

[SowZ]

Hmm. Reading it again, and yeah, V was running away and leaving O-Chul to his fate initially. But she did change her mind willingly. Yeah, that is a good action.

[Icedaemon]

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

One could argue that this was more an attempt to correct a stupid thing done by people V considers if not exactly peers, at least sort of falling under the same stereotypes as it and therefore more about self-esteem than charity.

Granted, this is a flimsy explanation. Regardless, a few nice deeds do not outweigh one war-crime level evil act, never mind the other at best questionable deeds.

[hamishspence]

I wonder what V's chart would look like compared to Belkar's, as seen in Roy's afterlife evaluation?

Probably a small downturn in Evilness from the rescue of O'chul onward, but I'm not sure how much.

[SowZ]

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

The, "don't remind me of all I have done," does not seem to be saying, "I acted ineffectually, so don't talk about it." But an admission of guilt.

[veti]

At the very least, there is a good chance that Roy's gods believe V is evil. Right before Roy was rezzed, a deva or something urgently tried to tell him that one of his party members took a drastic turn towards evil. This wouldn't have happened if she meant, 'One of your allies is in morally questionable territory!' as V has always been there. According to the celestial beings, I think that means V turned evil.

I don't think so. "Turn toward" means just that - start heading in the direction of. It says nothing about how far she went.

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't. There were a lot of extenuating circumstances at the time, and anyway, alignment is about what you do normally or habitually, not what you did one time.

As for all those Explosive Runes - 6d6 damage is hardly dangerous to people like Miko and Belkar. In a world where hit points are the sole measure of damage - there's no such thing as "lasting injury" - it's really no more than a smack. V has come to the (not unreasonable) conclusion that it's the most effective way of getting through to them.

[SowZ]

I don't think so. "Turn toward" means just that - start heading in the direction of. It says nothing about how far she went.

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't. There were a lot of extenuating circumstances at the time, and anyway, alignment is about what you do normally or habitually, not what you did one time.

As for all those Explosive Runes - 6d6 damage is hardly dangerous to people like Miko and Belkar. In a world where hit points are the sole measure of damage - there's no such thing as "lasting injury" - it's really no more than a smack. V has come to the (not unreasonable) conclusion that it's the most effective way of getting through to them.

It wasn't just one large evil act. She slaughtered babies, centaurs, hundreds if not thousands of sentient creatures including people without a second thought with no moral justification other then, 'I want to make sure no one else comes at me for revenge,' even though it is clearly because, (and she says in her head it is because,) she enjoys torturing her enemies with the worst torture she could think of.

Again, I propose that we have no reason to believe she wouldn't have done the same to a goblin.

If Haley decided that she didn't want the thieves guild on her back and so blew up the entire city of Greysky then laughed at how funny it was, went back to the ruins, found the tattered remains of her rival there, revived her, then slowly chopped all of her limbs off for fum, would you make this argument?

[Kish]

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't.
I would say it's a mistake to consider there are hard-and-fast rules for required number of acts to change alignment.

[lio45]

It wasn't just one large evil act. She slaughtered babies, centaurs, hundreds if not thousands of sentient creatures including people without a second thought with no moral justification other then, 'I want to make sure no one else comes at me for revenge,' even though it is clearly because, (and she says in her head it is because,) she enjoys torturing her enemies with the worst torture she could think of.

Again, I propose that we have no reason to believe she wouldn't have done the same to a goblin.

If Haley decided that she didn't want the thieves guild on her back and so blew up the entire city of Greysky then laughed at how funny it was, went back to the ruins, found the tattered remains of her rival there, revived her, then slowly chopped all of her limbs off for fum, would you make this argument?

I was actually going to ask a pretty similar question: let's say it was Crystal threatening V's family, and V did Familicide on Crystal. Would you merely consider it equally wrong? I'd consider it a LOT more wrong!

The Familicide that V did caused nothing but [quote paladin]just and necessary destruction[/quote paladin], and it dealt a blow to the forces of Evil that was important enough to get Tiamat really pissed at the IFCC. Overall, that action definitely DID help alter the Good/Evil balance towards Good.

I know we have Word of God saying Familicide on Evil dragons is still wrong, and I'm not arguing against that, but really, you gotta admit that was pretty much the Good-est use of Familicide you can think of (I agree that any use is clearly at least somewhat Evil).

[VanBuren]

I was actually going to ask a pretty similar question: let's say it was Crystal threatening V's family, and V did Familicide on Crystal. Would you merely consider it equally wrong? I'd consider it a LOT more wrong!

The Familicide that V did caused nothing but [quote paladin]just and necessary destruction[/quote paladin], and it dealt a blow to the forces of Evil that was important enough to get Tiamat really pissed at the IFCC. Overall, that action definitely DID help alter the Good/Evil balance towards Good.

I know we have Word of God saying Familicide on Evil dragons is still wrong, and I'm not arguing against that, but really, you gotta admit that was pretty much the Good-est use of Familicide you can think of (I agree that any use is clearly at least somewhat Evil).

What if one of those half-dragons had been a mighty Paladin on an important quest? Speculation sure, but the point is that V didn't care whether or not that might have been a possibility. Further, I would argue that some acts are charted differently on the alignment scale based on why they were done. Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not. Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger. Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

[lio45]

I think some people are downplaying Vs good traits. She does have a moral code and does care about people and helping them, (even people she doesn't know,) though she cares about herself more. That is the case with most people.

...and those people would all be Neutral, if we lived in a world that functioned with the D&D alignment system.

There are plenty of Neutral people out there, in fact.

Try needing help on the sidewalk of any large city if you don't believe me ;)

[lio45]

What if one of those half-dragons had been a mighty Paladin on an important quest? Speculation sure, but the point is that V didn't care whether or not that might have been a possibility.

Agreed... but then, many of those dragons were Evil.

The probability that the sum of the Good the half-dragons "on important quests" would possibly have made in the future could've beat the sum of the Evil the black dragons would've done in the future is essentially nil.

(Just arguing for the sake of it, because the gist of your argument, quoted below, I can totally agree with.)

FWIW, I take it you agreed that Familicide on a Human family (statistically including plenty of Good and Neutral individuals) would still be a lot worse than when done on a family of Always Evil Monsters...? That's just how the D&D Good/Evil system works...

I would tend to think Familicide on humans would immediately shift anyone's alignment to "Evil", while on black dragons, it probably did not (in V's case).



Further, I would argue that some acts are charted differently on the alignment scale based on why they were done. Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not. Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger. Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

Totally agree.

[SowZ]

I was actually going to ask a pretty similar question: let's say it was Crystal threatening V's family, and V did Familicide on Crystal. Would you merely consider it equally wrong? I'd consider it a LOT more wrong!

The Familicide that V did caused nothing but [quote paladin]just and necessary destruction[/quote paladin], and it dealt a blow to the forces of Evil that was important enough to get Tiamat really pissed at the IFCC. Overall, that action definitely DID help alter the Good/Evil balance towards Good.

I know we have Word of God saying Familicide on Evil dragons is still wrong, and I'm not arguing against that, but really, you gotta admit that was pretty much the Good-est use of Familicide you can think of (I agree that any use is clearly at least somewhat Evil).

No, it's equally evil. Miko was under the assumption they were fighting the dragon, first off, when she said it was just. (Also, that was part of a joke and it is implied that killing a dragon because it's scales aren't shiny is wrong and Miko is hypocritical.)

The dragons V killed were not evil. According to standard alignments, most probably were. But there were infants, baby dragons, that V murdered. Even if you think those babies are evil for some arbitrary and senseless in universe law, there were half dragons. Half dragons don't seem particularly rare in OOTS, so even if there were only 20 black half dragons on the planet and 60% of black half dragons are evil, that's still 2 people who aren't evil that V murdered and had fun doing so. V enjoyed slaughtering them because it reinforced her 'control' of the situation, inflated her pride, and gave her vengeance. She basically laughed maniacly at what were probably the deaths of some good aligned people.

Also, as I've stated, V said the familicide was the price of threatening her family. NOT the price of being an evil creature. She most likely would have done it even if a goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.


Agreed... but then, many of those dragons were Evil.

The probability that the sum of the Good the half-dragons "on important quests" would possibly have made in the future could've beat the sum of the Evil the black dragons would've done in the future is essentially nil.

(Just arguing for the sake of it, because the gist of your argument, quoted below, I can totally agree with.)

FWIW, I take it you agreed that Familicide on a Human family (statistically including plenty of Good and Neutral individuals) would still be a lot worse than when done on a family of Always Evil Monsters...? That's just how the D&D Good/Evil system works...

I would tend to think Familicide on humans would immediately shift anyone's alignment to "Evil", while on black dragons, it probably did not (in V's case).




Totally agree.

If you don't care about their morality, their impact on the world, or anything but revenge, it takes an equal disregard for life and mental state if you are killing devas or demons. It is the same morally. Besides, half dragons centaurs are not an always evil species.

[Holy_Knight]

Regardless, a few nice deeds do not outweigh one war-crime level evil act, never mind the other at best questionable deeds.
Oh I agree--I mentioned that example in response to the idea that Vaarsuivius never sacrificed personal interest to help others.

[Warren Dew]

Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.
I'm pretty sure that if Haley had blown up Greysky after murdering Crystal, the cheers would have drowned out the very rare objectors.

[lio45]

No, it's equally evil. Miko was under the assumption they were fighting the dragon, first off, when she said it was just. (Also, that was part of a joke and it is implied that killing a dragon because it's scales aren't shiny is wrong and Miko is hypocritical.)

IMO, the joke there is the fact that these things are soooo much simpler in the very stereotypical and very binary universe of D&D than in real life.

The ending comment ("Dragons: Color-coded for your convenience!") shows it...




The dragons V killed were not evil. According to standard alignments, most probably were. But there were infants, baby dragons, that V murdered. Even if you think those babies are evil for some arbitrary and senseless in universe law...

They were Evil, yes. As soon as you exist, you have an alignment. That's how it works.



...there were half dragons. Half dragons don't seem particularly rare in OOTS, so even if there were only 20 black half dragons on the planet and 60% of black half dragons are evil, that's still 2 people who aren't evil that V murdered and had fun doing so.

FWIW, your math is off...

20 black half dragons and 60% of them evil = V killed 8 non-evil creatures

20 black half dragons and V killed 2 non-evil creatures = 90% of them are Evil

Not that it changes the argument, of course...



V enjoyed slaughtering them because it reinforced her 'control' of the situation, inflated her pride, and gave her vengeance. She basically laughed maniacly at what were probably the deaths of some good aligned people.

Also, as I've stated, V said the familicide was the price of threatening her family. NOT the price of being an evil creature. She most likely would have done it even if a goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.




Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.

Which is exactly why I would consider destroying Greysky City a MUCH less Evil act than destroying, say, Cliffport or Azure City.




If you don't care about their morality, their impact on the world, or anything but revenge, it takes an equal disregard for life and mental state if you are killing devas or demons. It is the same morally. Besides, half dragons centaurs are not an always evil species.

The thing is, you can't ignore the fact the killer KNEW what he was killing.

Obeying to

"Press this red button and you'll destroy a random city doing so"

versus

"Press this red button and you'll destroy Greysky City doing so"

aren't the same morally, even if you were angry when you destroyed Greysky City and did it for revenge.

[SowZ]

IMO, the joke there is the fact that these things are soooo much simpler in the very stereotypical and very binary universe of D&D than in real life.

The ending comment ("Dragons: Color-coded for your convenience!") shows it...





They were Evil, yes. As soon as you exist, you have an alignment. That's how it works.




FWIW, your math is off...

20 black half dragons and 60% of them evil = V killed 8 non-evil creatures

20 black half dragons and V killed 2 non-evil creatures = 90% of them are Evil

Not that it changes the argument, of course...




But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.





Which is exactly why I would consider destroying Greysky City a MUCH less Evil act than destroying, say, Cliffport or Azure City.





The thing is, you can't ignore the fact the killer KNEW what he was killing.

Obeying to

"Press this red button and you'll destroy a random city doing so"

versus

"Press this red button and you'll destroy Greysky City doing so"

aren't the same morally, even if you were angry when you destroyed Greysky City and did it for revenge.

Nah, V only killed a quarter of Black Dragons. So it's still two good creatures dead. V probably amused himself with the deaths of at least two non-evil people. You still haven't touched it. You still haven't said if blowing up Greysky city then slowly torturing Crystal to death is evil or not. 'They are monsters.' Yes, which is why V still would have done it to Goblins. And, once again, V didn't do it because he wanted to improve the world so whether or not it did is irrelevant in determining if Vs actions were good or evil. The fact that Belkar tried to kill O-Chul, but it turned out for the best, does not mean Belkar's act was good because it wasn't his intention.

Blowing up a random city or blowing up Gresky both firmly place someone into complete monster categories. The only reason I don't place V into a lower moral category then Redcloak is because she is trying to reform.

It doesn't matter if they were monsters or not. The very fact that people like V exists is the reason people like Redcloak exist, btw, and the evil force that V is in the world a is far greater than the evil of, say, Belkar, despite Belkar being a more evil person. If it is justified for a human to kill a black dragon because they are a black dragon, it is justified for a Black Dragon to kill a human because they are a human. Anything else breaks the rules of logic. The setting can't say one plus one is three then go by the rules of logic where one plus one is two.

Saying human's can kill Black Dragons is just how it is completely ignores the is ought problem. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it should be. So in this case, good and evil are not syonymous with right and wrong. Even if it is justified to kill Black Dragons, (it creates the evil in the first place, as even this comic points out all over the place,) it is still clear that Vs act was a grossly evil act for many other reasons and most of my reasons are not contingent on the morality of black dragons.

[lio45]

Nah, V only killed a quarter of Black Dragons.

OK... that's not how I had figured it.

Since we have no idea how many dragons were killed anyway, I supposed your guesstimate number ("20 half dragons") was for the killed part, which actually would've been the most straightforward way to bring a number into it. Otherwise, it's an estimation to which we need to apply another estimation (the one quarter) to get a number: needlessly complicated.

So I stand corrected: your math is right, but you used TWO estimations where only one could have been used (which would have been better) :P




So it's still two good creatures dead. V probably amused himself with the deaths of at least two non-evil people. You still haven't touched it.

I already said the death of all those Evil dragons was almost sure to outweigh the few non-Evil casualities of the act, meaning it would almost certainly have a Good-strengthening, Evil-weakening net effect.

But yeah, collateral damage on non-Evil people is making the act more Evil. We agree on that.



You still haven't said if blowing up Greysky city then slowly torturing Crystal to death is evil or not.

I said the Familicide used on Always Evil monsters was "somewhat Evil" (look up my post if you want. I believe it's on last page).

I would say blowing up Greysky City then torturing Crystal to death would also be somewhat Evil. Same order of magnitude as V's black dragon Familicide IMO.




'They are monsters.' Yes, which is why V still would have done it to Goblins.

Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.

Had V done the Familicide on Goblins, that would have put him morally on the same level as those Azure City Paladins... not a saint, definitely, but not that Evil either.



And, once again, V didn't do it because he wanted to improve the world so whether or not it did is irrelevant in determining if Vs actions were good or evil. The fact that Belkar tried to kill O-Chul, but it turned out for the best, does not mean Belkar's act was good because it wasn't his intention.

V knew the creatures that were going to be killed were black dragons. You can't escape that fact.

So we can't assume he's have gone ahead with the act if the target hadn't been an Evil monster. It's morally TOTALLY different.

The Azure City paladins did something just as bad as what Nale did in Cliffport to attract the police... only the paladins did it on goblins; they would clearly NEVER have done the same thing on Cliffport citizens.

Hence the big difference in actual Evilness between Nale and the Azure City paladins (might not be obvious to you, but I guess it is to most of us: Nale is more Evil than the paladins).



Blowing up a random city or blowing up Gresky both firmly place someone into complete monster categories.

You don't see the difference?



It doesn't matter if they were monsters or not. The very fact that people like V exists is the reason people like Redcloak exist, btw, and the evil force that V is in the world a is far greater than the evil of, say, Belkar, despite Belkar being a more evil person.

I disagree. I think Belkar's more Evil than V in every single possible way (including V's chances of generating Redcloaks), and I'm fairly sure it's a fact we can take to the bank.




If it is justified for a human to kill a black dragon because they are a black dragon, it is justified for a Black Dragon to kill a human because they are a human. Anything else breaks the rules of logic. The setting can't say one plus one is three then go by the rules of logic where one plus one is two.

Aren't you aware the Good vs Evil fight is inherently unfair? Good has its hands partly tied.

The Evil side "can" do things the Good side can't/won't. That's the very nature of that "war", and it doesn't break the rules of logic at all.

[Gift Jeraff]

Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.Goblins are listed as usually neutral evil.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any humanoid is listed as "always <whatever>."

[SowZ]

OK... that's not how I had figured it.

Since we have no idea how many dragons were killed anyway, I supposed your guesstimate number ("20 half dragons") was for the killed part, which actually would've been the most straightforward way to bring a number into it. Otherwise, it's an estimation to which we need to apply another estimation (the one quarter) to get a number: needlessly complicated.

So I stand corrected: your math is right, but you used TWO estimations where only one could have been used (which would have been better) :P





I already said the death of all those Evil dragons was almost sure to outweigh the few non-Evil casualities of the act, meaning it would almost certainly have a Good-strengthening, Evil-weakening net effect.

But yeah, collateral damage on non-Evil people is making the act more Evil. We agree on that.




I said the Familicide used on Always Evil monsters was "somewhat Evil" (look up my post if you want. I believe it's on last page).

I would say blowing up Greysky City then torturing Crystal to death would also be somewhat Evil. Same order of magnitude as V's black dragon Familicide IMO.





Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.

Had V done the Familicide on Goblins, that would have put him morally on the same level as those Azure City Paladins... not a saint, definitely, but not that Evil either.




V knew the creatures that were going to be killed were black dragons. You can't escape that fact.

So we can't assume he's have gone ahead with the act if the target hadn't been an Evil monster. It's morally TOTALLY different.

The Azure City paladins did something just as bad as what Nale did in Cliffport to attract the police... only the paladins did it on goblins; they would clearly NEVER have done the same thing on Cliffport citizens.

Hence the big difference in actual Evilness between Nale and the Azure City paladins (might not be obvious to you, but I guess it is to most of us: Nale is more Evil than the paladins).




You don't see the difference?




I disagree. I think Belkar's more Evil than V in every single possible way (including V's chances of generating Redcloaks), and I'm fairly sure it's a fact we can take to the bank.





Aren't you aware the Good vs Evil fight is inherently unfair? Good has its hands partly tied.

The Evil side "can" do things the Good side can't/won't. That's the very nature of that "war", and it doesn't break the rules of logic at all.

It wasn't collateral damage for the good ones that died. This isn't a, "The city is overun by evil invaders and some of my people are still inside. Alas, I must blow up the city to keep the invaders from attacking the next town" scenario. V deliberately killed the good creatures. He wanted every single family member dead, even good ones and he didn't even bother to check though he knew he was killing half dragons that my be good, otherwise the whole effect would have been lost. In an unnecesarry move that in no way was done to enact the greater good, V deliberately murdered and took pleasure in the murder of what could very well have been good and were probably neutral people. It's not a minor loss for the greater gain scenario at all. You can't justify it retroactively. If I see a guy walking down the street and feel compelled to push him into traffic for the lulz, then later find out that guy was the next Jefferey Dahmer, I can't say, "Oh, I guess my act wasn't evil after all. Cool."

Wait... Slaughtering a whole town of people, most of which have not provoked you, not for any good reason at all but soley because that town inconviences you, (even though the town may contain no/few good people,) is only somewhat evil?

Goblins are not always evil, (they could be as much as 60% is all,) but neither were Vs targets. He didn't kill all black dragons. First off, being born morally irreprehensible from birth does not make any sense. But even allowing that they are evil, (?,) there are magnitudes of evil and not all are deserving of death. One guy might harm others and get pleasure out of it like a sadistic boss at work and is a small degree of lawful evil but he has never permanently harmed anyones life beyond what they can fix. Should I pop him in the head with a .308 because his alignment registers as evil?

Secondly, yeah, it is completely evil for the Azure City Paladins to slaughter goblins many of whom were not evil and even killing the ones that were evil not because of a crime but because of hate propaganda and prejudice is evil. However, I'm sure they were not aware of what they were doing. This does not mean the act wasn't evil, it was very evil, but it means the people aren't necessarily evil. Just like foot soldier nazis in WWII. They weren't all terrible human beings. But V? He was totally aware of what he was doing. It wasn't out of a deluded or tricked sense of morality but out of pure malice and spite.

As for the Gresky City thing, no, I don't see a difference. Why should I? Because one city is full of humans? Black Dragons are what they are and do what comes naturally to them. If they harm someone else that someone has full right to defend themselves and even retaliate for damage done. But even if someone has evil tendancies or, shoot, they are outright evil, it is wrong to kill them when they haven't done anything. A guy who has nothing but hate in his heart and would like to see people dead but does nothing to act on these feelings can't be tried for murder nor should he. That's what V did to those dragons assuming they were all evil.

Belkar is more evil then V, that is not what I am saying. But V has done more to advance the cause of evil. He helped establish a demonic organization. He commited genocide. What has Belkar done? Killed as many people as he, a halfling ranger, as he can get away with? And, by the reasoning of killing the black dragons/half dragons was good so it balances out, Belkar isn't an evil force, either. He saved Hinjo and has, (as far as we can tell,) killed far more monsters and evil aligned things then anything else. So is Belkar good, too? Or does he not balance out because when he killed evil it wasn't to advance good but instead to have fun butchering? Because that is exactly what V did. He killed for fun/vengeance. Vs moderate evil can do far more then Belkar's large evil. Because V is far more powerful then Belkar, a little bit goes a long ways.

As far as the good side/bad side thing... Not in the D&D world. What can't the good side do? Create undead? Align with devils?Because there are spells evil cannot cast and creatures evil cannot align with. These are just abstract decisions that don't have a direct result on much of anything. It is what you do with your zombies or your celestial/infernal allies that counts. And evil/good? They do the same things if you are talking about evil as races and good as races. "Evil" races butcher "good" races when they can and "good" races butcher "evil" races when they can. It is not a battle between right and wrong. It is a blood fued. A cycle of violence where one species and another are at war and contributing to the cycle is no more 'good' then ignoring it. Only through peace and rationality will Redcloaks stop being created and countless people/monsters senselessy die. V? He contributed to that cycle of violence big time.

((Crap, I'm sounding like a lawful good Paladin of Freedom and Peace... Lio! What have you done to me?!?))

[Morithias]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?

"A single good act does not forgive a single evil act. Saving a single life, does not forgive a single murder." It's sad but it's true, as far as I'm concerned if he/she ended up on my desk it would be "evil go to hell NEXT" with virtually no question.

Hell by official standards the cold blooded murder of the noble would probably be enough to get you to the underworld.

The only thing that's preventing me from being 100% sure is that Drow. Then again it's not like he/she was created via a mirror of opposition.

[SowZ]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?

"A single good act does not forgive a single evil act. Saving a single life, does not forgive a single murder." It's sad but it's true, as far as I'm concerned if he/she ended up on my desk it would be "evil go to hell NEXT" with virtually no question.

Hell by official standards the cold blooded murder of the noble would probably be enough to get you to the underworld.

The only thing that's preventing me from being 100% sure is that Drow. Then again it's not like he/she was created via a mirror of opposition.

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroWithAnFInGood)

[Morithias]

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroWithAnFInGood)

Yeah but trying isn't everything. I will admit that yes, ATTEMPTING to be good, is still good however there is a reason "attempted murder" is less of a crime then "murder".

In other words, if all he/she is doing is ATTEMPTING to be good, instead of actually doing good well...let's just say he/she better hope he/she dies of old age instead of a knife in the head. Because he/she is going to be working off that debt for a LONG time.

[SowZ]

Yeah but trying isn't everything. I will admit that yes, ATTEMPTING to be good, is still good however there is a reason "attempted murder" is less of a crime then "murder".

In other words, if all he/she is doing is ATTEMPTING to be good, instead of actually doing good well...let's just say he/she better hope he/she dies of old age instead of a knife in the head. Because he/she is going to be working off that debt for a LONG time.

Yeah, which is why I still say V is evil. Just not deliberately so. Fortunately, barring untimely death, V will have a long time to change. And I don't think one needs to truly outweigh their evil actions to be 'good.' But for those that have done great evil, some great sacrifice or very brave action proving the true change of heart is necessary.

[hamishspence]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?.

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

Also- Corruption determines one's afterlife destination- but it doesn't determine one's alignment.

The DMG points out that while alignment change is generally gradual, there are exceptions- and gives as an example an evil character who has a massive change of heart and attitude, and goes straight to Good without actually doing anything. So, while acts that "prove the change of heart" are helpful, they're not required for alignment change to occur.

Such a character would, however, not have removed any of their Corruption- it takes more than repentance to remove Corruption- it takes atonement.

Characters destined for Baator who die genuinely repentant without having successfully atoned, become Hellbred- getting another chance at atoning over their new lifetime.

[Icedaemon]

Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not.

Mostly, I agree, though many cases of manslaughter are probably tied to the 'had to kill him/her, otherwise there'd be a witness to X crime committed earlier' sort of 'no other options'. Killing in self defense is not evil, but neither is it good.


Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger.

First of all, this is a nil-chance-of-occurring event. Whelps are a clear and present danger to, what? Toddlers? Bunnies? Even if all black dragons would be a threat to several other sapient species, killing them all is not quite perfectly good, though it is not evil either. Self defense counts as Neutral. Defense of someone else counts as Meddling.


Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

We agree wholly on this bit though. This is probably a more evil act than anything Belkar, for one, has done. Even Redcloak probably has not done something noticeably worse.


But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.

And this is supposed to be a redeeming factor, how? 'Monsters' is a daft label at best. Dragons are more intelligent, wise and long-lived than any humans or even elves could hope to be. That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much.

Look at the dragons objectively. At worst, both black dragons exhibited mildly evil personality traits. They were both about as close to the 'evil/neutral' border (and probably on the same side thereof) as V pre-soul-splice. They were harsh, but not monstrously vicious. Neither was nearly as horrible a person as Xykon, for one.

[hamishspence]

I lean to the view that "Murder is a Corrupt act" trumps all other statements about killing, for act alignment purposes.

Like "Killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil such as a chromatic dragon, purely for profit, is not an evil act or a good act" (BoVD)

Or "Killing a Fiend is always a Good act" (BoVD).

Thus- if the killing doesn't qualify as murder (a bunch of extremely greedy adventurers hired by townsfolk to kill a dragon that's been attacking towns, who take the job purely out of greed), then the adventurers don't gain corruption points.

But if a chromatic dragon joins a town, becomes a citizen, and (while still evil) takes up a law-abiding way of life, someone who decided to murder the dragon (for revenge, or for profit) would gain the normal corruption points that any Murder grants.

And arguably- the same might apply if the dragon never joins a town, but remains in its habitat and does not venture out to attack its neighbours.

Same principles apply to fiends.

[Morithias]

I lean to the view that "Murder is a Corrupt act" trumps all other statements about killing, for act alignment purposes.

Like "Killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil such as a chromatic dragon, purely for profit, is not an evil act or a good act" (BoVD)

Or "Killing a Fiend is always a Good act" (BoVD).

Thus- if the killing doesn't qualify as murder (a bunch of extremely greedy adventurers hired by townsfolk to kill a dragon that's been attacking towns, who take the job purely out of greed), then the adventurers don't gain corruption points.

But if a chromatic dragon joins a town, becomes a citizen, and (while still evil) takes up a law-abiding way of life, someone who decided to murder the dragon (for revenge, or for profit) would gain the normal corruption points that any Murder grants.

And arguably- the same might apply if the dragon never joins a town, but remains in its habitat and does not venture out to attack its neighbours.

Same principles apply to fiends.

I agree. And since an unborn/new born is the ultimate non-combatant I don't think there's really a reasonable argument one could make for the eggs as least. Unless one really believes that the world rules on "always chaotic evil" and that killing someone based on race alone is ok (at which point i'm inclined to say you're missing the whole entire POINT that the comic is trying to make).

[SowZ]

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

Also- Corruption determines one's afterlife destination- but it doesn't determine one's alignment.

The DMG points out that while alignment change is generally gradual, there are exceptions- and gives as an example an evil character who has a massive change of heart and attitude, and goes straight to Good without actually doing anything. So, while acts that "prove the change of heart" are helpful, they're not required for alignment change to occur.

Such a character would, however, not have removed any of their Corruption- it takes more than repentance to remove Corruption- it takes atonement.

Characters destined for Baator who die genuinely repentant without having successfully atoned, become Hellbred- getting another chance at atoning over their new lifetime.

Ding ding ding! V gets the full 7 points about a thousand times over as he commited mass murder for pleasure.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. Though a case could be made that "murder for pleasure" requires "the pleasure of committing a murder" to be the primary motivation.

Whereas V might not be taking pleasure in any of the individual murders- but taking a great deal of pleasure in the anguish of the mother dragon.

Still, seems like a pretty shaky counter.

Some DMs might give V 6 pts for every murder, some might give 7 pts for every murder.

And a few might consider mass murder to be, for corruption purposes, equivalent to single murder- with killing 10 people with a single fireball having exactly the same effect as killing 1 person would have.

[Warmage]

I think it's pretty bad when people are arguing on the moral basis and the possible good results of GENOCIDE!

Apparently some people on this thread think it's ok to kill unborn children for something their mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt attempted (but failed) to do.

Alignment changes are generally gradual and subtle changes, but at times, a large enough act of evil (or good/law/chaos) can immediately change your alignment. An act that was so evil it left actual fiends speechless. No matter how you chalk it up, genocide is bad. The use of Familicide was worse than anything we have seen Belkar, Redcloak, or even Xykon do so far.

Leaving out corruption points entirely, he is clearly in one of the evil catagories. However, V does have a chance to atone for it, but it will not be easy or quick.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. BoVD does call acts of genocide as among the most evil events in the D&D universe- ones which can taint massive areas, and the lifeforms in them.

[lio45]

Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2.


Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

So where exactly does Haley's murder of Crystal rank on that scale? I would say halfway between "Cold Blooded Murder" and "Murder For Pleasure".

Yet I don't see that preventing her from getting into the Chaotic Good afterlife... I'd picture the analysis of her file more or less the way it happened with Roy:

Afterlife Staff person, frowning: "Cold Blooded Murder of someone just getting out of the shower? And enjoying it to boot???"

Haley: "But that b*tch was ultra-Evil! And a personal nemesis!"

Afterlife Staff person, after a moment's hesitation: "Very well... I guess my superiors wouldn't mind if I sent your file off to whatever Neutral afterworld is appropriate, but I can also let that one pass, because of the context"



Basically, my argument is that who exactly are the people getting murdered does matter big time.

Murdering Crystal, or a black dragon, is way less Evil than, say, murdering a gnome salesman because he happens to have candy you want.



And this is supposed to be a redeeming factor, how? 'Monsters' is a daft label at best. Dragons are more intelligent, wise and long-lived than any humans or even elves could hope to be. That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much.

Look at the dragons objectively. At worst, both black dragons exhibited mildly evil personality traits. They were both about as close to the 'evil/neutral' border (and probably on the same side thereof) as V pre-soul-splice. They were harsh, but not monstrously vicious. Neither was nearly as horrible a person as Xykon, for one.

The comic plays a lot on the fact that the alignment system is very limited and has flaws.

(It's actually broader than that: essentially everything that's overly simplified/irrealistic in D&D is object of satire at some point in the comic... it's a large chunk of the humor.)

I see the OotS world as being on the fence between the binary way the world is supposed to work (if you're Evil, then you're Evil) and how it would morally work in real life (you've just been born, haven't done anything wrong, you're "clean").

In other words, "That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much" is something I think would partially apply to the Stickverse: it's part of stereotypical D&D. Elan's comment on dragons being color-coded shows it.

On the other hand, I haven't missed all the signals the Giant has sent us on the flaws of that extremely limited alignment system and the moral paradoxes it creates (like the fact that casting Detect Evil on a goblin kid and mowing it down on the spot if it's Evil = "Good").




I agree. And since an unborn/new born is the ultimate non-combatant I don't think there's really a reasonable argument one could make for the eggs as least. Unless one really believes that the world rules on "always chaotic evil" and that killing someone based on race alone is ok (at which point i'm inclined to say you're missing the whole entire POINT that the comic is trying to make).


Like I said above, I think the comic the Giant has created has part of both "strict D&D" and "the completely more logical way real life works as opposed to strict D&D".






If I see a guy walking down the street and feel compelled to push him into traffic for the lulz, then later find out that guy was the next Jefferey Dahmer, I can't say, "Oh, I guess my act wasn't evil after all. Cool."

For the analogy to be right, you have to be aware he's strongly Evil at the moment when you decide to push him into traffic.


Wait... Slaughtering a whole town of people, most of which have not provoked you, not for any good reason at all but soley because that town inconviences you, (even though the town may contain no/few good people,) is only somewhat evil?

If the town is a cesspool of Evilness, yes.

Otherwise, no: it's a LOT worse than that.



One guy might harm others and get pleasure out of it like a sadistic boss at work and is a small degree of lawful evil but he has never permanently harmed anyones life beyond what they can fix. Should I pop him in the head with a .308 because his alignment registers as evil?

If you're Miko, you might do exactly that.

In spite of that, she still remained Good most of her life... and it's a safe bet she never became Evil. She died Neutral at worst.

Obvious conclusion, it takes more than that to actually be Evil in the Stickverse.




What has Belkar done? Killed as many people as he, a halfling ranger, as he can get away with? And, by the reasoning of killing the black dragons/half dragons was good so it balances out, Belkar isn't an evil force, either. He saved Hinjo and has, (as far as we can tell,) killed far more monsters and evil aligned things then anything else. So is Belkar good, too?

If you look at the Evilness chart for Belkar, the Belkar we've seen is the green line. So yes, it's a confirmed fact that he hasn't been too much of an Evil force for the duration of the comic. Unfortunately for his soul, credit goes mostly to Roy for that.

V could use the "but they were Evil monsters" argument in his discussion with Afterlife staff as well to avoid going to Hell, and it would have some weight.

Unlike Belkar, V's never killed someone Good for no reason at all.



Or does he not balance out because when he killed evil it wasn't to advance good but instead to have fun butchering? Because that is exactly what V did. He killed for fun/vengeance.

Haley did exactly that with Crystal...

[the_tick_rules]

I assumed she was true neutral

[Kish]

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroWithAnFInGood)
Mm, well, there's trying and then there's trying.

Vaarsuvius wants to look at his/her character sheet and not see the word "evil." Vaarsuvius also wants to continue to behave as s/he always has, as an arrogant, conceited snob who treats most people with contempt and howls when not treated with respect, who responds to insults with violence and to attacks with disproportionate retribution.

Which s/he wants more, and how much s/he recognizes that the two sets of desires are incompatible, remain to be seen.

[VanBuren]

If you look at the Evilness chart for Belkar, the Belkar we've seen is the green line. So yes, it's a confirmed fact that he hasn't been too much of an Evil force for the duration of the comic. Unfortunately for his soul, credit goes mostly to Roy for that.

Not so. It isn't a confirmed fact that Belkar hasn't been "too much" of an evil force. It's been confirmed that he's been significantly less evil than he would have been without Roy's interference, but the chart is measure in kilonazis. Even Restricted!Belkar is plenty Evil.

[Morithias]

Mm, well, there's trying and then there's trying.

Vaarsuvius wants to look at his/her character sheet and not see the word "evil." Vaarsuvius also wants to continue to behave as s/he always has, as an arrogant, conceited snob who treats most people with contempt and howls when not treated with respect, who responds to insults with violence and to attacks with disproportionate retribution.

Which s/he wants more, and how much s/he recognizes that the two sets of desires are incompatible, remain to be seen.

The same was a sociopath is chaotic neutral right? I mean we've all had those players right? Those who claim they are "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" but if you actually ever looked at what they're doing you could easily call them NE or CE without a second thought.

I personally may be evil, but at least I'm not full of crap!

[SowZ]

The same was a sociopath is chaotic neutral right? I mean we've all had those players right? Those who claim they are "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" but if you actually ever looked at what they're doing you could easily call them NE or CE without a second thought.

I personally may be evil, but at least I'm not full of crap!

My first character, a gnomish, sorcerer, was Chaotic Neutral. But looking back on it... Well... If the party had ever taken my suggestions, (Look, guys, we can just burn the village down right now. That would solve all of our problems.) he would have been doing evil... a lot. I'll address Lio in a bit.

[Morithias]

My first character, a gnomish, sorcerer, was Chaotic Neutral. But looking back on it... Well... If the party had ever taken my suggestions, (Look, guys, we can just burn the village down right now. That would solve all of our problems.) he would have been doing evil... a lot. I'll address Lio in a bit.

Yeah sorry to say but I'd have to agree with you there. That gnome would probably be CE in my book.

[hamishspence]

If you're Miko, you might do exactly that.

In spite of that, she still remained Good most of her life... and it's a safe bet she never became Evil. She died Neutral at worst.

Obvious conclusion, it takes more than that to actually be Evil in the Stickverse.

Or, that Miko doesn't scan people unless they've done things to warrant being scanned.

And even after scanning Roy and having him ping as Evil, she did give him a chance to surrender first. Partly because she'd been ordered to bring them back alive "if possible".

[Hbgplayer]

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts


What is the difference between murder and Cold Blooded? :smallconfused:

[Morithias]

What is the difference between murder and Cold Blooded? :smallconfused:

Cold blooded: "Without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous"

[Hbgplayer]

Cold blooded: "Without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous"

In that case, that's what I would classify Vaarsuvius'(s) familycide.
She did not take pleasure in killing the family, only the single dragon.

[Kish]

In that case, that's what I would classify Vaarsuvius'(s) familycide.
She did not take pleasure in killing the family, only the single dragon.
Debatable at best, but in any case, you realize that you're arguing over whether Vaarsuvius should plummet one or two thousand feet deep into the floor of Hades, right?

[Hbgplayer]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual, and this is a direct quote: "Alignment:Always Chaotic Evil.
Black Dragons are evil-tempered, cunning, and malevolent,..."
Is the destruction of evil, throughout the world, not worth even a little appreciation from good deities? Thus, I believe that it will take less to reverse it than many are giving credit for.

[hamishspence]

Seeing as the OoTS deities, working together, created all the monsters of that world in the first place, they might not be quite so appreciative.

After all "respect for life" is a basic principle of Good, and BoED extends this to "respect for all life, even evil life" suggesting that even the evil should not be killed without both just cause and good intentions.

[Icedaemon]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual, and this is a direct quote: "Alignment:Always Chaotic Evil.
Black Dragons are evil-tempered, cunning, and malevolent,..."
Is the destruction of evil, throughout the world, not worth even a little appreciation from good deities? Thus, I believe that it will take less to reverse it than many are giving credit for.

When both one of the motives and the method were pure evil of the highest grade, 'but they was bad guys' is hardly an excuse. Besides, "always X" alignment on any non-outer-planar entity is bollocks anyway, at least seven times out of ten.

[SowZ]

A. On the other hand, I haven't missed all the signals the Giant has sent us on the flaws of that extremely limited alignment system and the moral paradoxes it creates (like the fact that casting Detect Evil on a goblin kid and mowing it down on the spot if it's Evil = "Good").






B. Like I said above, I think the comic the Giant has created has part of both "strict D&D" and "the completely more logical way real life works as opposed to strict D&D".







C. For the analogy to be right, you have to be aware he's strongly Evil at the moment when you decide to push him into traffic.



D. If the town is a cesspool of Evilness, yes.

E. Otherwise, no: it's a LOT worse than that.




F. If you're Miko, you might do exactly that.

In spite of that, she still remained Good most of her life... and it's a safe bet she never became Evil. She died Neutral at worst.

Obvious conclusion, it takes more than that to actually be Evil in the Stickverse.





G. If you look at the Evilness chart for Belkar, the Belkar we've seen is the green line. So yes, it's a confirmed fact that he hasn't been too much of an Evil force for the duration of the comic. Unfortunately for his soul, credit goes mostly to Roy for that.

V could use the "but they were Evil monsters" argument in his discussion with Afterlife staff as well to avoid going to Hell, and it would have some weight.

H. Unlike Belkar, V's never killed someone Good for no reason at all.




Haley did exactly that with Crystal...

1. Which is why good and evil, when taken as objective things, cannot be right and wrong. They have to be different. What makes someone evil? Is it their hair color? Their skin color? Their country? No, it is their actions or the actions they would/intend to commit for evil purposes. Since a baby Black Dragon has never done any evil acts or had any intent to do an evil act, it is literally impossible for it to be philosophically evil. If evil is just an energy or force seperate from good and evil, then things can be born good and evil. That does not mean they are born right and wrong. Besides- why do you expect Black Dragons to follow a human code of ethics? Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

B. Sorry, D&D can't say 'I am the creator of D&D so all Black Dragons regardless of their actions are evil' any more than it can say 'all Jews are evil inside my campaign world regardless of their actions.' or '1 and 1 is 3.' You have to examine the campaign world by its own merits.

C. Even allowing that Black Dragons are all 'philisophically' evil, (which is senseless IMO,) my analogy doesn't need to be altered since V willingly and knowingly killed people who probably weren't evil and he wanted even thos non-evil ones to die.

D. Really? Even if only a couple of them slighted you?

E. What if you destroyed the town and murdered the people for no good reason? (An evil one, actually.)

F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power. If someone with extreme evil was manager at Starbucks and someone with moderate evil was dictator of a country, who would have a more evil impact? You don't have to be more evil to have a greater evil impact.

H. Killing possible good people for fun/revenge is a good reason?

Anyway, most of my points weren't addressed. That's fine, you had a lot of people to answer to. So here, I'll number the points of my previous post for convenience and clarity.

1. It wasn't collateral damage for the good ones that died. This isn't a, "The city is overun by evil invaders and some of my people are still inside. Alas, I must blow up the city to keep the invaders from attacking the next town" scenario. V deliberately killed the good creatures. He wanted every single family member dead, even good ones and he didn't even bother to check though he knew he was killing half dragons that my be good, otherwise the whole effect would have been lost. In an unnecesarry move that in no way was done to enact the greater good, V deliberately murdered and took pleasure in the murder of what could very well have been good and were probably neutral people. It's not a minor loss for the greater gain scenario at all. You can't justify it retroactively. If I see a guy walking down the street and feel compelled to push him into traffic for the lulz, then later find out that guy was the next Jefferey Dahmer, I can't say, "Oh, I guess my act wasn't evil after all. Cool."



2. Wait... Slaughtering a whole town of people, most of which have not provoked you, not for any good reason at all but soley because that town inconviences you, (even though the town may contain no/few good people,) is only somewhat evil?

3. Goblins are not always evil, (they could be as much as 60% is all,) but neither were Vs targets. He didn't kill all black dragons. First off, being born morally irreprehensible from birth does not make any sense. But even allowing that they are evil, (?,) there are magnitudes of evil and not all are deserving of death. One guy might harm others and get pleasure out of it like a sadistic boss at work and is a small degree of lawful evil but he has never permanently harmed anyones life beyond what they can fix. Should I pop him in the head with a .308 because his alignment registers as evil?

4. Secondly, yeah, it is completely evil for the Azure City Paladins to slaughter goblins many of whom were not evil and even killing the ones that were evil not because of a crime but because of hate propaganda and prejudice is evil. However, I'm sure they were not aware of what they were doing. This does not mean the act wasn't evil, it was very evil, but it means the people aren't necessarily evil. Just like foot soldier nazis in WWII. They weren't all terrible human beings. But V? He was totally aware of what he was doing. It wasn't out of a deluded or tricked sense of morality but out of pure malice and spite.

5. As for the Gresky City thing, no, I don't see a difference. Why should I? Because one city is full of humans? Black Dragons are what they are and do what comes naturally to them. If they harm someone else that someone has full right to defend themselves and even retaliate for damage done. But even if someone has evil tendancies or, shoot, they are outright evil, it is wrong to kill them when they haven't done anything. A guy who has nothing but hate in his heart and would like to see people dead but does nothing to act on these feelings can't be tried for murder nor should he. That's what V did to those dragons assuming they were all evil.

6. Belkar is more evil then V, that is not what I am saying. But V has done more to advance the cause of evil. He helped establish a demonic organization. He commited genocide. What has Belkar done? Killed as many people as he, a halfling ranger, as he can get away with? And, by the reasoning of killing the black dragons/half dragons was good so it balances out, Belkar isn't an evil force, either. He saved Hinjo and has, (as far as we can tell,) killed far more monsters and evil aligned things then anything else. So is Belkar good, too? Or does he not balance out because when he killed evil it wasn't to advance good but instead to have fun butchering? Because that is exactly what V did. He killed for fun/vengeance. Vs moderate evil can do far more then Belkar's large evil. Because V is far more powerful then Belkar, a little bit goes a long ways.

7. As far as the good side/bad side thing... Not in the D&D world. What can't the good side do? Create undead? Align with devils?Because there are spells evil cannot cast and creatures evil cannot align with. These are just abstract decisions that don't have a direct result on much of anything. It is what you do with your zombies or your celestial/infernal allies that counts. And evil/good? They do the same things if you are talking about evil as races and good as races. "Evil" races butcher "good" races when they can and "good" races butcher "evil" races when they can. It is not a battle between right and wrong. It is a blood fued. A cycle of violence where one species and another are at war and contributing to the cycle is no more 'good' then ignoring it. Only through peace and rationality will Redcloaks stop being created and countless people/monsters senselessy die. V? He contributed to that cycle of violence big time.

[Morithias]

When both one of the motives and the method were pure evil of the highest grade, 'but they was bad guys' is hardly an excuse. Besides, "always X" alignment on any non-outer-planar entity is bollocks anyway, at least seven times out of ten.

It's even bolock on outer-planar entities. Or is everyone forgetting the infamous succubus paladin?

[hamishspence]

Or various fallen celestials that retain their Good subtype- there's one in Elder Evils, for example.

Having a subtype, having Always X Alignment, are not barriers against changing- (not with magic, just with attitude adjusting over time).

[SowZ]

Or various fallen celestials that retain their Good subtype- there's one in Elder Evils, for example.

Having a subtype, having Always X Alignment, are not barriers against changing- (not with magic, just with attitude adjusting over time).

Which is why Good/Evil are energies, not abstract conepts. This is also why creatures born with the Evil type are not born as immoral beings.

[Morithias]

Which is why Good/Evil are energies, not abstract conepts. This is also why creatures born with the Evil type are not born as immoral beings.

Which is also why it makes no bloody sense. You can't have heroes and villains when a lot of the time the villain is the one making the most sense. You can't claim black and white morality, because if it was black and white, there would be no debate at all. It would be obvious who was the good guy/bad guy. The mere fact there is a debate shows there is a huge grey area.

[hamishspence]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

[SowZ]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

But if a species naturally, (they are born that way and it is a fundamental part of their society/there species evolution,) acts a certain way then it isn't philosophically evil. Certain insects eat their own mates. Certain mammals kill their own parents/use rape as their only real method of procreation. These acts are evil for humans but totally okay for these creatures. There are also acts humans can do that would be fine but would be unethical for another animal because it violates their social instincts/conscious.


Which is also why it makes no bloody sense. You can't have heroes and villains when a lot of the time the villain is the one making the most sense. You can't claim black and white morality, because if it was black and white, there would be no debate at all. It would be obvious who was the good guy/bad guy. The mere fact there is a debate shows there is a huge grey area.

Exactly. Even the fact that 'Evil' energy is labeled evil is a bias placed by certain species. Another species may have a different name for it that is just as, (or more,) valid which has no moral implications. The universe is neutral and we have to make sense of it the best we can.

[Morithias]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

Now we're getting into the juicy stuff. Mainly the debate of "is personality genetic or is it based on experiences/raising habits?"

Basically if I take twins, put one in a brutal place like North Korea, and put the other to be taken care of in a well-off happy mansion, am I going to get an evil person both times? How about a good person both times?

Basically if you were to delete a person's memories, everything that made them who they are, are they still the same person?

[veti]

Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

Lions aren't considered sentient, so it's not valid to assign a moral value to their actions.

But try this: do you condemn dragons for eating people, when people are so tasty and just the right size and keep walking into their lair at mealtime intervals?

To me, in that scenario, "is the dragon good or evil?" is the wrong question. My answer: who freakin' cares, if it's eating people it's an enemy and I'm justified in fighting and killing it if I can. And if it has eggs, that's my dinner sorted into the bargain.

(What, you want me to spare the young? Can you promise to look after them and feed them properly and train/condition them so that they won't do what the parent did? Promise promise? Remember, if they do eat someone, that'll be blood on your hands. And if you don't know how to look after them, or you're not willing to devote the rest of your life to the job, it would probably be kinder to just kill them now.)


F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

I would dispute that. V was not in her right mind at the time, for several reasons: trance deprivation, post-traumatic stress, reaction to extreme terror/despair, and an epic-level necromancer shouting suggestions directly into her hindbrain.


G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power.

Belkar simply isn't interested in "having an evil impact". He shows no sign of giving a damn' about what effect he has on the world. Haflings just wanna have fun.


1. It wasn't collateral damage for the good ones that died. This isn't a, "The city is overun by evil invaders and some of my people are still inside. Alas, I must blow up the city to keep the invaders from attacking the next town" scenario. V deliberately killed the good creatures.

The assumption that "good creatures" died in the familicide is based on very flimsy estimates and dodgy mathematical assumptions, but it's not relevant anyway. The morality of a crime, as I've been trying to argue, has nothing to do with the alignment of the victim. What matters is why you did it, not to whom.

Having said that: in the OOTS, our information suggests, monsters were created and put into the world for the purpose of being killed. In those circumstances, for the OOTS gods to condemn someone for killing them - by any means - would be the height of hypocrisy.

[lio45]

1. Which is why good and evil, when taken as objective things, cannot be right and wrong. They have to be different. What makes someone evil? Is it their hair color? Their skin color? Their country?

No, it's a lot easier than that. It's the fact there's "Evil" written somewhere to the right of "Alignment:" on their character sheet.


No, it is their actions or the actions they would/intend to commit for evil purposes. Since a baby Black Dragon has never done any evil acts or had any intent to do an evil act, it is literally impossible for it to be philosophically evil.

That's just not how the system works...




If evil is just an energy or force seperate from good and evil, then things can be born good and evil. That does not mean they are born right and wrong. Besides- why do you expect Black Dragons to follow a human code of ethics? Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

Yes, Good == Right and Evil == Wrong. By definition.

Black Dragons have an Alignment, so they follow the system's code of ethics like all other creatures.

Don't bring real world animals into it.




B. Sorry, D&D can't say 'I am the creator of D&D so all Black Dragons regardless of their actions are evil' any more than it can say 'all Jews are evil inside my campaign world regardless of their actions.' or '1 and 1 is 3.' You have to examine the campaign world by its own merits.

The campaign world is a typical D&D world in which the PCs are aware of the system's rules AND shortcomings... it's part of the humor. Honestly, we have no reason to think the Giant is using non-standard D&D Black Dragons. FWIW, they have Tiamat as deity, if you needed another element of evidence. And then Director Lee had to promise they'd kill five Good dragons for every black one that died today (essentially confirming black ones are Evil).



C. Even allowing that Black Dragons are all 'philisophically' evil, (which is senseless IMO,)

We agree the system is senseless. That incidentally is why the Giant is poking fun at it from time to time in the strip.



my analogy doesn't need to be altered since V willingly and knowingly killed people who probably weren't evil and he wanted even thos non-evil ones to die.

Yes, and it's part of why the act is Evil.

It's just not as Evil as doing the same thing on Good people. We'll have to agree to disagree there.



D. Really? Even if only a couple of them slighted you?

They're Evil, so yes, really.

(Disclaimer: that opinion of mine obviously applies only in a D&D world...)



E. What if you destroyed the town and murdered the people for no good reason? (An evil one, actually.)

Are you talking about the Evil town or the Good/Neutral one?

I say there's a difference as long as the killer is aware of the target(s)' Alignment.

If you press the "Destroy Random City" button, you're a monster of Xykon's caliber, EVEN if the act (by pure chance that time) happens to destroy a cesspool of Evil.

If you press the "Destroy Cesspool of Evil" button and you KNEW what you were destroying, then it's not as Evil, even if you did it for the wrong reasons, because you were fully aware that your target was way out there on the Evil side of the field (on average).

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.



F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

That's no excuse. Miko fell when she did something very wrong, brainwashed or not. It follows that whatever she did during the rest of her life didn't move her alignment away from "Good", and that being brainwashed isn't an excuse that works.




G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power. If someone with extreme evil was manager at Starbucks and someone with moderate evil was dictator of a country, who would have a more evil impact? You don't have to be more evil to have a greater evil impact.

I'm not sure how the exactly the Alignment system works with that, but I'd think the impact isn't the only thing being considered.

In other words, Belkar would still go straight down for his afterlife, even though thanks to Roy he didn't have too much of an Evil impact on the world during his life.


H. Killing possible good people for fun/revenge is a good reason?

Revenge is still a better reason than, say, wanting to get someone's candy.


Anyway, most of my points weren't addressed. That's fine, you had a lot of people to answer to. So here, I'll number the points of my previous post for convenience and clarity.

If there's anything you consider "core" to your point that I haven't addressed, just bring it back up. I think we should start paring down our arguments to their basics.




Edited to add:

The morality of a crime, as I've been trying to argue, has nothing to do with the alignment of the victim. What matters is why you did it, not to whom.

I agree with everything you said except this.

I think that in a binary Good/Evil world, the alignment of the victim is ALSO a factor to consider when trying to judge the morality of a crime. (Provided of course that we know the perpetrator was aware of the victim's alignment.)

[SowZ]

No, it's a lot easier than that. It's the fact there's "Evil" written somewhere to the right of "Alignment:" on their character sheet.



That's just not how the system works...





Yes, Good == Right and Evil == Wrong. By definition.

Black Dragons have an Alignment, so they follow the system's code of ethics like all other creatures.

Don't bring real world animals into it.





The campaign world is a typical D&D world in which the PCs are aware of the system's rules AND shortcomings... it's part of the humor. Honestly, we have no reason to think the Giant is using non-standard D&D Black Dragons. FWIW, they have Tiamat as deity, if you needed another element of evidence. And then Director Lee had to promise they'd kill five Good dragons for every black one that died today (essentially confirming black ones are Evil).




We agree the system is senseless. That incidentally is why the Giant is poking fun at it from time to time in the strip.




Yes, and it's part of why the act is Evil.

It's just not as Evil as doing the same thing on Good people. We'll have to agree to disagree there.




They're Evil, so yes, really.

(Disclaimer: that opinion of mine obviously applies only in a D&D world...)




Are you talking about the Evil town or the Good/Neutral one?

I say there's a difference as long as the killer is aware of the target(s)' Alignment.

If you press the "Destroy Random City" button, you're a monster of Xykon's caliber, EVEN if the act (by pure chance that time) happens to destroy a cesspool of Evil.

If you press the "Destroy Cesspool of Evil" button and you KNEW what you were destroying, then it's not as Evil, even if you did it for the wrong reasons, because you were fully aware that your target was way out there on the Evil side of the field (on average).

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.




That's no excuse. Miko fell when she did something very wrong, brainwashed or not. It follows that whatever she did during the rest of her life didn't move her alignment away from "Good", and that being brainwashed isn't an excuse that works.





I'm not sure how the exactly the Alignment system works with that, but I'd think the impact isn't the only thing being considered.

In other words, Belkar would still go straight down for his afterlife, even though thanks to Roy he didn't have too much of an Evil impact on the world during his life.



Revenge is still a better reason than, say, wanting to get someone's candy.



If there's anything you consider "core" to your point that I haven't addressed, just bring it back up. I think we should start paring down our arguments to their basics.




Edited to add:


I agree with everything you said except this.

I think that in a binary Good/Evil world, the alignment of the victim is ALSO a factor to consider when trying to judge the morality of a crime. (Provided of course that we know the perpetrator was aware of the victim's alignment.)

I'll just jump to the core of my beliefs on the Alignment system and how it actually works in D&D worlds, (not my homebrewed version of it,) though even within the common/arbitrary interpretation of alignment V is still evil, IMO. Anyway, the very definition of right and wrong keeps things from being right and wrong soley because 'that's the way it is.' To be moral or immoral, by the definition of morality, there has to be standards being followed. To say otherwise the creators may as well say 1+1=3 in D&D. This doesn't work either. So D&D cannot say that what is right and wrong is a certain by way by creator fiat because they then create ambiguity in their own world with the is-ought problem. "Just because something is a certain way does not mean that they should be." That's Hume. This problem would exist within the world of D&D and so BY making morality objective they are forcing right and wrong to be subjective and gray within their own world. The is-ought problem.

Further, what makes something right and wrong is the correctness of it and the only way we have to measure that is through logic. If the alignment system as presented is illogical, (I think there is flexibility in the system even within the rules, but we will pretend that is not the case for this statement,) the system is inherently wrong by virtue of being illogical. So there is still no right-wrong association with good-evil and good-evil cease to be what they are supposed to be and become something else entirely... Arbitrary labels.

[VanBuren]

I'd like to quote a relevant excerpt from the BoED.


That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily
good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil
already committed).

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless. Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good.

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

[Holy_Knight]

SowZ, maybe this is the way to look at it. You're objecting to the idea that creatures can be considered good or evil simply by fiat--fair enough. But if we take alignments as descriptors of character and behavior, rather than determinants of it, then that problem should go away. So, an entry like:

Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil

would translate to something such as:

"Adult members of this species typically embody and act on values which express disdain for life, cruelty, lack of respect for the well-being of others, selfishness, and a willingness to intentionally cause harm to innocent creatures."

This would be consistent with:

--an objective morality based in actual character and choices
--tendencies among creature types while allowing for exceptions
--the innocence of young members as well as others who haven't actually done anything wrong
--The wrongness of killing a creature based solely on its stated alignment
--An in-universe place for both nature and nurture in influencing a creature's alignment
--"Good" and "Evil" as non-arbitrary labels of beings based on their commitment to various ideals and kinds of conduct

and so on. I think this would be a common sense way of approaching alignments which would solve a lot of the problems you're raising.

[hamishspence]

(What, you want me to spare the young? Can you promise to look after them and feed them properly and train/condition them so that they won't do what the parent did? Promise promise? Remember, if they do eat someone, that'll be blood on your hands.

That's not really a valid argument. If that was used to a psychiatrist who'd identified a child as sociopathic- he'd point out that it is unjust (and possibly murder) to kill someone based on what they might do- and failure to reform someone, does not make the would-be reformers responsible for the person's deeds.

[VanBuren]

That's not really a valid argument. If that was used to a psychiatrist who'd identified a child as sociopathic- he'd point out that it is unjust (and possibly murder) to kill someone based on what they might do- and failure to reform someone, does not make the would-be reformers responsible for the person's deeds.

After all, precrime really isn't crime at all.

Seriously. What an ethical landslide that concept would be.

[Kish]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual,

According to the Player's Handbook, one of the defining qualities of the Lawful Evil alignment include judging by race instead of individuals. So...no, "The destruction of evil," in the form of the murder of a number of black dragons for being black dragons, is not somehow better (less evil, more good--though it probably is more Lawful and less Chaotic) than the destruction of an equal number of entities chosen completely randomly.

Moveover, the kind of thinking you're exhibiting here is likely to be Vaarsuvius' biggest impediment to being genuinely remorseful, because you're trying to have it both ways--s/he can repent because what s/he did wasn't actually that bad. No, as long as Vaarsuvius thinks it wasn't actually that bad, s/he lacks sincere repentance; that's kind of what the word means.

[hamishspence]

While bigotry is a LE trait, not all bigoted characters in D&D fiction, or splatbooks, are Evil- some are neutral or good.

So, in some cases it may be mild enough, or coexist with enough other traits, to not guarantee a LE alignment.

[SowZ]

SowZ, maybe this is the way to look at it. You're objecting to the idea that creatures can be considered good or evil simply by fiat--fair enough. But if we take alignments as descriptors of character and behavior, rather than determinants of it, then that problem should go away. So, an entry like:

Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil

would translate to something such as:

"Adult members of this species typically embody and act on values which express disdain for life, cruelty, lack of respect for the well-being of others, selfishness, and a willingness to intentionally cause harm to innocent creatures."

This would be consistent with:

1.--an objective morality based in actual character and choices
2.--tendencies among creature types while allowing for exceptions
3.--the innocence of young members as well as others who haven't actually done anything wrong
4.--The wrongness of killing a creature based solely on its stated alignment
5.--An in-universe place for both nature and nurture in influencing a creature's alignment
6.--"Good" and "Evil" as non-arbitrary labels of beings based on their commitment to various ideals and kinds of conduct

and so on. I think this would be a common sense way of approaching alignments which would solve a lot of the problems you're raising.

1. But your morality would still be based on what you do or think. So all creatures not born mature would also be born true neutral. I think this is a more sensible way to approach alignment, but in D&D things are born with an alignment and spells are not good or evil based on intent/result but based on labels. So in D&D, it is either a self-defeating system of morals or two universal energies that are labeled good and evil based on bias. The system you are laying out isn't standard in D&D.
2. Sure.
3. Okay, so we agree there.
4. Yep. Just like someone who hates people and would like to see humanity all dead but lives a normal life cannot be executed for it... Yeah.
5. Okay.
6. Good/Evil still wouldn't be synonomous to right and wrong, though, since it is silly to apply human morals to all species equally. Just as a Lion and a human have different social constructs Black Dragons will have different social constructs and different ethical evolutions will apply. And then some individuals within a species will not act according to malice or selfishness but will still be considered evil by members of their own race because their personal code deviates significantly from their races norm. (So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature.

As to what was said earlier about Black Dragons being a threat to humans and being an enemy regardless of if they are truly evil or not, so humans are justified in killing them... Totally agree. If a Black Dragon has shown agression to humans without being provoked or has shown agression to humans that did not provoke it or showed unproportionate, (probably lethal,) agression to humans then humans can fight back and kill it for their own safety. In a war, if another nation tries to conquer mine that doesn't mean the soldiers are evil. But I am still justified in killing the attacking soldiers to defend my homeland. What is not justified is then going back and conquering that nation only to slaughter all of it's women and children because they may one day be a threat to my people.


After all, precrime really isn't crime at all.

Seriously. What an ethical landslide that concept would be.

Timecop 3: Killing Baby Hitler

[legomaster00156]

Most likely True Neutral, leaning on Neutral Good (although during a certain event, s/he was leaning on NE instead). However, s/he also shows shades of Lawful behavior, what with hir absolute devotion to Roy and the overall plan.

[lio45]

(...) Arbitrary labels.

The only "grey zone" is in the middle... for example, things like Haley's cold-blooded murder of Crystal. (No, Haley isn't Evil.)

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

Considering that, I say the D&D system does a good job at clearly defining both sides, i.e. everything that isn't in that "grey zone".





I'd like to quote a relevant excerpt from the BoED.

Thanks, but that still doesn't answer the question. We already know that

1) Killing a black dragon on sight just because it's a black dragon == "not Good"

2) Killing a smiling, waving citizen peacefully going about his/her business in town because you think it's fun = Evil (I suppose)

...but so far we still don't know if the former is officially any better than the latter. I would clearly think so and I said so throughout the thread, but we still don't know if I'm right and Kish's wrong (below), or Kish's right and I'm wrong.



So...no, "The destruction of evil," in the form of the murder of a number of black dragons for being black dragons, is not somehow better (less evil, more good--though it probably is more Lawful and less Chaotic) than the destruction of an equal number of entities chosen completely randomly.





(So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature.

The way it works, the betraying Devil working with the celestials would be "Good", gain "rightness" (or lose "wrongness", if you prefer), and the other Devils would definitely not approve of it.





As to what was said earlier about Black Dragons being a threat to humans and being an enemy regardless of if they are truly evil or not, so humans are justified in killing them... Totally agree. If a Black Dragon has shown agression to humans without being provoked or has shown agression to humans that did not provoke it or showed unproportionate, (probably lethal,) agression to humans then humans can fight back and kill it for their own safety. In a war, if another nation tries to conquer mine that doesn't mean the soldiers are evil. But I am still justified in killing the attacking soldiers to defend my homeland. What is not justified is then going back and conquering that nation only to slaughter all of it's women and children because they may one day be a threat to my people.

We agree there...



Timecop 3: Killing Baby Hitler

Wouldn't change anything if you didn't also loosen up the post-WWI conditions imposed on Germany.

[hamishspence]

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

BoVD points out that, no matter how black-and-white the alignment system is interpreted, there will always be grey areas.

[SowZ]

The only "grey zone" is in the middle... for example, things like Haley's cold-blooded murder of Crystal. (No, Haley isn't Evil.)

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

Considering that, I say the D&D system does a good job at clearly defining both sides, i.e. everything that isn't in that "grey zone".






Thanks, but that still doesn't answer the question. We already know that

1) Killing a black dragon on sight just because it's a black dragon == "not Good"

2) Killing a smiling, waving citizen peacefully going about his/her business in town because you think it's fun = Evil (I suppose)

...but so far we still don't know if the former is officially any better than the latter. I would clearly think so and I said so throughout the thread, but we still don't know if I'm right and Kish's wrong (below), or Kish's right and I'm wrong.









The way it works, the betraying Devil working with the celestials would be "Good", gain "rightness" (or lose "wrongness", if you prefer), and the other Devils would definitely not approve of it.






We agree there...




Wouldn't change anything if you didn't also loosen up the post-WWI conditions imposed on Germany.

A moral framework has to have a value system and to avoid being a failed moral framework it has to be consistent with those values and in order for it to stand as a valid moral system it has to be based around logic. That is how philosophy works. The idea of saying something is wrong because it is defeats itself by proving itself wrong. It is literally impossible, by the definition of morality and rightness/wrongness, for the Good/Evil alignment system to be an objective moral/right and wrong system as it proves itself inherently wrong when it tries to do so.

[Hbgplayer]

Does anyone else find it slightly funny how this thread started out as a debate on Vaarsuvius'(s) alignment on the Chaos-Law axis, and how it quite suddenly changed to the Good-Evil axis?
Going back to the original question, she is probably more lawful, but neutral. The fact that she is a Wizard (or Witch, if you want to be gender-correct) , and how she sticks by Haley and does what Roy tells her to do (usually) suggests that she would be fully lawful; the fact that she is Elven and her I prepared explosive runes prank on unsuspecting people would lead toward a Chaotic alignment. :vaarsuvius:

[Callista]

So if a paladin of the Sapphire Guard happens to find an egg in the woods which they know with absolute certainty is from an Always Evil species, and destroys it, even though that egg clearly wasn't tormenting anyone, they're not Lawful Good any more?They'd still be LG; but they wouldn't be a paladin. Killing a defenseless person who has not done anything evil is an evil act, even if the defenseless person happens to be evil. But you don't have to leave the egg there and let it grow up into an evil dragon.

There are other options dealing with an egg like that. If I were playing that paladin (and weren't playing a character with the sort of personality flaws that WOULD lead them to destroy the egg), I would probably take the egg, and find an allied metallic dragon willing to mentor the young dragon. While it's difficult, it's entirely possible for someone with high Charisma and Diplomacy (which many metallic dragons have) to slowly change the alignment of even a dragon. The resulting hatchling would eventually become one of the few exceptions to the Always Evil rule.

Actually, that'd be a pretty cool concept for an NPC. Have a dragon who's grown up like that, and become non-Evil... have the PCs meet it, see what they do. It'll probably be using disguises, of course... *goes to scribble down some ideas*

[Holy_Knight]

1. But your morality would still be based on what you do or think. So all creatures not born mature would also be born true neutral. I think this is a more sensible way to approach alignment, but in D&D things are born with an alignment and spells are not good or evil based on intent/result but based on labels. ... The system you are laying out isn't standard in D&D.
Right, I phrased it in that way on purpose. I'm actually unsure whether it's standard in D&D for a newborn creature to register as a particular alignment, but I think we're in agreement that it should work along a spectrum, where alignment has to grow organically within a creature, as it were.



6. Good/Evil still wouldn't be synonomous to right and wrong, though, since it is silly to apply human morals to all species equally. Just as a Lion and a human have different social constructs Black Dragons will have different social constructs and different ethical evolutions will apply. And then some individuals within a species will not act according to malice or selfishness but will still be considered evil by members of their own race because their personal code deviates significantly from their races norm. (So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature...
This is a poor analogy though, because lions and other animals don't have moral sentiments in the first place. Black dragons and many other fantasy creatures, on the other hand, are depicted as having advanced intellects, self-awareness and the capability for moral reasoning, which means it does make sense to apply what we think of as "human" morals to them. It's not being human that matters; it's having the right kind of mental capabilities.

[Icedaemon]

Thanks, but that still doesn't answer the question. We already know that

1) Killing a black dragon on sight just because it's a black dragon == "not Good"

2) Killing a smiling, waving citizen peacefully going about his/her business in town because you think it's fun = Evil (I suppose)

...but so far we still don't know if the former is officially any better than the latter. I would clearly think so and I said so throughout the thread, but we still don't know if I'm right and Kish's wrong (below), or Kish's right and I'm wrong.

Again, motivation is most important here. If the black dragon is killed largely out of fear or for some other slightly justifiable reason, then it is not evil in and of itself. Killing an evil being for personal amusement is evil.

[MoonCat]

Actually he was specifically told that he would have been judged True Neutral had he not made up for abandoning Elan to the bandits by rescuing him and learning his lesson from the experience.

Zevox

One or two strips later (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), she specifically says Neutral Good. I see what you mentioned, but that was an if, this was an actual possibility.

[SowZ]

One or two strips later (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), she specifically says Neutral Good. I see what you mentioned, but that was an if, this was an actual possibility.

I imagine the NG afterlife would be the most pleasant. You don't have so many people being rebellious just because they can like some hipster 17 year old and you don't have all those self-righteous Paladin types.

[MoonCat]

I imagine the NG afterlife would be the most pleasant. You don't have so many people being rebellious just because they can like some hipster 17 year old and you don't have all those self-righteous Paladin types.

Not all paladins were self righteous... That was mainly Miko in Azure City.

Hey, are all Commoners Lawful by default?

[SowZ]

Not all paladins were self righteous... That was mainly Miko in Azure City.

Hey, are all Commoners Lawful by default?

Hmm? I never said that. I said the majority of humans lean towards neutrality.

I think Paladins are pretty much all self-righteous. The degrees just vary significantly.

[MoonCat]

Hmm? I never said that. I said the majority of humans lean towards neutrality.

I think Paladins are pretty much all self-righteous. The degrees just vary significantly.

You never said most humans leant towards neutrality, you said 'all those self righteous Paladin types" and I said most paladins weren't, Miko was, but not all.

Hinjo isn't, O-chul isn't.

[VanBuren]

You never said most humans leant towards neutrality, you said 'all those self righteous Paladin types" and I said most paladins weren't, Miko was, but not all.

Hinjo isn't, O-chul isn't.

Eh, Hinjo has a little bit of it, I think (Summon: Conscience), but I definitely don't see it in O-chul.

[MoonCat]

Eh, Hinjo has a little bit of it, I think (Summon: Conscience), but I definitely don't see it in O-chul.

That wasn't self righteous, that was emotional manipulation.

[lio45]

Does anyone else find it slightly funny how this thread started out as a debate on Vaarsuvius'(s) alignment on the Chaos-Law axis, and how it quite suddenly changed to the Good-Evil axis?
Going back to the original question, she is probably more lawful, but neutral.

FYI, everything being discussed here is actually part of the original question:

"Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?"





Again, motivation is most important here. If the black dragon is killed largely out of fear or for some other slightly justifiable reason, then it is not evil in and of itself. Killing an evil being for personal amusement is evil.

Consider that motivation is the exact same in both cases, and you're aware of alignment in both cases. See these two cases:

A) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my (Good) purposes, and I know he's ultra-Evil --> I'll kill him and take his stuff

B) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my purposes, and I know he's Good --> I'll kill him and take his stuff


Equally Evil, or is the latter worse?

The first act helps the cause of Good and weakens Evil, while the second does the opposite.

See for example how Eugene blamed Roy for letting a bastion of Good be overrun by Xykon... Had it been, say, Greysky City being invaded/destroyed, I'm pretty sure that would've been quite a bit better from a "greater Good" point of view. In other words, I think those things (whether or not your actions are contributing to the greater Good, even if it's only a side effect, as long as you're aware you're doing it) do matter in the Stickverse.

[SowZ]

FYI, everything being discussed here is actually part of the original question:

"Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?"






Consider that motivation is the exact same in both cases, and you're aware of alignment in both cases. See these two cases:

A) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my (Good) purposes, and I know he's ultra-Evil --> I'll kill him and take his stuff

B) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my purposes, and I know he's Good --> I'll kill him and take his stuff


Equally Evil, or is the latter worse?

The first act helps the cause of Good and weakens Evil, while the second does the opposite.

See for example how Eugene blamed Roy for letting a bastion of Good be overrun by Xykon... Had it been, say, Greysky City being invaded/destroyed, I'm pretty sure that would've been quite a bit better from a "greater Good" point of view. In other words, I think those things (whether or not your actions are contributing to the greater Good, even if it's only a side effect, as long as you're aware you're doing it) do matter in the Stickverse.

If you are not aware of anything else he did you don't know he is ultra-evil?