OOTS #866 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[CoffeeIncluded]

And NOW it hits V. Better late than never, but still far too late.

Also, glad to see you're doing so well.

[-Sentinel-]

Awww, that one was sad. :smallfrown: Great character development though.

[PhantomFox]

And V's downward spiral continues. And blackwing isn't gonna help... so who will? Will V pull herself up by her own bootstraps?

[Douglas]

Not helping, Blackwing. V needs to be functional, not overwhelmed even more with guilt.

[Zmflavius]

Just in case there was any doubt whatsoever with regards to familicide.

[Codyage]

Oh wait! It could always be 3^3. So that is twenty seven times!

Wait, could we actually turn this into an equation? Could the square root be the good actions done? Or what that lead to an imaginary number?

[treyh37]

typo panel 5

"over a several years"

also yay new V/blackwing action

[RaggedAngel]

I'm extremely happy about how quickly these are being posted; you're really exceeding our expectations, Rich, and the effort is impressive. Thank you.

As for the strip, this is a great insight into V's internal conflict. And it's also a nice reminder that V's soul has split ownership now; and they never promised his time in the Hells would be postmortum.

[Blue Ghost]

First step toward redemption. It's painful, but it needs to happen. I'm happy for V.

[DaOldeWolf]

Personally, I believe he only dammed himself for times. Three for each splice and a single other one when he dies.

Still, I wonder if V just found the way to the gate.

[t209]

Poor V:smallfrown: (Giving Manly Tears).
That poor elf, he lost his family (as in divorced) and now probably lose his way to a good afterlife.
Now I want payback for those resistance who died at Mountain Hideout. I want Redcloak's head for my office wall.:smallfurious: FOR THANH

[EmperorSarda]

I do have to thank you most heartily for this strip, Giant.

You see, in the D&D campaign I play in, my character is a Halfling Cleric/Dracolyte of Bahamut. Reading this, the dragon and human female who had a long term relationship, I can use it for when my Halfling preaches in Bahamut's name, when he defends dragons. It is a great way to appeal to the NPC masses (and fellow roleplayers) of the true nature of Dragons, of why one should strive to seek to emulate such a being. Being able to understand the character and motives of a dragon (or anyone for that matter) helps when seeking to spread adulation and emulation.

So, thank you again.

[asphias]

great to see your thumb is healing so well. even though we've said it a million times, one more "please take your time and heal up well!" can't hurt:smallwink:

also, good to see V is starting to realize that having an evil alignement does not mean free to kill. let's hope he finds a way to redeem himself

[Alignment]

"Until this moment, my mind had never considered that[...]"

I didn't realize how little V understood his/her actions until this point. There's some very fun character development here.

[fergo]

It's kind of weird. We've seen it coming on the forums for so long (especially with the extended break) that it's surprisingly powerful to see V. come to terms with what she's done.

[Wolfram]

This comic reminds me of the Passover Seder, where the Rabbis prove that the Egyptians suffered up to 260 plauges at the Red Sea...

I hope for V that the damnation is merely multiplictive and not exponential!

[Psyren]

It would be multiplicative. Thrice damned (actions, arrogance, ignorance) for each of the three fiends. 3x3 = 9.

{table=head] Fiend |
Damn 1 |
Damn 2 |
Damn 3

Lee | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Nero | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Cedrik | actions | arrogance | ignorance
[/table]

...perhaps I'm taking the wrong attitude toward this strip.

[Turgon9357]

Oh hey, V!

I can't shake the feeling that that mummy is going to appear at an extremely inopportune moment.

[Xanamir]

I'm more of a lurker than a poster but this strip inspired me to add my own comments.

In particular, V's confession here made me think of one of my all-time favorite strips: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html. It's not my favorite strip because of Miko's death, but because of Soon's speech about the nature of redemption. I think it was one of the most poignant and insightful commentaries this strip has ever offered.

When we compare Miko's situation to V's, we see that unlike Miko, V now understands completely just how horrible hir actions were. More importantly, V is genuinely remorseful for all the damage s/he caused, instead of just blaming the circumstances or the IFCC. It would be easy to say "well, I was desperate" or "the fiends made me do it, the dragon made me do it, the soul splices made me do it."

"True redemption demands that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds," Soon said. "That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong."

True, one might argue that V committed an atrocity (genocide) whereas Miko commited "only" a crime (murder) but then one must ask; is there a crime that is unforgivable? Is one life worth less than thousands? Miko could have redeemed herself. Does the same potential exist for V?

I really hope V gets hir chance at redemption. I hope s/he succeeds where Miko failed.

[Chess435]

This comic reminds me of the Passover Seder, where the Rabbis prove that the Egyptians suffered up to 260 plauges at the Red Sea...

I hope for V that the damnation is merely multiplictive and not exponential!

Or even worse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation)

[fruityjanitor]

Panel 9 is one of the greatest wall-of-text panels ever!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

And V's downward spiral continues. And blackwing isn't gonna help... so who will? Will V pull herself up by her own bootstraps?

Who will help V? I'm betting on Elan!

[dnzrx]

Or even worse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation)

Hey there! Let's not play the "make the elf cry a river" game right now.

[fwiffo]

V is overdoing it badly. And what is that "the judgement was never mine" stuff? Whose judgement it is, then? That type of excessive reliance on some kind of authority to make the judgement is much too lawful for someone who is at his core an individualist.

[Turgon9357]

Or even worse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation)

Oh dear. :smalleek:

But also cool. I need to research this.

[thepsyker]

I seem to be missing something, why isn't s/he just damned three times?

[Psyren]

I seem to be missing something, why isn't s/he just damned three times?

See my post *points up*

[Mutant Sheep]

V is overdoing it badly. And what is that "the judgement was never mine" stuff? Whose judgement it is, then? That type of excessive reliance on some kind of authority to make the judgement is much too lawful for someone who is at his core an individualist.No one's judgement, I believe. I think V's point was "no one should do this", rather than "When I had that power I should have brought it to *reasonable authority figure*". The judgement wasn't his, wasn't Thor's, and I doubt V would even trust Elf-god ascended to make that decision. It was even further realization of the extent of Familicide and just how bad it was. And I'm happy he realizes genocide is bad.

(Oh, and nice update speed Mr. Burlew. I might ask that you slow down. The plot is speeding up and we aren't ready!:smalltongue:)

[rgrekejin]

Well. That pretty succinctly summed up all of the message board debates we as a fanbase have been having for the last few years.

[Tragak]

This comic reminds me of the Passover Seder, where the Rabbis prove that the Egyptians suffered up to 260 plauges at the Red Sea...

I hope for V that the damnation is merely multiplictive and not exponential!Or even worse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation)
Hey there! Let's not play the "make the elf cry a river" game right now.
Why not: maybe it was (3 /|\ /|\ /|\ 3) per dragon! :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:

Or maybe it was (3 [one arrow per dragon] 3)! :eek: :eek: :eek:

NO did I just make it a factorial on top of all of that? Please Rich, I beg of you not to make it that bad, have a Hart, would you?

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Chess435]

Why not: maybe it was (3 /|\ /|\ /|\ 3) per dragon! :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:

Or maybe it was (3 [one arrow per dragon] 3)! :eek: :eek: :eek:

NO did I just make it a factorial on top of all of that? Please Rich, I beg of you not to make it that bad, have a Hart, would you?

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Oh god, what have I unleashed? :eek:

[Tragak]

Oh god, what have I unleashed? :eek:

A devoted follower of Randall Patrick Munroe (http://xkcd.com/207/)

[Kareasint]

The fact that V is still standing and recognizes his sins means that he may have a chance at Redemption. Right at the moment, he is in a deep state of remorse.

I am going to go with DaOldeWolf here. V may not realize it yet but he will probably run into the Gate. I would not put it past epic level magic users to bury the Gate in such a way that a spell like Stone Shape or Passwall would be necessary to reach it.

[RNGgod]

Wonderful comic. A discussion I've wanted to see for a long, long time.


Just as importantly, it's a big middle finger to all those people who spent years saying that Rich had "betrayed" real-world morality and (more recently) that V would never regret dragon genocide, that only humans were being given consideration. Even after Rich wrote in Don't Split the Party that dragon genocide was horrible, people still ran around mindlessly condemning him for being "lenient" to Vaarsuvius.

Finally, this idiocy can end.

[thepsyker]

See my post *points up*
I saw that, but are those categories laid out in the comic at any point? Where does the sextuple damned come in? Wouldn't it be damned once for each count of selling his soul and than damned once for his actions while superpowered for a total of being damned four times? Or does the Sextuple come from the three counts of selling his soul plus the actions s/he'll carry out while being willingly under the fiends control for another three damnings giving us six. But we would than add one for his actions while superpowered for seven damnations. Or do we add a damnation for his actions while superpowered for each fiend giving us 9 damnations?

[Landis963]

Finally, this idiocy can end.

It's the internet. Idiocy will never end. I do agree that there is hope that idiocy will end on this particular topic, however.

[Commander672]

Hey V,

I know your kinda bemoaning the horrors of your actions.
I know your kinda Damned by an unknown quotient,
and I know your kinda stuck underground.

But could you please return to the oots before Belkar dies? If he's gunna die soon I'd like to see the OOTS at full manpower for at least one more confrontation.

[Starscream]

That was truly heartwrenching. Well done, Giant, and I'm glad to see you are feeling better.

[geekwraith]

Perhaps failure casserole with guilt sauce may lead to a dessert of humble pie.

[Kazyan]

Or even worse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation)

There is the minor problem that, when describing anything even vaguely real-world, operations higher than exponentiation never show up. Like, ever. Never even seen it once.

Yes, this is what I choose to post about. Why do you ask?

[Kish]

Well, well. Vaarsuvius' first step toward redemption, finally.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I saw that, but are those categories laid out in the comic at any point? Where does the sextuple damned come in? Wouldn't it be damned once for each count of selling his soul and than damned once for his actions while superpowered for a total of being damned four times? Or does the Sextuple come from the three counts of selling his soul plus the actions s/he'll carry out while being willingly under the fiends control for another three damnings giving us six. But we would than add one for his actions while superpowered for seven damnations. Or do we add a damnation for his actions while superpowered for each fiend giving us 9 damnations?
(For the purposes of this post, I will randomly assign a gender to V. I flipped a coin, and got male)

V considers his soul damned three times, because he damned it by his arrogance, by his actions and his ignorance - i.e. he should've known better what he was doing, he shouldn't have done what he did, he shouldn't have thought himself capable of making the choice he made. Any of those three would be enough to send his soul packing to the underworld.

Blackwing then reminded him that he also thrice-damned his soul by promising it to three different demons.

Thus, six.

Grey Wolf

[HalfTangible]

Roy's parents had 3 children (one of whom died very very young admittedly, but still) and I wouldn't exactly call that a happy, healthy relationship.

[RickDaily12]

No, Blackwing. One cubed is ONE, so ironically, multiplicative is less...

Take THAT, Calculus! :smallamused:

In all seriousness, great comic as always, Giant. Great having you back.

[Kish]

Roy's parents had 3 children (one of whom died very very young admittedly, but still) and I wouldn't exactly call that a happy, healthy relationship.
Blackwing's example of Nale is a better one for "that doesn't mean that dragon wasn't evil."

Vaarsuvius' counterargument that s/he had no right to assume all the dragons were devoid of personality and needed killing remains absolutely correct.

[Anarion]

I just want to say that this was a great comic, and I really empathized with V as (s)he realized the enormity of what (s)he had done.

[Gift Jeraff]

I like how this strip can not only be applied to every familicide discussion, but Panel 6 can be applied to every "Evil Character is actually Neutral because s/he cares about something!" discussion.

Anyway, nice to see V on the right path.

[Psyren]

I saw that, but are those categories laid out in the comic at any point? Where does the sextuple damned come in? Wouldn't it be damned once for each count of selling his soul and than damned once for his actions while superpowered for a total of being damned four times? Or does the Sextuple come from the three counts of selling his soul plus the actions s/he'll carry out while being willingly under the fiends control for another three damnings giving us six. But we would than add one for his actions while superpowered for seven damnations. Or do we add a damnation for his actions while superpowered for each fiend giving us 9 damnations?

...methinks you're taking blackwing (and myself) a touch seriously.



Vaarsuvius' counterargument that s/he had no right to assume all the dragons were devoid of personality and needed killing remains absolutely correct.

A step further - V now believes it was wrong even if MOST of them needed killing. (As the bitter comparison to Tarquin attests.)

[Xelbiuj]

Their discussion was a little brief for my taste. :P

[Flame of Anor]

I'm glad that V has progressed to logically taking responsibility for his actions, instead of simply freaking out. I hope he realizes soon that the only thing to be done is to move on and try to fix what is possible to fix.

[willpell]

"Until this moment, my mind had never considered that[...]"

I didn't realize how little V understood his/her actions until this point. There's some very fun character development here.

Of course, he had better things to think about, such as how awesome he is. Classic. :smallbiggrin:

Off-topicness:


I seem to be missing something, why isn't s/he just damned three times?


See my post *points up*

Hehe..."Psy vs. Psy". Just randomly amusing myself....


Oh dear. :smalleek:

Love the Big Ears avatar.

[ManuelSacha]

Poor V... :smallfrown:

[Emperordaniel]

Well, looks like Vaarsuvius may yet find a chance of redemption for hirself. :smallcool:

[The_Weirdo]

Yeah, Blackwing? NOT. HELPING. :smalltongue:

[grassy]

Good to see the comics coming again. The waiting has been painful. Although probably not as painful as cutting your thumb open with a jagged piece of glass.

[blazingshadow]

i would agree with tarquin in that a few must be sacrificed for the many. it's not like bad guys are going to give you much of a choice if they can help it. of course it would be better if no innocents were harmed but sometimes that is not an option

[Icedaemon]

It would be multiplicative. Thrice damned (actions, arrogance, ignorance) for each of the three fiends. 3x3 = 9.

{table=head] Fiend |
Damn 1 |
Damn 2 |
Damn 3

Lee | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Nero | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Cedrik | actions | arrogance | ignorance
[/table]

...perhaps I'm taking the wrong attitude toward this strip.

No, it all checks out. You appear to be correct.

[thepsyker]

(For the purposes of this post, I will randomly assign a gender to V. I flipped a coin, and got male)

V considers his soul damned three times, because he damned it by his arrogance, by his actions and his ignorance - i.e. he should've known better what he was doing, he shouldn't have done what he did, he shouldn't have thought himself capable of making the choice he made. Any of those three would be enough to send his soul packing to the underworld.

Blackwing then reminded him that he also thrice-damned his soul by promising it to three different demons.

Thus, six.

Grey WolfOk, I see what I was missing, for some reason when V first mentioned being thrice damned I though s/he was talking about the three demons. For some reason the first part of the statement, "By my actions, my arrogance, my ignorance" just didn't register, so that was the bit I was missing.

[Faltenin]

For a comic about guilt & redemption, Blackwing looks awfully angelic in panel 6...

Nice comic that accurately describes all those dark thoughts that can come when you're all alone in the dark. Thanks!

[BlackDragonKing]

i would agree with tarquin in that a few must be sacrificed for the many. it's not like bad guys are going to give you much of a choice if they can help it. of course it would be better if no innocents were harmed but sometimes that is not an option

I'd assume V is adhering to the Sam Vimes school of thought here in that "You can't call yourself the good guy and then do bad guy things". V is dedicated to saving the world, but she isn't thinking about what good she might have done in the midst of an evil action. An instant of lashing out at something she hated more than anything else in the world at the moment, a decision made while she was nearly out of her mind with frustration, guilt, and a sudden, overwhelming surge of power that presented the temptation to obliterate everything in the way, killed hundreds if not thousands of innocents.

Tarquin would indeed consider that an acceptable sacrifice if it permanently ended any possible threat to him or his family from that bloodline, but Tarquin is evil. V isn't, and the consequences of that one decision are going to haunt her for the rest of her life.

I'm always rather saddened that my favorite character has to have something that horrible as a part of her actions, and that doing it was completely in-character at the moment, but I am glad that Familicide is being used to develop V in an interesting and sympathetic way compared to Miko's delusional death spiral.

[hewhosaysfish]

It seems like Blackwing (like his/her master/mistress) has Intelligence significantly higher than Charisma...

[The_Weirdo]

i would agree with tarquin in that a few must be sacrificed for the many. it's not like bad guys are going to give you much of a choice if they can help it. of course it would be better if no innocents were harmed but sometimes that is not an option

Oh? And would you be perfectly okay if one or a few of those innocents were you, then? Your family? Your friends?

Of course, then again, I'm perfectly willing to apply this same thought massively to prevent it being applied to or near ME, so I may be being a bit hypocritical here. :smallwink:

You see, the problem is that, as people, innocent and guilty, begin applying that kind of thought, they forget that OTHERS may well apply it to THEM. The question boils down to this: What do you fear and how far would you go to prevent it? I fear a regime like Tarquin's. And I'd, paradoxically, go to his lengths (or more) to prevent it. You seem to "fear" Chaotic Evil - random, wanton violence - and you'd also accept going to Tarquin's lengths to prevent it.

Mind, I'm NOT criticizing you here, unless I'm also insulting myself.

But at any rate the problem is that, you see, when people are willing to go to Tarquin's lengths for a cause or for a fear, they forget that others are exactly as willing for other causes or for other fears. And these others may well have more power - it doesn't need to be Tarquin's political power, V's magical power or anything specific. As a certain lich once said, power equals power. Anything will do, used creatively.

The problem with the ends justifying the means is they begin doing so for everyone else. And everyone else may have their own ideas of justice, of truth, of what needs to be fought against and of what needs to be protected.

[factotum]

Blackwing really needs to practice this whole "supporting your friend through a crisis of conscience" thing, doesn't he? :smallwink:

[Holy_Knight]

I'm more of a lurker than a poster but this strip inspired me to add my own comments.

In particular, V's confession here made me think of one of my all-time favorite strips: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html. It's not my favorite strip because of Miko's death, but because of Soon's speech about the nature of redemption. I think it was one of the most poignant and insightful commentaries this strip has ever offered.

When we compare Miko's situation to V's, we see that unlike Miko, V now understands completely just how horrible hir actions were. More importantly, V is genuinely remorseful for all the damage s/he caused, instead of just blaming the circumstances or the IFCC. It would be easy to say "well, I was desperate" or "the fiends made me do it, the dragon made me do it, the soul splices made me do it."

"True redemption demands that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds," Soon said. "That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong."

True, one might argue that V committed an atrocity (genocide) whereas Miko commited "only" a crime (murder) but then one must ask; is there a crime that is unforgivable? Is one life worth less than thousands? Miko could have redeemed herself. Does the same potential exist for V?

I really hope V gets hir chance at redemption. I hope s/he succeeds where Miko failed.
While I tend to agree that numerical considerations can be given too much weight in moral evaluation, I think you're missing a key difference in the contexts here. Miko killed Shojo because she believed that he was a traitor who was undermining his own kingdom and potentially dooming the world to Xykon. Vaarsuvius killed hundreds of dragons who he knew had nothing to do with threatening his family, because he wanted to enjoy seeing his actual enemy suffer as much as possible. The motivations for their acts were thus significantly different, and Vaarsuvius' much more evil even aside from the numbers involved.


Hey V,

I know your kinda bemoaning the horrors of your actions.
I know your kinda Damned by an unknown quotient,
and I know your kinda stuck underground.

But could you please return to the oots before Belkar dies? If he's gunna die soon I'd like to see the OOTS at full manpower for at least one more confrontation.
Oh, don't worry. He will.

[Killer Angel]

Blackwing really needs to practice this whole "supporting your friend through a crisis of conscience" thing, doesn't he? :smallwink:

Decisely. :smallbiggrin:
Despite being a familiar, he lacks some empathy for his master...

[Saros69]

Gaaaagh!!!

STO

[Iranon]

Blackwing really needs to practice this whole "supporting your friend through a crisis of conscience" thing, doesn't he? :smallwink:

Not so sure about that.

V is much better with detached thought than dealing with raw emotion. As with most people, natural tentency is reinforced by habits.
It also tends to follow lines of thinking much further than useful (e.g. Belkar's Brain hypothesis), playing to this quirk could help getting a sense of its normal self back.

Blackwing IS being a supportive friend, in the most natural way given t their personalities (smart aleck and pompous intellectual). Going all touchy feely would be dishonest and awkward.

[Scowling Dragon]

I would argue taquin kills many guilty and innocent for the good of a few: His friend group.

I call BS that with a bit of effort he couldn't turn the continent into a halfway decent living area.

[Killer Angel]

Oh? And would you be perfectly okay if one or a few of those innocents were you, then? Your family? Your friends?

We're discussing in general terms, and sometime, few must be sacrificed for the many. What do you think generals do, when they plan battles? Or medic personnel, doing triage?

However, "good" is different from "necessary", and even the mentioned cases, don't apply to Tarquin's way of life, if not in a very hypocrite way.
But this is a moral discussion, and we should avoid it. :smallwink:

[Cicciograna]

Ok, I'm falling prey to idiocy, but can't seem to remember who the "three children" V refers to are :smallredface:

Care to dissolve the arcane?

[talkamancer]

Loving the angst. Good job Giant.

[Werbaer]

Ok, I'm falling prey to idiocy, but can't seem to remember who the "three children" V refers to are :smallredface:
At the top of the family tree (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html), the dragon and the human had three children.

[Basooned]

Rich! Rich! Rich! Rich! ::cheermode::

[zimmerwald1915]

Wonderful comic. A discussion I've wanted to see for a long, long time.


Well, well. Vaarsuvius' first step toward redemption, finally.
There's a passage from the commentary of Don't Split the Party that is relevant to this discussion. In the commentary facing page 594, Rich writes "Hopefully, now that the story is complete, it [V's murder of Kubota] can be seen for what it was: another step in V's fall from grace." That fall was intentionally plotted to take a long time, and whatever arc will come from that will take just as long if not longer. Strip #667 to now in strip #866, has, for V, been one long anagnorisis.

From strip #667, for her, there was the vague feeling that she had done something wrong, but from our perspective, she was terribly off base [hamartiaic] about what it was. She frames her error in terms of effectiveness, lamenting wielding her power "like a cudgel" against Xykon but defending her actions against the ABD as having "started out well". At the root of this formulation is the mistaken idea of V's that it was her responsibility to "fix everything" and that her failure was that she was unable to do so. Durkon absolves V of that responsibility, telling her not to "beat [herself] up" lest she fall to madness. Again, from our perspective, this absolution is no absolution at all, because it applies to the wrong sin, but it does inform V's next step in her recognition.

That step is her reconciliation with Blackwing in strip #672. V applies Durkon's lesson basically word for word, admitting to Blackwing that "as I have recently begun to learn, the fact that you did not succeed does not diminish the nobility of your effort." This admission, however, is still basically defensive. Blackwing's efforts, for V, were "noble", and by extension she regards hers the same way even if she identifies being "considerate" to others as something she should work on. She is correct, as far as that goes, about the importance of treating others with respect and about how deficient she is in that area. The actions she takes in pursuit of overcoming that deficiency are, however, also off the mark.

V basically dumps the responsibility for controlling her behavior off on Blackwing, beginning in strip #674 when she requests "a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities". That she suffered the "indignities" of the rest of the team's ragging partly in defense of Blackwing does not mitigate her error. Blackwing isn't responsible for V's actions and V shouldn't ask him to be. It's not fair for Blackwing, and it doesn't even go as far as V would like to solving her misidentified problem. This is amply demonstrated in strip #677, when Blackwing fails to stop V from "raining arcane destruction" on another mage who was ragging her.

V then disclaims all responsibility for the incident, blaming in strip #678 the other mage for his "deliberate provocation". For V, everybody but her is still to blame for her behavior. Blackwing reminds her where such thinking leads, and succeeds in calming V down, but again this really isn't his responsibility. He's going out of his way for his master when he doesn't need to. He does not, however, succeed in provoking further recognition [anagnorisis] from V. Inky does that by suing for divorce.

Specifically, Inky makes V recognize in strip #679 the shallowness of his anagnorisis hitherto, that she has "learned nothing". She demonstrates having learned nothing by repeating her error before Durkon, imagining that she did wrong by "careening off to squander [her] pilfered power," though at this point the "careening off" is more important to her than the "squandering". Blackwing helps her realize that her sin goes deeper than the one incident, that she had lived her life up to this point by doing wrong by other people. For the first time in strip #679, V takes some responsibility for her actions, acknowledging that she should "beg forgiveness" from Inky, resolving for the first time to do something "slightly nobler" and a little less selfish: to let Inky go. What's more, she admits her own responsibility in putting her family in danger.

She first takes responsibility for her actions in the moment, as opposed to after reflection, in strip #684. She says out loud that it is her responsibility, not Blackwing's, to harness her "less desirable tendencies", among which she includes her "own ego". After this point, the focus shifts away from V and to Elan, so while V has dialogue it's mostly relegated to snarky punchlines and exposition and while V does take actions they're mostly at the behest of others like Haley and Belkar. This does hint at V's ego being held in check for the duration, but no more than hint.

V demonstrates being able to control her ego, and especially being able to refrain from stroking it with "frivolous displays of arcane dominance" in strip #802. This despite Z irritating V's "deepest psychological weak points" as we're told in strip #804. Her treatment of Yukyuk, however, shows that she has allowed this consideration of keeping her ego in check to eclipse her need to be more considerate of others. She lets Belkar torture him in strip #835, is frankly blase about her enslavement of him in strip #837, puts him directly in harm's way in strip #840, and abandons him to his death in strip #848.

To be charitable to V, however, she was rather distracted in strip #843. The recognition, however, proceeds very rapidly from this point. In that strip and in strip #857, she recognizes that she is responsible (building on her attempts to take responsibility for herself in earlier strips) for the deaths of uncountable innocents. In strip #866, she recognizes and repudiates the bigoted thinking that led her to believe that such sacrifices were ever acceptable in the first place - that dragons could be "anything but ravenous killers" and didn't deserve to be taken as individuals with worth.

V's development toward her anagnorisis in strip #866 does not have a through-line of action. It develops in fits and starts, with V heading down several incorrect paths based on her mistaken appraisal of her flaws. This is exactly as it should be. A character who would have recognized V's error straightaway would not have fallen as far or in the same way as V did. As Kish points out, however, and as Soon implies in strip #464, anagnorisis, true and clear recognition of one's sin, is only the first step. On what path V has taken her first step remains to be seen, and we don't know whether V will have time to reach its end (personally, I don't believe it), but now, unlike every other moment since strip # 667, the road to redemption is open.

[Edhelras]

Seems like V is taking giant steps back toward the good side. Or at least he's making a great effort to build an ethical system which is based on the good side - remains to be seen whether her actions will match his (ameliorated) intentions in the future.
But anyway - the "V has gone Evil" line seems to be disproved by this comic. An Evil person wouldn't have the moral qualms that V shows here.

[Morquard]

Hehe, I laughed out loud. Rarely do that at a comic.

Yes Blackwing you aren't really helping!

[Mike Havran]

It's great to see that V now fully understands most, if not all, aspects of her failure. Now, it's time to do some actions to see the change of her perspective.

[The Pilgrim]

Blackwing, helpful as always. :smallbiggrin:

[warmachine]

Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.

[zimmerwald1915]

Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.
You never know, all dragons might have Alternate Form in the OOTSverse.

[Edhelras]

Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.

Hm. I immediately thought this had something to do with Alternate form, but that's only an ability possessed by some dragons, and not Blacks.

But how, then, is the half-dragon template possible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm)? It obviously allows half-dragon templates of any colour, so there has to be, in DnD physiology, a way that dragons can mate with humans.
Maybe this is covered in one of the dragon-specific sourcebooks? I don't remember, but I may look it up when I get home.

[oppyu]

Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.
Don't dragons have shape-shifting in D&DWorld or something?

[zimmerwald1915]

Don't dragons have shape-shifting in D&DWorld or something?
In core, only bronze, silver, and gold dragons have this ability. Nothing says that this has to hold true in the OOTSverse.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.

From a Google Search of the old OOTS Archives:

Human: Hey elf, you look like a girl.
Elf: To a human, everything must look like a girl.
Human: What?
Elf: Half-orcs, half-ogres...
Human: ... shut up.
Dwarf: Half-dragons, half-kobolds.
Human: I said shut up!
Elf: ...
Dwarf: ...
Human: ...
Elf: Centaurs.

:smallwink:

[maxon]

Nice thread title but I think it might have been better as 'Not Helping'.

[HandofShadows]

Blackwing, you trying to help or harm? :smalleek:

[Castamir]

I'd rather say V is adding something imaginary to his calculations.

[Tragak]

Poor V... :smallfrown:

Aren't you dead? Why are you on hir side?


:smallbiggrin:

[Tragak]

I'd rather say V is adding something imaginary to his calculations.

Ooooh, two-dimensional numbers :)

[Math_Mage]

All the cookies to Zimmerwald for brilliantly summing up V's character arc from 667 onward.


Aren't you dead? Why are you on hir side?


:smallbiggrin:

3 of 4 black dragons lived through Familicide.

[fwiffo]

But anyway - the "V has gone Evil" line seems to be disproved by this comic. An Evil person wouldn't have the moral qualms that V shows here.

There is a good quote, usually attributed to Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Given that V is saying things that it was not his judgement to make to deal with someone who is evil, he is falling firmly in "do nothing" camp, thus becoming passive contributor to evil triumphing. Not quite as bad as being evil himself, but certainly slide toward evil side.

[zimmerwald1915]

All the cookies to Zimmerwald for brilliantly summing up V's character arc from 667 onward.
Yum. Thanks!


Given that V is saying things that it was not his judgement to make to deal with someone who is evil
I'm sorry but where are you getting this? V refers to "judgement" once in the strip, in the ninth panel. Given the context, it is quite clear that she is saying that she did not have the right to judge black dragonkind worthy of genocide, or to judge dragonkind as opposed to individual dragons at all. What she is not saying is that she had no choice when making the deal with the IFCC. She recognized that fact way back in strip #634.

[JSSheridan]

Thanks Giant!

Unfortunately, her guilt is not

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

imaginary.

[Kish]

There is a good quote, usually attributed to Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
I would hope Burke would be appalled to be quoted to support punishing the evil of existence as a member of a certain species.

[pendell]

A fascinating strip.

So now that V has expressed remorse and contrition for familicide, and is apparently determined to do things differently in the future, what now?

How does this work for D&D?

Does V have the possibility of redemption?

If there is no redemption, then V seems to have two choices:

1) In for a penny, in for a pound. Since there's no possible way to avoid the lower planes in the afterlife, push forward and do all the evil things necessary for good men to sleep well at night. To make the hard decisions and do the hard things no good character can do but nonetheless need to be done because hey, ze's damned anyway. If dirty work and nasty deeds must be done, better they be done by hir than by someone else. Minimize the number of damned people.

2) Repentence without redemption. V follows the path of contrition and does the right thing by V's fellow creature even though V knows that it will do V no good at all, personally.

If there IS redemption, of course, then V should not allow remorse to become despair. People do horrible things and stupid things, either mistakenly or deliberately. Sometimes we repent of these things. And if we do, the important thing is not what we did in the past, it's what we do now and in the future both to make right our wrong to the extent possible, and to change our future behavior so it doesn't happen again.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zimmerwald1915]

I would hope Burke would be appalled to be quoted to support punishing the evil of existence as a member of a certain species.
Burke's conduct in relation to India probably disqualifies him from being labelled a racist, but he was most certainly not above judging - and condemning - whole social categories. That said, I believe fwiffo's whole post was based on a misreading of the strip.


A fascinating strip.

So now that V has expressed remorse and contrition for familicide, and is apparently determined to do things differently in the future, what now?

How does this work for D&D?

Does V have the possibility of redemption?
Soon's speech to Miko is good evidence that redemption exists in the OOTSverse. I recognize the possibility, however, that you're asking whether redemption is a possibility for V specifically rather than asking whether it's a possibility at all.

[BlackDragonKing]

There is a good quote, usually attributed to Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Given that V is saying things that it was not his judgement to make to deal with someone who is evil, he is falling firmly in "do nothing" camp, thus becoming passive contributor to evil triumphing. Not quite as bad as being evil himself, but certainly slide toward evil side.

I disagree. V is not guilty, as I understand her thinking, for taking the power and killing the Ancient Black Dragon attacking her family. Nor do I think she should be beyond recognizing that bargaining with the devils was a dangerous decision. At no point in V's analysis of this is it in doubt that killing the Ancient Black Dragon was the right thing to do, and had V simply teleported in, obliterated it, and gone straight to "I still have to fix everything", I would consider this course of action the best of two bad ones available to V through circumstances she would not have been able to reasonably see coming.

V doesn't think it was outside her rights to kill the hell out of that dragon to save her family, and I agree with her 100%. What she DOES think, correctly in my view, is that she should never have thought she had any right to judge so many she had never met and never would meet by casting Familicide afterwards.

I think in the same circumstances, V would still have taken the soul splice, because there was no other plan that would possibly work quickly enough to stop the dragon from brutally murdering her children before anyone got there. If literally ANYTHING went wrong, and things ALWAYS go wrong when the Order has to scramble, a fate considerably worse than death awaited V's entire family. The genocidal spell V cast is the cause of her guilt, and that is what should be the cause of her guilt; I still argue this is the only truly Evil action V performed under the Soul Splice.

[Name Lips]

V is in some previously unknown rough-hewn tunnels under the main complex.

Methinks he is about to find the Gate.

[Emperordaniel]

V is in some previously unknown rough-hewn tunnels under the main complex.

Methinks he is about to find the Gate.

I thought it was the Passwall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html) that V cast...

[Kish]

What is It?

[zimmerwald1915]

I thought it was the Passwall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html) that V cast...
The passage created by passwall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/passwall.htm) would be about thirty feet long on its own. It's entirely possible, and quite in keeping with the way the comic operates, that V's spell opened a (thirty-foot long or less) link between the bottom of the pit trap and a preexisting tunnel system.

[willpell]

What is It?

...it's it!

[fwiffo]

I'm sorry but where are you getting this? V refers to "judgement" once in the strip, in the ninth panel. Given the context, it is quite clear that she is saying that she did not have the right to judge black dragonkind worthy of genocide, or to judge dragonkind as opposed to individual dragons at all.

I am getting it from the actual context of 9th panel, not imaginary "individual judgement" one. That context is previous, self-dismissing, sentence in same panel. "Perhaps, by some cold calculus, the net benefit of villains lost to innocent sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world". That context recognizes that as attack was carried on evil group, with some innocent bystanders, that most creatures killed were villains and that this was a net reduction to evil in the world. That happens right before V dismisses it; thus self-justifying becoming a contributor to evil's survival.

[Kish]

Better to kill the innocent than let the guilty (...of something...) get away, eh?

You'd love Moff Tyrak in Star Wars: The Old Republic.

[willpell]

Nice thread title but I think it might have been better as 'Not Helping'.

It took me a moment to recognize the pun here....


Humans and dragons can mate despite having fundamentally different physiologies. Once again, Biology is left gibbering in a padded room whilst a berserk Physics screams for the death of catgirls.

Making it work genetically is just a matter of magic providing the necessary Phlebotinum...after all, DNA is just reality's Phlebotinum, and being a dragon is more than sufficient to exceed it. As for the, er, physical arrangements, even if this particular black dragon wasn't capable of shapechanging...well, it isn't strictly necessary that the two be able to get, er, intimate. There needs only to be a transfer of appropriate substances.... hopefully I'm being safely vague to protect the innocent here...my fellow warped minds should have no trouble filling in the ga...er, probably better pick a different idiom there....

[zimmerwald1915]

I am getting it from the actual context of 9th panel, not imaginary "individual judgement" one. That context is previous, self-dismissing, sentence in same panel. "Perhaps, by some cold calculus, the net benefit of villains lost to innocent sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world". That context recognizes that most creatures killed were villains and that this was a net reduction to evil in the world, right before V dismisses it; thus self-justifying becoming a contributor to evil's survival.
It recognizes no such thing. It recognizes the possibility that most creatures killed were villains, but that is by no means a certainty. Even if you accept the utilitarian calculus (which you apparently do whereas I reject it), one cannot apply it without absolute perfect certainty as to how many net utils a given action will produce. V didn't know the moral alignment or individual actions of any black dragons besides the two she had met, and was thus in no position to apply a utilitarian calculus to casting familicide.

The point, however, which I give you credit for understanding, is that V rejects the utilitarian calculus. She rejects the notion that it is acceptable to sacrifice innocents for the greater good, and she rejects the notion that she is qualified to know what the greater good is. That doesn't make her more evil. It makes her more moral than we've seen her throughout the entire comic.

[willpell]

It seems like Blackwing (like his/her master/mistress) has Intelligence significantly higher than Charisma...

Familiars pretty much always do, given that animals tend to have Charisma 3-6, and familiar INT goes up with level while no other stat does.

[Math_Mage]

I am getting it from the actual context of 9th panel, not imaginary "individual judgement" one. That context is previous, self-dismissing, sentence in same panel. "Perhaps, by some cold calculus, the net benefit of villains lost to innocent sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world". That context recognizes that most creatures killed were villains and that this was a net reduction to evil in the world, right before V dismisses it; thus self-justifying becoming a contributor to evil's survival.

First, V states the possibility. That does not make it fact. The uncertainty is one important factor of the morality question, and cannot be lightly thrown aside.

Second, the elimination of evil is not a comprehensive guide to morality. To take the extreme case, eliminating all life on Earth would eliminate evil, but that would not make it a justified action. The question of how much collateral damage one can morally inflict in fighting villainy is not easily resolved, but you appear to be skipping past that debate entirely by praising the use of Familicide as "a net reduction to evil in the world." An approach that praises any net reduction to evil overlooks the possibility of eliminating a similar amount of evil through other means that cause less collateral damage. It too easily justifies the nuclear option, so to speak.

Not to mention that morality does not reduce to a consequentialist analysis in any case--which is the point V was making.

[RNGgod]

snip


No one is saying that this strip means V is fully redeemed. I merely refer to the many forum-goers who have spent nearly every day since we discovered that the Draketooths were killed by familicide doing only two things:
1) ranting about how V would never have any redemption and how good it was that V would suffer
2) ranting about how Rich had made it so that V only regretted killing humans, not dragons.

Others on these forums have not denied that V's actions were terrible. But it is obvious that some sort of redemption is SOUGHT (maybe it will not be given) and that the lives of dragons would factor into the equation eventually. It was both ignorant and mean-spirited to use the fact that V became aware of familicide's power through the death of the Draketooths in order to rant against Rich's current depiction of V's character progression.

[Math_Mage]

No one is saying that this strip means V is fully redeemed. I merely refer to the many forum-goers who have spent nearly every day since we discovered that the Draketooths were killed by familicide doing only two things:
1) ranting about how V would never have any redemption and how good it was that V would suffer
2) ranting about how Rich had made it so that V only regretted killing humans, not dragons.

Others on these forums have not denied that V's actions were terrible. But it is obvious that some sort of redemption is SOUGHT (maybe it will not be given) and that the lives of dragons would factor into the equation eventually. It was both ignorant and mean-spirited to use the fact that V became aware of familicide's power through the death of the Draketooths in order to rant against Rich's current depiction of V's character progression.

Er, are you sure you're quoting the right post? Because zimmerwald's neither attempts to contradict you, nor falls in your listed categories 1) or 2), nor "rants against Rich's current depiction of V's character progression," so I'm not sure where you were going with this.

[zimmerwald1915]

No one is saying that this strip means V is fully redeemed.
Indeed. The community, wonder of wonders, is more perceptive than that.


I merely refer to the many forum-goers who have spent nearly every day since we discovered that the Draketooths were killed by familicide doing only two things:
1) ranting about how V would never have any redemption and how good it was that V would suffer
2) ranting about how Rich had made it so that V only regretted killing humans, not dragons.
I know. I argued alongside both groups, starting well before strip #843. I did not expect V's anagnorisis to proceed to this point, figuring that she would get caught up in one of her many false starts or would only proceed so far. I still do not believe that she will have time to proceed to her peripatea, because I believe that Roy's story will be wrapped up long before and that the comic will end when Roy's story does. That said, it is a credit to V as a character that this recognition occurred at all, and it is a credit to Rich as a writer that, despite there being no clear through-line, it is possible to trace the history of this recognition back over two hundred strips.


Others on these forums have not denied that V's actions were terrible. But it is obvious that some sort of redemption is SOUGHT (maybe it will not be given) and that the lives of dragons would factor into the equation eventually. It was both ignorant and mean-spirited to use the fact that V became aware of familicide's power through the death of the Draketooths in order to rant against Rich's current depiction of V's character progression.
Here's where we part ways. Until strip #843, V could not seek redemption because she did not recognize that there was anything for which she needed redeeming. Sure, she recognized that she needed reform way back in strip #667. She asked others - Blackwing - to reform her. When that failed, as it inevitably must, she attempted - and succeeded at - self-control and taking responsibility, though always for some secondary or tertiary concern. Even until strip #865, her recognition was incomplete. Now it is complete. That's not a slight against Rich's writing. I think Rich pulled off a gradual anagnorisis masterfully. What I'm saying is that V gets no credit for that anagnorisis until now, because until now it was not complete, and that that credit itself doesn't go terribly far towards redemption. Furthermore, as pendell points out and as I tried to allude to, that is not the only arc V can take from this point.

[Peelee]

A bit late to the party, but


Oh? And would you be perfectly okay if one or a few of those innocents were you, then? Your family? Your friends?

The problem here is you are trying to undermine the underlying philosophy by attaching emotional elements to it. From a perfectly logical perspective, yes, it is perfectly okay if one or a few of those innocents were me, my family, or my friends. In order to A.) bolster my argument, and 2.) help distance this from real-world, I invoke a great anger - The Wrath of Khan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA)!

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." Spock, acting entirely on logic (in fact, his quote is actually, "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Kirk adds in "Or the one."). This is, I dare say, a direct representation of your question, "what if one of those innocents was you?"

Oh, Star Trek. Is there anything you can't answer?

[willpell]

Who will help V? I'm betting on Elan!

I'd be somewhat surprised if Elan is capable of putting his advice in terms that would be meaningful to V, but it would be nice to see him try even if he's utterly inept for the task. In theory, he claimed way back in the prologue that a bard's job in the dungeon was to lift people's spirits and help them fight off despair; he's done that for Haley aplenty, but pretty much nobody else has shown any appreciation for his efforts in that vein (neither of the two LGs especially likes Elan...which I think is too bad, because if Durkon was fond of him it would make a nice contrast with Roy...and Belkar shares a sense of humor with Elan but even that doesn't count for much in his book). So if Elan did manage to massively cheer up the one member of the group who badly needs it, it'd be rather a crowning moment.


And I'm happy he realizes genocide is bad.

I remember in one of the Giant's commentaries in the books, he says something like "I'm not sure what it says about me that I felt I had to make the argument against genocide...." :smallamused:

[Kish]

I'm fairly certain the multiple-movie arc that started with the Wrath of Khan (not "Kahn," btw) ultimately opposed rather than supporting the moral correctness of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

...Not that this actually relates at all. For it to fit, you would need to state:
1) Any evil sapient has a Need to be dead.
2) Any non-evil sapient has a Need to be alive.
3) There are no other moral issues in question in any way.

The moral issue here, is whether killing a small number of innocents is an acceptable sacrifice for killing a larger number of people who are guilty of something. What do you think Spock would say to that?

[fwiffo]

First, V states the possibility. That does not make it fact. The uncertainty is one important factor of the morality question, and cannot be lightly thrown aside.

V makes a deliberately weakened attempt to present opposing view, yes. Most people, when they take certain positions, try to justify that the arguments opposing that position are weak. That is why the sentence is so self-defeating; because V needs to be able to dismiss it while pretending that he considered arguments pro and con, and then came to rational decision.


The question of how much collateral damage one can morally inflict in fighting villainy is not easily resolved, but you appear to be skipping past that debate entirely by praising the use of Familicide as "a net reduction to evil in the world." An approach that praises any net reduction to evil overlooks the possibility of eliminating a similar amount of evil through other means that cause less collateral damage. It too easily justifies the nuclear option, so to speak.

Indeed, that is argument that can be argued on both sides; unfortunately, to do so effectively, one really needs to employ real world situations, something that is against forum rules. Real world has plenty of examples.

Even arguing in the abstract on the costs of collateral damage of fighting evil inflicted on non-evil tends to slide toward "morally justified" arguments. Those were effectively clogging the forum so much that I think there is forum self-imposed moratorium of making those here.

Suffice it to say that there is a good argument to be made, just that this is not a place to do so.

[dnzrx]

Wait, is everyone playing "Let's make Vaarsuvius cry like a girl"?

Because it seems that you all are enjoying his/her torment.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'd be somewhat surprised if Elan is capable of putting his advice in terms that would be meaningful to V, but it would be nice to see him try even if he's utterly inept for the task. In theory, he claimed way back in the prologue that a bard's job in the dungeon was to lift people's spirits and help them fight off despair; he's done that for Haley aplenty, but pretty much nobody else has shown any appreciation for his efforts in that vein (neither of the two LGs especially likes Elan...which I think is too bad, because if Durkon was fond of him it would make a nice contrast with Roy...and Belkar shares a sense of humor with Elan but even that doesn't count for much in his book). So if Elan did manage to massively cheer up the one member of the group who badly needs it, it'd be rather a crowning moment.
From the same source you quote below: "When V denigrates her [Therkla] so soon after her death - a death Elan feels the he could have prevented - a line is crossed. Elan, who once dressed up as a wizard to be more like Vaarsuvius, wants nothing more to do with him/her. His loyalty to V is broken in that moment, an V leaves soon after." They don't exactly kiss and make up in their next meeting either. The next words Elan says to V in strip #648 - two strips after they first appeared on-panel together - are "Hey, just because you don't care about something doesn't mean no one else does." He hasn't forgotten Therkla or forgiven V her words. He's spent the last arc ignoring V in favor of his own character development, which has been proceeding on an entirely different track. Elan is not going to help V.


I remember in one of the Giant's commentaries in the books, he says something like "I'm not sure what it says about me that I felt I had to make the argument against genocide...." :smallamused:
Well, we - we being the human species, not the gitp community - still need to make the case against genocide to one another. It's not like we live in some enlightened age where crimes against sapience are a thing of the past. Also, here's the full quote: "Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I feel the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much." (italics in original)

[Kaulguard]

I find it ironic, though it is probably deliberate, that Blackwing is acting as V's conscience, Jiminy Cricket style. The familiar that V has always thought of as superfluous and unnecessary, as a moral compass that V has also thought of as superfluous and unnecessary. Good strip, Giant.

[Tragak]

I am getting it from the actual context of 9th panel, not imaginary "individual judgement" one. That context is previous, self-dismissing, sentence in same panel. "Perhaps, by some cold calculus, the net benefit of villains lost to innocent sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world". That context recognizes that as attack was carried on evil group, with some innocent bystanders, that most creatures killed were villains and that this was a net reduction to evil in the world. That happens right before V dismisses it; thus self-justifying becoming a contributor to evil's survival.

Before you start suggesting that we bomb all of the prisons in the world on grounds that the guards are outnumbered by the felons (and if I have given you an idea that you now legitimately want to do, I DEEPLY apologize to the world at large):

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120

[brionl]

In core, only bronze, silver, and gold dragons have this ability. Nothing says that this has to hold true in the OOTSverse.

Almost all dragons get Sorcerer levels too. There are all kinds of shape-changing spells in the Sorcerer spell lists.

[Kish]

Wait, is everyone playing "Let's make Vaarsuvius cry like a girl"?

Because it seems that you all are enjoying his/her torment.
Whom are you addressing?

[zimmerwald1915]

Almost all dragons get Sorcerer levels too. There are all kinds of shape-changing spells in the Sorcerer spell lists.
True. The picture on the family tree seems to show a fairly old dragon, who would have access to shapechanging magic through his sorcerer levels.


I find it ironic, though it is probably deliberate, that Blackwing is acting as V's conscience, Jiminy Cricket style. The familiar that V has always thought of as superfluous and unnecessary, as a moral compass that V has also thought of as superfluous and unnecessary. Good strip, Giant.
As I argued above, V and Blackwing transcended this relationship hundreds of strips ago. V considered Blackwing responsible for keeping her on the straight and narrow for a relatively brief period of time, between her apology to him on the boat and the fight with the mage in Sandsedge. Blackwing at this point is V's friend and confidante, but not her conscience.

[brionl]

A bit late to the party, but



The problem here is you are trying to undermine the underlying philosophy by attaching emotional elements to it. From a perfectly logical perspective, yes, it is perfectly okay if one or a few of those innocents were me, my family, or my friends. In order to A.) bolster my argument, and 2.) help distance this from real-world, I invoke a great anger - The Wrath of Kahn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA)!

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." Spock, acting entirely on logic (in fact, his quote is actually, "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Kirk adds in "Or the one."). This is, I dare say, a direct representation of your question, "what if one of those innocents was you?"

Oh, Star Trek. Is there anything you can't answer?

You missed the whole point of that scene. Spock chose to sacrifice himself. That is what makes it a noble sacrifice. He didn't order some random redshirt to go in and shut down the reactor. He made the choice and took the consequences upon himself. Letting the consequences fall upon other people, not so much noble.

[Math_Mage]

V makes a deliberately weakened attempt to present opposing view, yes. Most people, when they take certain positions, try to justify that the arguments opposing that position are weak. That is why the sentence is so self-defeating; because V needs to be able to dismiss it while pretending that he considered arguments pro and con, and then came to rational decision.

If there's one thing you and I agree on, it's that V's character arc for the last few hundred strips does not follow principles of rational decision-making.

However, I am extremely surprised to hear you say that V's presentation of the counter-argument is weak. Do you have definitive calculations regarding the joy and suffering eliminated by Familicide, leading to the net benefit of the world, in your back pocket? If not, how is V's characterization of the 'cold calculus' in any way incorrect?


Indeed, that is argument that can be argued on both sides; unfortunately, to do so effectively, one really needs to employ real world situations, something that is against forum rules. Real world has plenty of examples.

Even arguing in the abstract on the costs of collateral damage of fighting evil inflicted on non-evil tends to slide toward "morally justified" arguments. Those were effectively clogging the forum so much that I think there is forum self-imposed moratorium of making those here.

Suffice it to say that there is a good argument to be made, just that this is not a place to do so.

I'm pretty sure we went into 'morally justified' territory as soon as you *cough* justified Familicide with a moral argument *cough*--indeed, as soon as the strip went up, since that is its subject. Not wanting to have that argument is not a good reason to present a simplistic moralism about the reduction of evil as definitive reasoning. Since the consequentialist concern here is whether the extensive collateral damage of Familicide is justified by the removal of large numbers of evil dragons, you should either discuss that concern as part of your argument, or not make the argument.

[Peelee]

I'm fairly certain the multiple-movie arc that started with the Wrath of Khan (not "Kahn," btw) ultimately opposed rather than supporting the moral correctness of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

...Not that this actually relates at all. For it to fit, you would need to state:
1) Any evil sapient has a Need to be dead.
2) Any non-evil sapient has a Need to be alive.
3) There are no other moral issues in question in any way.

The moral issue here, is whether killing a small number of innocents is an acceptable sacrifice for killing a larger number of people who are guilty of something. What do you think Spock would say to that?

I do not believe Spock's answer would be any different. First, your phrasing is incorrect. It would rather be, "the moral issue here is whether killing a small number of innocents is an acceptable sacrifice for killing a large number of people whose continued existence threatens an even greater number of people."

Second, I am sure that someone (quite likely you, but I could be surprised) will take issue with how I rephrased that. This is because morality is not a hard and fast, easily codified issue. Yes, there are things that are blatantly on one side or the other of the spectrum, but too many issues are in the grey. Nobody has ever been able to look at an act and judge it on a moral-o-meter, with everyone else in agreement, and it is highly implausible anyone ever will. As such, in questionable issues such as this, when the weight of morality weighs differently on each person, the logic of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" prevails.

As for your numerical list, I can help with a few of those as well.


1) Any evil sapient has a Need to be dead.
This is just not true. Any sapient has a Need to be alive. If an evil sapient has a need to be dead, then nothing is being outweighed.


2) Any non-evil sapient has a Need to be alive.
Again, any sapient has a Need to be alive. the many is a neutral entity, being comprised of everyone. An evil sapient presents a danger to the general populace, whether by violence, theft, or any other act which harms others in any way.

In this case, you would rather state "the needs of the many (to be alive) outweigh the needs of the few (to be alive)." Which in the case of a mostly good-to-neutral many and an evil few, seems perfectly logical.


3) There are no other moral issues in question in any way.
Again with the fun of a mostly greyscale morality. Yes, other moral issues would definitely impact the equation, but the extent and weight it would extert again would depend on how different people perceive it, much as how you and I each perceive V's actions in greatly varying degrees of wrong.

[Peelee]

You missed the whole point of that scene. Spock chose to sacrifice himself. That is what makes it a noble sacrifice. He didn't order some random redshirt to go in and shut down the reactor. He made the choice and took the consequences upon himself. Letting the consequences fall upon other people, not so much noble.

I was answering another person who specifically asked if the sacrifice a small amount of others in order to benefit the rest would still be applicable if directed at family, friends, or self. I used this an an example to show that, yes, it is. It is noble, as you stated. This has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[The_Weirdo]

We're discussing in general terms, and sometime, few must be sacrificed for the many. What do you think generals do, when they plan battles? Or medic personnel, doing triage?

However, "good" is different from "necessary", and even the mentioned cases, don't apply to Tarquin's way of life, if not in a very hypocrite way.
But this is a moral discussion, and we should avoid it. :smallwink:

First of all, I wish to point out that cultural differences and views towards the Military likely stem from our different locations and places of birth.

Let me put it this way: Because the most "visible" generals I know of were very much like Tarquin (his archetype is so popular for a reason), I view generals (and armies) with immense distrust.

Medical personnel are accepting they can't help everyone. Generals aren't, they're deciding which innocents they kill and which they let live for the sake of, usually, some arbitrary, idiotic ideological concept.

My whole point, anyways, was as follows: Feel free to apply that "some innocents are a small price for the sake of X" philosophy to the world - hey, I know I MYSELF often do - but you will then lose your right to be too surprised if people apply it to you.

[Math_Mage]

Second, I am sure that someone (quite likely you, but I could be surprised) will take issue with how I rephrased that. This is because morality is not a hard and fast, easily codified issue. Yes, there are things that are blatantly on one side or the other of the spectrum, but too many issues are in the grey. Nobody has ever been able to look at an act and judge it on a moral-o-meter, with everyone else in agreement, and it is highly implausible anyone ever will. As such, in questionable issues such as this, when the weight of morality weighs differently on each person, the logic of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" prevails.

Did you just use the complexity of the moral issue to absolve yourself of actually needing to make an argument? Because to me, this looks like "Morality is difficult, therefore I'm right."

[Peelee]

Did you just use the complexity of the moral issue to absolve yourself of actually needing to make an argument? Because to me, this looks like "Morality is difficult, therefore I'm right."

More like "My morality is not Kish's morality, neither of us will convince each other the other is more correct." Unless you'd like to say that trying to convince each other would be a productive use of our time.

EDIT: I retract all else I have said in this thread.

[The_Weirdo]

More like "My morality is not Kish's morality, neither of us will convince each other the other is more correct." Unless you'd like to say that trying to convince each other would be a productive use of our time.

Well, it wouldn't, but are we especially busy at the moment? :smalltongue:

[willpell]

I for one would see medical triage vs. generals sending soldiers to get killed as very much an apples and oranges comparison, but I'd probably better not get into it past that.

[Bulldog Psion]

I disagree. V is not guilty, as I understand her thinking, for taking the power and killing the Ancient Black Dragon attacking her family. Nor do I think she should be beyond recognizing that bargaining with the devils was a dangerous decision. At no point in V's analysis of this is it in doubt that killing the Ancient Black Dragon was the right thing to do, and had V simply teleported in, obliterated it, and gone straight to "I still have to fix everything", I would consider this course of action the best of two bad ones available to V through circumstances she would not have been able to reasonably see coming.

V doesn't think it was outside her rights to kill the hell out of that dragon to save her family, and I agree with her 100%. What she DOES think, correctly in my view, is that she should never have thought she had any right to judge so many she had never met and never would meet by casting Familicide afterwards.

I think in the same circumstances, V would still have taken the soul splice, because there was no other plan that would possibly work quickly enough to stop the dragon from brutally murdering her children before anyone got there. If literally ANYTHING went wrong, and things ALWAYS go wrong when the Order has to scramble, a fate considerably worse than death awaited V's entire family. The genocidal spell V cast is the cause of her guilt, and that is what should be the cause of her guilt; I still argue this is the only truly Evil action V performed under the Soul Splice.

I agree with this analysis 100%. There was nothing prior to the word "Familicide" that was evil in V's actions, and nothing afterwards, either. That one spell was the limit of it.

Mind you, it's a massive, massive blot, but I don't think a single point of karma was lost on butchering that ancient black dragon.

[The Giant]

Voice of Mod: I realize the subject matter of this strip leans in this direction, but let's try to stay away from the "morally justified" arguments if we can—and definitely stay away from real-world analogues or references. Consider this a friendly warning for the whole thread. Thanks.

[Chaotic Queen]

Poor Vaarsuvius. She really needs a hug.

[oddtail]

I don't think it'll happen, but as V's realisation kinda reminds me of how goblins/hobgoblins are treated in the OotS-verse, I think it would be cool if V's redemption somehow involved him using his powers, at some point in the future, to help forge peace between goblins/hobgoblins and non-monster races.

It would be great because 1) it'd be the opposite of V's crime, and 2) it'd give goblins a happy ending without proving Redcloak and his evil methods to be right for goblins.

Granted, it's an unlikely possibility, but I'm mentioning it for the remote chance of being able to say "called it!" a few years from now ;). And, as is most probable, if it does not happen, I still think it's an interesting idea to share with the forum.

[pendell]

Well I for one protest the title of this strip as "complex mathematics". So far as I can tell, neither i nor negative numbers are referenced anywhere at all in it. Unless it is the fact that the strip, referring to imaginary events , means that all numbers are also imaginary and therefore ALL math in the strip is complex...?

....

I may be over-thinking this.

*Goes off to ponder the philosophical conundrum of applying real numbers to an imaginary world*

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[VanBuren]

Well I for one protest the title of this strip as "complex mathematics". So far as I can tell, neither i nor negative numbers are referenced anywhere at all in it. Unless it is the fact that the strip, referring to imaginary events , means that all numbers are also imaginary and therefore ALL math in the strip is complex...?

....

I may be over-thinking this.

*Goes off to ponder the philosophical conundrum of applying real numbers to an imaginary world*

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Maybe it's complex in that proper cold calculus requires knowledge of variables that simply cannot be known.

It's like an equation where you could simply never find x.

[Holy_Knight]

I'd be somewhat surprised if Elan is capable of putting his advice in terms that would be meaningful to V, but it would be nice to see him try even if he's utterly inept for the task. In theory, he claimed way back in the prologue that a bard's job in the dungeon was to lift people's spirits and help them fight off despair; he's done that for Haley aplenty, but pretty much nobody else has shown any appreciation for his efforts in that vein (neither of the two LGs especially likes Elan...which I think is too bad, because if Durkon was fond of him it would make a nice contrast with Roy...and Belkar shares a sense of humor with Elan but even that doesn't count for much in his book). So if Elan did manage to massively cheer up the one member of the group who badly needs it, it'd be rather a crowning moment.

From the same source you quote below: "When V denigrates her [Therkla] so soon after her death - a death Elan feels the he could have prevented - a line is crossed. Elan, who once dressed up as a wizard to be more like Vaarsuvius, wants nothing more to do with him/her. His loyalty to V is broken in that moment, an V leaves soon after." They don't exactly kiss and make up in their next meeting either. The next words Elan says to V in strip #648 - two strips after they first appeared on-panel together - are "Hey, just because you don't care about something doesn't mean no one else does." He hasn't forgotten Therkla or forgiven V her words. He's spent the last arc ignoring V in favor of his own character development, which has been proceeding on an entirely different track. Elan is not going to help V.
I think you guys are wrong about the amiability between other party members and Elan here. Durkon called Elan the heart and soul of the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), and I don't recall anything that suggests he doesn't like him. In the same strip, Vaarsuvius talks about his "hard-earned friendship" with Elan. While Roy doesn't like Elan at first, it seems to me that by now he's grown begrudgingly fond of him, and probably even sees him in terms of the older brother/younger brother relationship in which Elan always perceived him. Yes, he still finds him annoying in a lot of ways (and who doesn't think that about a younger sibling?) but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about him. As recently as 836, Roy told Elan: "But I think in your case, maybe it's better to find that sense of family among people that are good than it is to try to find a sense of good inside your family." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html) While he doesn't directly say so, these words suggest to me that Roy is including himself in that statement. As far as Elan himself goes, he has always been characterized wanting to get along with everybody and thinking the best about people. I would be very surprised if he weren't open to being friends with V again, especially if V were making a deliberate effort to be a better friend himself.

[Tragak]

Maybe it's complex in that proper cold calculus requires knowledge of variables that simply cannot be known.

It's like an equation where you could simply never find x.

Or maybe it just means colloquially "complicated" instead of literally "two-dimensional"?

[deimos3428]

Well I for one protest the title of this strip as "complex mathematics". So far as I can tell, neither i nor negative numbers are referenced anywhere at all in it. Unless it is the fact that the strip, referring to imaginary events , means that all numbers are also imaginary and therefore ALL math in the strip is complex...?

....

I may be over-thinking this.

*Goes off to ponder the philosophical conundrum of applying real numbers to an imaginary world*

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.
Maybe going over all the mathematics involved has given V a complex. ;)

[Majiy]

Blackwing, Helful friend and Adviser, in Training :smallamused:

I wonder if V will stumble over Malak.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think you guys are wrong about the amiability between other party members and Elan here. Durkon called Elan the heart and soul of the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), and I don't recall anything that suggests he doesn't like him. In the same strip, Vaarsuvius talks about his "hard-earned friendship" with Elan. While Roy doesn't like Elan at first, it seems to me that by now he's grown begrudgingly fond of him, and probably even sees him in terms of the older brother/younger brother relationship in which Elan always perceived him. Yes, he still finds him annoying in a lot of ways (and who doesn't think that about a younger sibling?) but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about him. As recently as 836, Roy told Elan: "But I think in your case, maybe it's better to find that sense of family among people that are good than it is to try to find a sense of good inside your family." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html) While he doesn't directly say so, these words suggest to me that Roy is including himself in that statement. As far as Elan himself goes, he has always been characterized wanting to get along with everybody and thinking the best about people. I would be very surprised if he weren't open to being friends with V again, especially if V were making a deliberate effort to be a better friend himself.
Apart from strip #836, all your references are from a very early part of the story, well before V "crosses the line" and Elan finds "he wants nothing more to do with him/her". That is very strong language and I don't think it can be dismissed so casually and on the basis of so little evidence. Indeed, I think the evidence tends the other way. In strip #664, the first strip where Elan interacts with V after the soul splice has ended, his first impulse is to snark at V's expense while V is paralyzed and can't defend herself. The next time Elan refers to V at all is ten strips later in strip #674, and he doesn't even talk with V directly, preferring again to make fun of her to the others. Another ten strips go by in which V and Elan don't interact at all, though by strip #684 Elan is at least barely polite to V.

Almost another ten strips go by with no further interaction, then in strip #693 V dismissively calls Elan "the bard" in the same breath as she refers to Roy and Durkon by the respectful titles only she uses. Both V and Elan are involved in the ensuing conversation, but neither speaks to the other, both preferring to direct their words towards Roy. In strip #696 V pans Elan's spelling and grammar, and Elan retaliates by literally talking through V to Haley as if V was not there. Then in strip #698 they go back to ignoring each other and talking to Roy.

By strip #712 they're speaking to each other again, though V vents at Elan and pans his suggested plan of action. Elan cures V's poison, then seems to take it personally when V doesn't get up. V, ever so thankful, dismisses Elan's ability to save them from Enor. In strip #718 Elan isn't terribly remorseful at what he assumes is V's death, while V takes the opportunity to call him an "imbecile". In strip #721 Elan helps Haley carry V, but he's clearly just following Haley's lead because he drops her a strip later and is much more concerned about Haley. In strip #726 V laments Elan's low attention span. In strip #747 she dismisses his ethical concerns about the food and makes another crack about Elan's intelligence while Elan ignores her. They both ignore each other in strip #764, then again in strip #775. In strip #776, Elan has other things on his mind besides V, who makes another crack at his expense.

Strip #790 is interesting because it marks the first time Elan has actually spoken to V, rather than being the butt of one of V's jokes, for some time. He initially ascribes the worst motives to V, accusing her of wanting to separate him and Haley. Only after he is assured that he won't have to does he think of V's safety, and is clearly troubled by the fact that he does so. In strip #795 he uses V's plight to escape focus the attention away from his own and in so doing sentences V to a vitriolic sphere to the face. By strip #818 V is so far from Elan's concerns that he "forgets to forget" about her, though once he's reminded of her his immediate thought is that she'll "go all crackly-skinned again".

To be honest I started skipping ahead at this point because the archive-trawling was getting boring, but the last time we see Elan and V together is in strip #843, where Elan does express some concern for V's well-being.

Overall the impression I get is that when Elan thinks about V at all, the strongest impressions he has of her are of her fall. He fears her relapsing into, as he puts it, crackly-skinnedness, but his solution is not to reach out to her but to push her away. V, meanwhile, is a snarky jerkass towards him.

[Kish]

I do not believe Spock's answer would be any different.

Ree-ally. You are aware, are you not, that Vulcans are pacifists?


As for your numerical list, I can help with a few of those as well.

You do not seem to have processed anything except "there's a numerical list there" about it.

It doesn't matter that you disagree with my morality. It might matter that you disagree with Rich's morality, for what you see and expect to see in Rich's writing. fwiffo has been complaining that Vaarsuvius rejected combining a strictly-utilitarian "a world with fewer black dragons is better for the non-black-dragon majority" compass with, "listed alignment is Chaotic Evil equals race is legitimate target." I do not believe anyone has the right to act surprised by Rich's failure to endorse that concept at this late date.

[Xelbiuj]

I wonder if V will stumble over Malak.

She doesn't even know they attacked the Order either. Not they she couldn't figure out his intent but it really gives him a tactic advantage.

[RNGgod]

Here's where we part ways. Until strip #843, V could not seek redemption because she did not recognize that there was anything for which she needed redeeming. Sure, she recognized that she needed reform way back in strip #667. She asked others - Blackwing - to reform her. When that failed, as it inevitably must, she attempted - and succeeded at - self-control and taking responsibility, though always for some secondary or tertiary concern. Even until strip #865, her recognition was incomplete. Now it is complete. That's not a slight against Rich's writing. I think Rich pulled off a gradual anagnorisis masterfully. What I'm saying is that V gets no credit for that anagnorisis until now, because until now it was not complete, and that that credit itself doesn't go terribly far towards redemption. Furthermore, as pendell points out and as I tried to allude to, that is not the only arc V can take from this point.


And I agree with you. I'm just saying that there are some people who didn't consider #843 to be important at all, and did accuse Rich of ignoring the deaths of dragons.

[zimmerwald1915]

And I agree with you. I'm just saying that there are some people who didn't consider #843 to be important at all, and did accuse Rich of ignoring the deaths of dragons.
Well, its not unreasonable to say "I believe V will only go so far, and here's why" in the moment. At the time of strip #843, it was not at all obvious that V would make the connection she made in this strip, and there were reasons to believe she would not, including the prevalent attitude among characters-who-are-not-Roy towards non-PHB races. That's what I mean about the anagnorisis not having a clear through-line: this strip was not the only and inevitable consequence of all that had come before. What would be unreasonable is continuing to hold such a position at this point.

At no point, of course, is it reasonable to accuse Rich of being a bad writer or ignoring plot elements when he's clearly shown his pacing chops in various arcs including V's last major arc, but I don't recall anyone making that argument.

[Peelee]

Ree-ally. You are aware, are you not, that Vulcans are pacifists?

You do not seem to have processed anything except "there's a numerical list there" about it.

It doesn't matter that you disagree with my morality. It might matter that you disagree with Rich's morality, for what you see and expect to see in Rich's writing. fwiffo has been complaining that Vaarsuvius rejected combining a strictly-utilitarian "a world with fewer black dragons is better for the non-black-dragon majority" compass with, "listed alignment is Chaotic Evil equals race is legitimate target." I do not believe anyone has the right to act surprised by Rich's failure to endorse that concept at this late date.
Let me reiterate.

EDIT: I retract all else I have said in this thread.

[rewinn]

Briefly I wondered why Blackwing got distracted from the serious business of talking sense into V, until I realized: Math is a shiny bauble!


Well I for one protest the title of this strip as "complex mathematics". So far as I can tell, neither i nor negative numbers are referenced anywhere at all in it....

OK,it's a stretch, but Panel 2: "I have had time to think. I await the abomination ..."

What kind of attitude does this indicate?

I times I = a negative one!

[shylocxs]

As a philosopher... all I can say is nice strip!

Keep taking it easy, though... we're patient and appreciative.

[Holy_Knight]

Apart from strip #836, all your references are from a very early part of the story, well before V "crosses the line" and Elan finds "he wants nothing more to do with him/her". That is very strong language and I don't think it can be dismissed so casually and on the basis of so little evidence. Indeed, I think the evidence tends the other way. In strip #664, the first strip where Elan interacts with V after the soul splice has ended, his first impulse is to snark at V's expense while V is paralyzed and can't defend herself. The next time Elan refers to V at all is ten strips later in strip #674, and he doesn't even talk with V directly, preferring again to make fun of her to the others. Another ten strips go by in which V and Elan don't interact at all, though by strip #684 Elan is at least barely polite to V.

Almost another ten strips go by with no further interaction, then in strip #693 V dismissively calls Elan "the bard" in the same breath as she refers to Roy and Durkon by the respectful titles only she uses. Both V and Elan are involved in the ensuing conversation, but neither speaks to the other, both preferring to direct their words towards Roy. In strip #696 V pans Elan's spelling and grammar, and Elan retaliates by literally talking through V to Haley as if V was not there. Then in strip #698 they go back to ignoring each other and talking to Roy.

By strip #712 they're speaking to each other again, though V vents at Elan and pans his suggested plan of action. Elan cures V's poison, then seems to take it personally when V doesn't get up. V, ever so thankful, dismisses Elan's ability to save them from Enor. In strip #718 Elan isn't terribly remorseful at what he assumes is V's death, while V takes the opportunity to call him an "imbecile". In strip #721 Elan helps Haley carry V, but he's clearly just following Haley's lead because he drops her a strip later and is much more concerned about Haley. In strip #726 V laments Elan's low attention span. In strip #747 she dismisses his ethical concerns about the food and makes another crack about Elan's intelligence while Elan ignores her. They both ignore each other in strip #764, then again in strip #775. In strip #776, Elan has other things on his mind besides V, who makes another crack at his expense.

Strip #790 is interesting because it marks the first time Elan has actually spoken to V, rather than being the butt of one of V's jokes, for some time. He initially ascribes the worst motives to V, accusing her of wanting to separate him and Haley. Only after he is assured that he won't have to does he think of V's safety, and is clearly troubled by the fact that he does so. In strip #795 he uses V's plight to escape focus the attention away from his own and in so doing sentences V to a vitriolic sphere to the face. By strip #818 V is so far from Elan's concerns that he "forgets to forget" about her, though once he's reminded of her his immediate thought is that she'll "go all crackly-skinned again".

To be honest I started skipping ahead at this point because the archive-trawling was getting boring, but the last time we see Elan and V together is in strip #843, where Elan does express some concern for V's well-being.

Overall the impression I get is that when Elan thinks about V at all, the strongest impressions he has of her are of her fall. He fears her relapsing into, as he puts it, crackly-skinnedness, but his solution is not to reach out to her but to push her away. V, meanwhile, is a snarky jerkass towards him.
"All my references" were not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather some key moments. And yes, the ones I mentioned were near the beginning of the story, because they show the original patterns of their relationship. Elan looked up to V, despite the latter's general lack of tact and poor interpersonal skills, and V considered Elan a friend, despite Elan's silliness and low intellectual acumen. So that's the starting point for analyzing their interactions subsequent to their huge falling out. The question then becomes: Given what we know of Elan's character, is he likely to be amenable to reconciling with V? As I stated before, Elan is by nature friendly, forgiving, and wanting everyone to get along. So, provided that V truly seemed to want to mend fences and be a better person, it would be surprising if Elan were unwilling to become friends with him again.

As to your specific examples, I'll start by saying that while it seems like a long time to us, V's return was only about two weeks ago, in-comic. Reconciliation takes time, so the fact that there may be lingering tension between Elan and Vaarsuvius is to be expected. As such, you seem to be over-weighting the amount of evidence you claim for your position. That being said, I also think you're reading some things into those strips that aren't necessarily there. For example:

#664 - Yes, Elan makes a quip about V not being patient. Not exactly scathing.

#674 - You read this as Elan mocking V to the others. To me it looks more like Elan simply wanting to join in the fun of having a pretend bird familiar, just like V does.

#684 - "Barely polite"? What I read is: (1) a compliment ("Great job, V!") and (2) an enthusiastic suggestion to keep working together ("Let's go after the rest!")

#693 - Yes, V refers to Elan as "the bard". However, that's what he pretty much always did before, too, so I don't see it as any more dismissive than he used to be. Also, it's incorrect that neither V nor Elan speaks to each other. In panel seven, Vaarsuvius responds directly to Elan's silly speculation, and is surprisingly non-dismissive, instead merely stating that those possibilities are unlikely due to the school of magic used in the inactive spell.

#696 - Merely acknowledging that the message needs proofing isn't really "panning" Elan's grammar or spelling, and Elan doesn't talk "through" V--Haley had spoken to him, so she's the one to whom he responds. More significantly, notice that V says "I have prepared a visual warning", but the warning was actually written by Elan--demonstrating that the two of them are actually working together.

#698 - Elan and V do not talk to each other, but neither is there anything to suggest that they are ignoring each other. In fact, almost all of the lines in that strip are directed toward Roy instead of between two other characters, but that isn't evidence that any of the other characters are ignoring each other.

#712 - Elan starts by directly talking to V, then they disagree in a non-hostile way about what to do. Elan's irritation that V isn't getting up isn't directed at V himself, it's him being annoyed because he thought the spell should have cured him more thoroughly than it had. V ends by stating that on a philosophical level, it was better for Haley to save Elan than to have let Elan get hit and preserve V.

#718 - I'm really not sure where you're coming from on this "no remorse" thing. Elan believes that he, Haley, and Vaarsuvius are all dead, and appears sad about it. Yes, V does call Elan an "imbecile".

#721/722 - Elan continues to hold Vaarsuvius even after Haley is defenestrated, only dropping him when he has to draw his sword to fight.

#726 - V makes a quip about the appeal of dinosaurs. This doesn't seem to be a comment on Elan's attention span, nor, even if it were, particularly a criticism of Elan personally.

#747 - You read V's "spices" comment as dismissive, but it's unclear that it is. Someone might similarly say to a vegan something like: "I think these vegetables are okay for you, but I can't be positive the chef didn't use some of the meat broth as flavoring." I'm not sure where V is supposed to insult Elan's intelligence here, unless you're saying it's the line where he could research a spell. That seems at most ambiguous.

#764 - Two groups of people having separate conversations does not constitute their members intentionally ignoring ech other. Especially when one group contains someone who you may not be able to trust, and the topic of conversation is how untrustworthy that person's close confederate is.

#775 - Elan and V do not interact in this strip, but again, it would be reading into it to suggest that this indicates they are actively ignoring each other. Especially since, as we've seen, there are plenty of other strips around this time when they are definitely not ignoring each other.

#776 - The crack V makes is an observation shared by multiple characters about Elan, and does not seem particularly vindictive.

#790 - As we've see, Elan and V have actually spoken to each other on a friendly level a fair number of times prior to this. What you call Elan "ascribing the worst motives" to V is simply Elan recalling the horror of leaving Haley behind in Azure City and reacting accordingly. Then, Elan not only balks at leaving V behind now, he still hesitates to leave him even with V assuring him that he'll be all right. This strongly suggests that Elan cares a lot about V and is back to thinking of him as a friend, despite the differences they have had.

#795 - You're interpreting Elan hoping the others are OK and thus the scene changing as making him responsible for V getting hit with a spell? This is a stretch.

#818 - Elan is distracted enough to forget V momentarily, and then expresses a concern about him going "crackly-skinned", yes--because he doesn't want V to go through that again.

#843 - As you stated, Elan expresses concern for V's well-being here. I'll add that in #853, as the party is retreating Elan is the one to bring up Vaarsuvius and is obviously worried about him.

So there you have it. Going through these other examples, the evidence is actually quite strong that Elan and Vaarsuvius are reconciling, and certainly that Elan is willing to do so and once again considers V a friend.

[Tragak]

Plus, to everybody who argues that killing maybe hundreds of thousands of evil dragons is worth killing at least thousands of good dragons:

What about all of the mostly-humans that died? Did V do the right thing by killing them before any dragons could kill them?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Plus, to everybody who argues that killing maybe hundreds of thousands of evil dragons is worth killing at least thousands of good dragons:

What about all of the mostly-humans that died? Did V do the right thing by killing them before any dragons could kill them?

Killing all the dragon blooded humans was definitely what pushed it from "iffy" to "really evil". For me, at least.

However at least that part was an accident on V's part which makes it more along the lines of gross negligence and manslaughter than murder. Still inexcusable, but slightly less so than if she deliberately pulled the trigger knowing full well that it'd wipe out large numbers of people along with the dragons.

[JennTora]

Human or dragon doesn't matter, good shows concern for lives and dignity of sentient beings, casting familicide was the opposite, the opposite of evil is good, therefore familicide was an evil act.

[Kish]

Killing all the dragon blooded humans was definitely what pushed it from "iffy" to "really evil". For me, at least.
That's "for some forum posters, at most." As far as the author and thus the intended purpose goes:
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.
It wouldn't have been less evil had there not been part-humans involved. Though, I think Rich's message would have been stronger had he left out the part-humans, precisely because of it being possible to take the position you are as it stands.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That's "for some forum posters, at most." As far as the author and thus the intended purpose goes:

I'm well aware. That's why I made sure to include "for me" in there.


It wouldn't have been less evil had there not been part-humans involved. Though, I think Rich's message would have been stronger had he left out the part-humans, precisely because of it being possible to take the position you are as it stands.

That's debatable (not that I feel inclined to debate it). I am well aware of Rich's intent behind all of this but I am also free to disagree with him if I so please. Though yes I do agree that his attempted point would have been made more strongly if only dragons had been affected.

[M.A.D]

I'm surprised none of the Elan/V relationship discussion posts up there had mentioned #663, which I think is thrice more crucial than #664 in describing Elan's attitude towards Vaarsuvius.

:elan: You're alive! And less scary!

Judging by what he's saying, at that moment, Elan no longer saw V as a person that he "doesn't want to have anything to do with" anymore, but rather a comrade whom he was glad had returned alive to them. No matter what kind of resentment he had against V before then, it would have been cancelled out already.

And may I add that the ones who still think that there's a crack between Elan and V's relationship are reading waaaaay to much into it. The way I see it, Elan was still the goofy bard he was before, and V was still the deadpan snarker that we all knew. If you guys really compare their banters objectively before and after V's fallout with Elan, you'll see that nothing had actually changed. V had always thought that Elan was an incompetent clown, and Elan has always been... well, Elan.

[The_Weirdo]

I'm well aware. That's why I made sure to include "for me" in there.



That's debatable (not that I feel inclined to debate it). I am well aware of Rich's intent behind all of this but I am also free to disagree with him if I so please. Though yes I do agree that his attempted point would have been made more strongly if only dragons had been affected.

Question. If you kill off a race of sentient beings on account of 95% of them murdering innocents and - so as to get to these 95% - kill, in the process, the 5% of INNOCENTS in that race...

...what does that make you?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Question. If you kill off a race of sentient beings on account of 95% of them murdering innocents and - so as to get to these 95% - kill, in the process, the 5% of INNOCENTS in that race...

...what does that make you?

A utilitarian?

In any case I object to the 5% label. To me, at least, "Always Chaotic Evil" means "In the history of this race there might possibly be one or two dragons who aren't vicious murderous greedy bastards".

Always doesn't mean "always" but it does mean damn close to always. At least how I interpret it. As far as I'm concerned V "probably" didn't kill a single non-evil dragon and if she did it almost certainly wouldn't have been more than one.

[stsasser]

I was steeling myself to not expect multiple additional updates until maybe March or April.

AWESOME!

and thank you, Giant.

[Kish]

A utilitarian?
You seem to be blurring between alignments and real-world philosophical systems here.

We cannot discuss the validity of real-world philosophies here. What alignment would you consider the murdered-many-innocents-as-collateral-damage person to be? You pretty much have to declare him/her nonevil, or, by your argument, s/he is not only a valid target for someone else like him/her, but 95 people like him/her in a crowd of 100 justifies the slaughter of the crowd. Yet I cannot see any way, reading a D&D book, to consider the six nonevil alignments even on the table.

(Your house interpretations of black dragon alignment aside--okay, I get that a random black dragon in your game has no chance of being any alignment other than Chaotic Evil, whatever that means to you. If I was at all likely to be playing in your game in the future I would appreciate the warning, as I hope you appreciate the converse warning from me that you would have no such guarantee in my game. But it's not relevant to OotS.)

[Koo Rehtorb]

You seem to be blurring between alignments and real-world philosophical systems here.

Fair enough.


What alignment would you consider the murdered-many-innocents-as-collateral-damage person to be?

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Well you have to define "innocent" for this. I would say an "always chaotic evil" creature is not "innocent" in any traditional sense of the word. While it is -possible- for one to rise above this, it is unlikely to the point of absurdity.

I would consider Familicide (without the humans, half-dragons, etc) to range anywhere from LN to CE depending on motivations. V's motivation (revenge, lust for showing off arcane power) was probably on the south side of neutral, but it doesn't have to be.

[Koo Rehtorb]

(Your house interpretations of black dragon alignment aside--okay, I get that a random black dragon in your game has no chance of being any alignment other than Chaotic Evil, whatever that means to you. If I was at all likely to be playing in your game in the future I would appreciate the warning, as I hope you appreciate the converse warning from me that you would have no such guarantee in my game. But it's not relevant to OotS.)

Now hang on. I didn't say no chance. I said a vanishingly small chance which I think is consistent with the "always" title. And certainly if Rich interprets this as "maybe a 90% chance of chaotic evil" then that's his right and I will happily concede that it was indeed an extremely evil thing to do.

[Kish]

I would say an "always chaotic evil" creature is not "innocent" in any traditional sense of the word.
Fellow, again, your house interpretation of D&D rules doesn't matter here. Yes, you ignore the Monster Manual and treat "always X alignment" as meaning "the dictionary definition of always." I get it. It doesn't matter to anything but your game. You can maintain that black dragons are the-dictionary-meaning-of-Always-Chaotic-Evil in OotS, as you can respond when your DM introduces a succubus paladin with, "Nuh-uh not legitimate I will not engage!" as you can maintain that Nale is the real hero of the comic, if you're sufficiently determined to, I suppose, but it won't result in your arguments being even related to the comic the rest of us are reading.

I'd still like an answer to my question: What alignment is someone who gunned down 5 nonevils to kill 95 known evils?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Fellow, again, your house interpretation of D&D rules doesn't matter here. Yes, you ignore the Monster Manual and treat "always X alignment" as meaning "the dictionary definition of always."

I have said twice now that I do not treat always as "always". It is "almost always." Do you have an actual link to percentages to settle this with?

[ti'esar]

Virtually everything I've wanted to say about this strip has been said already, so I'll just address one thing that hasn't:


Though, I think Rich's message would have been stronger had he left out the part-humans, precisely because of it being possible to take the position you are as it stands.


Though yes I do agree that his attempted point would have been made more strongly if only dragons had been affected.

As far as the Giant's message goes... perhaps. I personally suspect that the people who disagree with him on this would still do so without that "loophole", but that's not really important.

However, in regards to what I'd consider the more important aspect of this arc - V's personal journey - I believe the existence of non-draconic victims of Familicide was absolutely necessary.

[Kish]

I have said twice now that I do not treat always as "always".

You did. You also said, "I would say an "always chaotic evil" creature is not "innocent" in any traditional sense of the word."

No exceptions there. So even a Lawful Good creature, if its species is "Always Chaotic Evil," is "not innocent in any traditional sense of the word."

You also said, "While it is -possible- for one to rise above this, it is unlikely to the point of absurdity." Which, not to put too fine a point on it, looks to me like, having conceded that "always" doesn't mean "always" in deference to the Monster Manual, then effectively legislating it back to "always"--"Of course it's possible for a black dragon to be something other than Chaotic Evil! The possibility is just absurd, but absurd doesn't mean impossible, just close enough to impossible that anyone casting a spell to mass slaughter black dragons can safely ignore it!"
If I answer your question about percentages, will you finally answer mine?


However, in regards to what I'd consider the more important aspect of this arc - V's personal journey - I believe the existence of non-draconic victims of Familicide was absolutely necessary.
If that is true, it would seem to indicate that Vaarsuvius would never have realized s/he did anything wrong without having it rubbed in his/her face that it hit mostly-humans.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You did. You also said, "I would say an "always chaotic evil" creature is not "innocent" in any traditional sense of the word."

Ah I see the misunderstanding. I sort of compressed the thought into one phrase. "An always chaotic evil creature who is chaotic evil is not innocent in any traditional sense of the word."

I used it to express the meaning that an "always chaotic evil" creature is a worse flavour of evil than your average humanoid who happens to be evil too.

Wiping out hundreds of evil people is completely unreasonable because most of them are still going to be a flavour of evil that doesn't deserve a summary execution. However evil dragons are more strongly evil than a majority of humanoids.

[Tobimaro]

Blackwing, you are not helping here! Get V to fight the Linear Guild, not V's conscience. :smallsigh:

[Kish]

I used it to express the meaning that an "always chaotic evil" creature is a worse flavour of evil than your average humanoid who happens to be evil too.
This is yet another of your house rules. From the comic I would say it's insupportable; who is more evil, the two black dragons we met or Xykon?
Enor or Nale?

[Koo Rehtorb]

and no answer to my question, still.

If you keep editing things into your posts after I've already read them then I'm going to miss them, dude. Perhaps it would be better to repost them.


I'd still like an answer to my question: What alignment is someone who gunned down 5 nonevils to kill 95 known evils?

I take it from the wording that "always" traditionally means 95%.

I would say that it depends upon context. If those 95 evils are nefarious supervillains who are using the 5 non-evils as human shields so that they can launch their doomsday device to kill 50,000 more people and there's absolutely no way to stop them without killing everyone then I wouldn't say that's an inherently evil action to take. I would, in fact, say that refusing to take on that burden because it's a really unpleasant thing to have to do would be completely irresponsible.

[ti'esar]

If that is true, it would seem to indicate that Vaarsuvius would never have realized s/he did anything wrong without having it rubbed in his/her face that it hit mostly-humans.

I think that might well be correct - there's no indication V had really given a second thought about Familicide as such until discovering its wider effects.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is yet another of your house rules. From the comic I would say it's insupportable; who is more evil, the two black dragons we met or Xykon?
Enor or Nale?

I did say average humanoid. Xykon is decidedly not average, (nor is he humanoid any more).

Are you really contesting the fact that a black dragon is probably going to be more evil than a greedy evil human pickpocket?

[Kish]

I take it from the wording that "always" traditionally means 95%.

No. "Always" officially means only "almost always." One DM may interpret that to mean 95%, another may interpret it to mean 100% with a footnote that says "but it's an absurd possibility one might be different. Ha ha."


I would say that it depends upon context.

Why are you dancing around the question? You know what Vaarsuvius' context was. S/he blasted the dragons without a second thought for what they were doing. Neither The_Weirdo nor I posited scenarios where 95 murderers were using 5 innocents as human shields, nor where there was a doomsday weapon. The fact that you're dodging around the question and making up and answering all sorts of questions that are sort of like it while avoiding it just makes it look like you really can't deal with the answer to the actual question.


Are you really contesting the fact that a black dragon is probably going to be more evil than a greedy evil human pickpocket?
I am contesting your right to cherry-pick your examples. If you pick a human pickpocket who is greedy and just barely qualifies to be chaotic evil but has never killed someone* and a black dragon who sadistically terrorizes everyone for thousands of miles around, you've supported--based on a sample size of two--"Chaotic Evil creatures of Always Chaotic Evil species are more evil than Chaotic Evil members of no-specific-alignment species." If you pick Xykon and any creature of an Always Chaotic Evil species in the comic where he exists, you've supported--based on a sample size of two--"creatures of no-specific-alignment species, when they are chaotic evil, are more evil than Chaotic Evil creatures of Always Chaotic Evil species." No, in D&D--and in OotS--you don't have official support for "evil means more evil if it's an Always Evil species." A Chaotic Evil black dragon can be anywhere on the range from a barely-Chaotic Evil tavern bully to Xykon, and if you know that 100 specific black dragons are Chaotic Evil, that means you know they're at least as bad as that tavern bully, nothing more. "Always Chaotic Evil" does not mean, suggest, or imply "Always worse than a human."

*Assuming that Rich would classify such a person as Chaotic Evil to begin with. Which, going by examples--such as Haley--I would guess that he wouldn't, myself.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No. "Always" officially means only "almost always." One DM may interpret that to mean 95%, another may interpret it to mean 100% with a footnote that says "but it's an absurd possibility one might be different. Ha ha."

Then in that case I respectfully suggest that you don't know just how frequent evil dragons are in OOTS any more than I do, unless Rich posted some numbers somewhere that I am unaware of. If he comes out and says that to him "always evil" means maybe 90% evil then fair enough. Same goes if he discarded the "always evil" tag entirely which is certainly within his right to do.

Personally, though, I would say that Rich seems like a guy who would stick very close to the "always chaotic evil" title because OOTS is specifically intended to shine a light on this sort of gamer culture and show the flaws with it. Making black dragons just like humans only dragons would undermine the message he's trying to relay that killing evil dragons for being evil isn't ok. Sure, killing a bunch of LG black dragons would be hideously evil, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.


Why are you dancing around the question?

I don't think I was. I was making the situation a bit more direct. In V's case, those black dragons would absolutely have killed many people and Familicide was the only realistic way for V to ensure that none of them would get to kill anyone. Now I don't think that was V's motivation at all, it was an excuse at best and her real concern was revenge and indulgence in her newfound arcane power.

But I do think that it is possible for someone to make that sort of calculation that using the spell would save a few orders of magnitude more innocent beings than not using it and come to the decision that, as unpleasant as it might be, using it is acceptable. (if the mechanics of Familicide were modified anyway).

So if you're asking specifically, V's use and intent of the spell were both evil. That doesn't mean her intent had to have been.

[Koo Rehtorb]

A Chaotic Evil black dragon can be anywhere on the range from a barely-Chaotic Evil tavern bully to Xykon, and if you know that 100 specific black dragons are Chaotic Evil, that means you know they're at least as bad as that tavern bully, nothing more. "Always Chaotic Evil" does not mean, suggest, or imply "Always worse than a human."

No. I don't agree with this. Here's the direct SRD quotes regarding black dragons.


Chromatic dragons form the evil branch of dragonkind. They are aggressive, greedy, vain, and nasty.

Black dragons are especially fond of coins. Older dragons sometimes capture and question humanoids about stockpiles of gold, silver, and platinum coins before killing them.

Black dragons prefer to ambush their targets, using their surroundings as cover.

Now you can read those lines in combination being unrelated to the "always chaotic evil" tag. They're always chaotic evil AND many of them enjoy doing these things.

But I think the more honest interpretation of this is that they are "always evil" BECAUSE they enjoy doing these things. Black dragons are "always evil" because they have a strong inborn genetic penchant for ambushing people, murdering them and stealing their money to hoard.

And that is indeed a much stronger flavour of evil than your typical evil humanoid because true sociopaths like Xykon are the exception, not the rule, even among evil humans.

[KoboldRevenge]

Poor V.
But as long as shes out of action shes not helping her friend and thusly not doing anything to warrant redemption.

[The_Weirdo]

(snip) because they have a strong inborn genetic penchant for (snip)

Only actual Evil extraplanars and creatures made with Evil methods (Evil undead for instance) are "genetically" Evil. These traits you described are cultural, not genetic. The genetics idea doesn't hold water unless you're making the laughable argument that - for Good, Neutral and Evil dragons - creatures with mental scores that often surpass the humans' ones by orders of magnitude cannot help but be slaves to their "genes" ("Hi, I'm Bob the Dragon, I have a Charisma* of 34, a Wisdom of 28 and an Intelligence of 32 and I'm STILL a slave to my basic instincts, thus bound to alignment X.") and that shapeshifting a Chaotic Good barbarian (Barbarians aren't exactly known for their reluctance to give in to their instinctive, base urges...) into a blue dragon would make him Lawful Evil.

* - Charisma is also a measure of one's sureness of himself, one's ability to perceive himself as an individual and so on, mind you. Dragons are usually sorcerers.

[willpell]

Durkon called Elan the heart and soul of the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), and I don't recall anything that suggests he doesn't like him.

I never postulated that Durkon disliked Elan, but I've never seen any evidence that he particularly likes him either; even that line might be more like empty praise that someone is doing their job satisfactorily, rather than a strong personal endorsement. Granted it's hard to tell since Durkon has by far the least personality of the entire OOTS, while Elan is at least in the top three.


As far as Elan himself goes, he has always been characterized wanting to get along with everybody and thinking the best about people. I would be very surprised if he weren't open to being friends with V again, especially if V were making a deliberate effort to be a better friend himself.

Pretty much this. Elan is Chaotic Good; he wears his emotions on his sleeves, and if you hurt his feelings he'll be bitter about it for a while, but holding a grudge is one of the better ways of dragging people down the Evil side (Chaotic people in particular, though it can happen to Lawfuls as well if they frame it as a matter of principle rather than just their feelings). Being Chaotic Good is about growing and changing as a person; with time to heal the sting of their falling out, Elan can not only forgive V but cleanse his feelings of any sense that s/he needed forgiving. I regard V as unarguably male, and am using the slash-pronoun only for clarity.

In strip #664, the first strip where Elan interacts with V after the soul splice has ended, his first impulse is to snark at V's expense while V is paralyzed and can't defend herself.

I didn't see that as a terribly mean-spirited act, so much as just grabbing a punchline wherever one presents itself, much as everyone has to do when the strip is a comedy; as a no-4th-wall bard and class-clown, Elan is just better at it than many characters.


etc. etc. Both V and Elan are involved in the ensuing conversation, but neither speaks to the other, both preferring to direct their words towards Roy. etc. etc.

I really think you're reading way too much into this. Making a lot of cracks at each other's expense doesn't prove they don't like each other, nor does failing to acknowledge each other at every opportunity.


The genetics idea doesn't hold water unless you're making the laughable argument that creatures with mental scores that often surpass the humans' ones by orders of magnitude cannot help but be slaves to their "genes" and that shapeshifting a Chaotic Good barbarian (Barbarians aren't exactly known for their reluctance to give in to their instinctive, base urges...) into a blue dragon would make him Lawful Evil.

Well that's probably not actually the case, but you could make an argument for it. Ever hear the old saw about "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?" If you're shapeshifted into a creature that's been born and bred for millenia to dominate and destroy, and can do so as easily as breathing, the temptation to do such things might exist on the level of muscle memory and be very difficult to resist, or even recognize. You might find yourself incredibly angry over minor slights without even being quite able to question why, or reflexively spiteful and cruel toward those who you ought to feel incredibly sympatico toward just because your conscious ability to be interested in them has been eclipsed by your current physio-mental state. The power thrumming beneath your scales could be like an itch you can't scratch, driving you mad while making you revel in your pain. Where once you looked on a high-Charisma female and saw a desireable mate who you want to make smile and protect from harm, you now see a tasty snack; your perceptions and feelings are literally being filtered through different senses and instincts.

It'd make shapeshifting an extremely frightening prospect, and thus would make a somewhat effective game theme for a Heroes of Horror campaign. The existential implications of the brain/body argument can make great game fuel if your group enjoys that sort of drama.

[The_Weirdo]

Well that's probably not actually the case, but you could make an argument for it. Ever hear the old saw about "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?" If you're shapeshifted into a creature that's been born and bred for millenia to dominate and destroy, and can do so as easily as breathing, the temptation to do such things might exist on the level of muscle memory and be very difficult to resist, or even recognize. You might find yourself incredibly angry over minor slights without even being quite able to question why, or reflexively spiteful and cruel toward those who you ought to feel incredibly sympatico toward just because your conscious ability to be interested in them has been eclipsed by your current physio-mental state. The power thrumming beneath your scales could be like an itch you can't scratch, driving you mad while making you revel in your pain. Where once you looked on a high-Charisma female and saw a desireable mate who you want to make smile and protect from harm, you now see a tasty snack; your perceptions and feelings are literally being filtered through different senses and instincts.

It'd make shapeshifting an extremely frightening prospect, and thus would make a somewhat effective game theme for a Heroes of Horror campaign. The existential implications of the brain/body argument can make great game fuel if your group enjoys that sort of drama.

I'm pretty sure that's part of why it's not explored to that point. The net result would be making shapeshifting nearly useless (as people would fear losing their characters over it).

[Koo Rehtorb]

These traits you described are cultural, not genetic.

No, that doesn't hold up. Cultural alignment traits are covered by the "usually" tag. If dragons were just culturally evil then ones breaking out of their alignment mold would be far more common. All it would take would be someone else raising evil dragons to be good and then those evil dragons having babies and raising them to be good and so on. And before you know it the race has a "usually" tag on it.


The genetics idea doesn't hold water unless you're making the laughable argument that - for Good, Neutral and Evil dragons - creatures with mental scores that often surpass the humans' ones by orders of magnitude cannot help but be slaves to their "genes"

I am indeed making that argument. It is completely within the realm of possibility to assume that evil dragons are simply born without any sense of empathy whatsoever and that good dragons are born with a hyper-developed sense of empathy.

Sure they're not slaves to their genetics in that they have literally no choice in their actions whatsoever. A gold dragon could go around burning orphanages down if it wanted to, it simply has no desire to do so whatsoever.

And come to think about it that would fit with the very rare exceptions to the "always" tag simply being the occasional freak of nature with a non-standard mind for their kind.


and that shapeshifting a Chaotic Good barbarian (Barbarians aren't exactly known for their reluctance to give in to their instinctive, base urges...) into a blue dragon would make him Lawful Evil.

I don't believe polymorphing changes people's brains, that's what allows humans to do things like polymorph into birds and not suddenly start flapping around eating worms. The CG barbarian isn't suddenly a blue dragon, it's still a human, just in a blue dragon's body.

[willpell]

I'm pretty sure that's part of why it's not explored to that point. The net result would be making shapeshifting nearly useless (as people would fear losing their characters over it).

Given that Polymorph is regarded as one of the game's most broken spells, I'm not sure that isn't exactly what should be done....

[The_Weirdo]

I am indeed making that argument. It is completely within the realm of possibility to assume that evil dragons are simply born without any sense of empathy whatsoever and that good dragons are born with a hyper-developed sense of empathy.

Sure they're not slaves to their genetics in that they have literally no choice in their actions whatsoever. A gold dragon could go around burning orphanages down if it wanted to, it simply has no desire to do so whatsoever.

And come to think about it that would fit with the very rare exceptions to the "always" tag simply being the occasional freak of nature with a non-standard mind for their kind.

Let me give you an example. Evil Outsiders have it as a "genetic" part of them. That means that, even if they reform and turn Lawful Good, Detect Evil would STILL catch them. Because that "objective" Evil is in their genes, so to speak.

This doesn't apply to dragons.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Let me give you an example. Evil Outsiders have it as a "genetic" part of them. That means that, even if they reform and turn Lawful Good, Detect Evil would STILL catch them. Because that "objective" Evil is in their genes, so to speak.

This doesn't apply to dragons.

Yeah I know the distinction.

Evil subtype things are literally made of evil. That's different from dragons, indeed. In the case of evil dragons I am simply saying that evil dragons have minds that function differently from human minds as a matter of nature and the way those minds function makes performing evil actions completely natural to their species.

I'm saying that creatures like dragons (good or evil) have alien minds that are just unknowable to human(oids).

[willpell]

I'm saying that creatures like dragons (good or evil) have alien minds that are just unknowable to human(oids).

I don't buy that at all. They have different minds, but we're perfectly capable of imagining ourselves having such minds. We'd just need to know how to rewire certain hardcoded instincts in ourselves; as long as we can approach the problem theoretically, we are perfectly capable of constructing behavioral models that near-perfectly simulate the mentality of a creature that has different neurological programming. With sufficient technology, we could even construct human brains to approximate such a mentality. And it's entirely possible that there already are human brains (if only those of sociopaths, Asperger's patience, or other such mental "deviations") which function on a distinctly different basis than the majority or norm.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't buy that at all. They have different minds, but we're perfectly capable of imagining ourselves having such minds. We'd just need to know how to rewire certain hardcoded instincts in ourselves; as long as we can approach the problem theoretically, we are perfectly capable of constructing behavioral models that near-perfectly simulate the mentality of a creature that has different neurological programming. With sufficient technology, we could even construct human brains to approximate such a mentality. And it's entirely possible that there already are human brains (if only those of sociopaths, Asperger's patience, or other such mental "deviations") which function on a distinctly different basis than the majority or norm.

All right, fair enough. Perhaps I did misspeak. It may be more possible than I thought to conceive of the workings of an alien mind. The point I am making is just that they are different minds than ours with different hardcoded instincts and behavioural patterns and that's why treating them like funnily shaped humans misses the mark, at least in my opinion.

And yeah I did consider the idea of comparing it to an abnormal mind like one of a sociopath, but I decided not to because I didn't think it was a perfect comparison. A sociopath (as far as I understand the term) is born without a sense of empathy where an evil dragon's mind would be, I guess, born with a specifically limited sense of empathy natural for their species which is sort of a different thing.

A sociopath's brain is broken where the hypothetical evil dragon's brain would be functioning correctly.

[willpell]

A sociopath's brain is broken.

Debatable. The social majority claims that lacking a sense of empathy is a defect, but that's because the social majority defines the norm as resembling themselves. It is perfectly possible for the sociopath to logically claim that his different brain-state is normal and healthy to him, and that society has no right to classify his innermost nature as a disease just because it is different from them.

[Tanngrisnir]

Debatable. The social majority claims that lacking a sense of empathy is a defect, but that's because the social majority defines the norm as resembling themselves. It is perfectly possible for the sociopath to logically claim that his different brain-state is normal and healthy to him, and that society has no right to classify his innermost nature as a disease just because it is different from them.

Arguably true, but also a bit irrelevant to what Koo was saying. Just replace the word 'broken' with 'abnormal' and Koo's point stands.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Debatable. The social majority claims that lacking a sense of empathy is a defect, but that's because the social majority defines the norm as resembling themselves. It is perfectly possible for the sociopath to logically claim that his different brain-state is normal and healthy to him, and that society has no right to classify his innermost nature as a disease just because it is different from them.

Again, fair enough. I doubt we're going to answer that one here though. :P

[zimmerwald1915]

So there you have it. Going through these other examples, the evidence is actually quite strong that Elan and Vaarsuvius are reconciling, and certainly that Elan is willing to do so and once again considers V a friend.


I really think you're reading way too much into this. Making a lot of cracks at each other's expense doesn't prove they don't like each other, nor does failing to acknowledge each other at every opportunity.
I adopted the reading of the evidence I have because it seems to me the only one that is in harmony with Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party. "A line is crossed...Elan wants nothing more to do with V". That is quite in line with Elan's mindset. He has rejected other people before. He rejected reconciling with Nale. He rejected working more closely with Miko.

Since the end of Don't Split the Party, Elan has had barely anything to do with V, has shared less than a hundred words of conversation with her, and has made no effort to go out of his way to interact with her. This lines up quite nicely with Elan "wanting nothing more to do with V," and not at all with the notion that Elan is reaching out to V in sympathy or for any other reason.

Sure, Elan may eventually reach out to V, but such an event will represent a rupture with what we've seen hitherto, just like V's recognition from strip #843 to this strip represented a rupture from what had gone before.

[theNater]

Well you have to define "innocent" for this. I would say an "always chaotic evil" creature is not "innocent" in any traditional sense of the word.
Recall that we saw eggs get hit. Is it your claim that the unhatched dragons in those eggs are not innocent?

[Kish]

No. I don't agree with this. Here's the direct SRD quotes regarding black dragons.





Now you can read those lines in combination being unrelated to the "always chaotic evil" tag.

They're always chaotic evil AND many of them enjoy doing these things.

But I think the more honest interpretation of this is that they are "always evil" BECAUSE they enjoy doing these things. Black dragons are "always evil" because they have a strong inborn genetic penchant for ambushing people, murdering them and stealing their money to hoard.
That's fascinating. So in your house rules--and make no mistake, we're talking about your house rules here, not anything in D&D books--elves, who are also described as heavily favoring stealth and ambush tactics, just in laudatory terms rather than pejorative ones, are also Always Chaotic Evil?

How about other races that are described pejoratively? Most "often/usually X evil" races are. "Orcs are aggressive humanoids that raid, pillage, and battle other creatures. They have a hatred of elves and dwarves that began generations ago, and will often kill them on sight....They enjoy attacking from concealment and setting ambushes, and they obey the rules of war (such as honoring a truce) only as long as it is convenient for them." By your argument, surely this describes an Always Chaotic Evil creature, not merely an Often (somewhere from 30% to 49% are Chaotic Evil, with Chaotic Neutral being second most common) Chaotic Evil creature. In fact, I find myself wondering which Often/Usually X Evil creatures your current argument does not oblige you to house-rule into Always X Evil creatures.

Again, if you wish to discuss what's actually in D&D books, you can't even have "Always means every one of them is chaotic evil," much less this, "Always Evil actually means the individuals are worse than if the species was evil but not Always" business. There are nine alignments, not twelve.

[zimmerwald1915]

That's fascinating. So in your house rules--and make no mistake, we're talking about your house rules here, not anything in D&D books--elves, who are also described as heavily favoring stealth and ambush tactics, just in laudatory terms rather than pejorative ones, are also Always Chaotic Evil?
As an aside, this is probably not a good example. There is a vocal minority of players who will go to great lengths to argue just that. :smallamused:

[Koo Rehtorb]

That's fascinating. So in your house rules--and make no mistake, we're talking about your house rules here, not anything in D&D books--elves, who are also described as heavily favoring stealth and ambush tactics, just in laudatory terms rather than pejorative ones, are also Always Chaotic Evil?

Okay let's clear this up right now. These are not my house rules. In my house rules alignment is ripped out of the game like the worthless outdated relic it is for everything except outsiders.

This is all my best honest interpretation of alignment as it is intended to be read.


How about other races that are described pejoratively? Most "often/usually X evil" races are.

There is a clear difference between "always" and "often/usually" that I have already explained. If the negative traits were merely cultural then the creatures would not have an "always" label in the first place. Cultural traits are simply not strong enough to explain a monster being "always" something.

[Math_Mage]

If that is true, it would seem to indicate that Vaarsuvius would never have realized s/he did anything wrong without having it rubbed in his/her face that it hit mostly-humans.

I do believe that was exactly ti'esar's point--only phrased from the standpoint of advancing the narrative and the character's (potentially) redemptive arc, rather than from the standpoint of casting aspersions on the character as hir was.

[jamiah93]

How does V levitate? Is he using the 2nd level spell of the same name, or is that just something that Elves/Wizards can do?

[TheWolfe]

I think this entire discussion about evil dragons and the arguments about the 'cold calculus' supports V's realization made in this comic that s/he, like we, cannot know for sure whether or not all dragons are evil, or whether the familicide was a justifiable action and that therefore it was not V's choice to make.

The question is not just whether the act was evil or not, it's also about whether or V had all the tools, statistics, time, and clear-headedness to make such a judgement.

S\he could not know if there are good dragons or what the net worth of evil dragons vs good dragons killed was, and therefore it was an arrogant act of V, who recognizes now that she 'played God' and I think this will lead to hir become more humble.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The question is not just whether the act was evil or not, it's also about whether or V had all the tools, statistics, time, and clear-headedness to make such a judgement.

Yeah I can agree with that. There's no question that her use of Familicide was completely irresponsible and reprehensible.

V needs massive servings of humility.

[zimmerwald1915]

How does V levitate? Is he using the 2nd level spell of the same name, or is that just something that Elves/Wizards can do?
It's something V does while trancing.

[The_Weirdo]

How does V levitate? Is he using the 2nd level spell of the same name, or is that just something that Elves/Wizards can do?

It's more a stylistic thing of the Giant for when he gets V meditating. There is a level 2 spell V can be using, yes, but it seems more to me like an "elves levitate when they meditate" non-D&D choice of style.

Mind, the levitation doesn't seem to offer particularly many advantages there, it just looks cool.

[lio45]

OK,it's a stretch, but Panel 2: "I have had time to think. I await the abomination ..."

What kind of attitude does this indicate?

I times I = a negative one!

Wow. Nice job! (Probably the least stretchy way to bring complex math into that strip!)




Killing all the dragon blooded humans was definitely what pushed it from "iffy" to "really evil". For me, at least.

Totally agree with you on mostly everything in this thread...

Seems to me the D&D books are clear enough -- chromatic dragons are just programmed to be Evil. Sure, from time to time a Drizzt might pop up, but they're clearly very rare exceptions.

And yes, you can be very smart AND still have basic urges that you can't resist. If you're reading this, and you consider yourself smart, then tell me, have you been able to always resist way-too-fat (and delicious) foods recently? (Example would've been stronger had I gone instead with anything related to sex and libido, but I'd rather keep the thread clean.)

Your genes are telling you that this deep-fried junk is something that you really got to eat while it's still there in front of you (what a piece of luck! finding something THAT energetic! Mmmm!) and you don't even know where your next meal will come from...

[Cynric]

I've been going over this thread quite briskly, and the priciple line of discussion seems to revolve around "yes, I agree. Genocide is immoral and wrong."

Is anyone arguing against that? Has anyone actually posted that it is in any way justifiable? And if you're debating the fundamentals of how and why it's wrong, surely that is nothing more than academic?

[zimmerwald1915]

Is anyone arguing against that? Has anyone actually posted that it is in any way justifiable?
Yes, someone is, and yes someone has.

[DaggerPen]

It would be multiplicative. Thrice damned (actions, arrogance, ignorance) for each of the three fiends. 3x3 = 9.

{table=head] Fiend |
Damn 1 |
Damn 2 |
Damn 3

Lee | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Nero | actions | arrogance | ignorance
Cedrik | actions | arrogance | ignorance
[/table]

...perhaps I'm taking the wrong attitude toward this strip.

... I'm a horrible person for laughing, huh?

At any rate, it's really great to see V finally realizing the extent of what zie's done. I do hope zie can find some way to redeem zirself, despite the enormity of zir crime.

[lio45]

Is anyone arguing against that? Has anyone actually posted that it is in any way justifiable? And if you're debating the fundamentals of how and why it's wrong, surely that is nothing more than academic?
Yes, someone is, and yes someone has.

Really? I don't believe anyone on this forum has ever disputed that genocide is wrong. The disagreements are usually centered on the notion of genocide. (I challenge you to find a single post praising genocide ever posted on these forums...)

For example, using your super broad definition, you could say that the authorities where I live engage in organized mosquito genocide (http://www.brevardcounty.us/MosquitoControl/Home) every year. I'm Lawful Good, and so is most of the people I know, and we STILL approve.

It all boils down to the following question: is killing a given number of dolphins worse, equal, or less bad than killing a given number of human five year olds...?

Some of us have been saying "less bad", others have apparently essentially been arguing for "equal".

[DaggerPen]

Man, I was in such a good mood before I read this thread, too.

Really cannot believe how badly some people here have missed the point of this update. Say it with me, guys: killing off 1/4 of a sentient race is AN EVIL ACT. There are no ifs, ands, or buts here.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Really cannot believe how badly some people here have missed the point of this update. Say it with me, guys: killing off 1/4 of a sentient race is AN EVIL ACT. There are no ifs, ands, or buts here.

Nobody has missed the point. Some people disagree with the point being made. But, just for the sake of it, let's create a hypothetical.

Let's say a sentient race exists that is 100% murderously psychopathically evil with no exceptions whatsoever. Every single member of that race will, without fail, attempt to murder anything and everything in its way. Is preemptively attacking members of that race before they have a chance to murder anyone evil? I would say that no, not doing so is incredibly foolish.

Now that isn't actually the case with black dragons either in canon or in OOTS so it's not a perfect comparison, but the question then becomes "How close do creatures have to be to the above example before it becomes less evil to kill them than other species?"

[zimmerwald1915]

Now that isn't actually the case with black dragons either in canon or in OOTS so it's not a perfect comparison, but the question then becomes "How close do creatures have to be to the above example before it becomes less evil to kill them than other species?"
Well, at least you recognize that your hypothetical is absolutely worthless and not worth discussing. The answer to your question is that if any sapient species differs from that hypothetical to any degree, and every sapient species does by the fact of their sapience, then it is unquestionably evil to slaughter them all preemptively and without any consideration of any given individual's actions or worth.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well, at least you recognize that your hypothetical is absolutely worthless and not worth discussing. The answer to your question is that if any sapient species differs from that hypothetical to any degree, and every sapient species does by the fact of their sapience, then it is unquestionably evil to slaughter them all preemptively and without any consideration of any given individual's actions or worth.

Okay so if there's a 0.000000000000001% chance of any member of that species ever being slightly less than completely evil it suddenly becomes unquestionably evil? I find that a bit weird, but hey. No point in arguing over it.

[Kish]

I find that a bit weird,
The weird thing is how staggeringly dedicated you are to arguing that racial genocide just has to be possible to justify.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The weird thing is how staggeringly dedicated you are to arguing that racial genocide just has to be possible to justify.

I, for one, am enjoying myself.

Genocide is really rather a loaded term though considering that this is in no way analogous to anything in real life. Anyway, I think I am starting to see that the disagreement is really just a disagreement over the interpretation of the rules in SRD.

I believe the fair interpretation of the rules is that evil dragons are genetically programmed to be evil. And not just evil but vicious murderous evil at that. Exceptions, while possible, are unlikely to the point of absurdity.

Other people seem to think that dragons are really just funnily shaped humans who grew up in the equivalent of a bad neighbourhood or something. (I hope that is a fair representation I don't mean to strawman anyone).

-----

I will readily acknowledge that the latter opinion would indeed make preemptive attacks on black dragons very evil indeed but, without proof from Rich that he intends his world to operate on something closer to the latter view than the former I think adhering to my interpretation is entirely fair.

I will also acknowledge that V's casting of the spell was also evil because there is absolutely no way that she could have made some sort of sensible decision that black dragons are more like the former hypothesis than the latter and furthermore she did it for all the wrong reasons.

[FujinAkari]

Okay so if there's a 0.000000000000001% chance of any member of that species ever being slightly less than completely evil [killing that creature] suddenly becomes unquestionably evil?

Yes. Absolutely. I am greatly disturbed that there is a discussion about this.

It is always evil to slaughter something based on what they are, rather than what they do. It is never acceptable to kill a sentient being based on what you think they might do.

[Kish]

I believe the fair interpretation of the rules is that evil dragons are genetically programmed to be evil. And not just evil but vicious murderous evil at that. Exceptions, while possible, are unlikely to the point of absurdity.
That is not only not the fair interpretation of the rules, it's not a possible interpretation of the rules. "Not all" does not mean, "All, but I'll handwave some theoretically possible (but absurd) exceptions so that I don't have to admit I'm declaring the text doesn't actually mean what it says."

And, yes, as FujinAkari says, there is something wrong and disturbing about your premise that it should be possible to justify punishing any sapient creature for being a member of a certain species. That attitude is called out in the Player's Handbook as a classic Lawful Evil attitude, meaning that anyone in a D&D world who accepts this line of reasoning is automatically a legitimate target to himself/herself.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yes. Absolutely. I am greatly disturbed that there is a discussion about this.

It is always evil to slaughter something based on what they are, rather than what they do. It is never acceptable to kill a sentient being based on what you think they might do.

Fair enough. Disagree. And furthermore I think that it's a bit of an irresponsible attitude to take as well, at least if you're willing to dive into the realm of implausible hypotheticals, which this whole thing certainly is. Again, there is no analogous situation in real life.

To me that's being willing to trade hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people because you don't want to risk the infinitesimal chance of making a mistake. I say at a certain % chance of certainty that you can be said to be acting in good faith.

[Tanngrisnir]

I, for one, am enjoying myself . . .


I'm glad you are enjoying yourself because I'm enjoying reading your take on the subject. I've always been a fan of the idea that other creatures brains are alien and unknowable to us, so I like the notion that there is a genetic reason for the 'always evil' tag in D&D.

[Holy_Knight]

I adopted the reading of the evidence I have because it seems to me the only one that is in harmony with Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party. "A line is crossed...Elan wants nothing more to do with V". That is quite in line with Elan's mindset. He has rejected other people before. He rejected reconciling with Nale. He rejected working more closely with Miko.

Since the end of Don't Split the Party, Elan has had barely anything to do with V, has shared less than a hundred words of conversation with her, and has made no effort to go out of his way to interact with her. This lines up quite nicely with Elan "wanting nothing more to do with V," and not at all with the notion that Elan is reaching out to V in sympathy or for any other reason.

Sure, Elan may eventually reach out to V, but such an event will represent a rupture with what we've seen hitherto, just like V's recognition from strip #843 to this strip represented a rupture from what had gone before.
The problem is that the commentary refers to Elan's mindset at that point in the story, but you're trying to shoehorn it into what comes after, where it pretty clearly no longer applies. As I pointed out before, the examples to which you yourself appealed actually show Elan and Vaarsuvius working together and interacting just as well as they did before their falling out, and in some cases even better than before. For whatever reason, you're assuming that their attitudes from a previous part of the story couldn't be different now, but the evidence simply doesn't support that view.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That is not only not the fair interpretation of the rules, it's not a possible interpretation of the rules. "Not all" does not mean, "All, but I'll handwave some theoretically possible (but absurd) exceptions so that I don't have to admit I'm declaring the text doesn't actually mean what it says."

Okay. I will certainly admit that it is possible that I am wrong. Do you have the specific passage at hand where it explains an "always" alignment?

I would like an exact quote from that so I can take a look at it.

[zimmerwald1915]

The problem is that the commentary refers to Elan's mindset at that point in the story, but you're trying to shoehorn it into what comes after, where it pretty clearly no longer applies. As I pointed out before, the examples to which you yourself appealed actually show Elan and Vaarsuvius working together and interacting just as well as they did before their falling out, and in some cases even better than before. For whatever reason, you're assuming that their attitudes from a previous part of the story couldn't be different now, but the evidence simply doesn't support that view.
We know from the commentary that V crossed a line with Elan. That is an incontrovertible fact, and crossing a line is an important, irrevocable thing. Once Cesar crossed the Rubicon River it wouldn't have mattered to the Senate if he had pulled his legions back. Nale crossed a line with Elan when he stabbed him, and the two never worked together again. Miko crossed a line with Elan when she was mean to his friends, and he never worked willingly with her again. V crossed a line with Elan when he denigrated Therkla, and they've barely spoken since. If it were up to Elan, V might not have been let back in the party - Elan was perfectly fine with letting her leave and wasn't particularly happy to see her again. But it's not up to Elan. It's up to Roy, and Elan isn't going to try and countermand Roy.

[lio45]

I remember having the exact same discussion with the exact same people, but that was before Koo Rehtorb's forum joining date...

I will point out again (but for the first time in 2013) that we don't have any real-life equivalent to a "sentient pest" species whose individuals are genetically programmed to be bloodthirsty and prey on us, yet are also intelligent (self-consciousness/identity), with one Drizzt occuring by pure genetic chance from time to time within that species.

The closest comparative would be Nearly Always Evil aliens (in which case the existing filmography massively tells us that the Good Guys can kill the Evil Aliens and still be Good Guys)... but again, that's fiction, just like D&D.





Edited to avoid double-posting:


And, yes, as FujinAkari says, there is something wrong and disturbing about your premise that it should be possible to justify punishing any sapient creature for being a member of a certain species. That attitude is called out in the Player's Handbook as a classic Lawful Evil attitude, meaning that anyone in a D&D world who accepts this line of reasoning is automatically a legitimate target to himself/herself.

Then you'd definitely find the way I play X-Com absolutely "wrong and disturbing"... but I believe it's the right, and moral, way to play it. And so did the game developers.

[FujinAkari]

hen you'd definitely find the way I play X-Com absolutely "wrong and disturbing"... but I believe it's the right, and moral, way to play it. And so did the game developers.

Are you honestly equating going out and stomping on eggs on the presumption that the baby inside will eventually attack someone and defending your planet from an alien attack?

News Flash Lio, XCOM is a game in which the earth is being invaded by armed aliens. It isn't a game where you walk around another planet shooting unarmed children because they look funny.

[zimmerwald1915]

Then you'd definitely find the way I play X-Com absolutely "wrong and disturbing"... but I believe it's the right, and moral, way to play it. And so did the game developers.
Okay. What does it say about humanity that creative people produce fiction that encourages such behavior, and that consumers of fiction eagerly consume fiction that encourages such behavior? This is the point Rich was getting at when he said "I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I feel the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much." (italics in original)

[Koo Rehtorb]

Okay. What does it say about humanity that creative people produce fiction that encourages such behavior, and that consumers of fiction eagerly consume fiction that encourages such behavior? This is the point Rich was getting at when he said "I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I feel the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much." (italics in original)

I dunno about anyone else but I'm not at all attached to the concept of inherently evil dragons in my fantasy. Like I said earlier, I rip alignment right out of the game for anything that isn't an outsider. I have no problems with someone saying that black dragons are just like anyone else or that black dragons are frequently benevolent overlords of mortal societies. I'm just dealing with my fair interpretation of the rules as they exist.

As for what it says about fantasy roleplaying I would say that it says that many people enjoy unrealistic situations in their escapism, which is hardly shocking at all. You might as well ask why nearly everyone you're supposed to support in fiction is good looking.

[lio45]

Are you honestly equating going out and stomping on eggs on the presumption that the baby inside will eventually attack someone and defending your planet from an alien attack?

Again... every year, these guys (http://www.brevardcounty.us/MosquitoControl/Home) are exactly doing that -- they're going out and destroying eggs on the presumption that the babies inside will eventually attack people... of course, you're right that the most Good behavior possible would be to let all of them hatch, then feed on us, who would be turning the other cheek when stung... but the quality of life in that swampy area would greatly suffer. So the people in charge have judged that the comfort of the many (humans) outweighs the needs of the many (mosquitoes), and they're acting accordingly. Maybe it's Neutral, at worst, but not Evil.




News Flash Lio, XCOM is a game in which the earth is being invaded by armed aliens. It isn't a game where you walk around another planet shooting unarmed children because they look funny.

But you would destroy alien eggs if you could... and you'd also shoot unarmed aliens... including alien children. Why? They're enemies -- they want you dead. One egg will just turn into one Evil alien (unless, of course, it happens to be Drizzt who's in that egg, but statistically, don't count on that).



Okay. What does it say about humanity that creative people produce fiction that encourages such behavior, and that consumers of fiction eagerly consume fiction that encourages such behavior? This is the point Rich was getting at when he said "I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I feel the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much." (italics in original)

Sure, it's bad, but again, that was not really genocide -- there's no real-life equivalent to it.

The closest thing IMO would be to mercilessly slaughter one quarter of the planet's population of dolphins, or elephants. And while it would be an utterly horrific act, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be charged with genocide if you did that.

[Holy_Knight]

We know from the commentary that V crossed a line with Elan. That is an incontrovertible fact, and crossing a line is an important, irrevocable thing. Once Cesar crossed the Rubicon River it wouldn't have mattered to the Senate if he had pulled his legions back. Nale crossed a line with Elan when he stabbed him, and the two never worked together again. Miko crossed a line with Elan when she was mean to his friends, and he never worked willingly with her again. V crossed a line with Elan when he denigrated Therkla, and they've barely spoken since. If it were up to Elan, V might not have been let back in the party - Elan was perfectly fine with letting her leave and wasn't particularly happy to see her again. But it's not up to Elan. It's up to Roy, and Elan isn't going to try and countermand Roy.
Again, this is not correct. They have had a fair amount of interaction since, most of it friendly. And again, you're acting as if one moment must be a template for all future interactions. When Elan and V first saw each other again, there was still a lot of tension between them, yes. But after V came back from fighting Xykon, M.A.D. put it well:


I'm surprised none of the Elan/V relationship discussion posts up there had mentioned #663, which I think is thrice more crucial than #664 in describing Elan's attitude towards Vaarsuvius.

:elan: You're alive! And less scary!

Judging by what he's saying, at that moment, Elan no longer saw V as a person that he "doesn't want to have anything to do with" anymore, but rather a comrade whom he was glad had returned alive to them. No matter what kind of resentment he had against V before then, it would have been cancelled out already.

And may I add that the ones who still think that there's a crack between Elan and V's relationship are reading waaaaay to much into it. The way I see it, Elan was still the goofy bard he was before, and V was still the deadpan snarker that we all knew. If you guys really compare their banters objectively before and after V's fallout with Elan, you'll see that nothing had actually changed. V had always thought that Elan was an incompetent clown, and Elan has always been... well, Elan.

A line was crossed between them, yes, but the only thing to support that that crossing was irrevocable seems to be your assertion that it was. If you instead actually look at Elan and V's interactions since then with an unbiased eye, you'll see that they do seem to be reconciling. I'll again note that your own examples support their reconciliation, not them continuing to want nothing to do with each other.

[zimmerwald1915]

Again... every year, these guys (http://www.brevardcounty.us/MosquitoControl/Home) are exactly doing that -- they're going out and destroying eggs on the presumption that the babies inside will eventually attack people... of course, you're right that the most Good behavior possible would be to let all of them hatch, then feed on us, who would be turning the other cheek when stung... but the quality of life in that swampy area would greatly suffer. So the people in charge have judged that the comfort of the many (humans) outweighs the needs of the many (mosquitoes), and they're acting accordingly. Maybe it's Neutral, at worst, but not Evil.
Mosquitoes aren't sapient.


But you would destroy alien eggs if you could... and you'd also shoot unarmed aliens... including alien children. Why? They're enemies -- they want you dead. One egg will just turn into one Evil alien (unless, of course, it happens to be Drizzt who's in that egg, but statistically, don't count on that).
Not having played X-COM, I'm a bit confused. Does the game actually give you these scenarios where you encounter alien eggs/babies/unarmed civilians? If you choose not to kill them, does it punish you for that? If you do kill them, does it reward you? Or is this just another worthless hypothetical?

Coming back to D&D, there is no mechanic that punishes you for not smashing a dragon egg, or not executing a goblin who's trying to surrender, or not mercilessly slaughtering an orc woman with a child on her breast. Nor is there a mechanic that rewards these actions - XP is awarded for overcoming challenges, and none of these situations represents a credible challenge to the player. A player who indulges in this sort of rampant slaughter is getting something out of it that is not provided by the game. What, I don't want to speculate.


Sure, it's bad, but again, that's was not really genocide -- there's no real-life equivalent to it.

The closest thing IMO would be to mercilessly slaughter one quarter of the planet's population of dolphins, or elephants. And while it would be an utterly horrific act, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be charged with genocide if you did that.
Actually, the closest thing to genocide in the real world would be...wait for it...genocide. Which is not actually that uncommon, and people do get dragged into court from time to time on charges of genocide.

[ti'esar]

Really? I don't believe anyone on this forum has ever disputed that genocide is wrong. The disagreements are usually centered on the notion of genocide. (I challenge you to find a single post praising genocide ever posted on these forums...)

As shown by the last few pages, no one has ever disputed that genocide is wrong because they're more focused on arguing that it's not "really" genocide.

[FujinAkari]

Not having played X-COM, I'm a bit confused. Does the game actually give you these scenarios where you encounter alien eggs/babies/unarmed civilians? If you choose not to kill them, does it punish you for that? If you do kill them, does it reward you? Or is this just another worthless hypothetical?

No. The actual game of XCOM is entirely defensive and only ever pits you against armed aliens who are actively attacking the earth. Lio is bewilderingly attempting to prove his point by telling us how he would hypothetically approach a scenerio which the game never even implies.

[Dracarot]

Perhaps we need further outside wisdom on the matter of Black Dragons, familicide, and the concurrent consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9o_bhbSp3A

[skim172]

This comic brings to mind a question I had before, but didn't ask - how exactly does Familicide work? I had assumed that it killed the Black Dragon Mother and all her direct, genetically lineal descendants - kids, grandkids, etc.

But then Tarquin's wife kicked the bucket - she has no Dragon blood in her. She was related by marriage. She had no biological connection to the Black Dragon. She was targeted because she was the biological ancestor of her child. Which makes things ... tricky.

My question is, does she, too, become a vector for the spell? In other words, will her relatives and family die as well? Is there a limit to how many degrees removed a person can be where the spell stops spreading?

Because if there isn't .... then all of humanity should've been struck dead. If the disease spreads both to ancestors and descendants, and there is no limit to the spread, then the spell would keep going backwards until it hits the common ancestor of all humanity and then it'll spread back down and pbbbt - there goes the species for good. Even assuming that the OOTS world doesn't stick to real-world rules - maybe there were multiple origins for humanity - but over the millenia, there's still a solid chance of one ancestor who was not the first human, but is still related to all living humans. And even if there wasn't, you'd still have seen a huge chunk of the population gone.

[Incom]

Giant said Familicide only kills for two iterations. All the target's blood relatives, and all of THEIR blood relatives (Penelope). Big T and family were not in danger.

[Bulldog Psion]

No. The actual game of XCOM is entirely defensive and only ever pits you against armed aliens who are actively attacking the earth. Lio is bewilderingly attempting to prove his point by telling us how he would hypothetically approach a scenerio which the game never even implies.

That is quite bewildering. I had already developed a strong impression that the XCOM game was literally about running around stomping on alien eggs. :smalleek:

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's worthwhile mentioning that X-Com does involve capturing, torturing and dissecting alien corpses.

[Rack]

I'm with Roy and err, Miko on this one. Dragons are color coded for our convenience, and if you meet one without shiny scales you're free to kill it with a clear conscience. It's just the sort of game D&D is, if I had a crisis of conscience for every orc, goblin, kobold, ogre etc I killed without clear provocation I'd have gone stir crazy by now, that number probably exceeds V's familicide spell anyway.

[ti'esar]

It's just the sort of game D&D is

Rich and several people in this thread (including myself) would argue that, in fact, that is not the sort of game D&D is unless you want it to be.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm actually curious now how far people want to take that.

So, sure, maybe some people consider "always evil" dragons to be potentially good and pleasant fellows. What about demons or devils? What about sentient undead like vampires?

Is there any room in your fantasy for the concept of sentient and yet irredeemable evil? I'm not saying that there should be, I'm not attached to the concept myself. I'm just curious.

[Math_Mage]

V's use of Familicide was unjustified by word of character, God, and reason, even considering the dragons alone. Most of the debate has been constructing hypotheticals about fully and ubiquitously Evil-with-capital-letters races, but we know at this point that OotSworld is not that sort of world. Hell, we're not even sure the Lower and Upper Planes, or the gods, are fully alignment-bound. So let's be clear that this debate is about D&D/philosophical hypotheticals, and not the story and world of OotS.

Hypothetically, it's perfectly possible to imagine what Koo Rehtorb describes. But here it's inapplicable.

[ti'esar]

Is there any room in your fantasy for the concept of sentient and yet irredeemable evil?

Personally? Yes. I think the way you worded that is a bit misleading - the objection is specifically to the idea of racially irredeemable evil - but even there, I do think there's room for the "completely different psychologies" argument. I still object to it more often than not (for reasons that probably bring up too many real life issues to go into here) but that doesn't mean that I, for instance, think any less of Tolkien because he had orcs, and I personally am not going to give a lot of moral complexity to literally made-of-evil beings like (typical) demons .

But what I'm really objecting to is the "D&D made me do it" argument. I don't like the alignment system that much, but it's selling it seriously short to make the argument that you must treat "Always Whatever" races as Whatever literally to the last individual, or else not be "actually" playing D&D. The whole appeal of the system, or at least one of them, is the range of possibilities it leaves open.

To take a specific example, are people like Rack* really going to claim that Eberron is not "actually" a D&D setting because of its decision to by-and-large decouple alignment from race - including in the case of dragons?

* No offense intended, you were just the specific person I was originally responding to.

[Rack]

If you're playing with the D&D rulebook you're playing D&D, straight up, and I always say you can roleplay any kind of game in any system.

That said I do think the alignment system supports a very black and white morality. I think OotS has had many, many moments where characters killed creatures because they are "evil" and that didn't keep Roy from the Lawful Good afterlife. The same thinking has been present in all the rulebooks and modules I've read.

I'd argue that D&D is that sort of game unless you don't want it to be.

In this case it's pretty clear OotS isn't that sort of story now, but it's somewhat inconsistent in that regard. Straight up in OotS 5 Roy didn't need a more considered argument than "Ogres!" to begin murdering two sapient creatures.

[isoriveil]

Mosquitoes aren't sapient.

Actually, that depends on chosen definition of "sapience".

[willpell]

It is never acceptable to kill a sentient being based on what you think they might do.

I agree, but there seem to be a fairly large number of individuals in numerous societies who do not. Based on this principle, shooting someone who looks like they're about to shoot you, or your spouse, or the like would be evil, because you don't *know* they're going to actually go through with the threat. Which, as I say, is exactly what I believe, and I was arguing on a thread about Superman to that effect, but a lot of people seemed to be deeply insulted that I would even consider saying you shouldn't use violence pre-emptively to end a perceived threat.

[zimmerwald1915]

That said I do think the alignment system supports a very black and white morality. I think OotS has had many, many moments where characters killed creatures because they are "evil" and that didn't keep Roy from the Lawful Good afterlife. The same thinking has been present in all the rulebooks and modules I've read.
I see alignment, mechanically speaking, as representing whose "side" you're on in a great cosmic moral struggle, an idea that is present is certain dualistic religions. If you're Lawful Good you are, on some level, affiliated with the cosmic forces of law and good and expected to act in the interest and according to to the precepts of lawful goodness. Alignment isn't the be-all-and-end-all of individual morality. Morality's more complicated than alignment. It is, broadly speaking, your affiliation. "Usually <x>" or "always <y>" peoples have some factor present in their cultural or biological makeup that biases their grand cosmic affiliation, but which speaks very little about the individual people.


In this case it's pretty clear OotS isn't that sort of story now, but it's somewhat inconsistent in that regard. Straight up in OotS 5 Roy didn't need a more considered argument than "Ogres!" to begin murdering two sapient creatures.
Those would be the same ogres Roy tried to talk to first (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0004.html), who he ran away from in preference to fighting, and who, after they started the fight and called for reinforcements, had Durkon at their mercy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0005.html), right? Even when OOTS was a gag-a-day comic, nobody but Belkar was going around killing people just for lulz.


I agree, but there seem to be a fairly large number of individuals in numerous societies who do not. Based on this principle, shooting someone who looks like they're about to shoot you, or your spouse, or the like would be evil, because you don't *know* they're going to actually go through with the threat. Which, as I say, is exactly what I believe, and I was arguing on a thread about Superman to that effect, but a lot of people seemed to be deeply insulted that I would even consider saying you shouldn't use violence pre-emptively to end a perceived threat.
This is not a good example. Someone who has a weapon trained on you is an imminent threat. Someone who you know to have purchased a weapon at some point, and who thus conceivably could train it on you at some undefined point in the future, is not an imminent threat. Similarly, a dragon hovering over a town and threatening to roast its people alive unless they levy some kind of tribute is an imminent threat. A dragon known to lair in a cave a couple hundred miles away is not.

[willpell]

So, sure, maybe some people consider "always evil" dragons to be potentially good and pleasant fellows. What about demons or devils? What about sentient undead like vampires?

My personal answer as to whether they can choose to turn away from evil: Dragons yes, vampires yes, other undead probably, wights probably not, demons and devils never or virtually never. Wights are specifically flavored as having been driven from their graves by a hatred which must perpetuate itself, so I tend to think spinning them positively is almost impossible. The same might be true of vampires if I used them out of the Monster Manual, but I've been playing White Wolf's games for too long to do that; my take on the vampire is just that they have a strong addictive compulsion to prey on people, but that they're capable of choosing to restrain themselves, though it's very difficult for them. (This doesn't work if they turn anyone they bite, so those in my game don't have Create Spawn.)

Dragons, meanwhile, completely fit the "funny-shaped people" bit, albeit that they're living metaphors for the "reptile brain" and thus should tend to lean Evil pretty significantly (Chromatics, that is, but I always feel as though they are the "real" dragons, and Metallics more of a tacked-on afterthought). But demons and devils are literally manifestations of the evil that men do, or that lurks in their hearts, and the same probably goes for things like Shadows and Nightshades (it should be obvious why I had to segue the way I did there). If such beings can change their stripes at all, it should be literal; in my game I often suggest that a Demon who became Good (while remaining Chaotic) would actually turn into an Eladrin of the most nearly equivalent sort (not that there are really enough Eladrins statted-up to do this easily).

I don't like the idea that the planes are just these weird places where there's something in the water that gives you a headache if you disagree with the natives' ethics; my preference is for assuming that Heaven is made up of all the (Lawful) Good that people believe in, that being native to Heaven and being Good are 100% synonymous, and will remain so as long as Good is even in the sentient-being vocabulary. An Archon is completely made of Good and Law, and isn't even capable of thinking in terms of their opposites unless he gets extreme amounts of coaching; a Succubus that wants to earn Paladin levels is going to need to completely destroy her libido, because sex and murder are synonymous to her, and every time she gets turned on she's being pulled back in the direction of her Evil impulses. (Which is a pretty unenviable position for her to be in, hence why I tend to come up with the idea of her changing into an Archon if she tries hard enough.)


The answer to your question is that if any sapient species differs from that hypothetical to any degree, and every sapient species does by the fact of their sapience, then it is unquestionably evil to slaughter them all preemptively and without any consideration of any given individual's actions or worth.

I cannot help but point out that you make this decision because you are an individual, and thus you empathize with the one exception in such a situation - "oh no, what if someone killed me because they thought people like me were always evil"? It would be a lot harder to sit on that particular high horse if you actually lived in the OOTS world, had your parents or something killed by a black dragon, and then learned that some elf had been in the position of being able to kill 1/4 of the black dragons in the world and had chosen not to.

Familicide was not evil because it killed non-dragons. It was evil because it killed non-evil creatures. But it also killed evil creatures in large numbers. Had it been a more refined, and only killed unquestionably and irredeemably evil creatures who are destined never to perform a quasi-Good act, or even who are destined to cause substantially more harm than good (assuming your metrics for destiny are nearly-100% accurate), then it could in that case have been a beneficial spell (almost certainly not Haerta's work anymore, of course). But, if all of the victims of that spell happened to be black dragons, it would still be partial genocide.

In my view, while any act by a flawed and fallible mortal creature unquestionably should not be able to get away with this, it is theoretically completely possible that a nigh-omniscient ultraintelligence could perform a "retroviral extraction" of a "cancerous" species. If they could reduce the collateral damage to exactly 0, the act would definitely be right. If the act does in fact cause collateral damage, then it is less than totally right. But if there is a possibility, incredibly slim but not nonzero, that something might go wrong...do you really have the right to not do something that is almost certainly massively for the benefit of the entire world?

(Interestingly I am now on the opposite side of my "don't kill the Joker to save a hostage" argument. Interesting to see how I wander all over these issues depending on my mood....)

[Bulldog Psion]

Straight up in OotS 5 Roy didn't need a more considered argument than "Ogres!" to begin murdering two sapient creatures.

How about the considered argument that they were attempting to beat his brains out with immense cudgels? :smallconfused:

See, that's where these arguments about D&D always start to get under my skin. People start projecting their own interpretation in place of what's actually shown.

If there's a module where the characters are supposed to hunt down and wipe out goblins who are killing the peasants, burning farms, and stealing cattle, these people will say "the module has them killing goblins just because they're goblins".

If the OotS kill ogres, trolls, etc. that are actively trying to harm them, someone is sure to jump in and say "ha, typical murderous adventurous, just killing those ogres/trolls/etc. because they are ogres/trolls/etc.".

It's usually useless to point out the fallacious nature of the argument; if you do, you get some kind of condescending, "adults are talking" comment like "well, I'm glad it works out that way in your game. But you mustn't have played much D&D" or something like that.

In short, there seems to be a strong enough knee-jerk reaction of "monsters are just victims of big mean racist adventurers" that pointing out the monsters were actually attacking, or whatever, seems to become totally moot. And that's why these conversations give me the pip. :smallyuk:

Edit: this does not in any form refer to the familicide argument. I'm just talking about the secondary argument and that reference to Roy in strip #5 specifically.

[King of Nowhere]

Anyway, I think I am starting to see that the disagreement is really just a disagreement over the interpretation of the rules in SRD.

I believe the fair interpretation of the rules is that evil dragons are genetically programmed to be evil. And not just evil but vicious murderous evil at that. Exceptions, while possible, are unlikely to the point of absurdity.

Other people seem to think that dragons are really just funnily shaped humans who grew up in the equivalent of a bad neighbourhood or something. (I hope that is a fair representation I don't mean to strawman anyone).


Yes, that's the point. when you say evil dragons, different people see different things. I don't know about fair interpretation of the rules, but I don't care about it either way: it's a roleplaying game, rules are intended as guidelines and ultimately subject to the will of the master.

Now, it's a bit difficult to say what would be morally acceptable in the first case; many people try to make real world comparisons, but they are moot. there is no such thing in the real world as a sentient race genetically evil. There is only one sentient race as far as we know. we know nothing about other minds being alien to us or not. We know about other moral systems being alien to us, so that what one people see as good and right for other people is an abomination. wars have been fought over that. but that's not the same thing.

EDIT: this also has nothing to do with war morality. in an open war you kill whoever is wearing the wrong uniform, and that's reciprocal. You can argue that in an open war wearing a uniform means declaring openly their intentions to kill anyone who fights for the other side. In real world there is the conept of civilians i.e. noncombatant people. In fantasy there may be some situations where the concept of civilians is not appliable. I'm not actually in the mood for a lenghty comment that very few people will read about my ideas on the topic.
END OF THE EDIT

What does it say about we gamers? Well, nothing. it's a game. we know it's not real. we're not trying to create an utopia or even a nice place, but a place where we can imagine some fun adventures.


On another topic, it seems blackwing stopped trying to comfort V and is now kicking him. that's another way to wake so0meone out of self commiseration. We'll see how that works.
But I loved the last few V strips. Normally it would be bad for the story to have a character moping around like that, but the word play is so brilliant that it fits very good. and there's some good character development interwined.

[willpell]

I see alignment, mechanically speaking, as representing whose "side" you're on in a great cosmic moral struggle..."Usually <x>" or "always <y>" peoples have some factor present in their cultural or biological makeup that biases their grand cosmic affiliation.

Uh, yeah, no. Orcs aren't Often Evil just because they all have an "I hate angels" birthmark. They're Often Evil because they tend to be raised in societies which teach them that killing, raping and pillaging their way across the landscape is totally awesome, and they might even have a strong gut tendency to agree with that logic. The resemblance between [Good], Good, and "good" is not a coincidence; it simply isn't an exact perfect matchup. Which is hardly surprising; they exist on different scales. A 10-foot disk (the angel), a 5-foot disk (the paladin) and a 2-foot disk (the average citizen of an Often Good race) are often not all exactly lined up with each other, because they're different sizes and have a lot of room inside each other to get misadjusted slightly. Hence the word 'alignment" - if you are the 2-foot disk, your alignment reflects how well you are ligned up with the 5- and 10-foot ones.


This is not a good example. Someone who has a weapon trained on you is an imminent threat. Someone who you know to have purchased a weapon at some point, and who thus conceivably could train it on you at some undefined point in the future, is not an imminent threat. Similarly, a dragon hovering over a town and threatening to roast its people alive unless they levy some kind of tribute is an imminent threat. A dragon known to lair in a cave a couple hundred miles away is not.

So if a potential threat exists, it's important to wait for it to get worse before you act? What if you can do something about it now, but can't possibly stop it if it's allowed to progress? If the dragon is in the cave, you can set up 200 miles worth of dragon-killing traps for it to stumble into, but they'll take time to build; if you wait for it to attack the village, you'll be shock-and-awed into oblivion before your one and only Tier 1 caster can finish his beatufy sleep. Likewise, what about people who can move at superhuman speed, or divine the future accurately? "Imminent" takes on a very different meaning in those cases. And while a Sherlockian intellect might not be quite as accurate as a crystal ball, it also might be more so, given how fallible magic can sometimes be, depending on how faultlessly accurate you are in your deductive reasoning. So perhaps your very brilliant and/or divination-talented friend says that the dragon will attack the village; is the threat "imminent" now, even though the distance is unchanged?



It's usually useless to point out the fallacious nature of the argument; if you do, you get some kind of condescending, "adults are talking" comment like "well, I'm glad it works out that way in your game. But you mustn't have played much D&D" or something like that.

To be fair, that is pretty much how the standard D&D reality presents itself. The community counter-reaction is understandably a bit exagerated.


In short, there seems to be a strong enough knee-jerk reaction of "monsters are just victims of big mean racist adventurers" that pointing out the monsters were actually attacking, or whatever, seems to become totally moot. And that's why these conversations give me the pip. :smallyuk:

It's hard for us humans to be objective about the possibility that someone might be condoning racism which might vaguely resemble the kind of bigotry that happens to correspond to our particular unit. Part and parcel of having been shaped by evolution; creatures that are twitchy and paranoid have a tendency to live longer (and, by extention, have more kids whom they indoctrinate with their own attitudes) than those who wait and see whether they're actually in danger before overreacting. So perceived threats of, say, a ticked-off ex-painter with a mustache being able to whip up a frenzy of genocidal fervor don't have to progress very far, before people start gvetting a bit uptight about the risk and wanting to nip it hard in the proverbial bud.

[zimmerwald1915]

I cannot help but point out that you make this decision because you are an individual, and thus you empathize with the one exception in such a situation - "oh no, what if someone killed me because they thought people like me were always evil"? It would be a lot harder to sit on that particular high horse if you actually lived in the OOTS world, had your parents or something killed by a black dragon, and then learned that some elf had been in the position of being able to kill 1/4 of the black dragons in the world and had chosen not to.
Who are you to tell me why I think what I think? What do you know about me other than the fact that I like roleplaying games, Swiss villages, My Little Pony, and wasting my time on the Internet? How much time have you spent observing me and analyzing my behavior according to the guidelines of the psychiatric profession? Apart from that, the argument that a D&D world is so very different from our own morality-wise falls apart when you look at the big picture. You and I happen to live in a world where some people somewhere condemn other people to death for bigoted reasons every day. There are, conversely, people who do not respond to bigotry with bigotry, who would not condemn another people to death for vengeance's sake as easily as you claim.


Familicide was not evil because it killed non-dragons. It was evil because it killed non-evil creatures. But it also killed evil creatures in large numbers. Had it been a more refined, and only killed unquestionably and irredeemably evil creatures who are destined never to perform a quasi-Good act, or even who are destined to cause substantially more harm than good (assuming your metrics for destiny are nearly-100% accurate), then it could in that case have been a beneficial spell (almost certainly not Haerta's work anymore, of course). But, if all of the victims of that spell happened to be black dragons, it would still be partial genocide.
No, familicide's evil does not depend one bit on the morality of the victims. It would be just as evil if every single victim turned out to be a baby-eating psychopath. What makes familicide evil is the attitude behind it: "I have the right, with no qualification except my Intelligence score and Spellcraft bonus and no justifiction other than 'because I feel like it', to decide whether potentially billions of creatures I've never met live or die." Nobody should have that right.


In my view, while any act by a flawed and fallible mortal creature unquestionably should not be able to get away with this, it is theoretically completely possible that a nigh-omniscient ultraintelligence could perform a "retroviral extraction" of a "cancerous" species. If they could reduce the collateral damage to exactly 0, the act would definitely be right. If the act does in fact cause collateral damage, then it is less than totally right. But if there is a possibility, incredibly slim but not nonzero, that something might go wrong...do you really have the right to not do something that is almost certainly massively for the benefit of the entire world?
Worthless hypothetical. Nigh-omniscient ultraintelligences do not exist. Not even spliced V came close - the Giant was clear in the Don't Split the Party commentary that "complete and total ultimate arcane power" did not imply omnipotence or omniscience. It meant that she had access to every school and way of casting arcane magic, and that that magic would be more powerful than any mortal's magic had been hitherto. If our understanding of the laws of the universe is correct, destiny does not exist either, nor does it exist in the OOTS-verse. If it did, Belkar's malevometer readings wouldn't have been impacted by his contact with Roy, but would have kept climbing just as the avatars of pure law and good predicted.


So if a potential threat exists, it's important to wait for it to get worse before you act? What if you can do something about it now, but can't possibly stop it if it's allowed to progress? If the dragon is in the cave, you can set up 200 miles worth of dragon-killing traps for it to stumble into, but they'll take time to build; if you wait for it to attack the village, you'll be shock-and-awed into oblivion before your one and only Tier 1 caster can finish his beatufy sleep. Likewise, what about people who can move at superhuman speed, or divine the future accurately? "Imminent" takes on a very different meaning in those cases. And while a Sherlockian intellect might not be quite as accurate as a crystal ball, it also might be more so, given how fallible magic can sometimes be, depending on how faultlessly accurate you are in your deductive reasoning. So perhaps your very brilliant and/or divination-talented friend says that the dragon will attack the village; is the threat "imminent" now, even though the distance is unchanged?
Yes, actually, the difference between potential and imminent threat is very clearly drawn. If someone was stalking me, issuing threats saying he knew where I lived, and posting pictures of me, my house, and my family on the Internet, I would still not have the right to find him and blow his brains out with a nine millimeter. I would get charged with murder, sent to prison, and possibly executed depending on where I happened to live at the time. The use of force is absolutely out of proportion to the offense. Similarly, sneaking into a dragon's home and murdering it in its sleep is totally out of proportion to the dragon's "offense" of deciding to live relatively close to where you live. Particularly as it probably lived there for centuries before your ancestors moved in.

[Kish]

I cannot help but point out

Yeah, you could help but "point out" anything of the kind. And this is inappropriate presumption, willpell. Greater objectivity would not guarantee someone agrees with you.

Particularly when you seem to be confusing your house rules about fiends with something that matters in a debate over D&D or OotS.


So if a potential threat exists, it's important to wait for it to get worse before you act?

Interesting phrasing. The fact that you're talking about murdering an intelligent creature before s/he commits any crime has entirely disappeared; it's a "potential threat" and you're "acting" before it "gets worse."

If Sapient A murders Sapient B because of what Sapient A thinks Sapient B is going to do, no matter how good Sapient A's reason is for believing that, Sapient A has committed a horrible atrocity. And, incidentally, is likely to glow red in response to any evil-detection spells used in his/her vicinity, because D&D's actual stance on the validity of judging and condemning entire races is not ambiguous at all, much as the people who argue for the moral viability of "see green skin and fangs, kill!" want it to be (or want it to be unambiguous in the opposite direction than it actually is). This is the case whether Sapient A is a human and Sapient B a dragon, or the other way around.

[willpell]

Who are you to tell me why I think what I think?

Are you saying you are not an individual? Because otherwise, what I said was valid. It might not be your only reason, but by definition it couldn't not be a contributing factor.


How much time have you spent observing me and analyzing my behavior according to the guidelines of the psychiatric profession?

I for one put very little stock in those guidelines.


Apart from that, the argument that a D&D world is so very different from our own morality-wise falls apart when you look at the big picture.

I do not think that it does. The "big picture" of D&D isn't even in the same art museum as that of Real Life. The implications of what you'll do in a fiction, of your own creation or adopted from published work, are distinctly different from what you'll do in the world you actually have to live in. Some issues assume greater importance, others less.


You and I happen to live in a world where some people somewhere condemn other people to death for bigoted reasons every day. There are, conversely, people who do not respond to bigotry with bigotry, who would not condemn another people to death for vengeance's sake as easily as you claim.

I didn't say that you would, only that you might. It is the absolutism of your claims that I find problematic; you apparently think there is no capacity for ambiguity, when in fact I see it etched into the game on every level. I see the game as in large part revolving around whether you take such a stance, and thus am somewhat annoyed by those who try to claim that there is nothing to discuss, that certain beliefs are just utterly wrong and not worth even trying to understand. Even if the action is unconscionable, the train of logic that might lead to it is worth trying to understand, because there are people who really think that way, and if you refuse to understand why, you're just condemning them for what they are. (To which Haley might reply with a word I can't speak here, and Belkar would point out "It's an underserved demographic!")


Nobody should have that right.

That is a matter of opinion. I believe that it is possible to construct a situation in which a sufficiently superhuman being DOES have the right to make a decision like that, although it almost certainly ALSO has enough power that it doesn't need to. The possible discrepancy between those things, where it can kill all potential murderers but cannot stop them from existing in the first place so that they need to be killed, is incredibly marginal, but I do think it exists.


Worthless hypothetical.

No such thing. All hypotheticals are worth considering if one is in a mood to do so, if only for their own amusement.


Nigh-omniscient ultraintelligences do not exist.

That we know of.


If our understanding of the laws of the universe is correct, destiny does not exist either, nor does it exist in the OOTS-verse. If it did, Belkar's malevometer readings wouldn't have been impacted by his contact with Roy, but would have kept climbing just as the avatars of pure law and good predicted.

The fact that they had malevometer readings proves that a form of destiny does exist in that world, it's just not insurmountable. Had the devas had projections like that for all the black dragons, and there were no Roy-equivalents around to fix the problem, the only thing to stop them from intervening is The Book, which apparently prohibits them from fixing flaws in the world because that's humans' mission if they choose to accept it. (All of which is valid and I'm not arguing with it.)


If someone was stalking me, issuing threats saying he knew where I lived, and posting pictures of me, my house, and my family on the Internet, I would still not have the right to find him and blow his brains out with a nine millimeter.

But what if there were no other way to protect yourself? What if society had broken down such that there were no police, no laws, not even martial law? What if you lived in an Evil-Dominant society where your own relatives would refuse to protect you? My point is that these are not absolute questions with easy answers. Everyone has to figure out where they draw the line, and you've been very clear about how you feel (as have I, even if my answer changes frequently). But you shouldn't pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously wrong, because the answer will always depend. In a D&D game, it depends entirely on the GM. If the GM wants to say "Genocide is justified in my universe", he has that right (and you have the right to say you won't play, and he has the right to change his mind and ask you to play, and you have the right to not believe he's really changed his mind and still refuse, ad infinitum until settled somehow).


The use of force is absolutely out of proportion to the offense.

Agreed completely, but that's not the point.


Similarly, sneaking into a dragon's home and murdering it in its sleep is totally out of proportion to the dragon's "offense" of deciding to live relatively close to where you live. Particularly as it probably lived there for centuries before your ancestors moved in.

It would certainly have been better for the humans to choose another place to settle. But they didn't know any better, and now they live there, and they might have nowhere else to go. If they can't defeat the dragon if it does wake up, and they decide to go kill it now in the only way they can, and some angel shows up and decides to punish them for the evil act? If I were one of them, I'd ask that angel why he didn't find us a safer place to live, or take the dragon away, or put up a permanent forcewall to protect us, or a hundred other possible solutions other than punishing us for doing what we thought we had to do. If there is true and absolute good, it needs to do the absolutely good thing, or it is just hypocritical. Which seems to be exactly what it is in a lot of these situations, though of course it's mostly due to Rule of Drama.


because D&D's actual stance on the validity of judging and condemning entire races is not ambiguous at all, much as the people who argue for the moral viability of "see green skin and fangs, kill!" want it to be.

Really? Where exactly in the rules does it clarify this? Have you been through every single adventure path to confirm that not one of them has the players exterminating an entire encampment of orcs or worgs or sahaguin or something, with no mention of any possible alignment consequence? The stereotype exists for a a reason; the rules are very much NOT as clear as they should be. Mind you, I agree with you on how it should be, just not that it actually is that way. Reality, to me, is pretty much synonymous with things not happening the way they should.

[Kish]

Really? Where exactly in the rules does it clarify this?

You're lecturing on the rules of D&D without ever actually reading the core books, along with lecturing zimmerwald1915 on how his mind works while expressing your contempt for psychiatry? Impressive.

The "stereotype" exists because people of the "I don't play this game to philosophize, I just want to kill some orcs!" school of thought want the game to be as simple as "if it's not a PC race it's a target." There's a perfect illustration of the attitude in On the Origins of PCs. Perhaps some module author has ignored the Player's Handbook section on alignment and tried to promote a more simplistic form of morality; I neither know nor care, and even if that is the case it certainly doesn't support whatever claim you're trying to make.

[lio45]

Mosquitoes aren't sapient.

But they're genetically programmed to have a behavior that is an inconvenience to humans... in that respect, black dragons are closer to mosquitoes than they are to humans.

In other words... take a baby human, put him/her in a good home so he/she is well taken care of, gets a good education, etc. That person is likely to turn out "Good".

Now take a mosquito larva, try what you want for "education", it will still want to sting you and suck your blood.

And now, touching the obvious (IMO) heart of the issue here, take a hundred newborn baby black dragons, put them in a hundred Good human homes with a hundred caring families that will raise them in a loving environment, will 90+ of them turn out "Good"? Or will 90+ of them still turn out Evil?

That thought experiment, in the world that Rich has created, might have the former result if you asked Rich himself that question, because he is free to bend the D&D rules as he pleases for his own universe. The ones of us who are arguing against that are taking the "standard D&D" point of view instead of Rich's (as Math Mage pointed out already)... are basically saying (IMO -- don't want to put words into people's mouths) that they don't think Rich would alter "standard D&D" THAT much (OotS is still very rooted in the D&D game), and that we can still reason using/invoking "standard D&D". Dragons aren't interchangeable with humans in D&D, and going as far as to change that fundamental aspect of D&D would be a bit much.

If Rich chimes in to say he actually did it, then okay... but until that happens, I'll still assume he's following some of the very basics of D&D. (Especially when you have a Paladin on record saying dragons are color-coded...)




Not having played X-COM, I'm a bit confused. Does the game actually give you these scenarios where you encounter alien eggs/babies/unarmed civilians? If you choose not to kill them, does it punish you for that? If you do kill them, does it reward you?

You can actually encounter unarmed aliens... however, the mission doesn't end until they're down. (Killed, or rendered inconscious.)

It's actually slightly better (and more simple) to kill them (for the equivalent of XP).




Actually, the closest thing to genocide in the real world would be...wait for it...genocide. Which is not actually that uncommon, and people do get dragged into court from time to time on charges of genocide.

No, let me repeat in a way you can't misunderstand this time, the closest thing (because there's really no equivalent), in our own world, to what V did in his fantasy world, would be to slaughter one quarter of the planet's population of dolphins or elephants, an utterly horrific act, but one that would NOT ever get you dragged into court on charges of genocide.




No. The actual game of XCOM is entirely defensive and only ever pits you against armed aliens who are actively attacking the earth. Lio is bewilderingly attempting to prove his point by telling us how he would hypothetically approach a scenerio which the game never even implies.

I think there's still a number of valid parallels in the X-Com analogy...

1) Aliens, like black dragons, are sapient and intelligent;

2) So far, the ones you've met have attacked you, almost certainly because they wanted to kill you/take your stuff;

3) The one you have in front of you right now hasn't (yet) done anything wrong, but is clearly part of the same species as the others you've encountered.

4) I know the game isn't programmed to allow this, but were that a real situation, there would be the possibility that the Sectoid Navigator, Medic or Engineer you're facing is a peaceful "Drizzt" who was forced by his superiors to man a ship going on a mission to Earth.