Why Vaarsuvius isn't going to Hell

[unknownmercury]

All right, everything in this post is going to be spoilered. If the term 'Familicide' means nothing to you other than killing family members, stop reading.

Okay, so as we all know, Vaarsuvius killed a lot of Black Dragons with the epic level necromancy spell Familicide, before rushing off to go kill Xykon. This was an undoubtedly evil act, don't get me wrong. But is it possible that V almost immediately started atoning for it, without even meaning to? I think the answer is "yes."

In Strip #657, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) Vaarsuvius is getting ready to make a climb down the side of a tower to escape the wrath of the Lich, but stops upon hearing what he has planned for O-Chul. With a resigned sigh, our Elf climbs back into the room and puts herself (shut up) back into danger in order to try and save the paladin's life. This is an inherently good thing to be done. In fact, it is the only thing a good-aligned character would do in this situation.

O-Chul has been prisoner for months and months. To abandon him now, and for a worse punishment, would be so evil, so outright bad, that I as a DM would instantly file the character under the Evil alignment.

Does this one good act balance out the evil of the Familicide spell? No. V still has a long way to go to make up for that. Does it start on the path of atoning? Most certainly, which is why I believe V will maintain a neutral alignment. Neutral characters don't go to Hell when they die.

And that is why Vaarsuvius isn't going to Hell.

[Kish]

Your concept of "atonement" appears to be "doing unrelated-to-the-evil-act [edited, see below]goodneutral things."

That's not mine.

I also note that


O-Chul has been prisoner for months and months. To abandon him now, and for a worse punishment, would be so evil, so outright bad, that I as a DM would instantly file the character under the Evil alignment.indicates that if Vaarsuvius had not tried to rescue O-Chul you would classify him/her as evil based on that alone--meaning that doing so suggests merely that s/he is "not unambiguously evil based on that act."

No one is going to be kept out of a lower plane on death because "s/he at some point did something that wasn't an act of purest evil."

[Rakoa]

Pretty much what Kish said. To actually atone for the moral crime committed would require V to put a huge amount of effort into undoing to the best of his abilities the horrors he has committed and to work to lessen the impact of what he cannot fix. Atonement is a lengthy process.

What you're arguing is that V can do enough good to "balance out" the evil he has committed and so not go to hell, which is certainly possible but is not atonement.

[unknownmercury]

Perhaps atonement isn't the word I was looking for. Karmic balance, maybe? Retribution?

[Rakoa]

Karmic balance is a phrase that works, yes. As you stated, V hasn't nearly balanced out the Evil he has already done, but in time and with good acts he may well save his soul.

[Chad30]

I think atonement would be doing good things that have to do with what evil you did. If you slaughtered a fourth of the black dragon species, then built and financed a hundred hospitals for Humanoid races, that wouldn't really count as atonement.

Also I'd call leaving O'Chul a neutral act. An evil act would be ignoring someone you had the power to save. Granted, all V did was give him a potion, then turn to run away again, but that didn't really improve O'Chul's chances to escape.

Then again, good and evil are subjective, and the first rule of DMing is what the DM says goes.

[Codyage]

Sorry to say but your ENTIRE POINT falls. In these two strips.

Strip 1 V tries to leave via the door FIRST (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html).

Strip 2 V tries to leave AGAIN (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) by climbing down, but then decides to save O-Chul.

V tries to leave twice, before deciding to go for O-Chul. IF V went out the door. He is "Evil" according to you.

Not to mention you can see him start making the decision. Obviously O-Chul wasn't the first choice.

Edit: Fixed the link.

[Necris Omega]

Judging by the Deva's description of "judgement from on high" in terms of Roy's postmortem alignment review, I think Mortals are perhaps subject to a lot more leeway in terms of their alignment based failings than one might think.

Then again, Lawful Good is an ideal you have to strive for, while True Neutral is the alignment equivalent of sitting in a beanbag and eating Cheetos. Yeah, you CAN be one of those annoying druid types obsessed with "balance" and actively promoting the bland, but you can also be a professional beanbag tester and competitive Cheetos eating champion too.

[nonamearisto]

Alignment issues are a quagmire, but it appears that redemption requires two things:

1. A genuine change of heart.

2. Sufficient effort to go along with that change.

A singular act is rarely enough to equal redemption (I know... tell that to Darth Vader), unless that act really was great enough to count as sufficient. A single act of helping one person is rarely enough to do it.

[Kish]

Perhaps atonement isn't the word I was looking for. Karmic balance, maybe? Retribution?
I do not believe anyone had seriously theorized that Vaarsuvius was going to a Lower Plane upon death due to a Xykonish lifelong dedication to committing every atrocity that presents itself as a possibility.

[Toxinthegreat]

I wouldn't say that (s)he is starting to atone, but is in the first stage on GETTING onto that path. V has just realized Familicide's true power, yeah (s)he knew it killed thousands of Black Dragons but not that she could have killed someone who she fought to be friends with (Elan). I believe once V gets out of hir pit, (s)he'll explain to the others. I prophecize that she'll start to realize her actions were even worse once Belkar gets word of this. That will probably get V onto the path of Atoning. She will atone, in time, but it won't be the main focus of the story for a little bit; since they really have to focus on Durkon's Vampirisation, the Orders current Weakened state, Xykon's imminent arrival and TLG.

[white lancer]

I actually think V's mentality right now is closer to a Good alignment than it has ever been before, despite her 'karmic balance' or whatever tending heavily towards Evil right now thanks to Familicide. All of the guilt that s/he's feeling right now really doesn't speak of an Evil alignment, and it tends more towards Good than Neutral IMO. I'd bet that once s/he gets out of the guilt phase and into the action (or atonement) phase, s/he will wind up with a Good alignment in the end even if it's impossible for her to 'make up' for the Familicide spell. Remember that even the Lawful Good alignment gives points for trying, and if V winds up trying to make up for what s/he's done, I could see her winding up in the Neutral Good afterlife.

[Dr.Epic]

In Strip #657, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) Vaarsuvius is getting ready to make a climb down the side of a tower to escape the wrath of the Lich, but stops upon hearing what he has planned for O-Chul. With a resigned sigh, our Elf climbs back into the room and puts herself (shut up) back into danger in order to try and save the paladin's life. This is an inherently good thing to be done. In fact, it is the only thing a good-aligned character would do in this situation.

Really? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html)

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

[Nilehus]

Really? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html)

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

Yep! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)

Going back was a Good act, if the Deva's word is anything to go by. Now that I think about it a bit more, it actually fits perfectly. V was going to abandon O'Chul, but couldn't. That rings Good for me. Heavily Good-leaning-Neutral, but still Good.

[Acanous]

Silly peoples, Atonement is a spell! V can't atone until someone casts it on their behalf.

Then there's a quest, and after that V gets to go to the True Neutral Afterlife.

Being that it's a True Neutral related quest, I'm guessing it has something to do with bean bags and cheetoes.

[Gift Jeraff]

Of course V's not going to Hell, s/he's going to Hades.

[GigaGuess]

I'm hearing Soon's words to Miko here...redemption is a long, arduous path, and not for everyone. Thing is...I think V's up for it. S/he's definitely disgusted and wracked with guilt over his/her actions...I can see him (Ah, screw it) working to try to counteract his deeds.

[Gitman00]

Silly peoples, Atonement is a spell! V can't atone until someone casts it on their behalf.

Then there's a quest, and after that V gets to go to the True Neutral Afterlife.

Being that it's a True Neutral related quest, I'm guessing it has something to do with bean bags and cheetoes.

Interesting. I had always assumed Atonement was just for restoring Paladin status or Cleric spells when they piss off their god, but I never actually read the spell all the way through. Apparently it can be used for a simple alignment change.


Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

Of course, good luck finding a cleric willing to burn 500 XP to cast it for Vaarsuvius. Even Durkon would have probably required something in return.

[Zmeoaice]

Sorry to say but your ENTIRE POINT falls. In these two strips.

Strip 1 V tries to leave via the door FIRST (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html).

Strip 2 V tries to leave AGAIN (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) by climbing down, but then decides to save O-Chul.

V tries to leave twice, before deciding to go for O-Chul. IF V went out the door. He is "Evil" according to you.

Not to mention you can see him start making the decision. Obviously O-Chul wasn't the first choice.

It seems that the reason why V saved O-chul was so that he could fight Xykon and save zer hiney.

Also, using Yukyuk as a living litterbox will probably cost more points.

[Amphiox]

Since V started as True Neutral, and it is allowable for Neutral characters to commit an evil act now and again, I think the real question is whether or not the singular act of casting Familicide was enough to pull V all the way down to Evil right then and there, or if afterwards he was merely Neutral-leaning-Evil.

ie, when the Deva attempted to warn Roy of V's alignment "sliding", did the Deva meant that V had slid all the way to Evil, or merely that V was sliding towards Evil.

How much does intent factor into the alignment judgment (when V cast Familicide s/he intended a significant evil - overkill revenge against an entire lineage of Black Dragons, but s/he did not intend the even greater evil of the deaths of all the innocent demi-dragons and other related sentients) versus the actual consequences of the act?

How much does failure of foresight count? (As V, by hir own admission SHOULD have known of the potentially greater unintended consequences of casting Familicide, but did not think of taking that into account when s/he actually cast it) Arguably said failure is recklessness and should not count towards a slide from Neutral to Evil, but rather a slide from Neutral to Chaotic on the other axis.

And how much does subsequent regret for the action count?

Quite arguably V has acted more Good since casting Familicide than s/he had ever acted before casting Familicide, so if the casting of Familicide did not push V all the way into Evil, then at this moment V is still True Neutral (if leaning Evil), and if given enough time will likely lean less and less Evil.

If casting Familicide did in fact push V all the way into Evil, then the question is whether or not this is far enough into Evil that V's subsequent Good actions since then would not be sufficient to pull V back into Neutral.

Either way, though, barring another unexpected twist, the impact of the casting of Familicide on V's character arc is to set V on a trajectory in which s/he desires to become MORE Good, and if given sufficient time for personal growth, V will most likely end up Neutral Good.

Unless, of course, s/he ends up dying before completing said arc of character growth, or if something happens (say when the IFCC claim their "fee" on V's soul) that changes the arc again.

[Amphiox]

Personally, I think that if V died right now, s/he would NOT go to Hell/Hades (except for the designated time period owed to the IFCC). The regret and torment V is having over casting the spell will be enough to keep V in the Neutral bracket. As the Deva said to Roy, one is judged for what one wants to do and tries to do, and not as much for the consequences of what one fails to do that one does not foresee.

If V had cast Familicide, and in the aftermath went "hey now, I LIKE the feel of using this sort of power", and "oh, the Draketooth's are dead? It wasn't my fault! I couldn't have known, and bah, who cares anyways" then V probably would have become Evil.

[Mutant Sheep]

Interesting. I had always assumed Atonement was just for restoring Paladin status or Cleric spells when they piss off their god, but I never actually read the spell all the way through. Apparently it can be used for a simple alignment change.



Of course, good luck finding a cleric willing to burn 500 XP to cast it for Vaarsuvius. Even Durkon would have probably required something in return.
Even if it couldn't, I'd hope The Giant would use it that way.

Really? You think Durkon would say "Och, nah, sorry V. Can't help ye' unless ye' give me ol' back a nice Elv'n massage, convert ta Thor, and foller tha' proper conversion rites (booze)"? That is not painting Good people as Good. Good people like more good people. There's no competition. Rejecting someone trying to repent is so Un-Durkon LG it hurts.

[unknownmercury]

It seems that the reason why V saved O-chul was so that he could fight Xykon and save zer hiney.

Wrong, because if V hadn't gone back, there would have been no need for someone to save zer hiney. That would have been the end of the encounter for Vaarsuvius.

[hamishspence]

Since V started as True Neutral, and it is allowable for Neutral characters to commit an evil act now and again, I think the real question is whether or not the singular act of casting Familicide was enough to pull V all the way down to Evil right then and there, or if afterwards he was merely Neutral-leaning-Evil.

ie, when the Deva attempted to warn Roy of V's alignment "sliding", did the Deva meant that V had slid all the way to Evil, or merely that V was sliding towards Evil.

How much does intent factor into the alignment judgment (when V cast Familicide s/he intended a significant evil - overkill revenge against an entire lineage of Black Dragons, but s/he did not intend the even greater evil of the deaths of all the innocent demi-dragons and other related sentients) versus the actual consequences of the act?

How much does failure of foresight count? (As V, by hir own admission SHOULD have known of the potentially greater unintended consequences of casting Familicide, but did not think of taking that into account when s/he actually cast it) Arguably said failure is recklessness and should not count towards a slide from Neutral to Evil, but rather a slide from Neutral to Chaotic on the other axis.

And how much does subsequent regret for the action count?

Quite arguably V has acted more Good since casting Familicide than s/he had ever acted before casting Familicide, so if the casting of Familicide did not push V all the way into Evil, then at this moment V is still True Neutral (if leaning Evil), and if given enough time will likely lean less and less Evil.

If casting Familicide did in fact push V all the way into Evil, then the question is whether or not this is far enough into Evil that V's subsequent Good actions since then would not be sufficient to pull V back into Neutral.

V is True Neutral (http://ow.ly/6fgbi) as of after the splice.

However- it's possible for afterlife to be based more one deeds than present alignment. Fiendish Codex 2 takes that approach.

A genuinely repentant Lawful person with enough un-atoned for corruption on their soul, rather than going to the Nine Hells on death, is transformed into a Hellbred, getting a second chance.

Might the same be true of a Neutral person who has enough "obeisance" on their soul? That is, unatoned for Lawful acts?

[SowZ]

Abandoning O-Chul would be bad, but not enough to make one evil. It isn't an act of malice or spite, just self preservation. Escaping a POW camp and not freeing the others wouldn't make someone evil. It would be reason to make a Paladin fall, but not enough by itself to make someone lose a good alignment.

[Gitman00]

Even if it couldn't, I'd hope The Giant would use it that way.

Really? You think Durkon would say "Och, nah, sorry V. Can't help ye' unless ye' give me ol' back a nice Elv'n massage, convert ta Thor, and foller tha' proper conversion rites (booze)"? That is not painting Good people as Good. Good people like more good people. There's no competition. Rejecting someone trying to repent is so Un-Durkon LG it hurts.

You're missing the point. Since V's evil acts were deliberate, Durkon would need to burn 500 XP to intercede with Thor on his behalf. A Lawful Good cleric would absolutely require something for that. I'm not talking about a personal favor for Durkon himself; I'm talking about a task or quest to prove that V was truly repentant.

If he didn't require such proof, it would be all too easy to commit atrocities repeatedly, then just say, "Whoops! Durkon, I went on another mass-murdering spree. Gonna need another Atonement!"

[zimmerwald1915]

Not to mention priest-of-Thor!Durkon's got no jurisdiction whatsoever. V doesn't worship Thor, but rather the "ancient elven god of knowledge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html)". Neither can Thor claim to represent the wronged parties. Tiamat is the patron of black dragons, and of the non-dragon victims of Familicide, those we know of resided on the Western, not the Northern, continent.

That said, it's been theorized that Vampire!Durkon might no longer be a priest of Thor.

[Gitman00]

Not to mention priest-of-Thor!Durkon's got no jurisdiction whatsoever. V doesn't worship Thor, but rather the "ancient elven god of knowledge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html)".

Exactly. So Durkon probably would require that Vaarsuvius convert to the worship of Thor.

[zimmerwald1915]

Exactly. So Durkon probably would require that Vaarsuvius convert to the worship of Thor.
By what right? Thor doesn't represent the victims in any real way.

[Gitman00]

By what right? Thor doesn't represent the victims in any real way.

That's true. But the spell as written doesn't require that: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

It only says that the cleric intercedes with his deity; it doesn't say anything about the victims, nor does it say that the atoner needs to worship the same deity as the cleric. It would make sense for a DM to house-rule that in, but it's not in the RAW.

[isoriveil]

If he didn't require such proof, it would be all too easy to commit atrocities repeatedly, then just say, "Whoops! Durkon, I went on another mass-murdering spree. Gonna need another Atonement!"

Actually, it is that easy.

In one campaign I've had some murderlicious group of villains fighting against kingdom ruled by paladin order. Kingdom being pretty totalitarian, it was hard to infiltrate it, so the choice was this exactly: dominate some cleric, force him to cast atonement on them so that they become a group of jolly (like halflings) guys and easily enter the city. Afterwards they get to know the local ruler, who is pretty happy to talk with powerful and friendly LG adventurers, but as the group gets to know certain laws of the White Hand Order they become disgruntled and in the end lead an uprising which, thanks to couple of prepared beforehand Simbul's Spell Triggers, turns into a total massacre. The back-to-evil group finds another cleric to dominate and goes to the next city. Till the fourth massacre PCs actually considered those villains the good guys and helped them against paladins from time to time.

[Kish]

Actually, it is that easy.

In one campaign I've had some murderlicious group of villains fighting against kingdom ruled by paladin order. Kingdom being pretty totalitarian, it was hard to infiltrate it, so the choice was this exactly: dominate some cleric, force him to cast atonement on them so that they become a group of jolly (like halflings) guys and easily enter the city.

The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.
So, no. That worked in your campaign only because of what amounted to you house ruling the effects of Atonement into something completely different from what they are in the rules.

[ZarDaranth]

When it comes to alignment, in my mind, it comes down to the same point that the Deva made with Roy. In V's case: Is s/he Neutral, and is s/he Neutral? Well, we have a pattern from Roy that while abandoning a Good person to an unknown fate is quite bad (V's initial abandon of O-Chul), going back shows an attempt to try (O-Chul and the Phylactery of Wrongeyedness).

Obviously, the most evil act we know of in V's life is Familicide. Hands down, Capital E, Xykon rooting from the stands with undead cheerleaders in horrid pastel spandex evil. Anyone who knowingly uses that spell (knowing exactly how far reaching it is) deserves an Evil afterlife, no questions asked. However, V didn't know how far it would reach, just that the Dragon had to be stopped. I mean, who wouldn't go to any lengths possible to try and stop what the Black Dragon was planning? (Binding the immortal souls of children? Someone should have told Xykon, because he'd be laughing his bony butt off.)

I think the only way that V can truly find peace (I'm not even sure if "karmic balance" is possible, given the sheer magnitude of damage he had done.) is by first admitting to Tarquin that it was his/her magical disaster that caused his wife's death, and then making an attempt to find those who were affected, and try to do something.

Finally, I think the closest that V will ever get to an Evil afterlife is how he/she is currently. The weight of the deaths caused by Familicide are weighing heavily on the poor elf's soul, which will be further torn threadbare by the IFCC once they get their Evil hands on V's soul. If that isn't hell for V (or Hell, or the Abyss, or Hades, or Rob Schneider Movies For All Time), I don't know what is.

[Kish]

Anyone who knowingly uses that spell (knowing exactly how far reaching it is) deserves an Evil afterlife, no questions asked. However, V didn't know how far it would reach, just that the Dragon had to be stopped.
Stop the bus.

Vaarsuvius cast Familicide on the animated remains of the already-defeated-and-dead dragon. Make one of the morally hideous arguments that there would be nothing wrong with murdering dozens of innocent black dragons, if you want, but don't try to go anywhere with "the purpose of Familicide was to stop the ancient black dragon's plan."

[ZarDaranth]

As I said, anyone who knowingly uses Familicide to its fullest potential deserves an Evil afterlife, no matter who they use it on.

But I think that the reasoning for V using Familicide wasn't to obliterate a quarter of the black dragons in the world (as well as scores upon scores on the Western Continent). I think it was V's consistently bad habit of overusing magic (and in a highly overkill manner, no less) to solve personal problems.

Could V have just stopped there, with a Dead Black Dragon in the yard? Probably. V's Master, the one so powerful that such a black dragon would be no issue, could have been consulted and told to protect V's family against further retribution. But that would have implied that V couldn't do it alone, with his/her own magic. So, not an option.

V also could have stopped and researched a spell to protect the spouse and children from being found by anything short of epic magic (i.e. how the enhanced scrying technique was researched). But that would have robbed V's overkill habit. Also, not an option.

V was never in the running for anything better than a True Neutral afterlife anyway, given V's personality and actions prior to Familicide. I just think that V's usage of Familicide was not the full Evil that someone like Xykon could inflict with it, since V wouldn't have had that kind of intent. And if anything, a True Neutral afterlife is nearly impossible for V without a nearly lifelong dedication to fixing the disaster he/she wrought.

[Kish]

As I said, anyone who knowingly uses Familicide to its fullest potential deserves an Evil afterlife, no matter who they use it on.

But I think that the reasoning for V using Familicide wasn't to obliterate a quarter of the black dragons in the world (as well as scores upon scores on the Western Continent).
I note that you get "a quarter of the black dragons in the world" from Vaarsuvius' bragging immediately after doing it. So, whether his/her transparent, laughable excuse about Familicide preventing further vengeance is a transparent, laughable excuse or not, there is no way around the fact that s/he knew s/he had murdered dozens of innocent black dragons. So...you're arguing that it took him/her an entire strip to realize what s/he was doing? And that his/her apparent bragging, his/her declaration of "This, and no less, is the price of threatening my family," was all a way of expressing, "Oh gods, what have I done?"?

Your previous post claimed that s/he was trying to stop "the Dragon" when s/he cast Familicide. The already dead dragon. You asked the irrelevant question, "who wouldn't go to any lengths possible to try and stop what the Black Dragon was planning?" when the relevant question would have been, "Who wouldn't go to any lengths possible to torture the black dragon once she was defeated?" (to which my answer would be, uh, ME!).

[ZarDaranth]

Given the noted effects of dramatic timing already apparent in the comic, as well as the fact that the Mature Black Dragon had established herself as a recurring/callback character, V likely figured that there would again be further retribution for the mother, as well as the son.

As for innocent black dragons? Correct me if I'm wrong, Kish, but there was the time where V/Miko were talking about slaying dragons, and the fact that V considers non-metallic dragons inherently evil. Ergo, V likely didn't think "innocent black dragons" made sense at the point of casting.

And for "who wouldn't go to any lengths"... If I was a parent, and someone was threatening my children with eternal torment, I would want to stop the threat to the very end. No questions.

[Kish]

And for "who wouldn't go to any lengths"... If I was a parent, and someone was threatening my children with eternal torment, I would want to stop the threat to the very end. No questions.
...Congratulations. You have outlasted me. I will not attempt any further to get you to acknowledge that the threat was already stopped, and the Familicide was not about stopping the already-dead-dragon, in this thread.

[ZarDaranth]

If I were to think of threats in real life terms, then yes, I guess the threat had stopped. However, with resurrection, necromancy, vampirism, and the afterlife, death is rarely the end for characters. Add into that the fact that the Mature Black Dragon was quite adept at magic, including necromancy, it is probably safe to assume that there might be other black dragons or other allies of the MBD that share magic use in common. Especially if it follows the rules of drama.

And were I someone with less class, I'd assume I'd only outlast you with application of fire or acid. :smalltongue:

[Stormlock]

Considering V's family was in danger to begin with because the dragon was getting revenge for a dead family member, leaving it at two dead dragons was probably not going to do the trick. Mommy dragon probably had a mate, or sibling, or parent, or friend who would be willing to exact some revenge on a puny mortal. And so would that dragon, and that one, and so forth. Killing them ALL was overkill, but it's not like V had 'Mordekainen's Spell of Moderate Black Dragon Only Pseudo Genocide- Light Edition' to fall back on, or a lot of time to sit around thinking about how to keep her family safe for the next several hundred years from the only things on the planet that live longer than elves and have inherently evil alignment. The clock was running and there was a world that needed saving.

The act wasn't evil because there were other options to reliably protect V's family she could have taken, it was evil because the option she did take (which was the only one really) sacrificed the lives of many innocent (in this affair at least) sentient creatures. The Good thing to do would have been to risk their deaths and even their eternal soul trapped torment at the hands of another dragon. Sometimes being good means sacrificing your family or friends, because good guys don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

[SowZ]

Considering V's family was in danger to begin with because the dragon was getting revenge for a dead family member, leaving it at two dead dragons was probably not going to do the trick. Mommy dragon probably had a mate, or sibling, or parent, or friend who would be willing to exact some revenge on a puny mortal. And so would that dragon, and that one, and so forth. Killing them ALL was overkill, but it's not like V had 'Mordekainen's Spell of Moderate Black Dragon Only Pseudo Genocide- Light Edition' to fall back on, or a lot of time to sit around thinking about how to keep her family safe for the next several hundred years from the only things on the planet that live longer than elves and have inherently evil alignment. The clock was running and there was a world that needed saving.

The act wasn't evil because there were other options to reliably protect V's family she could have taken, it was evil because the option she did take (which was the only one really) sacrificed the lives of many innocent (in this affair at least) sentient creatures. The Good thing to do would have been to risk their deaths and even their eternal soul trapped torment at the hands of another dragon. Sometimes being good means sacrificing your family or friends, because good guys don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

There was no tough moral decision, no weighing of the pros and cons on whether or not Familicide would increase or decrease chance of revenge, (I think it greatly increases it,) and she didn't feel guilt while or after casting it. She gloated about it almost gleefully. She did it because she wanted to. Because it was probably the most powerful, (and evil,) spell she would ever have a chance to cast in her life and there, sitting in front of her, was a moral justification for casting it.

[Mutant Sheep]

You're missing the point. Since V's evil acts were deliberate, Durkon would need to burn 500 XP to intercede with Thor on his behalf. A Lawful Good cleric would absolutely require something for that. I'm not talking about a personal favor for Durkon himself; I'm talking about a task or quest to prove that V was truly repentant.

If he didn't require such proof, it would be all too easy to commit atrocities repeatedly, then just say, "Whoops! Durkon, I went on another mass-murdering spree. Gonna need another Atonement!"I thought that the spell would just fizzle if the Atoner didn't feel properly repentant.

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.I seem to be wrong, but I took this as the spell not working if the person wasn't genuinely sorry for their actions, so not "I am sad that there are Black Dragon hit squads comign for me", but "Killing thousands of innocents to completely demoralize and torture an opponent I already defeated was so inhumane and cruel I don't think I even deserve this atonement". Though the quest being a usual prerequisite to the spell, I don't see how a quest would prove the person's regret. If they're willing to act sad enough to get a repentence, they could act through that too.


Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.

Reverse Magical Alignment Change
If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no cost in experience points.

Restore Class
A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.Another thought and random question though: Could someone cast Atonement on Durkula and give him his usual alignment back (once he regains free will, of course). Or is being undead beyond the "Magically changed" scope of alignment?

[ChristianSt]

Considering V's family was in danger to begin with because the dragon was getting revenge for a dead family member, leaving it at two dead dragons was probably not going to do the trick. Mommy dragon probably had a mate, or sibling, or parent, or friend who would be willing to exact some revenge on a puny mortal. And so would that dragon, and that one, and so forth. Killing them ALL was overkill, but it's not like V had 'Mordekainen's Spell of Moderate Black Dragon Only Pseudo Genocide- Light Edition' to fall back on, or a lot of time to sit around thinking about how to keep her family safe for the next several hundred years from the only things on the planet that live longer than elves and have inherently evil alignment. The clock was running and there was a world that needed saving.

I even think that Familicide made the position for V's family worse.

If V just killed the ABD - sure there might be some family-member left to go on killing spree. But it is also quite possible that no one is left or cares enough to do something.

With killing a quantrillion dragons, it is a pretty safe bet to say that someone is drastically pissed off at this and wants to punish/revenge on V. (Not all bonds are blood-related, so thinking there are no loose ends is extremely stupid - If for example the ABD's neighbor wants to kill V/V's family because he had a crush on ABD, Familicide does exactly nothing). We even see that Tiamat is really pissed off (667 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html)/668 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)), so I would it find quite believable if someone/something would want to kill everyone V ever interacted with.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Mommy dragon probably had a mate, or sibling, or parent, or friend who would be willing to exact some revenge on a puny mortal.

No mate. Adventurers killed him and skinned him to add insult to injury. No other children. And Mama Dragon didn't mention any other people she was close to. In fact, her rage indicates she lacked any support network, so probably there weren't any other dragons she was close to.

V says it herself. She deserves damnation. Whether she ends up there depends on what the Giant springs on us in the next thousand strips or so.

[Snails]

I agree that if f V stopped to logic it out, s/he would recognize that casting Familicide obviously puts hir own family in greater danger than the alternative.

People with draconic blood are likely to be exceptional. Out of hundreds of victims, at least a few percent have friends or loved ones who are powerful enough to investigate. The 4th level spell Divination will provide enough hints for anyone of middling level to get on the right track, if they are willing to invest several months or a few years in the effort.

Of course, the nature of V's failure is involves how s/he did not want to stop and think.

[Snails]

V says it herself. She deserves damnation.

It would be just for V to be damned. But Good allows for the possibility of forgiveness and redemption, not fettered by simplistic moral calculus.

The fact that V correctly rejects Blackwing's simplistic moral calculus makes V a good candidate for future atonement, if only s/he were to gather hir wits and find a positive path towards making some kind of amends.

[Dr.Epic]

Yep! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)

Going back was a Good act, if the Deva's word is anything to go by. Now that I think about it a bit more, it actually fits perfectly. V was going to abandon O'Chul, but couldn't. That rings Good for me. Heavily Good-leaning-Neutral, but still Good.

So waiting several hours to rescue a longtime loyal comrade who volunteered to go on a life-or-death mission for you that only benefits you when you could have easily rescued them hours earlier from just two mooks is LG.

So what's going back to rescue basically a total stranger from an epic Lich that could kill and detect you easily? That like super, awesome, omega free-of-all-sin righteous or something?

[Lord Torath]

Obviously, the most evil act we know of in V's life is Familicide. Hands down, Capital E, Xykon rooting from the stands with undead cheerleaders in horrid pastel spandex evil. Anyone who knowingly uses that spell (knowing exactly how far reaching it is) deserves an Evil afterlife, no questions asked. However, V didn't know how far it would reach, just that the Dragon had to be stopped. I think it's worth pointing out that, even after Familicide, the fiends have only a 50% chance of getting V's soul. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) (panel 4 - orange speech balloon).

As V's remorse and resolve to do better set in, I see that probability decreasing steadily.

[Snails]

So waiting several hours to rescue a longtime loyal comrade who volunteered to go on a life-or-death mission for you that only benefits you when you could have easily rescued them hours earlier from just two mooks is LG.

So what's going back to rescue basically a total stranger from an epic Lich that could kill and detect you easily? That like super, awesome, omega free-of-all-sin righteous or something?

Roy was presumed to be Good enough in that conversation. The question is whether he is Lawful. One can make a very good argument that Roy is NG, so these details matter. A feather could tilt Roy's soul into one pile (LG) or another (NG).

What V did was quite impressive there. S/he basically traded away a 99% chance of escape for a 1% chance of saving a stranger, largely because s/he saw O-Chul as worthy of saving.

[zimmerwald1915]

As V's remorse and resolve to do better set in, I see that probability decreasing steadily.
Why? All V's attempts to "do better" hitherto were fundamentally misguided, because she did not recognize that she had actually done wrong, just poorly. Since she has recognized that she has done wrong, she has not made a single attempt to "do better", and has indeed speculated that any such attempt would be not just futile, but counterproductive.

What's more, there's an argument to be made that "doing better" isn't enough, not by a long shot. What is required is not a building up of positive karma points, but the search for forgiveness. This implies acknowledging some other person, who can adequately represent V's victims, as a higher moral authority.

People have been going on about V's "redemption" arc since the end of DStP. Until very recently, we could not be sure it was actually there. The confirmation that it is there confirmed at the same time that it is moving very, very slowly, as it should. It is not going to be resolved with easy tears, or superficial actions.


What V did was quite impressive there. S/he basically traded away a 99% chance of escape for a 1% chance of saving a stranger, largely because s/he saw O-Chul as worthy of saving.
Does it matter? Only if you're looking at V's arc from the perspective of building up karma points.

[Acrux]

Not all bonds are blood-related

This is actually one of the overarching themes of this comic -- exploring the meanings of power and loyalty.

[Lord Torath]

I think it's worth pointing out that, even after Familicide, the fiends have only a 50% chance of getting V's soul. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) (panel 4 - orange speech balloon).

As V's remorse and resolve to do better set in, I see that probability decreasing steadily.
People have been going on about V's "redemption" arc since the end of DStP. Until very recently, we could not be sure it was actually there. The confirmation that it is there confirmed at the same time that it is moving very, very slowly, as it should. It is not going to be resolved with easy tears, or superficial actions.Exactly! (It should be noted that I used "set in" in the present-future tense, not past tense. That could have caused some of your confusion regarding my remarks.)

[zimmerwald1915]

Exactly! (It should be noted that I used "set in" in the present-future tense, not past tense. That could have caused some of your confusion regarding my remarks.)
Possibly. However, I have just as much a problem with the "steadily" part of your statement, because it doesn't fit how the arc has developed at all. It's developed in fits and [mostly false] starts, epiphanies, retreats, and recognitions. There's nothing steady about it.

[Amphiox]

You're missing the point. Since V's evil acts were deliberate, Durkon would need to burn 500 XP to intercede with Thor on his behalf. A Lawful Good cleric would absolutely require something for that. I'm not talking about a personal favor for Durkon himself; I'm talking about a task or quest to prove that V was truly repentant.

If he didn't require such proof, it would be all too easy to commit atrocities repeatedly, then just say, "Whoops! Durkon, I went on another mass-murdering spree. Gonna need another Atonement!"

For a real life historical example of this, this is why the custom of granting Papal Indulgences became such a big controversial issue that helped spark the Reformation.

[Amphiox]

It would be just for V to be damned. But Good allows for the possibility of forgiveness and redemption, not fettered by simplistic moral calculus.

The fact that V correctly rejects Blackwing's simplistic moral calculus makes V a good candidate for future atonement, if only s/he were to gather hir wits and find a positive path towards making some kind of amends.

It should be noted that in Roman Catholic tradition, all that is necessary for a sinner to be forgiven is sincere repentance, no actual deeds required.

ie Forgiveness is a gift GIVEN by the grace of god to the sinner even if it is undeserved.

On the other extreme, embodied in real life by certain passages of the Old Testatment, atonement is almost impossible, and virtually always requires some sort of blood sacrifice.

So in a sense it depends on where the Entities that make such judgments in the OOTS 'verse sit on the repentance vs atonement axis. On one end, just by being sincerely sorry, V could already be entitled to be forgiven. On the other end, V may only be able to redeem hirself by an act of ultimate heroic self-sacrifice.

[SowZ]

It should be noted that in Roman Catholic tradition, all that is necessary for a sinner to be forgiven is sincere repentance, no actual deeds required.

ie Forgiveness is a gift GIVEN by the grace of god to the sinner even if it is undeserved.

On the other extreme, embodied in real life by certain passages of the Old Testatment, atonement is almost impossible, and virtually always requires some sort of blood sacrifice.

So in a sense it depends on where the Entities that make such judgments in the OOTS 'verse sit on the repentance vs atonement axis. On one end, just by being sincerely sorry, V could already be entitled to be forgiven. On the other end, V may only be able to redeem hirself by an act of ultimate heroic self-sacrifice.

Christianity typically goes off of a model of grace salvation, though, and without getting too detailed, it generally doesn't teach that ones deeds are the primary factor to determine afterlife placement. OOTS seems to work on, if not a purely merit based afterlife system, one that heavily relies on it.

[Dr.Epic]

Roy was presumed to be Good enough in that conversation.

Yes, abandoning a loyal comrade simply because while said comrade is indeed goodhearted, they are also annoying. Truly this was for good.:smallwink:

[rodneyAnonymous]

Christianity typically...

There are many different flavors with different ideas about works versus grace and no more RL religion please.

[Rakoa]

There are many different flavors with different ideas about works versus grace and no more RL religion please.

DnD morality is very much based in the morality of "RL religion", as you put it. For the discussion to be complete it was bound to come up.

[saltysugar96]

For the discussion to be complete it was bound to come up.

Except, for the discussion to be forum legal, it literally can't come up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=22&a=1).

[Rakoa]

Except, for the discussion to be forum legal, it literally can't come up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=22&a=1).

I never said it was forum legal. I said it was inevitable. I am well aware of the forum rules.

[137beth]

There is something really really obvious missing...(unless there was a reply I missed):

The nine hells (what is this singular "hell" you speak of:smallconfused:) is for lawful evil characters. V was true neutral before the familicide. He/she/ze certainly did not get any more lawful since then. So he/she/it will go to some other plain, regardless of his/her/its location on the good/evil axis.

[zimmerwald1915]

The nine hells (what is this singular "hell" you speak of:smallconfused:) is for lawful evil characters. V was true neutral before the familicide. He/she/ze certainly did not get any more lawful since then. So he/she/it will go to some other plain, regardless of his/her/its location on the good/evil axis.
The WoG we have for V being True Neutral came well after she cast familicide. We don't know what alignment she had before that, and though True Neutral is not an unreasonable assumption, it is an assumption.

[ZerglingOne]

But V knows for a fact that what she did was evil. She is massively emotionally affected by her deeds and is brought to an almost unfunctional level.

An actually evil character would never think twice about what their actions herald. That is, by definition evil. Doing bad without remorse is sort of a running theme in the comic. Think Malack's plan for the western continent. Think of xykon taking delight in killing goblins just because he can. Think of the 200 foot tall flaming letters that are live humans burning.

Was casting Familicide evil? HELL yes, and Chaotic Evil at that. Is V an evil character for doing so? Ask yourself, would Xykon, Redcloak, Malack, or Tarquin cry when they realized how many innocents they killed? The answer is an emphatic NO.

[zimmerwald1915]

But V knows for a fact that what she did was evil. She is massively emotionally affected by her deeds and is brought to an almost unfunctional level.

Was casting Familicide evil? HELL yes, and Chaotic Evil at that. Is V an evil character for doing so? Ask yourself, would Xykon, Redcloak, Malack, or Tarquin cry when they realized how many innocents they killed? The answer is an emphatic NO.
To recognize that one has done evil is important, and difficult. It took V a couple hundred strips, and several false starts, to manage it. But recognition and regret are part of rejecting evil and embracing not-evil, and do not in and of themselves constitute such rejection and embrace. Seeing tears and concluding that a character will be absolved because of them is too easy. It's not a stringent enough standard, not by a long shot.

[Bovine Colonel]

To recognize that one has done evil is important, and difficult. It took V a couple hundred strips, and several false starts, to manage it. But recognition and regret are part of rejecting evil and embracing not-evil, and do not in and of themselves constitute such rejection and embrace. Seeing tears and concluding that a character will be absolved because of them is too easy. It's not a stringent enough standard, not by a long shot.

I believe the point of the thread is speculation that now that V has shown remorse for his actions, he will see his atonement through to completion.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I said it was inevitable.

Yes, fine, whatever, but I said "no more" not "rewrite the past".

[zimmerwald1915]

I believe the point of the thread is speculation that now that V has shown remorse for his actions, he will see his atonement through to completion.
That's a bit of a reach, I think, especially given how long it took V to recognize what her bad actions were and how many false starts it took her to get to that recognition. Daunted by the enormity of her sin, she has given more thought to sui (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)cide (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html) than to the possibility of absolution.1 She contemplated suicide twice. She has yet to give one thought to finding absolution. V does not yet comprehend that absolution is a goal she can set for herself. That some posters think that an arc that puts her on a path to absolution is a bit presumptuous, in my opinion.

Maybe if this were V's story, we would see V embrace an absolution arc and see it through to the end, but it's not. It's Roy's story. That story is on a clock, and the hands of that clock are rapidly winding towards midnight. V hasn't got time, given her tendency towards false starts, to see an absolution arc to its end before Roy sees Xykon to his.

1Incidentally, this word is much better than "redemption". "Absolution" implies the lifting of the weight of bad deeds from the soul. "Redemption" implies becoming more Good-aligned.

[Tragak]

In V's favor: he does feel great remorse for what she did when he was near-omnipotent.

Against her favor: he did still do it.

Which raises the question of whether the D&D Outer Planes care more about the Good/Evil of the people themselves or of the actions taken in their lives. Unfortunately, the only directly shown example is of Roy's evaluation. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0487.html)

488 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) through 490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) seem to show that the Outer Planes focus on the Person more than on their actions when the two conflict. Not only has V been shown that her genocide had categorically innocent and/or heroic victims that he did not intend to kill, but the realization then lead her to realize that even some of his intended victims may have been equally innocent.

However, Roy's evaluation is not a lot of data to work with, especially if Celestia has different standards than the Neutral or Evil Planes (or even the other Good ones). Most importantly, Roy didn't just feel bad for the worst thing he did in his life, he actively made up for it and then some, which raises the question about whether V's inability to do so will be what ultimately matters to the Powers That Be.

If Roy is considered Good because he realized that what he did was wrong, why it was so, and because he hated himself for it, then V's remorse is equally sufficient and she does not need to atone through actions the way that Roy did (though that would still be a bonus). If Roy needed to actually follow through on fixing it, V is [REDACTED]

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Real world religion is an inappropriate topic on this forum even when it intersects gaming or comics issues. Thread locked for Warnings and Infractions as needed.