Something Rotten in the Clan of Draketooth?

[NCoffin]

Given that we know a grandparent of Girard Draketooth had a relationship with a black dragon, traditionally Evil as they are, does this have any implications for the likely/possible alignment for the family as a whole?

Certainly the comic has a lot to say about judging books based on their cover, alignment-wise, but then again #207 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) might imply this isn't always going to be the case.

So, then, can it be said that Girard, or at least some of his family, were likely Evil as well? Is there any evidence either way?

EDIT: As I mentioned in my lower post, and should really have just mentioned off the bat, my intent with this was to set up the real question: If the Draketooth Clan were (1) Evil, and (2) still alive when the Order got to the Pyramid, how could that have been dealt with?

Obviously this isn't what happened, but as a thought excercise, I guess, I was wondering what people thought might happen.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Given that we know a grandparent of Girard Draketooth had a relationship with a black dragon, traditionally Evil as they are, does this have any implications for the likely/possible alignment for the family as a whole

"Went on an incredibly dangerous quest to save the world for no obvious benefit to himself and then stuck around protecting one of the most dangerous objects in existence for the rest of his life" outweighs "his grandmom might have been evil", I think.

Girard seems pretty classic CN (possibly CG, but that seems a little iffier), to me.

[Macros]

We don't have a lot of evidence to really give a definite answer. We could note that the Draketooth clan did use some borderline evil methods (the whole kidnapping thing) while working toward a generally good cause (well, protecting the world from an eldricht abomination might count). So... neutral ? Probably ?

[Gift Jeraff]

Well, the entire clan is fairly rotten now thanks to V...

[Copperdragon]

Given that we know a grandparent of Girard Draketooth had a relationship with a black dragon, traditionally Evil as they are, does this have any implications for the likely/possible alignment for the family as a whole?

No.

Judgement is not passed on by inheritance. And even if Alignment was, it'll still tells us nothing.
One big point of OotS is that you cannot judge people based on their alignment and you also cannot judge them based on family.

It would be outright contraproductive to smash all the points made so far with "Because an evil person had an evil dragon as made, everything they do is evil. They are evil. They must be rotten!"
That line of thinking is what made Miko the horrible person she was.

[NCoffin]

Well, I'd disagree with the statement that you can't judge a person based on their alignment. Judging their alignment by their looks, certainly. But Evil is still evil, if you know what I mean.

That said, I guess more than anything my intention was to see if there was any sort of debate going on re: the clan's alignment.

Regarding protecting dangerous objects as a non-Evil act, I'd argue that Evil beings/people have just as much to lose if the world is destroyed as Good or Neutral ones. Self-preservation, at the very least.

That said, though, I'm not really trying to convince anyone here that Girard, or anyone in his family, was Evil. Just a thought that popped into my head a while back, and I didn't see any discussion at all, even with the amount of discussion on Nale and Zz'dtri.

I'm curious to see what people think might have happened if, for example, a hypothetically-Evil Draketooth Clan had still been alive upon the Order's arrival. An interesting what-if scenario, if nothing else.

[Kish]

Good argument for the Draketooths being evil: Their instituting a mass seduction/kidnapping/robbery scheme, and apparently keeping it going for decades.
Good argument against Girard specifically being evil: He traveled for years with a paladin who appears never to have Fallen from associating with him.
Really, really bad argument for the Draketooths being evil: They were part black dragon.

[Shred-Bot]

Well, the entire clan is fairly rotten now thanks to V...

Actually the desert winds made them into mummies, which prevented them from rotting. :smallbiggrin:

[Copperdragon]

Actually the desert winds made them into mummies, which prevented them from rotting. :smallbiggrin:

Belkar's nose might disagree. :smalltongue:

[quasit]

They didn't even got to land a single blow, so don't know if they have mummy rot either :smallbiggrin:

[Themrys]

We don't have a lot of evidence to really give a definite answer. We could note that the Draketooth clan did use some borderline evil methods (the whole kidnapping thing) while working toward a generally good cause (well, protecting the world from an eldricht abomination might count). So... neutral ? Probably ?

Borderline evil?

Getting a woman to fall in love with him, then kidnapping her child and breaking her heart ... that sounds pretty ruthless to me.
Given the fact that they probably did that on a large scale ... yeah, they were evil.

Maybe not evil enough to deserve to be killed off via a genocide spell, but still evil.

[Copperdragon]

It's the same type of evil that Redcloak is... "Yes, I am evil... but for a good cause". And just as it is for redcloak it is a load of lies and self-delusion. Girard was protecting the universe, he put his entire life at it - but he also did so in a pretty villainous way.

[Shred-Bot]

Belkar's nose might disagree. :smalltongue:

Actually the Belkster's got my back here (Panel 9). (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html) Though he does overall find the human smell to be pretty putrid.

[AstralFire]

Good argument for the Draketooths being evil: Their instituting a mass seduction/kidnapping/robbery scheme, and apparently keeping it going for decades.
Good argument against Girard specifically being evil: He traveled for years with a paladin who appears never to have Fallen from associating with him.
Really, really bad argument for the Draketooths being evil: They were part black dragon.

Being evil, yes. Given that OotS both subscribes to racial alignments while not feeling impermeably bound to them, I'd say it's likely relevant to why Girard never got along with a goody-two-shoes and was extremely suspicious and paranoid. Even if his dragon ancestor and mate were both good, they'd have a different perspective on societies.

[Harry Leipzig]

Yeah, the Draketooth family scam strikes me as decidedly non-Good. I won't say Evil, since it was an Evil act for a Good end- Neutral, I'll say. Of course, we don't know how long this has been going on, if it was something Girard instituted as part of the defense of the gate, a well-intentioned extremist move, or if it was a family tradition that he carried on when he became patriarch.

[factotum]

Kidnapping babies is evil, but when you're doing it to keep the location of a potentially world-destroying object secret? Difficult to judge. I would seriously doubt that the clan as a whole were ever Evil, though, because no doubt their thoughts would then have turned to using the power of the Gate for their own ends--something that doesn't ever appear to have happened.

[Gift Jeraff]

Kidnapping babies is evil, but when you're doing it to keep the location of a potentially world-destroying object secret? Difficult to judge. I would seriously doubt that the clan as a whole were ever Evil, though, because no doubt their thoughts would then have turned to using the power of the Gate for their own ends--something that doesn't ever appear to have happened.

Evil people can want to protect existence, too.

[Amphiox]

Borderline evil?

Getting a woman to fall in love with him, then kidnapping her child and breaking her heart ... that sounds pretty ruthless to me.
Given the fact that they probably did that on a large scale ... yeah, they were evil.

Maybe not evil enough to deserve to be killed off via a genocide spell, but still evil.

It is an evil ACT. But that does not necessarily mean or make the Draketooths evil. To decide that we have to know more about who they were and what they did.

No single act can condemn anyone to be judged to be evil (or good) without the context of all their other acts.

[Roland Itiative]

"Went on an incredibly dangerous quest to save the world for no obvious benefit to himself and then stuck around protecting one of the most dangerous objects in existence for the rest of his life" outweighs "his grandmom might have been evil", I think.
Belkar is on an incredibly dangerous quest to save the world too. As for the "no benefit to himself part", the benefit was his continued existence. To paraphrase Xykon, not even the evil guys want the world to just be unmade (at least not before they have attained enough power to survive the destruction and gain something from it).

I'm not arguing that Girard was evil, but your points don't really make much sense. Now, a good argument would be that a paladin like Soon would most certainly be unwilling to go on adventures with an evil person, and even if he managed share Roy's philosophy of manipulating the evil person into good actions, without losing his paladin powers by associating with evil, he would certainly be unwilling to leave an evil Girard guarding a Gate on his own after the end of their quest.

The clan as a whole, or even Girard in particular, might have degraded into an evil alignment afterwards, as the baby-kidnapping and general stealing might suggest.

[Harry Leipzig]

It's a matter of where you think Evil acts for the sake of Good causes fall on the D&D scale. There are three solutions:

1. Ends justify means. Because the Draketooths were stealing babies to ensure that a terrible evil remained contained, it was a Good act, because it was in service of a Good goal. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Good.

2. Ends don't justify means. Even if the Draketooths were stealing babies in the service of a Good goal, that doesn't affect the morality of the individual acts committed for the attainment of this Goal, so the kidnappings were Evil. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Evil.

3. Ends alleviate means. While kidnapping babies is a terrible thing do under any circumstance, the fact that they were kidnapped to try and do good means that these acts were not entirely selfish and thus not Evil, but involved a terrible act and thus not Good, i.e. Neutral. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Neutral.

Personally, I favor 2, but 3 is quite defensible. If somebody could defend 1, I would like to hear it. I know there is the argument that Soon would not adventure with somebody Evil-aligned, but we don't know about their relationship beyond the Kraagor fallout. So 2 and 3 have the most support, from where I stand.

I think that sums it up nicely. :biggrin:

[The Extinguisher]

It doesn't really matter whether or not the Draketooth's (Draketeeth?) were evil. What's far more important is that, well, they seem like jerks. Huge jerks.

[Bulldog Psion]

It doesn't really matter whether or not the Draketooth's (Draketeeth?) were evil. What's far more important is that, well, they seem like jerks. Huge jerks.

You've got that right.

"Strong in the jackass side, this clan of illusionists is..."

[hamishspence]

It's a matter of where you think Evil acts for the sake of Good causes fall on the D&D scale. There are three solutions:

1. Ends justify means. Because the Draketooths were stealing babies to ensure that a terrible evil remained contained, it was a Good act, because it was in service of a Good goal. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Good.

2. Ends don't justify means. Even if the Draketooths were stealing babies in the service of a Good goal, that doesn't affect the morality of the individual acts committed for the attainment of this Goal, so the kidnappings were Evil. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Evil.

3. Ends alleviate means. While kidnapping babies is a terrible thing do under any circumstance, the fact that they were kidnapped to try and do good means that these acts were not entirely selfish and thus not Evil, but involved a terrible act and thus not Good, i.e. Neutral. Hence, the Draketooths were generally Neutral.

Personally, I favor 2, but 3 is quite defensible.

Personally I dislike the notion that an act needs to be "entirely selfish" to qualify as Evil- but that's me- not everybody may.

[rodneyAnonymous]

3. Ends alleviate means. While kidnapping babies is a terrible thing do under any circumstance, the fact that they were kidnapped to try and do good means that these acts were not entirely selfish and thus not Evil...

I agree: just because an act is not selfish doesn't mean it's not Evil.

[Copperdragon]

Kidnapping babies is evil, but when you're doing it to keep the location of a potentially world-destroying object secret? Difficult to judge.

No, I do not think it is difficult to judge. Girard was not forced to take this avenue, but he made a choice to do so. And everyone from that point on walked with him, the deeds are on their conscience and these deeds are evil.

But this is acutally "Is it morally justified that Girard & Co impregnated people, stole their babies and riches to protect the gate?" which comes down to our morals and we cannot discuss it.
It's like blowing up people (family) because they sit next to someone who might be planning something very vague and saying "Oh, collateral damage, sorry. But we must accept this price", which is also evil (but this is also current politics, so we cannot discuss it as well).

I think the conclusion is: I think Girard did wrong (just as he did wrong in judging Soon and attempted to blow him up). But we probably cannot discuss is further.

In regard to aligment what turns it from neutral to evil is the intent from the beginning and the very methodical approach as well as the fact they also steal riches.
What moves it from evil to neutral is the intent to do good with it.
But under the bottom line, I think Giarard should have looked at his scheme, pondered it, scrapped it, and come up with another method to secure his gate.
Not everything you could possibly justify (in regard to Alignment) is something you should justify.

[Trickquestion]

Draketooth was rude and paranoid even before guarding the gate, so I imagine he was good but heavily flawed during his adventuring days, and gradually descended into evil during the protection of the gate and propagation of his clan. Not only was he getting more obessive and paranoid, but with every child he kidnapped, he locked himself in a sturdier and sturdier sound proof room where he could only hear his own opinion, said through the mouths of people he had brainwashed since birth. With no one around to offer contrary beliefs or talk down his ideas, the Draketooths just got more and more reprehensible over time.

So I see him as being the Redcloak kind of evil. A flawed thought process leads him to commit increasingly heinous acts while losing sight of his positive goal.

[RadagastTheBrow]

And just as it is for redcloak it is a load of lies and self-delusion.

Kinda fitting for an illusionist, no? :smallamused:

[Copperdragon]

Kinda fitting for an illusionist, no? :smallamused:

Yes, this seems actually to be common. Illusionists are so used to lie to other people (it is what they do as job and hobby) that they easily construct mental illusions for themselves as well.
If the world is not to their liking, they change it. That is true for what they do with others as well as they subconsciously do to themselves.

Girard and Eugene could be good buddies here. Both lied to the world like it was a competition (Eugene even lied to his family on a regular basis about stuff that wasn't worth lying for, see all the wrong and misleading things he told Roy over the years) and both also made their own world to their liking - at least they build the illusion of that.