V's familicide

[Ember_Glow]

I know many people say it was an evil act, but it wasn't really, she only did it to protect her family and to be fair the dragon was going to slowly kill and soul bind V's family, so they would have no afterlife and be trapped forever, at least V didn't soul bind the dragons so they at least got to live in the afterlife, surely while the familicide was brutal, it needed to be done to protect V's family and the dragon was in no way innocent.

[Atcote]

This is separating intent from action.

Intent: Protect your family.

Action: Kill hundreds or thousands of (sapient) creatures that bear you no immediate threat.

Holds at least kinda evil to me.

[zimmerwald1915]

{{scrubbed}}

[Phishfood]

I know many people say it was an evil act, but it wasn't really, she only did it to protect her family and to be fair the dragon was going to slowly kill and soul bind V's family, so they would have no afterlife and be trapped forever, at least V didn't soul bind the dragons so they at least got to live in the afterlife, surely while the familicide was brutal, it needed to be done to protect V's family and the dragon was in no way innocent.

Totally agreed. It was however, rather overkill.

[Shale]

Here's the thing: It didn't need to be done to protect V's family, because it didn't do a damn thing to protect V's family. If anything, it put them in greater danger.

V was worried that the Ancient Black Dragon's relatives and/or friends would continue seeking revenge, so V killed all of the ABD's direct family members. And all of their direct family members. Okay, so nobody's going to come looking for revenge for the death of that particular dragon anymore. What about the friends and family of the dozens of dragons V just killed? Or hell, dragons who didn't know any of them in particular but are pissed about the genocide of 25% of their race? Whose door are they going to be knocking on? Instead of being one of many adventurers who's killed a chromatic dragon for no other reason than because it was there and had treasure, V has now made him/herself Public Enemy #1 of the entire damn species.

[hamishspence]

Don't Split The Party says it best:


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.

That said, we have Word of Giant that V's current alignment is True Neutral.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664984&postcount=281

Which could mean that V stayed TN all the way through, or that V changed to Evil but then changed back after repenting those actions and resolving to not do evil anymore.

[Sarco_Phage]

Here's the thing: It didn't need to be done to protect V's family, because it didn't do a damn thing to protect V's family. If anything, it put them in greater danger.

V was worried that the Ancient Black Dragon's relatives and/or friends would continue seeking revenge, so V killed all of the ABD's direct family members. And all of their direct family members. Okay, so nobody's going to come looking for revenge for the death of that particular dragon anymore. What about the friends and family of the dozens of dragons V just killed? Or hell, dragons who didn't know any of them in particular but are pissed about the genocide of 25% of their race? Whose door are they going to be knocking on? Instead of being one of many adventurers who's killed a chromatic dragon for no other reason than because it was there and had treasure, V has now made him/herself Public Enemy #1 of the entire damn species.

Also?

The god of dragons.

However just because a character makes a decision, doesn't mean it's the most logical one to do. For example, you might think that stealing that golden idol is a perfectly rational and wise thing to do, then two months later, WHAM! Incan death curse.

[The Pilgrim]

V didn't do it to protect her familiy.

She did it for Pride.

Much like she accepted the soul-binding deal out of Pride, to begin with.

[Ekul]

It would change the elf's alignment if the elf had a revelation that this is how to solve problems from now on. If anything, the revelation was the OPPOSITE. V didn't consider the ramifications until after losing to Xykon.

[Warren Dew]

I know many people say it was an evil act, but it wasn't really, she only did it to protect her family and to be fair the dragon was going to slowly kill and soul bind V's family, so they would have no afterlife and be trapped forever, at least V didn't soul bind the dragons so they at least got to live in the afterlife, surely while the familicide was brutal, it needed to be done to protect V's family and the dragon was in no way innocent.
While I agree Vaarsuvius' intent was to protect the family, I wouldn't go so far as to say "it needed to be done". It seems to me that killing the mother dragon ought to have sent a sufficient message to any other dragons that seeking retribution would be unwise - and few if any of those others would have ben suffiently closely related to have as much of a motivation for revenge as a mother did.

[King of Nowhere]

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.
That is my favourite part.
Seriously, killing the dragon was made to protect V's family, and no one would disagree on that. Killing all the dragon's relatives? Are you serious?
It's like a guy enters in your house by night and threatens your family, at this point you had an hidden gun and shot him.
And then you go looking for that guy's father and mother, and kill them. And you kill his brothers and sisters too. And his grandparents and uncles and cousins and second and third grade cousins, and even more distant realtives, and kill them all - including small children.
And you do all that just on the off-chance that one of them might eventually want to enact revenge for the first guy you killed.
Does it make sense phrased that way?

[Sarco_Phage]

You forgot the part where you bring the guy back from the dead SPECIFICALLY so you can make him watch you kill all of his relatives.

[Altaria87]

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.
The difference is that in fantasy roleplaying, particularly DnD, Evil is a tangiable force, even physical[I] in the Lower Planes. In real life, there aren't sentient species who are literally, as the SRD says:

Always chaotic evil
In DnD, if you kill a Black Dragon, you killed a powerful and intelligent force of pure Evil, without question.

However, this isn't to say what V did was in any way justified, a Black Dragon may have half-dragon relative, which would go on to ahve non-dragon, and therefore non-always Evil family. This is just to amke a point that 'normal' morality doesn't work in a world where intelligent species are [I]always evil and where there are literal planes of existence made of pure evil.
(Also, there's the point that V was no longer protecting his/her family, the dragon was dead at that point and no longer a threat. Though, then again, it could be raised. But it didn't seem to ahve any direct family left, as her 'only son' was killed.)

[Sarco_Phage]

The difference is that in fantasy roleplaying, particularly DnD, Evil is a tangiable force, even physical[I] in the Lower Planes. In real life, there aren't sentient species who are literally, as the SRD says:

In DnD, if you kill a Black Dragon, you killed a powerful and intelligent force of pure Evil, without question.

However, this isn't to say what V did was in any way justified, a Black Dragon may have half-dragon relative, which would go on to ahve non-dragon, and therefore non-always Evil family. This is just to amke a point that 'normal' morality doesn't work in a world where intelligent species are [I]always evil and where there are literal planes of existence made of pure evil.

But this isn't fantasy roleplaying.

This is a webcomic which goes out of its way to challenge the viewpoint that "Always Chaotic Evil" is grounds for wanton murder.

Or are you agreeing with Miko Miyazaki?

[hamishspence]

Given that even a fiend is not a force of "pure evil" - they can survive rituals that replace the evil subtype with another one, and fiends have redeemed themselves,

then the same applies to dragons.

"Always CE" doesn't mean the being is pure evil- it means that it naturally comes with the traditional Evil personality traits.

Which can change, over time.

[Sarco_Phage]

Given that even a fiend is not a force of "pure evil" - they can survive rituals that replace the evil subtype with another one, and fiends have redeemed themselves

The fact that Asmodeus was an Angel once should indicate that evil and good are by no means permanent things.

[Howler Dagger]

V is TN according to the Giant. So this shouldnt end up as an alignment debate about V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664984&postcount=281)

[hamishspence]

Now, yes- but it is possible that V has undergone more than one alignment shift.

The present-day V is TN- but it's possible that between the start of OoTS, and now, V has shifted from TN to NE, and back.

So, there's still room for debate.

[Burner28]

Which could mean that V stayed TN all the way through, or that V changed to Evil but then changed back after repenting those actions and resolving to not do evil anymore.

The latter makes more sense considering Rich's opinion of V's act.

And to answer the original point, yes, that act was indeed Evil.

[hamishspence]

Maybe the Familicide-related threads could be compiled- so we could have a look at what's been argued in the past?

[Sarco_Phage]

And to answer the original point, yes, that act was indeed Evil.

I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention, though.

[Zevox]

[Daffy Duck] Okay folks, here we go again! [/Daffy Duck]


V didn't do it to protect her familiy.

She did it for Pride.
Not even pride - pure revenge and sadism.

Comic 639 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html), after the Dragon was dead:

Soul Splice voices: "The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."
:vaarsuvius: : "I concur. Create Greater Undead."

Moreover, the "she did it to protect her family" excuse becomes laughable if you paid enough attention to those events to notice how little she cared about her family at that moment. She barely (and rudely) spoke to them before committing familicide. She didn't so much as look at them until Inkyrius shouted at her to get away from them. Had he not done that, she probably would've teleported away without ever so much as glancing at them. The "protect my family from further revenge" excuse was a rationalization for her actions (and not even a very good one when you spend any time thinking about it), nothing more.

Zevox

[TheSummoner]

The difference is that in fantasy roleplaying, particularly DnD, Evil is a tangiable force, even [I]physical[I] in the Lower Planes. In real life, there aren't sentient species who are literally, as the SRD says:

Always chaotic evil
In DnD, if you kill a Black Dragon, you killed a powerful and intelligent force of pure Evil, without question.

What you say may be true by the letter of the rules (I wouldn't know firsthand, I have never played), but true by the letter or not, the concept that "If you are X, you are evil" is incredibly stupid.

We aren't talking about a physical manifestation of evil, we are talking about a powerful and more importantly, intelligent creature. The thought that by default, every single one of these creatures is evil because of what it is - regardless of what it has done - is just idiotic.

Is a newly hatched dragon who has not yet harmed a single living thing (hasn't even been out of the shell long enough to eat anything) evil just because of the color of its scales? What about a grown one who may have caused a bit of harm to humans, but only because they were unfortunate enough to be placed lower on the food chain - not out of any malice or desie to do harm - just because the dragon needed food and the humans were there? If the dragon who eats a few humans to survive is evil, does that mean humans are evil for eating cows? What about dragon who spends her entire life in her cave, leaving only to catch food, living far enough from civilization that she has never needed to harm an intelligent creature to sustain herself. The only intelligent creatures she has ever harmed have been adventurers who sought to kill her for the crime of being a dragon and every piece of treasure she owns has been taken from those who tried to kill her. Is she evil?

Unless you are a demon or something - A literal manifestation of pure evil - evil is not something you default to. Evil is something based on your actions, both the effects of your actions and the reason behind them. I can accept that culture and the way something is raised may make any particular group more likely to go towards evil, but to say something is ALWAYS evil is so moronic that the person who first came up with it probably should've been smacked.

[Sarco_Phage]

Unless you are a demon or something - A literal manifestation of pure evil - evil is not something you default to. Evil is something based on your actions, both the effects of your actions and the reason behind them. I can accept that culture and the way something is raised may make any particular group more likely to go towards evil, but to say something is ALWAYS evil is so moronic that the person who first came up with it probably should've been smacked.

And before someone comes in and blames Tolkien, the notion of an Always CE race bugged him too.

There's a reason everything Evil in his books is originally something Good.

[Ancalagon]

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.

Actually, this is not what I best not want to think about. The true thing I do not want to think about is this:
Given the size of the hammer Rich used to show how "evil" and "wrong" Vaarsuvius action was it is truly shocking some people *still* think it was totally fine to do so.

If someone has read the comic and still thinks Vaarsuvius' act was fine, I feel nothing I (or everyone, for that matter) could say had a bigger impact.
Apparently, we have to accept here (due to limitation to discuss morals) that some people think blatant genocide was a fine thing to do for this reason or another (only in the context of RPGs, of course. But that is, I think, bad enough already).

[BillyBobJoe]

Totally agreed. It was however, rather overkill.

... Overkill... THAT MEANS V IS A MAN!!!1111! that was entirely sarcasm, if you couldn't guess.

[The Pilgrim]

[Daffy Duck] Okay folks, here we go again! [/Daffy Duck]

Not even pride - pure revenge and sadism.

Comic 639 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html), after the Dragon was dead:

Soul Splice voices: "The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."
:vaarsuvius: : "I concur. Create Greater Undead."

Moreover, the "she did it to protect her family" excuse becomes laughable if you paid enough attention to those events to notice how little she cared about her family at that moment. She barely (and rudely) spoke to them before committing familicide. She didn't so much as look at them until Inkyrius shouted at her to get away from them. Had he not done that, she probably would've teleported away without ever so much as glancing at them. The "protect my family from further revenge" excuse was a rationalization for her actions (and not even a very good one when you spend any time thinking about it), nothing more.

Zevox

Yup, her gloating at the dragon in #640 pretty much sums it up.

Not to mention that the Familicide spell didn't make her familiy safer, more on the contrary. Yep, it liquidates Mama Dragon's family (including, mostly, dragons who probably didn't even know her), but nothing about allies, friends, followers, mentors... so V basically multiplied by a thousand the chance that someone whould want to fire back at her. No to mention Tiamat, who whould already have chewed her up her seven heads if not for the IFCC making a deal r (and who possibly will anyway take retaliation once V's involvement in IFCC plans is over).

So, she didn't do it to protect his family. She did it to "teach a lesson" to Mama Dragon for touching HER family, in a way that would make Tarquin proud. Heck, she didn't even care about it for true empathy with her mate and children's suffering, but because Mama Dragon attemped to touch something that belonged to HER.

[SowZ]

How was it even a little bit protecting her family? At all? If a guy from Harlem shoots my kid and I respond by blowing up all of Harlem... V did it soley to devise the worst kind of torture immaginable and prove her strength. Killing the dragon was reasonable. Torturing it was wrong. Slaughtering evil, neutral, and possibly good babies, women, and children for pleasure, not for any greater good but because of their race and because you enjoy it and because of your own god complex is quite literally one of the most evil things anyone could possibly do ever. In that moment, V was heads and shoulders above Redcloak in level of evil and just shy of Xykon.

I think V was very stressed, insulted, brainwashed by years of adventuring about what 'always evil' means, half crazy due to his no trancing and obsession, scared, wanted to know if she could really do it, tempted by the best tempters in the world... etc. etc. I think since then, she has taken some redeeming acts and has become a better person. Possibly better than she ever was before the splic. It still doesn't mean she wasn't one of the most evil forces on the planet for a few minutes.

[Burner28]

I agree with Sarco Phage when he said


I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention, though.

So why is this still going on?:smallconfused:

[Porthos]

To sum what a lot of people are saying: One can have motives and intents other than the stated ones when someone is doing something.

And, even so, in this case V all but said he was doing it for the lulz.

<Insert obligatory commentary about a comparison of V's actions and desires and Miko's HERE>

[MoonCat]

So why is this still going on?:smallconfused:

Because occasionally people pop up and say it isn't. And I was going to give a bunch of reasonable points saying why V was wrong and did something evil, but everyone else has done that, and these people still crop up, and they don't change their minds. So why bother? It's just a waste of typing up arguments that make sense, since they wont be listened too anyway.

[Lord_Gareth]

Say it with me folks: firing indiscriminate weapons of mass-murder is always going to be evil, even if you really, truly, deeply have a perfectly justified excuse.

Seriously. Even if the excuse ends up with a net result of neutral, the action started as an evil act and the universe busted its metaphorical ass to buck it all the way up to not being evil any more - and in the case of Familicide, that didn't happen. V murdered hundreds of beings, at least one of which was shown with definite Paladin-like features, in service to her petty revenge and as a way to pee-empt a cycle of vengeance that's going to occur anyway. Her intentions were far from pure and she hasn't really displayed a lot of regret over that particular action, though in her defense that last part may be due to the fact that she's hiding the Soul Splice from everyone.

It was evil. End of story.

[hamishspence]

It could be a case of people insisting (based on the way they play D&D) that "V's act certainly wouldn't have counted as evil in our games"

Which may place "results" as more important than "intent" or "action".

[Burner28]

Ahhh... I see.... Still... Evil!:smallamused:

[VanBuren]

I know many people say it was an evil act, but it wasn't really, she only did it to protect her family and to be fair the dragon was going to slowly kill and soul bind V's family, so they would have no afterlife and be trapped forever, at least V didn't soul bind the dragons so they at least got to live in the afterlife, surely while the familicide was brutal, it needed to be done to protect V's family and the dragon was in no way innocent.

The dragon may not have been innocent, but that was only one victim of many. And that particular dragon wasn't even a victim of Familicide. Besides, it wasn't about protecting the family. V's actions were purely to punish the Dragon for daring to attack V's family.

[pendell]

V is TN according to the Giant. So this shouldnt end up as an alignment debate about V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664984&postcount=281)

I agree. However, I remember the fiends discussing it while watching the events unfold on evil-o-vision, and speculating whether they would wind up with V's soul even without the soul bind because of that action.

It seems pretty conclusive that the Fiendish Trio viewed the Familicide as an evil act.

However, it seems to take more than a single action to shift an alignment, even one as over-the-top as committing massacre.

Except, of course, for Roy, who was almost kicked to True Neutral for the ONE act of almost abandoning Elan to his death in the bandit camp.

I suppose that the requirements for being Lawful Good are a higher standard than being True Neutral. That, plus the fact that the black dragons massacred were listed as 'always chaotic evil' in the monster manual may have acted as a mitigating factor to lessen the severity of the evil act.

Either that, or the D&D alignment system is radically messed up from the standpoint of serious philosophy, and the Giant is lampooning that fact by pointing up its shortcomings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Epic]

I know many people say it was an evil act, but it wasn't really, she only did it to protect her family and to be fair the dragon was going to slowly kill and soul bind V's family, so they would have no afterlife and be trapped forever, at least V didn't soul bind the dragons so they at least got to live in the afterlife, surely while the familicide was brutal, it needed to be done to protect V's family and the dragon was in no way innocent.

Hmmm, good point. You know what, the Linear Guild has always been a thorn in the Order's paw. V should kill anyone who can claim connection to them. Look at Yik Yik. His son went after Belkar in vengeance. And they kidnapped Roy's sister. Relatives are not of limits to them. And heck, look at how Team Evil uses (hob)goblins. V should kill anyone with any connection to them regardless of alignment or previous actions in their past. It's not evil. V is just trying to protect their family, and you can never be too crazed or mad when it comes to this.

[Tazar]

I honestly don't care one whit about V wiping out hundreds of black dragons.
If this was anything but D&D I'd have a problem with it, but this is D&D, and its rigid alignment system comes with the territory.

And, under that alignment system? Black dragons are thoroughly and irrevocably evil. They're monsters who kill innocents for fun and laughs, every single one of them.

Rich does a good job tugging on our heartstrings with mommy dragon, but at the end of the day they're still vile beings who can't be redeemed. Good riddance.

Now I don't think it's morally justified, mind you, but neither was I horrified or outraged by the action.



V was worried that the Ancient Black Dragon's relatives and/or friends would continue seeking revenge, so V killed all of the ABD's direct family members. And all of their direct family members. Okay, so nobody's going to come looking for revenge for the death of that particular dragon anymore. What about the friends and family of the dozens of dragons V just killed?

Given the nature of, y'know, Familicide, I don't think that part will be much of a problem, at least. :smalltongue:

Honestly, given the tremendous ages dragons live to and the small population size, V's probably wiped out a good chunk of the living black dragons. The survivors are going to be busy just regrouping and defending their territory, and they've got no idea what's happened. I think V's okay.

[pendell]

V didn't do it to protect her familiy.

She did it for Pride.

Much like she accepted the soul-binding deal out of Pride, to begin with.

I respectfully disagree.

This has been building up since the last battle with the Linear Guild in Azure City. You remember that Vaarsuvius became very frustrated with the fact that there seemed to be nothing they could do to Nale at all that wouldn't result in them returning as antagonists thanks to resurrection. V became so agitated as to suggest getting their recurring enemies to fight each other in some sort of gladiatorial arena, so as to thin down the herd.

Flash forward to the island. V is suddenly confronted by the close relative of a nemesis V had previously defeated.

Put these things together and you can see V's thought process quite clearly.

1) If I destroy an enemy, that enemy's closest friend or relative will immediately act either to bring that enemy back or to revenge them.

2) Therefore, I must ensure that this enemy -- who threatened my family -- has NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of EVER returning.

So, no. I don't believe V acted out of pride or out of cruelty. Certainly V got a great deal of satisfaction from torturing the mother dragon, and certainly V gloried in the power V had, but that wasn't the underlying reason.

The underlying reason is that previous events in the campaign had persuaded V that the only way to be sure -- REALLY sure -- an enemy would never return was to ensure there was no one either to avenge them or to bring them back.

And here's an epic spell designed for just that task.

So it wasn't anger or frustration or cruelty that motivated V. It was rationality -- twisted rationality by board consensus -- which was no doubt helped by V's utter lack of trancing, leading V to make decisions V might normally not make.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

PS. Get our enemies to fight each other in a gladiatorial arena -- they're in a gladiatorial arena now and it looks plausible that Nale and Tarquin can manipulated into killing each other. Perhaps this strip has a fair amount of planning -- BDP.

[Dr.Epic]

I honestly don't care one whit about V wiping out hundreds of black dragons.
If this was anything but D&D I'd have a problem with it, but this is D&D, and its rigid alignment system comes with the territory.

And, under that alignment system? Black dragons are thoroughly and irrevocably evil. They're monsters who kill innocents for fun and laughs, every single one of them.

Rich does a good job tugging on our heartstrings with mommy dragon, but at the end of the day they're still vile beings who can't be redeemed. Good riddance.

Now, I don't think it's morally justified, but neither was I horrified or outraged by the action.

Yep. If one black dragon is evil, they are all. No exceptions what so ever. Look at halflings. The Monster Manual lists them as Neutral, and as OotS has shown this is completely accurate. I mean, can you name any halflings in OotS that might be good or, oh I don't know, evil?

[hamishspence]

I honestly don't care one whit about V wiping out hundreds of black dragons.
If this was anything but D&D I'd have a problem with it, but this is D&D, and its rigid alignment system comes with the territory.

And, under that alignment system? Black dragons are thoroughly and irrevocably evil. They're monsters who kill innocents for fun and laughs, every single one of them.

Even within Evil alignment- there can be a lot of variety. And from 3.0 onward "always evil" simply means it starts out evil- not that it's incapable of change, or that it's as evil as a being can be.

And generally in 3rd ed D&D, no creature "can't be redeemed"- even fiends have been known to redeem themselves.

[Tazar]

Yep. If one black dragon is evil, they are all. No exceptions what so ever. Look at halflings. The Monster Manual lists them as Neutral, and as OotS has shown this is completely accurate. I mean, can you name any halflings in OotS that might be good or, oh I don't know, evil?

I would respectfully suggest that comparing the alignment listing of halflings and chromatic dragons is not really a valid example. I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.

[hamishspence]

While not exactly Good, the half-blind red dragon in the early Dragonlance Chronicles did regard the people around it as if they were dragon younglings, and went out of its way to protect them.

In the Myth Drannor set for 2nd ed, Garnet was a good aligned red/blue dragon hybrid.

[Dr.Epic]

I would respectfully suggest that comparing the alignment listing of halflings and chromatic dragons is not really a valid example. I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.

Because V spell only effected dragons, and not halfdragons and only hybrids that wouldn't share the same traits as their purely evil dragon forefathers. (last 3, panel 13, the guy with the horse body) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

[Zevox]

And generally in 3rd ed D&D, no creature "can't be redeemed"- even fiends have been known to redeem themselves.
The 3.5 Monster Manual even contains a section explaining what each alignment entry means which specifies this - even creatures listed as "Always <Alignment>" have exceptions, they're just very rare in those cases.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

The 3.5 Monster Manual even contains a section explaining what each alignment entry means which specifies this - even creatures listed as "Always <Alignment>" have exceptions, they're just very rare in those cases.

Zevox

I figured "exceptions" applied to birth- but alignment change applies seperately:


And from 3.0 onward "always evil" simply means it starts out evil- not that it's incapable of change, or that it's as evil as a being can be.

So- maybe only one in a million such creatures (Savage Species) is born Not Evil- but any of them can, with enthusiastic effort, end up changing alignment later.

[ken]

... snip ...

Given the nature of, y'know, Familicide, I don't think that part will be much of a problem, at least. :smalltongue:



Ah yes... but if I was a evil black dragon... and my mate (who I do not share a bloodline with) and all of our offspring were all destroyed by magical lightning from out of nowhere - I would probably be making a trip to the oracle to find out what happened...

Ken

[Warmage]

I would respectfully suggest that comparing the alignment listing of halflings and chromatic dragons is not really a valid example. I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.

Well, it's not like there are any good Vampires in fiction. I mean they're listed as "Always Evil". Certainly never any good Werewolves, Gargoyles, or Drow.

Yep, alignment is a straitjacket for restricting your character, not any sort of tool for developing your character’s identity. Each alignment represents a single personality type, and two characters of the same alignment can never be different from each other. [/sarcasm]

Just because they are listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" does not actually mean that they are all CE. It would read better as "Almost Always Chaotc Evil." And, as demonstrated frequently in this comic, even someone who is CE can do a whole lot to further the cause of Good. Conversely, even someone who is LG can further the cause of Evil.

The act of genocide for the main reason that he/she could is clearly an evil act. There's no getting into the good afterlife after that. Luckily for him/her, V is TN.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Either that, or the D&D alignment system is radically messed up from the standpoint of serious philosophy, and the Giant is lampooning that fact by pointing up its shortcomings.
I think he's got it!

Well, it's not like there are any good Vampires in fiction. I mean they're listed as "Always Evil". Certainly never any good Werewolves, Gargoyles, or Drow.

Don't forget orcs and goblins!

[rekuu]

V's need to cause suffering at the time would make whatever action used- even buttering toast- evil.

"Its the thought that counts."

[hamishspence]

Except, of course, for Roy, who was almost kicked to True Neutral for the ONE act of almost abandoning Elan to his death in the bandit camp.

That might be "afterlife" rather than "alignment".

An afterlife might have more restrictive rules for "who gets in".

[Porthos]

I honestly don't care one whit about V wiping out hundreds of black dragons.
If this was anything but D&D I'd have a problem with it, but this is D&D, and its rigid alignment system comes with the territory.

And, under that alignment system? Black dragons are thoroughly and irrevocably evil. They're monsters who kill innocents for fun and laughs, every single one of them.

I would point out that the IFCC certainly thought that it was an evil act. They even implied that it was evil enough to affect the probabilities of what afterlife V would eventually get. Either because the action/intent was so waaaaaaay over the line as it would take a lot to overcome. Or because someone who was capable of casting Familicide (for whatever reason) would probably do more things like that in the future, signifying a sufficient shift in philosophical outlook that meant that V's soul would be headed toward the Lower Planes, as opposed to wherever he was originally going to go.

[enderlord99]

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9469338.jpg

The Mod Wonder: Because, to this point, there has been only fairly reasonable discussion. So long as it stays respectful, it's not a problem.

[Mutant Sheep]

{{scrubbed}}

[factotum]

I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.

If we're just going by D&D representations in fictional works, rather than, say, the *actual rules of the game*, then I can point to a Lawful Neutral (going on Good) *succubus* in the Planescape: Torment game. If a fiend is capable of changing to a non-evil alignment, *any* evil creature can do so given sufficient motivation.

[hamishspence]

And if we're going for D&D black dragons, Thauglor the Purple Dragon of Cormyr (actually black, but went purplish over time with age) is portrayed as more Affably Evil than utterly malevolent- and has passed into Cormyr legend rather sympathetically:

FRCS p115:


You've heard, I doubt not, that somewhere in Cormyr, skulking in the Stonelands or the Storm Horns or the green forest deeps, there's always one Purple Dragon.

Aye, a wyrm whose scales are purple, that can hide in the semblance of a human, though its eyes burn like purple flames. None know all the powers of the Purple Dragon, but it hates too much tree-felling and too many laws and grasping greed, and loves wild things and the beauty of the land. It wants its folk to be free and daring in their dreams and deeds.

The Purple Dragon walks alone and stands apart, and none know its mind. It can be kind and caring, or fell and deadly, rescuing a lost child one moment and tearing proud and cruel knights out of their armor bone by bloody bone the next.

[Kish]

I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.
You hold the opinion that something you haven't personally read about is proven not to exist? Really?

[The Pilgrim]

I respectfully disagree.

Ok, but see:

1) The Familicide Spell in no way removed the threat of someone reviving Mama Dragon or coming for V or her familiy to take revenge. More on the contrary, it multiplied it.

As a lot of people have pointed out, Familicide didn't affect friends, allies, or, well mates.

Take Tarquin. Would casting Familicide on Tarquin affect in any way his possibilities of being ressurrected and coming back? No, in no way, because neither Malack nor his other allies belong to his family. In fact, you would be doing him a favor, because you'd wipe out Elan and Nale. Plus you wouldn't just have to deal with Tarquin's associates, you would have to deal with Elan's and Nale's, too.

V, as someone with an INT score very likely in the 20's, should realize that casting Familicide on Mama Dragon was only going to multiply her enemies.


2) V ressurected the dragon so she could witness the wiping out of her family line. Then gloated at her. V made very clear that the point was not protecting her family, but 1) punishing the Dragon for attacking V's assets, and 2) feed V's godmode Ego.


Respectifuly

Me

[hamishspence]

For another DStP quote:


By giving V another option- however ridiculous an option it may seem to us in the comfort of our living rooms with days to calculate the likelihood of success- they destroy V's certainty at his/her own righteousness. They force him/her to admit, even if only silently to him/herself, that he/she needs to do this on his/her own in order to salvage the pride that he/she had beaten out of him/her by the black dragon.

This admission opens the door for some of V's abominable acts once he/she possesses the Soul splices, under the idea that if you're already damned, you might as well sin.

[The Pilgrim]

I would respectfully suggest that comparing the alignment listing of halflings and chromatic dragons is not really a valid example. I've certainly never encountered an example of a Good chromatic dragon in any of my (admittedly not vast) D&D-related readings, notably Dragonlance, which is why I hold that opinion.

Well, you would not find anywere any single example of a good-aligned Drow... until Robert Anthony Salvatore wrote about one, and then suddently the whole species converted to CG rebels.

[Sarco_Phage]

I honestly don't care one whit about V wiping out hundreds of black dragons.
If this was anything but D&D I'd have a problem with it, but this is D&D, and its rigid alignment system comes with the territory.

And, under that alignment system? Black dragons are thoroughly and irrevocably evil. They're monsters who kill innocents for fun and laughs, every single one of them.

Rich does a good job tugging on our heartstrings with mommy dragon, but at the end of the day they're still vile beings who can't be redeemed. Good riddance.

Ugh. I'm going to get tired of saying this eventually.

This is precisely the kind of viewpoint the comic seeks to challenge.

EDIT: Consider this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html).

To address the ludicrous point you brought up about irredeemability: Asmodeus started out as an angel. If something pure can be corrupted, then something vile can be purified - especially if evil is not inherent to its nature.

[The Pilgrim]

To address the ludicrous point you brought up about irredeemability: Asmodeus started out as an angel. If something pure can be corrupted, then something vile can be purified - especially if evil is not inherent to its nature.

Xena: Warrior Princess, for example. :smallbiggrin:

[zimmerwald1915]

To address the ludicrous point you brought up about irredeemability: Asmodeus started out as an angel. If something pure can be corrupted, then something vile can be purified - especially if evil is not inherent to its nature.
Not that this makes you wrong, because you're not, but didn't a recent thread determine that under the alignment system as stated it's a heck of a lot easier to fall from Good to Evil than to be redeemed from Evil to Good? That you have to put work into the system to get Good, and that left to itself the system tends toward Evil?

[MoonCat]

Not that this makes you wrong, because you're not, but didn't a recent thread determine that under the alignment system as stated it's a heck of a lot easier to fall from Good to Evil than to be redeemed from Evil to Good? That you have to put work into the system to get Good, and that left to itself the system tends toward Evil?

Oh yes, but consider how V has been acting ever since. And I think part of it is actually repenting having been evil too.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

I am surprised that no one has noted that the spell was shown to have killed an unborn wrymling. That right there would be enough to make that spell Evil with a capital E in my book.

Also, until reading this thread, I never stopped to think about how V's stated intent for the spell, utterly eliminating any and all possible threats, is not reached. As others have mentioned, it got Timat upset with her, and it is implied the only reason the goddess is working againg V directly right now is a deal the IFCC made with her. And that isn't even considering the other black dragons, other chromatic dragons that either feel compassion for their brethern or want to make sure that V doesn't try that with them, and any non-dragon worshipers of Timat. I am pretty sure this story is not going to end well for the elf.

[SowZ]

{{To avoid seeming like a pretentious SOB, derailing the thread, anyone taking anything as a personal attack, and ever feeling compelled to seriously delve into this issue again, I'm organizing my thoughts on alignment and making a thread in the 3.5 section in a few days.}}


I am surprised that no one has noted that the spell was shown to have killed an unborn wrymling. That right there would be enough to make that spell Evil with a capital E in my book.

Also, until reading this thread, I never stopped to think about how V's stated intent for the spell, utterly eliminating any and all possible threats, is not reached. As others have mentioned, it got Timat upset with her, and it is implied the only reason the goddess is working againg V directly right now is a deal the IFCC made with her. And that isn't even considering the other black dragons, other chromatic dragons that either feel compassion for their brethern or want to make sure that V doesn't try that with them, and any non-dragon worshipers of Timat. I am pretty sure this story is not going to end well for the elf.

Nor should it. I like Vs character. I hope she redeems herself as much as possible and is even good achieving a good afterlife. But she also deserves to die and I hope she does.

[Warren Dew]

As others have mentioned, it got Timat upset with her, and it is implied the only reason the goddess is working againg V directly right now is a deal the IFCC made with her.
It got Tiamat upset at the IFCC, not at Vaarsuvius. Tiamat knew that Vaarsuvius wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near that much damage without the soul splice.

[Sarco_Phage]

Not that this makes you wrong, because you're not, but didn't a recent thread determine that under the alignment system as stated it's a heck of a lot easier to fall from Good to Evil than to be redeemed from Evil to Good? That you have to put work into the system to get Good, and that left to itself the system tends toward Evil?

I haven't been around for a while, so I didn't see that thread. I'm inclined to agree (Evil is sometimes described as the "easy" way out) but then, that doesn't make redemption impossible by any means. :D

[Warren Dew]

Either that, or the D&D alignment system is radically messed up from the standpoint of serious philosophy, and the Giant is lampooning that fact by pointing up its shortcomings.
I really don't see any other consistent conclusion.

There isn't any fundamental difference between the familicide and Roy's beheading the sleeping goblins in strip 11. Someone once linked to an early post where the author stated that Roy's actions there were nonevil because killing evil beings is not evil. I think that's an accurate assessment of the D&D alignment system; it's a simple, black and white system that's designed to let the player characters kill things without worrying too much about moral issues. If that reasoning applies to usually evil goblins, it applies also to always evil black dragons.

Within the alignment system, you can argue that some of the familicide's victims might not have been evil - the half dragon, for example - but then we're looking at a small number of nonevil victims, not a huge number of them. Even then, we don't know for sure whether any of the victims were nonevil - there might have been some, but there might not have been, too.

Now sure, you can set up a game where the players face moral dilemmas every time they are tempted to use violence, but it won't be the simple, black and white D&D system. - and in such a game, the average player character may well end up looking a lot more like Celia than like any of the actual members of the order of the stick.


I agree. However, I remember the fiends discussing it while watching the events unfold on evil-o-vision, and speculating whether they would wind up with V's soul even without the soul bind because of that action.

It seems pretty conclusive that the Fiendish Trio viewed the Familicide as an evil act.
Not necessarily. They might have been envisioning a progression from, say, familicide on "always evil" black dragons, to something similar on usually evil goblins, to the same thing on sometimes evil - but sometimes good - humans. That might be a logical continuation of the thought process you describe in a later post for Vaarsuvius.

[SowZ]

I really don't see any other consistent conclusion.

There isn't any fundamental difference between the familicide and Roy's beheading the sleeping goblins in strip 11. Someone once linked to an early post where the author stated that Roy's actions there were nonevil because killing evil beings is not evil. I think that's an accurate assessment of the D&D alignment system; it's a simple, black and white system that's designed to let the player characters kill things without worrying too much about moral issues. If that reasoning applies to usually evil goblins, it applies also to always evil black dragons.

Within the alignment system, you can argue that some of the familicide's victims might not have been evil - the half dragon, for example - but then we're looking at a small number of nonevil victims, not a huge number of them. Even then, we don't know for sure whether any of the victims were nonevil - there might have been some, but there might not have been, too.

Now sure, you can set up a game where the players face moral dilemmas every time they are tempted to use violence, but it won't be the simple, black and white D&D system. - and in such a game, the average player character may well end up looking a lot more like Celia than like any of the actual members of the order of the stick.


Not necessarily. They might have been envisioning a progression from, say, familicide on "always evil" black dragons, to something similar on usually evil goblins, to the same thing on sometimes evil - but sometimes good - humans. That might be a logical continuation of the thought process you describe in a later post for Vaarsuvius.

There is a difference. Mainly, Roy was killing the Goblins serving Xykon to end a force in the world that has proven to be evil and the Goblins stood in the way of that. V was killing the Black Dragons for vengeance.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

It got Tiamat upset at the IFCC, not at Vaarsuvius. Tiamat knew that Vaarsuvius wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near that much damage without the soul splice.


Yeah, but you have to imagine that the the goddess can't be too happy with V either, and having a goddess pissed off at you is not a good place to be.

[Sarco_Phage]

Not necessarily. They might have been envisioning a progression from, say, familicide on "always evil" black dragons, to something similar on usually evil goblins, to the same thing on sometimes evil - but sometimes good - humans. That might be a logical continuation of the thought process you describe in a later post for Vaarsuvius.

Or, they might have been going holy balls that was so evil it gave me an evilgasm. At least that's what it looked like to me.

[hamishspence]

There isn't any fundamental difference between the familicide and Roy's beheading the sleeping goblins in strip 11.

This reminds me of the statement "There isn't any fundamental difference between V's mindset and Elan's when he says "The people that I know are saved!"

Familicide is very fundamentally different- because it involves the targeting of beings that are not involved.

It's like the difference between dropping a bomb on an enemy barracks, and dropping a bomb on a hospital full of babies and pregnant women.

[veti]

It got Tiamat upset at the IFCC, not at Vaarsuvius. Tiamat knew that Vaarsuvius wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near that much damage without the soul splice.

That's a very good point.

I think Tiamat may also be quite clearsighted (I'm guessing she has a WIS score in the 20s) in assigning the blame for that episode. Insert the spirit of an epic-level necromancer into the mind of a half-insane mid-level wizard, and it doesn't take a lot of foresight to see that the highlight of the act isn't going to involve doves flying out of anyone's sleeves.


There is a difference. Mainly, Roy was killing the Goblins serving Xykon to end a force in the world that has proven to be evil and the Goblins stood in the way of that. V was killing the Black Dragons for vengeance.

Sorry, but this doesn't stand up to examination. Even if you give Roy the benefit of the retcon (that he really was on his holy quest to finish Xykon. and it wasn't just about loot and XP), it still doesn't follow that he had to kill those goblins. Once they were asleep he could have simply walked past them, or he could have given them the chance to surrender.

And even that much benefit is stretching a point, because Xykon hasn't even been mentioned at that point. All we see is a bunch of adventurers in a dungeon killing and looting. So unless you can honestly say that, back when you first read through the story, you thought the party was evil until you heard about the Xykonguffin that magically justifies everything they do - all you're doing is retrospectively rationalising your original us-and-them instincts.

Count me in with the strand that holds the D&D alignment system to be philosophically, a total crock. "Absolute morality" my left buttock.

[VanBuren]

Revealing backstory and a plot that we weren't aware of isn't the same thing as a retcon.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. And from Origin of PCs we find out that, under normal circumstances, Roy does not kill beings "merely because it's easier than talking to them".

[Ancalagon]

Sorry, but this doesn't stand up to examination. Even if you give Roy the benefit of the retcon (that he really was on his holy quest to finish Xykon. and it wasn't just about loot and XP), it still doesn't follow that he had to kill those goblins. Once they were asleep he could have simply walked past them, or he could have given them the chance to surrender.

I'd be very careful here: Back then the comic strip was just some day-by-day joke strip that followed the genre-convetions of normal roleplaying. It became "more" only lateron (in specific: it started to ask about those conventions. Even more specific: the convention to murder yourself through a dungeon crawl and looting everyone is good because the enemies are evil).

You're comparing things that are really difficult to compare, simply because they are different things. Do not get confused by the fact it's the same characters or the story is continuous. Take everyone before #100 with a lot of caution in discussions.

That said I claim: Your example is not valid.

PS: That we still discuss this shows something is very broken somewhere.

[Sarco_Phage]

I'd be very careful here: Back then the comic strip was just some day-by-day joke strip that followed the genre-convetions of normal roleplaying. It became "more" only lateron (in specific: it started to ask about those conventions. Even more specific: the convention to murder yourself through a dungeon crawl and looting everyone is good because the enemies are evil).

You're comparing things that are really difficult to compare, simply because they are different things. Do not get confused by the fact it's the same characters or the story is continuous. Take everyone before #100 with a lot of caution in discussions.

That said I claim: Your example is not valid.

PS: That we still discuss this shows something is very broken somewhere.

Look, if we're to take everything pre-#100 as canon, then it follows that authorial intention has less impact. We're looking at the characters as they are/were, which means that their actions from strip #1 to strip #801 are part of their history. Thus we should try and interpret Roy's actions in that light instead of handwaving them by saying "eh, it was just a gag-a-day strip back then".

Or we could do the authorial intention thing, that's cool too.

[Ancalagon]

I'm not saying "Don't do it". I'm saying "Be careful and keep in mind the comic was much different back then and actually not the same genre than the one we read now".

And yes, this *is* important when it comes to discuss characters. Yes, what Roy (and the Order) did there was not ok, but we saw "just some RPG group and jokes about it" back then. Pre#100 is canon - but pretending it was not different is simply too simple.
Also assuming it has the same weight as later stuff Rich really *thought* about seems also at least awkward to me.

I'm saying nothing else and I also would dismiss the pre#100 stuff if it grossly contradicts some point that later was made in a very explicit manner (and we have it established retroactively what sort of guy Roy is with the Metal-Orcs which he does not attack simply because they are there).
Thus: We have random RPG-stuff from earlier times and obviously thought-out stuff from later. You might differ but where I put the weight is clear for me (and I will go on pointing this out to others; what they do then is still their interpretation).

B5 reference: The first part of the book G'Kar was written by a much angrier G'Kar than the later parts. Which one carries more weight in regard to the actual message of G'Kar? It's nothing different here (just that OotS is (hopefully!) not the foundation of a religion/philosophy ;)).

[Mixt]

Wait, genocide is a good act?

*gasp* But that means Buu was the good guy all along, because the Human Extinction Attack was a good act, because it wiped out those Bastard Humans.
Which makes Goku was the villain for opposing him.
Oh dear...wait, that seems a bit backwards.

Oh yeah, if genocide is a good act, then that means Hitler was the good guy all along...wait a sec, that doesn't seem quite right either :smallconfused:

...*Takes a look at human history*
*Takes a look at the news*
*Takes a look at the other students at my school*
*Takes a look at the government*

Yep, Humans Are Evil, that makes it okay to kill them, KILL ALL HUMANS!!!
It's a good act, really, because humans are evil and genociding evil beings is a good act.
Now get out there and start killing your fellow humies, it's a good act, honest.

That doesn't seem quite right either...
Oh wait, i know, BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING WRONG!!!

[enderlord99]

Wait, genocide is a good act?

*gasp* But that means Buu was the good guy all along, because the Human Extinction Attack was a good act, because it wiped out those Bastard Humans.
Which makes Goku was the villain for opposing him.
Oh dear...wait, that seems a bit backwards.

Oh yeah, if genocide is a good act, then that means Hitler was the good guy all along...wait a sec, that doesn't seem quite right either :smallconfused:

...*Takes a look at human history*
*Takes a look at the news*
*Takes a look at the other students at my school*
*Takes a look at the government*

Yep, Humans Are Evil, that makes it okay to kill them, KILL ALL HUMANS!!!
It's a good act, really, because humans are evil and genociding evil beings is a good act.
Now get out there and start killing your fellow humies, it's a good act, honest.

That doesn't seem quite right either...
Oh wait, i know, BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING WRONG!!!

thank you SO MUCH. I couldn't have put it better myself.:smallsmile:

[Talya]

Dragon alignments are color coded for your convenience. Even if one could kill ALL chromatic dragons in one fell swoop, it would hardly be evil.

However, a spell like Familicide undoubtedly has the [evil] descriptor. Casting it would be an evil act regardless of the target. Nevertheless, one evil act does not an evil alignment make. V is Neutral.

[TheSummoner]

Let me make a few minor word changes to that and let's see if the same logic holds.

Human alignments are color coded for your convenience. Even if one could kill ALL Canadian Humans in one fell swoop, it would hardly be evil.

However, a spell like Familicide undoubtedly has the [evil] descriptor. Casting it would be an evil act regardless of the target. Nevertheless, one evil act does not an evil alignment make. V is Neutral.
Does that still work?

Why are all of the Black Dragons evil? What did they do that makes them evil and thus makes them deserve to die. Maybe most of them are just because that is the way they tend to be raised, but the idea that anything is evil by default - Evil without having necessarily even done anything wrong - is ridiculous.

Even if the majority, or even every single one of them was evil, evil does not mean guilty. Here is a link to comic #639, where V cast Familicide. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) Point out a single dragon who was doing anything evil. The first one was fighting a pair of adventurers... In what appears to be its own lair, meaning that they sought it out, not that it was actively harming someone. Every single other dragon shown was just sort of hanging around... Some of the ones hit were unhatched eggs... Dragons who never could've harmed anyone or done anything that would make them evil.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's like the difference between dropping a bomb on an enemy barracks, and dropping a bomb on a hospital full of babies and pregnant women.
The other difference is that, if we're talking about strategic bombing of a city reasonably far away from the front lines, the hospital is more likely to be a target. The barracks is going to have been emptied so the soldiers in it could be sent to the front, while the hospital would hold war wounded along with women and children. Even more likely to be targetted is industrial plant containing men and women workers who can't or have chosen not to fight and who can't feed themselves without their job, but which makes weapons.

This doesn't have much bearing on the argument, but it's something to keep in mind with that particular example, and it points out again that Evil is easier, and easier to rationalize, than Good.

[Esprit15]

Let me make a few minor word changes to that and let's see if the same logic holds.

Does that still work?

Why are all of the Black Dragons evil? What did they do that makes them evil and thus makes them deserve to die. Maybe most of them are just because that is the way they tend to be raised, but the idea that anything is evil by default - Evil without having necessarily even done anything wrong - is ridiculous.

Even if the majority, or even every single one of them was evil, evil does not mean guilty. Here is a link to comic #639, where V cast Familicide. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) Point out a single dragon who was doing anything evil. The first one was fighting a pair of adventurers... In what appears to be its own lair, meaning that they sought it out, not that it was actively harming someone. Every single other dragon shown was just sort of hanging around... Some of the ones hit were unhatched eggs... Dragons who never could've harmed anyone or done anything that would make them evil.
But humans are not color coded for your convenience.

[Burner28]

Let me make a few minor word changes to that and let's see if the same logic holds.

Does that still work?

Why are all of the Black Dragons evil? What did they do that makes them evil and thus makes them deserve to die. Maybe most of them are just because that is the way they tend to be raised, but the idea that anything is evil by default - Evil without having necessarily even done anything wrong - is ridiculous.

Even if the majority, or even every single one of them was evil, evil does not mean guilty. Here is a link to comic #639, where V cast Familicide. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) Point out a single dragon who was doing anything evil. The first one was fighting a pair of adventurers... In what appears to be its own lair, meaning that they sought it out, not that it was actively harming someone. Every single other dragon shown was just sort of hanging around... Some of the ones hit were unhatched eggs... Dragons who never could've harmed anyone or done anything that would make them evil.

An important thing to note is that V did not care if all of the victims he killed were Evil or not and just because somebody is Evil it doesn't mean that killing them automatically becomes non-Evil. It is the moral equivalent of a man killing the robber who was threatening his family and then using a superweapon to kill all members of that robber's family, not caring whether or not they themselves were robbers or not.

[hamishspence]

In the novel Death Star- the fact that children, and civilians that probably had nothing to do with the Rebellion, were killed at Alderaan, is one of the things that gets the more sympathetic protagonists thinking:

"Billions of innocents had died there, not hardened and convicted criminals- billions of civilians of all ages- and how could you in good conscience serve somebody who thought that was the way to wage war?"

"Nova could fight a room full of men straight-up, face-to-face, and if he had to kill half of them to survive, he'd do it. But he hadn't signed on to slaughter children in their beds."

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

But humans are not color coded for your convenience.

I really, really hope no one makes a stupid remark about that.

[mrmcfatty]

Since it seems everyone keeps bringing up the same points i figured id add something new.

If this was real life i would agree with most of you, but its not, its D&D. In the game black dragons are evil, there is no "well he choose to be good" unless the dm made an exception. those eggs that havent hatched yet, are evil. killing children is a different issue, but nonetheless they are evil.

While yes, the mates and friends of the dragons may come after V there is one thing that is left out. Most dragons dont want anything to do with other dragons that are not of their bloodline. So some dragons would have non-bloodline friends, there would be very few, overall decreasing the chance of someone coming after V. (however it could lead to an interesting story such as the half-dragon has an adventuring party that comes looking for V?)

Also as far as i can tell there is nothing stopping anyone from resurrecting any of them.

[hamishspence]

As has been noted, "Evil" does not mean "guilty".

There's also a great dead of graduation within an alignment.

[lio45]

I can't believe people keep making real world analogies...

Real world analogies are totally irrelevant to the question, because the real world doesn't follow a super-limited, black/white alignment system.

For the analogy presented by TheSummoner to work, you would HAVE to be referring to a fictional Earthlike world in a D&D campaign in which Canada is populated by Always Evil Monsters (and a few half-breed ones). Those creatures are the sole population of Canada.

Then your analogy starts to be viable, yes.

Otherwise it's going to be brushed aside immediately as the nonsense it is...

[TheSummoner]

If this was real life i would agree with most of you, but its not, its D&D. In the game black dragons are evil, there is no "well he choose to be good" unless the dm made an exception. those eggs that havent hatched yet, are evil. killing children is a different issue, but nonetheless they are evil.

Why are they evil? What did they do that makes them evil? What did they do that makes them deserve death?

If you can give a good answer to those questions, especially the last one, I will agree that it was ok for V to kill the dragon. Dragon, not dragons. It is on a case by case basis.

[Mixt]

Ressurect an entire quarter of a species?

How the hell were you intending on going about that?
And who's going to pay for it?

...
I say we loot and rob the elven homeland to pay for the costs, it was one of theirs that commited the deed after all, so they should pay for fixing it.
Then add in more costs to replace stolen hoards, and more still for psychological damages.
Make the elves go bloody bankrupt.

Anyone who resists will be killed in the same manner that monster who defend their homes from invading adventurers are killed.
Hey, if they go around doing it to monsters all the time they have no right to complain if it happens to them.
"Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself" and all that.

If the elves have a problem with this, they can take it up with the one responsible for causing the whole mess.
Hey V, we have some people who want a word with you *Cracks knuckles*

[FujinAkari]

just because somebody is Evil it doesn't mean that killing them automatically becomes non-Evil.

This is actually incorrect.

In D&D, killing something which is Evil is necessarily non-Evil. This is why Paladins can Detect Evil at will.

It is also one of the dumbest things about D&D, but you can't just pretend that aspect of the game doesn't exist :)
Why are they evil? What did they do that makes them evil? What did they do that makes them deserve death?


Nothing, they are born Evil, it is the way D&D works.

Stop trying to bring real-life morality into it.

[Kish]

Also as far as i can tell there is nothing stopping anyone from resurrecting any of them.
So?

Is that supposed to be morally significant?

This is actually incorrect.

In D&D, killing something which is Evil is necessarily non-Evil.

Citation needed.

Bring morality into a morality discussion? What a concept.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, killing something which is Evil is necessarily non-Evil. This is why Paladins can Detect Evil at will.

It is also one of the dumbest things about D&D, but you can't just pretend that aspect of the game doesn't exist :)

BoED explicitly states that this is not true.

And FC2 states that Murder is always a corrupt act.

Therefore, if the evil creature was Murdered- that can still be evil.

Detect Evil doesn't necessarily exist purely to identify targets which can be killed freely- quite apart from the fact that Neutral clerics of Evil deities will still detect as Evil.

[TheSummoner]

Nothing, they are born Evil, it is the way D&D works.

Yes, and that is idiotic. Just because something is written in the rules doesn't mean it can't be stupid and it doesn't mean it can't be wrong.


Stop trying to bring real-life morality into it.

I'll stop doing that when people stop claiming that genocide is ok.

[hamishspence]

Given that BoVD states it is one of the vilest possible acts- there's strong hints that even in D&D it's inexcusable, even with Always Evil beings.

[FujinAkari]

Yes, and that is idiotic. Just because something is written in the rules doesn't mean it can't be stupid and it doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

Didn't I JUST SAY it was stupid?


I'll stop doing that when people stop claiming that genocide is ok.

I don't believe I ever claimed it was ok, can you provide a citation?


BoED explicitly states that this is not true.

BoED is also non-core. Plus, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) makes it pretty clear that 'Battling the Forces of Evil' is considered Good.


And FC2 states that Murder is always a corrupt act.

As soon as someone commits murder, let me know :P

[TheSummoner]

Didn't I JUST SAY it was stupid?
You did, but you also defended that stupidity.


I don't believe I ever claimed it was ok, can you provide a citation?
People does not mean FujinAkari. You may not have, but a quick glance through the thread will turn up several who have.

[mrmcfatty]

im not saying genocide is ok. im just saying its a game, correction, this is a webcomic based on a game, and you keep acting as if killing all those black dragons is the same as me going and blowing up half a continent.

dont like the rules then change them, just because you think the rules are idiotic doesnt mean that everyone else thinks so. At least to the people at WoTC its not idiotic.

[hamishspence]

"Battling the forces of Evil" when they prey on people is one thing.

Indiscriminate killing is another.

Since both Deathless (which appear in BoED as well as Eberron) and BoVD have appeared in-comic, it's not that implausible that BoED's morality system- at least some of it- is present as well.

And in that, violence, even violence against "evil beings" has to have just cause in order to avoid being Evil.

[Kish]

As soon as someone commits murder, let me know :P
Lines like that really don't go well with claiming you're not defending Vaarsuvius.

Still waiting for you to support your claim that killing an evil creature is necessarily non-evil in D&D.

im not saying genocide is ok. im just saying its a game, correction, this is a webcomic based on a game, and you keep acting as if killing all those black dragons is the same as me going and blowing up half a continent.
No one is "acting as though" Vaarsuvius' atrocity is comparable to a similar atrocity in the real world, any more than Xykon's atrocities are.

"It's a webcomic" would be a better argument were you not arguing against the webcomic author by defending the action.

[hamishspence]

BoVD does say that "killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil purely for profit" is not evil- because it still stops that creature from preying further on the innocent.

However, since then, it's been established that even fiends have been redeemed.

And other books have emphasised that "evil" does not necessarily mean "deserves to be attacked by adventurers".

[Kish]

BoVD is also as non-core as BoED. Parsing so that one is official and the other is not would...not play well.

And even if BoVD was official and BoED was not, somehow, there would be a huge difference between "killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil purely for profit," and, "killing any evil creature, for any reason."

[Talya]

Let me make a few minor word changes to that and let's see if the same logic holds.

Does that still work?


Find me the monster manual entry that says all canadians are evil.



Why are all of the Black Dragons evil? What did they do that makes them evil and thus makes them deserve to die. Maybe most of them are just because that is the way they tend to be raised, but the idea that anything is evil by default - Evil without having necessarily even done anything wrong - is ridiculous.l.

It's in the rules, that the OotS world operates by verbatim.


Black Dragon
Type: Dragon (Water)
Environment: Warm marshes
Alignment: Always chaotic evil


This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

[hamishspence]

BoVD is also as non-core as BoED. Parsing so that one is official and the other is not would...not play well.

It might be a case of "BoVD has appeared in the strip, BoED hasn't been proven to have appeared".

It's easier to do "BoVD is official except where it's contradicted by BoED"- because that's a later-written book.

Some of it's more poorly phrased statements can be overruled in the same fashion- when they conflict with later portrayals "Killing a fiend is always a good act. Allowing one to exist is clearly evil" - can be amended to "except when such killings would be murder".



This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

It doesn't say how evil they are though. As mentioned, different Evil beings can have different natures. Quite apart from the fact that it mentions that exceptions can exist, though they are rare.

[Ancalagon]

This is actually incorrect.

In D&D, killing something which is Evil is necessarily non-Evil. This is why Paladins can Detect Evil at will.

This is exactly the point Rich attempted to make and that people here attempt to make.


It is also one of the dumbest things about D&D, but you can't just pretend that aspect of the game doesn't exist :)

Why? What is evil and what not is open to interpretation for any gameing group and any specific setting and style of play that you (the group) want to play.
Also, it is open to interpretation by any author and Rich has made pretty clear how he sees and handles it in regard to OotS. It's established as a matter of fact that the familicide was evil (both out-of-comic as Word of God as well as in-comic by Vaarsuvius reaction plus (and even stronger) the comment by the IFCC).

As with everything in rulebooks: Take what you want, change what you will, the point is: create a world you and your group have awesome sessions in. The rules are not some godly commandments given to us by the ancients who had the wisdom - the DMGs of various systems actually state this outright.

[TheSummoner]

This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

Including the ones who haven't murdered anyone or done anything chaotic or evil? The eggs for example... Real chaotic and evil there, sitting around in a shell.

[factotum]

This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

Well, firstly, even if the alignment specifier says "ALWAYS" Chaotic Evil, it is possible for certain exceptional individuals to not follow that alignment--says so in the printed rules, and probably would on D20SRD if I could be bothered to search for it. Secondly, there were creatures who were demonstrably *not* pure Black Dragons killed by that spell, and a half-dragon does not inherit the "always CE" alignment of its dragon half.

So, even by your own logic, some of the creatures killed by that spell were possibly, even probably in some cases, not Evil. And that's ignoring the fact that people have already pointed out in this thread that killing an Evil creature is not automatically a Good act--intent is important here as well!

[Kish]

Find me the monster manual entry that says all canadians are evil.

Sure. As soon as you find the entry that states that "species is classified as Always Chaotic Evil" means "every member is irredeemable and murdering," in direct contradiction to the Monster Manual itself, the Player's Handbook, etc., etc., ETC.

[lio45]

Bring morality into a morality discussion? What a concept.

Bringing real-world morality into a D&D-system morality discussion *is* improductive.



Yes, and that is idiotic. Just because something is written in the rules doesn't mean it can't be stupid and it doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

Yes, the rules can be stupid, but no, they can never be wrong when you're within the system governed by said rules.

If you're playing Monopoly, and roll doubles three times in a row, you HAVE to go to jail. You might think it's stupid, but you might not claim that "the rules are wrong" and move your token on the board while ignoring the jail thing. The rules are right. Period.




im not saying genocide is ok. im just saying its a game, correction, this is a webcomic based on a game, and you keep acting as if killing all those black dragons is the same as me going and blowing up half a continent.

+1



No one is "acting as though" Vaarsuvius' atrocity is comparable to a similar atrocity in the real world...

Wrong, at least two people did on the previous page of this thread.

One brought up Hitler, the other brought up the idea of killing all Canadians.

Which is why many of us are asking people to please refrain from bringing those ridiculous real-world analogies into the discussion... we wouldn't have to, if they didn't do it.

[Ekul]

You can't rules-lawyer morality. That's the DM's decision.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

I think there are three questions being debated here.

1. Were V's actions evil in the real world? Yes, it was an act of genocide that involed killing children and the unborn.

2. Were V's action evil in the comic? This is the most important question, and the answer is yes. Both the IFCC and an agent of the good afterlife, seen here http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html, have proven this.

3. Were V's action evil in the dnd Alignment system? Actually up to the DM of the game. If I was the DM, yes. If the DM wants to run a story with more depth then "kill evil things cause there evil" yes. I do think it is interesting to note that even the people who say its not evil in the alignment systems are saying its stupid that it isn't.

In summary, you can argue that the action isn't evil in terms of Dnd alignment, I would disagree heavily with that point but you can, but you can't argue that it wasn't evil in the comic.

[VanBuren]

This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

Not according to RAW or DnD canon.

RAW explaining that "Always Chaotic Evil" actually doesn't equate to 100%, and DnD canon having examples of good chromatic dragons and Succubus Paladins, which seems to make "irredeemable" something of a falsehood.

Also, who did that egg murder? Frankly, I'd be more impressed than outraged.

[lio45]

I think there are three questions being debated here.

1. Were V's actions evil in the real world? Yes, it was an act of genocide that involed killing children and the unborn.

2. Were V's action evil in the comic? This is the most important question, and the answer is yes. Both the IFCC and an agent of the good afterlife, seen here http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html, have proven this.

3. Were V's action evil in the dnd Alignment system? Actually up to the DM of the game. If I was the DM, yes. If the DM wants to run a story with more depth then "kill evil things cause there evil" yes. I do think it is interesting to note that even the people who say its not evil in the alignment systemsare saying its stupid that it isn't.

In summary, you can argue that the action isn't evil in terms of Dnd alignment, I would disagree heavily with that point but you can, but you can't argue that it wasn't evil in the comic.

Nicely summed up...

All the arguing I've done on this particular question was re: your point #2, about the exact degree of Evilness of that act.

It *is* Evil; we have Word of Giant on that matter.

But there are degrees of Evil.

For example, murdering Crystal (comic #0648) is a "better" act than murdering Lord Shojo (comic #0407).

Under the exact same logic, I would believe that mass-murdering Nearly Always Evil Creatures isn't as Evil as mass-murdering, say, humans.

If a mosquito annoys me, I'll kill it, and if I could, I might even cast Familicide on it.

But if you run in circles around me screaming "ZzzzZZZzzZZzzzzzZZZzz", I won't kill you for that, even though you're exactly as annoying (or even possibly moreso) as another creature for which that behavior was reason enough for me to kill it.

So "humans" and "black dragons" are NOT interchangeable, not any more than "humans" and "mosquitoes" in my example above. Okay, maybe slightly more, since the dragons are sentient, but on the other hand, they're also Evil, while the mosquitoes are only Neutral.

[Sarco_Phage]

This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.

Well, that's new. I never knew unborn children could be murderers.

[SoC175]

In DnD, if you kill a Black Dragon, you killed a powerful and intelligent force of pure Evil, without question. Actually in D&D always doesn't truly mean always but just ~99% likely. Also that's only for the full-blooded dragons, with their half-dragon offspring there is a much higher chance of alignment differences

Because V spell only effected dragons, and not halfdragons and only hybrids that wouldn't share the same traits as their purely evil dragon forefathers. (last 3, panel 13, the guy with the horse body) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)Two panels before and nine panels after that you see the spell slay the first half-dragon, the horseguy is also a half-dragon, just not half-human

And if we're going for D&D black dragons, Thauglor the Purple Dragon of Cormyr (actually black, but went purplish over time with age) is portrayed as more Affably Evil than utterly malevolent- and has passed into Cormyr legend rather sympathetically:That's because humans tend to view things more favorably once a lot of time has passed. If you read Cormy A Novel he was actually not that nice.

However there are non-evil chromatic dragons in FR, a lot of them also still alive (or alive were alive pre-spellplague)

This isn't arbitrary. This isn't a philosophical discussion. What they did or what they will do, doesn't matter. They're all irredeemable murdering chaotic evil black dragons.Except that when you read all of the MM you come across the part where they state right in the MM that always doesn't actually mean alway in regards to alignment.

In D&D, killing something which is Evil is necessarily non-Evil. No necessarily, even evil creatures can be killed for reasons that make the killing evil.

This is why Paladins can Detect Evil at will. Paladins can Detect Evil to detect who is evil, so that they know who to watch closely. Paladins can not Detect Evil to get a blanc check to kill people.

E.g. a paladin couldn't just immediately slay Ebenezer Scrooge after he showed up on Detect Evil.

Yes, and that is idiotic. Just because something is written in the rules doesn't mean it can't be stupid and it doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Note that dragons are highly magical being as part of their very nature.

[hamishspence]

Maybe we should compile the major Familicide & V's Alignment related threads, so people can have a look at everything related to it that has been said?

OOTS #639 - The Discussion Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107479)
OOTS #640 - The Discussion Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108019)
Do 'suive's actions justify the means? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117099&highlight=familicide)
Vaarsuvius and xykon speculation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115101&highlight=familicide)
Vaarsuvius' Current Alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110331&highlight=familicide)
Familicide = Evil. (Capital E) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117741&highlight=familicide)
My friend insists V is TN. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119666&highlight=familicide)
Deep End of the Alignment Pool (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124659&highlight=familicide)
On dragons and the killing thereof (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153857&highlight=familicide)
ok, let' s start a good debate: V's GEND... i mean, ALIGNMENT? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150174&highlight=familicide)
Vaarsuvius' alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173901&highlight=familicide)

[Gift Jeraff]

it is the way D&D works.Yet in the past week or so, Rich has posted several times about breaking/not caring for D&D rules (Break Enchantment, Tsukiko's barred school, making wights), and when that happens, everyone seems to be all, "Right on! It's his story, he can ignore any rule he wants!" But he can't break morality rules for some reason? :smallconfused:

[FujinAkari]

Still waiting for you to support your claim that killing an evil creature is necessarily non-evil in D&D.

Yeah, I don't think I'll be doing that. I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into ANOTHER debate where I have to defend a position I don't even agree with.

D&D was set up as a battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil, the expectation was that evil Creatures were vanquished by Good adventurers and as the game grew to allow more and more possibilities this assumption was never revisited.

Remember, D&D was originally that. Dungeons and Dragons (monsters). No towns, no merchants, no gray area. The morality system is an artifact of a less complicated edition that has gotten lugged around and clung too even though it really, really, does not work anymore.

It is stupid, it doesn't work, and I am not going to sit here and keep arguing about it since I hate the concept, but when you're making blanket statements about the D&D morality system, you'll usually end up being wrong since none of the originators seem to agree about how it works.

[hamishspence]

D&D was set up as a battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil, the expectation was that evil Creatures were vanquished by Good adventurers and as the game grew to allow more and more possibilities this assumption was never revisited.

Remember, D&D was originally that. Dungeons and Dragons (monsters). No towns, no merchants, no gray area. The morality system is an artifact of a less complicated edition that has gotten lugged around and clung too even though it really, really, does not work anymore.

It is stupid, it doesn't work, and I am not going to sit here and keep arguing about it since I hate the concept, but when you're making blanket statements about the D&D morality system, you'll usually end up being wrong since none of the originators seem to agree about how it works.

Depends on the campaign setting. Evil creatures and Good creatures working together to solve a Bigger Problem certainly wasn't unheard of in D&D fiction.

[The Pilgrim]

That's a very good point.

I think Tiamat may also be quite clearsighted (I'm guessing she has a WIS score in the 20s) in assigning the blame for that episode. Insert the spirit of an epic-level necromancer into the mind of a half-insane mid-level wizard, and it doesn't take a lot of foresight to see that the highlight of the act isn't going to involve doves flying out of anyone's sleeves.

Tiamat is clearsighted enough to understand that while it was the IFCC who gave V the power to enact the Genocide, it was V who took the decision to both sell her soul and then use the Spell.

Given T's arrogant personality and the fact that forgiving even the lesser slight is like an epic challenge for her, I find doubtful that she hasn't crossed-out V for future digestion.

Though, ultimately, it all will depend on convenience for the Plot, of course.

[veti]

Including the ones who haven't murdered anyone or done anything chaotic or evil? The eggs for example... Real chaotic and evil there, sitting around in a shell.

I get really tired of hearing about those eggs. They're going to hatch into dragons. Even a baby black dragon is quite capable of killing people by the dozen.

Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth. Our heroine has just scragged the last live alien in a suitably epic battle involving the total destruction of, oh, let's say Montreal. Then she finds some eggs just in the process of hatching. What's the morally correct thing to do - watch and wait for them to do something wrong, or just torch them already?

[Kish]

Remember, D&D was originally that. Dungeons and Dragons (monsters). No towns, no merchants, no gray area.
I have the D&D-no-A Basic set, somewhere. It has towns, merchants, and room for negotiation, trust me.

A game which had no grey areas at all would have two alignments, not more than that, meaning "protagonist" and "target."

I get really tired of hearing about those eggs.

I get really tired of seeing people make bringing up the eggs necessary by acting as though the horrific Xykonish atrocity Vaarsuvius committed was a "grey area," so I guess we're even there.


Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth.

Rather not. I never saw the movie, and I'm pretty sure I would find absolutely nothing appealing about it.

[Snails]

Tiamat is clearsighted enough to understand that while it was the IFCC who gave V the power to enact the Genocide, it was V who took the decision to both sell her soul and then use the Spell.

I rather doubt that is what Tiamat is thinking.

We may like to think about V as a brainy elf with free will, and a sometimes foolish outlook. Tiamat sees V as a stupid little monkey who just vaporized 5% of her domain.

How did the stupid little monkey accomplish this feat? By the IFCC handing the stupid little monkey nuclear weapons on a silver platter while the dumb simian was fearful and desperate and more than willing to use any and every means, even means beyond the understanding of its pipsqueak of a brain.

Tiamat is not going to understand that it is "really V" who did this. No, Tiamat is expecting "compensation".

In the epilogue of this tale, the IFCC is almost certainly going to be eaten by Tiamat for failing to deliver the promised compensation.

[VanBuren]

I get really tired of hearing about those eggs. They're going to hatch into dragons. Even a baby black dragon is quite capable of killing people by the dozen.

Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth. Our heroine has just scragged the last live alien in a suitably epic battle involving the total destruction of, oh, let's say Montreal. Then she finds some eggs just in the process of hatching. What's the morally correct thing to do - watch and wait for them to do something wrong, or just torch them already?

Holding something accountable for crimes it hasn't committed is definitely a morally sound decision. Especially when there are examples of "Always Evil" chromatic dragons not being Evil.

[lio45]

I get really tired of seeing people make bringing up the eggs necessary by acting as though the horrific Xykonish atrocity Vaarsuvius committed was a "grey area," so I guess we're even there.

Xykon does it on paladins (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html). Doing it on black dragons, or any other Nearly Always Evil Monster species, is not Xykon-caliber Evil.

When V uses Familicide on any of the following: Hinjo, Miko, O-Chul, Lien, etc.
then yes that will definitely be a Xykonish act.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

I get really tired of hearing about those eggs. They're going to hatch into dragons. Even a baby black dragon is quite capable of killing people by the dozen.

Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth. Our heroine has just scragged the last live alien in a suitably epic battle involving the total destruction of, oh, let's say Montreal. Then she finds some eggs just in the process of hatching. What's the morally correct thing to do - watch and wait for them to do something wrong, or just torch them already?

Actually it might be a better idea to keep the babies alive to study them, if we don't know for sure that the aliens aren't coming back.

Also, I don't believe the aliens are ever shown to be anything other then vicious predators with an animal's level of intelligence, so its kind of like comparing apples to calculators. I could be wrong on that though, I only saw the first movie and that was a while ago.

Side note, never liked the saying "its like comparing apples to oranges." They are both round fruit, both often made into juice, they have quite a bit in common.

I also don't buy think that Timat will let V off the hook. True, V did only kill 5% of Timat's dragons...but 5% is a lot if you think about it. The state of New York has 6% of the US population, how do you think the US would react if someone destroyed New York? Both the person who did it and their arms dealer would be in quite a bit of trouble.

[Stille_Nacht]

it was an evil act of revenge, mostly out of anger i think.

was it evil? yes. but one evil act does not an alignment make.

[Warren Dew]

Bring morality into a morality discussion? What a concept.
It's an alignment discussion, not a morality discussion.

[veti]

Also, I don't believe the aliens are ever shown to be anything other then vicious predators with an animal's level of intelligence, so its kind of like comparing apples to calculators. I could be wrong on that though, I only saw the first movie and that was a while ago.

The original alien was found on a crashed alien spaceship. As I recall it, Ripley and her crew assumed that the spaceship belonged to those aliens - there was no sign of any other life form around. I don't know whether that assumption was correct, but a stronger point is: what difference does it make?

Let the eggs hatch, and there is every reason to believe that an unknown number of people will die agonising deaths. Whether or not the babies are intelligent enough to learn (what we choose to call) "right" from "wrong" - if you've got no way of containing them until they've learned that lesson, does it really matter?

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

The original alien was found on a crashed alien spaceship. As I recall it, Ripley and her crew assumed that the spaceship belonged to those aliens - there was no sign of any other life form around. I don't know whether that assumption was correct, but a stronger point is: what difference does it make?

Let the eggs hatch, and there is every reason to believe that an unknown number of people will die agonising deaths. Whether or not the babies are intelligent enough to learn (what we choose to call) "right" from "wrong" - if you've got no way of containing them until they've learned that lesson, does it really matter?

Ah, then I was wrong about their level of intelligence, though I suppose its possible that they infested the ship of a different alien species but that is neither here nor there.

In that case, I would still say the situations are different. In the one case, you have a race that had just invaded a planet with the sole goal of killing all humans and taking over. They also made the choice of bringing their offspring into a war zone and using them as weapons.

In the case with V, s/he wiped out 1/4th of a species that was not invading anyone or trying to wipe out any races. It is possible, perhaps even likily, that she did kill some good dragons when she did it. As has been pointed out, if you look in the Monster Manuel, it says that "always chaotic even" does not in fact mean 100% of the time, it only means the vast majority.

And then stop and think what would have happened if, for whatever reason, a black dragon had mated with a metallic one, the spell would have gone to that blood line and reeked havoc. The mere act of casting a spell like that can be evil, certainly the Book of Vile Darkness has spells in them that are so wicked even casting them is an act of evil, and some of them are actually pretty tame next to a spell that wipes out an entire family.

But this is actually a moot point. As far as the comic goes there is an objective answer to this question. The act was Evil. You are free to disagree with both the comic and the author on this if you want, but there it is.

[Doorhandle]

....Thread over?


...Thread over.



Here's the thing: It didn't need to be done to protect V's family, because it didn't do a damn thing to protect V's family. If anything, it put them in greater danger.


Not really. Looking from a purely non-moral perspective, Darth V looks pretty different from normal V, and the 75% surviving dragons would probably be looking for Darth V, and not normal V, not realizing the two are one and the same. By extension, they probably wouldn't connect it to V's family, seeing as everyone the Familicide'ed dragon knew or could have knew is probably dead, and she didn't get the opportunity to spread word to others of V's family.

Assuming that there is Bahamut to counter Timat, I think the former would be pretty pleased with V killing so many of his enemies, so divine vengeance is also unlikely. V's family is proably safe.

[TheSummoner]

Yes, the rules can be stupid, but no, they can never be wrong when you're within the system governed by said rules.

If you're playing Monopoly, and roll doubles three times in a row, you HAVE to go to jail. You might think it's stupid, but you might not claim that "the rules are wrong" and move your token on the board while ignoring the jail thing. The rules are right. Period.

Wrong as in "genocide is wrong" not wrong as in "incorrect."


I get really tired of hearing about those eggs. They're going to hatch into dragons. Even a baby black dragon is quite capable of killing people by the dozen.

So is any human. Get a weapon or even just know what you're doing and any human could kill dozens or more other humans easily. It doesn't mean we're going to.


Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth. Our heroine has just scragged the last live alien in a suitably epic battle involving the total destruction of, oh, let's say Montreal. Then she finds some eggs just in the process of hatching. What's the morally correct thing to do - watch and wait for them to do something wrong, or just torch them already?

The situations aren't the same for a few reasons...

1) Dragons are are natural (well, as natural as a gigantic flying magical lizard monsters can be anyways) creatures native to the world. Aliens are, well... Alien.

2) The aliens were actively trying to harm humans. The dragons, so far as we know, were just trying to survive. Again, regardless of whether or not some book says that they are all always evil, evil does not equal guilt.

3) Even if these alien hatchlings were torched, it's still marginally better than indiscriminately killing everything with any blood relation to anything with any blood relation to a single target.

Still, I would say killing them is wrong. I agree with OrzhvoPatriarch on this. Capture them, study them, learn what you can. Be ready to kill them at a moment's notice if they prove to be a threat, but do not harm them unless that proves true. Keep them separate so they cannot breed (assuming they reproduce like most earth creatures... I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if this is brought up or known or whatever).

If they are intelligent, then they can be taught not to harm humans. They would still have to be kept away from the general populace (because even the sight of one of those would cause panic), but they would be safe. I do not believe anything defaults to evil (or good either for that matter). It is all about the way something is raised that determines the way it will behave.

If they are not intelligent, then it is like comparing an apple to a calculator then it is still possible that they could be trained. Even if not they could still be studied, thought the lack of trainability makes dealing with them more dangerous. At worst, you have a deadly predator driven solely by instinct... One that may need to be exterminated before it can become a threat. However, it is not an equal comparison to a dragon because dragons are known to be intelligent.

[Kish]

Not really. Looking from a purely non-moral perspective, Darth V looks pretty different from normal V, and the 75% surviving dragons would probably be looking for Darth V, and not normal V, not realizing the two are one and the same.

Because if they look for Vaarsuvius, they'll be looking for an elf with fangs who looks like the elf who murdered all those black dragons. Not using magic to track "the killer of my mate and her brothers," not questioning/torturing the witnesses, just...showing around pictures of black-robed Vaarsuvius.


By extension, they probably wouldn't connect it to V's family, seeing as everyone the Familicide'ed dragon knew or could have knew is probably dead,

Wasn't a good assumption when Vaarsuvius made it and isn't a good assumption now.


Assuming that there is Bahamut to counter Timat, I think the former would be pretty pleased with V killing so many of his enemies,

I wonder, if Rich's words about it being a horrific act of genocide are repeated enough times, will people ever stop claiming it should be expected to have the approval of good gods?

[FujinAkari]

Because if they look for Vaarsuvius, they'll be looking for an elf with fangs who looks like the elf who murdered all those black dragons. Not using magic to track "the killer of my mate and her brothers," not questioning/torturing the witnesses, just...showing around pictures of black-robed Vaarsuvius.

To paraphrase The Dark Knight

"So your theory is that he goes around obliterating entire bloodlines in response to those who threaten him and his... and your plan is to -provoke- this elf? ... Good luck."

[Kish]

To paraphrase The Dark Knight

"So your theory is that he goes around obliterating entire bloodlines in response to those who threaten him and his... and your plan is to -provoke- this elf? ... Good luck."
Do I recognize the statement you're paraphrasing? No.

Would "Leave the Joker alone and hope he doesn't notice you" rather than "Use overwhelming force to make sure he's not in a position to hurt you or anyone else ever again" be the smart thing to do? Also no.

[TheSummoner]

And just think how much differently things may have ended had Mama Dragon not felt the need to taunt V before going through with it...

*One adventure later*

V: Honey, I'm home! I can't wait to tell you and the kids about my adventures, but first how about one of your delicious banana nut -"

*notices the entire house is ashes and sees three skeletons lieing on the ruined floor*

"- muffins..."

[Lord_Gareth]

I really, truly, deeply cannot believe that there are people here attempting to justify genocide. However, in the interest of getting somewhere in this debate, check this:


Black Dragon click to see monster
Type: Dragon (Water)

Note the lack of an [Evil] subtype. These things aren't born evil. They're not made of malecules and cruelectrons. They're intelligent predators that see themselves (not inaccurately) as being at the top of the food chain, and their children are just as innocent as drow children, goblin children, orc children, human children and elf children, and if that isn't enough I'd like to note that V killed at least one paladin that didn't even know she existed - and who knows however many more.

It's genocide. Genocide is evil. End. Of. Story.

[Forum Explorer]

And just think how much differently things may have ended had Mama Dragon not felt the need to taunt V before going through with it...

*One adventure later*

V: Honey, I'm home! I can't wait to tell you and the kids about my adventures, but first how about one of your delicious banana nut -"

*notices the entire house is ashes and sees three skeletons lieing on the ruined floor*

"- muffins..."

or if she had killed them first and then went and taunted V.

As for the Aliens example I would personally say to burn the eggs. However I would say that it is a morally incorrect solution. But the aliens are too big of a risk to allow to survive on Earth. If I had the resources I would just send them to a planet void of sentient life instead. (I have seen the movie. Just one of these things can eventually wipe out an entire colony world. They can only reproduce by infecting other creatures with parasites that kill them. Their intelligence seems to be rudimentary so killing them would be no more then wiping out any predator that posed a direct threat to your entire civilization and would always do so no matter what. )

[Doorhandle]

Because if they look for Vaarsuvius, they'll be looking for an elf with fangs who looks like the elf who murdered all those black dragons. Not using magic to track "the killer of my mate and her brothers," not questioning/torturing the witnesses, just...showing around pictures of black-robed Vaarsuvius.


Yes. What else would they do? Don't kill me, that was a joke.

...Seriously now, good point. I don't think there were many witness at the point of impact besides V, her family, and the target of origin though.

Divination would still work however, and should they see V they could probably put 2 and 2 together to make 4 and therefore Darth V.

However there is something odd in the fact that the remaining 75% of black dragons haven't acted yet. How long does it take to find a wizard, get greater teleport and scrying, and beat down an impudent, impotent elf anyway?

Unless they're taking the Machiavellian way round, which don't seem very much like them, seeing how the target acted.


...if Rich's words about it being a horrific act of genocide are repeated enough times, will people ever stop claiming it should be expected to have the approval of good gods?

Good point. Guess I was kinda thinking Bahamut as neutral rather than, y'know lawful good. while an interesting concept, I must nerveless commence the self-beatdown for forgetting that rather important detail.

TL:DR version: I cannot see the obvious for excrement.

[zimmerwald1915]

However there is something odd in the fact that the remaining 75% of black dragons haven't acted yet. How long does it take to find a wizard, get greater teleport and scrying, and beat down an impudent, impotent elf anyway?
Well, Mama took about four hundred strips, give or take. The remaining black dragons have another hundred and fifty or so strips before they can be considered dallying.


Good point. Guess I was kinda thinking Bahamut as neutral rather than, y'know lawful good. while an interesting concept, I must nerveless commence the self-beatdown for forgetting that rather important detail.
Bahamut doesn't exist in the OOTSverse. Dragon, however, is one of the Twelve Gods and indeed the head of the pantheon, on par with Odin and Marduk and higher in rank than Tiamat. Makes one wonder if the Sapphire Guard, never mind the disciples of Tiamat, will be willing to associate with Vaarsuvius if they're ever apprised of the situation. the actions of the Sapphire Guard a century ago notwithstanding

[McStabbington]

I get really tired of hearing about those eggs. They're going to hatch into dragons. Even a baby black dragon is quite capable of killing people by the dozen.

Imagine a sequel to the movie Alien, set on earth. Our heroine has just scragged the last live alien in a suitably epic battle involving the total destruction of, oh, let's say Montreal. Then she finds some eggs just in the process of hatching. What's the morally correct thing to do - watch and wait for them to do something wrong, or just torch them already?

The correct thing to do would be to torch them, but that changes nothing, because the situation is completely inapplicable. The Aliens have never displayed any desire beyond base propagation of the species. Propagating their species invariably requires killing a living host organism. Given that we are nothing but meaty, walking incubation pods to them, it's quite literally them or us, and killing them is no more or less evil than killing any other animal that is in the process of trying to kill you. That is entirely not the case with a dragon. A dragon can be born, live, raise whelps, grow old and die without ever killing a human being. At no point in their life cycle do they ever require human beings for anything.

Even something closer to what you're trying to prove doesn't prove your point. Borg and Daleks are sentients, and they are as close as I can think of to "always chaotic evil" meaning always chaotic evil. A Borg that is connected to the Collective will invariably try and assimilate anything it perceives as biologically or technologically distinct. A Dalek will always try to exterminate what it perceives as inferior life forms, and it perceives anything not Dalek as inferior. Killing a Borg connected to the Collective or a Dalek is therefore always justified. But not because genocide is only conditionally bad. It's because it's always a matter of self-defense. Further, if a Borg becomes disconnected from the Collective and develops a new sense of individuality, it's not somehow okay to kill the ex-drone because it was once Borg. It's still murder.

[factotum]

A game which had no grey areas at all would have two alignments, not more than that, meaning "protagonist" and "target."


The Basic D&D set didn't have much more than that--the only alignments in it were Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic! In a way that almost made things easier, because it was blatantly obvious that you couldn't represent every human personality with just those three. You can't with the nine in AD&D either, of course, but people seem to think that you *can*...

[Doorhandle]

What about with the funky-square cube?:smallbiggrin:

[Ancalagon]

Can you drop Alien, please? This entire discussion when genocide is not evil is already stupid enough.

"Alien" is by definition something we cannot understand, something we cannot reason with. The creature is called "Alien" and so is the movie itself. The naming alone should be a hint on what is the intention behind the thing (plus all the sexual stalking and innuendo).

Using (an) Alien as example in the debate is the most wrong thing you can do. Ridley Scott created/used this creature as example of "Really not from our world and mindset". The alien is a raper and murderer who/which lurks in the shadows and just hunts/murders/rapes. That is all that is to it and that is what it makes so "alien" (again, the title even says it). So "evil", from our point of view.

[El_Dictator]

Borg and Daleks are sentients, and they are as close as I can think of to "always chaotic evil" meaning always chaotic evil. A Borg that is connected to the Collective will invariably try and assimilate anything it perceives as biologically or technologically distinct. A Dalek will always try to exterminate what it perceives as inferior life forms, and it perceives anything not Dalek as inferior. Killing a Borg connected to the Collective or a Dalek is therefore always justified. But not because genocide is only conditionally bad. It's because it's always a matter of self-defense. Further, if a Borg becomes disconnected from the Collective and develops a new sense of individuality, it's not somehow okay to kill the ex-drone because it was once Borg. It's still murder.

An interesting comparison (a very good one, actually). I wonder, though: If one could kill all Borg, should one? Moral values and moral duties are distinct--one can exist (or be perceived to exist, including subjectively) without the other, and it's a big thing in philosophy. It's clear that randomly killing a Borg who is not connected to the Collective is murder. But if you could wipe out all Borg in one go, I think the modest claim that this might be a moral duty for someone who is good is easily defensible. To do otherwise would be to knowingly to allow billions or trillions of innocents to be murdered. You would not be directly responsible, but you would have the power to stop it, and a classic definition of good in philosophy is "reducing evil insomuch as one can"; "can" is in many cases taken to imply "ought" (given other assumptions about morality, of course). I believe this reasoning carries over to the Dragonlance world as well, where chromatics do incredible harm. I'm not saying that killing them all IS right, but I am saying that acting as if it is CERTAINLY not a moral duty is simplistic at best. In an imperfect world, moral duties will likely conflict with ideal moral values.

Obviously, this is a bit off-topic. Book statements about the genocide made it clear it was evil in this world, and even the artwork clearly was intended to show McStabbington's point about dragons--NONE of the pictures show dragons doing evil or having recently done evil (e.g. eating human bones, villages in ashes/acid puddles). We see them with mates, family, chasing a rabbit (notably not a sentient creature instead), etc. But I think those who are saying "it's not as bad as you all make it" deserve more credit--they are pointing out that OOTS really does step outside the preconceived norm (e.g. Dragonlance world).

[The Giant]

"Is V's use of Familicide morally justified?"

Thread locked.