Redemption for Vaarsuvius? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

RadagastTheBrow

2013-09-15, 04:27 PM

Can we define "redemption" in such a way that we can talk about it logically, and not produce yet another massive argument where people get defensive and hurt about their opinions? I think, probably not, but it can't hurt to try.

Google defines "Redemption" as
1. The action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil.
2. The action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt.

By that first definition, we'd need some criteria for what exactly it takes to go to one of the various Hells in this world. The short and simple answer to that is: We don't know. For Celestia, the Lawful Good afterlife, the way in involved trying to be Lawful Good, having it as a clear life-goal and ideal and striving towards that goal. Honestly, though, that was one person, we really don't have a good sampling. Miko tried, too, and may have still been Lawful Good, just not a Paladin. I don't know.

That second definition appears more interesting, because it specifically mentions debts, but it's not very much more helpful. I don't see V trying to get out of her debt, and that doesn't seem very "redeemy."

Now, if I may make a few guesses: Good afterlives are for genuinely and generally benevolent people, people who wish to help others and make the world a more pleasant place. Evil afterlives are for genuinely and generally malevolent people, people who wish to hurt others and make the world a less pleasant place. Neutral afterlives are for people who don't lean particularly one way or another.

V was, for the vast majority of the comic, Neutral. Didn't go out of her way to help or hurt people, generally tried to do her own thing. She didn't generally try to acquire Ultimate Arcane Power to hurt or help anyone, she did it because UAP was cool.

(Now, yes, the specific act of acquiring UAP was made with the intent to do harm, and that's where you can get into discussing V's character motivations at the time. I, personally, don't think she committed Genocide out of spite, but simply took the quick, sloppy option to try to fix things as fast as possible. Just like the fight with Xykon. I think V basically saw a large number of problems in the world, and wanted to fix them for the sheer sake of fixing them. But that's just me, and I may be projecting a bit.)

Now, if the question is, "Can V become a genuinely, generally benevolent person," I think so. She has to learn to value her fellow Sentient- ALL her fellow Sentients, but V's smart. She can learn stuff. I also think, based on her comments after realizing the magnitude of her crime, she's heading that direction, and wouldn't be too surprised if we see a Vow of Pacifism in a few hundred comics.

If the question is, "Can V perform an act of benevolence of magnitude equal to or greater than the malevolence of Familicide," well, that's a little more weird and will depend on what opportunities come up throughout the comic. One thing worth noting, though, is that Elves have naturally very, very long lives.

If the question is, "WHAT action would produce benevolence greater than or equal to the malevolence of Familicide, and can V do that?" Well, that's a much more interesting question, if I may say so. Perhaps discovering and removing the root cause of Chromatic Dragon malevolence, redeeming entire future lines thereof? Creating a new species of benevolent Light Elves that live on to make the world a better place? I don't know. But speculation is fun, isn't it? Yay speculation!

JavaScribe

2013-09-15, 04:33 PM

It's pretty hard to counterbalance something on that scale.
Indeed, but as foolish as V's assumptions may have been, V had never actually intended to kill innocents in the first place, so that'd lessen the blow somewhat.

The main thing V needs to learn for redemption is that (s)he doesn't need to protect his/her ego with Disintegrate spells.

veti

2013-09-15, 04:38 PM

I think "redemption" is a strange concept, in a world where good isn't considered innately stronger/more valid than evil. What does it mean?

Does it mean "not going to an evil afterlife"? I think her chances of that are excellent. She is, quite evidently, not-Evil currently, and even immediately after the splice, the fiends reckoned their chances of getting her soul at only 50-50. I take that to be their estimation of the chances that, when confronted with what she's done, she'll think (some variant of) "Gah, I'm evil! Let's get on with it!" - which clearly hasn't happened, so that "50/50" must be looking more like "30/70" already.

Or does it mean something simpler, like "learning to live with herself"? Again, good chance. She has a world-saving quest to focus on. If the rest of the party, and Roy and Haley in particular, stand by her, I'm sure she can learn to focus on that and, in time, put the past behind her. What, specifically, that will "require" is up to her.

Diadem

2013-09-15, 04:39 PM

DaggerPen

2013-09-15, 04:45 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Counterbalancing past wrongs is generally not a requirement of redemption. Such a counterbalancing is only required if you believe in a very strict (and frankly, silly) notion of karma.

I wouldn't say that it's necessary 100% of the time, but in general, I'd say that if you're repenting of past wrongs, then true recognition of that wrong and effort to change would include some effort to counterbalance it as part and parcel of the effort to change. The question of what that might mean in this case is a difficult one, though. I guess the question is - what might redemption for V look like? Personality change is part of it, but I think that real action is required as part of that change.

Kish

2013-09-15, 04:50 PM

Indeed, but as foolish as V's assumptions may have been, V had never actually intended to kill innocents in the first place, so that'd lessen the blow somewhat.
...Really? Racism is a defense? Vaarsuvius' assumption that black dragons were inherently valid targets wasn't "foolish"; it was evil. You do not have to be a cackling caricature like Xykon or Tarquin, knowing you're evil and reveling in it, to commit atrocities.

Fish

2013-09-15, 04:50 PM

It's pretty hard to counterbalance something on that scale.
One might argue that "saving the life of every being on the Prime Material Plane" would count.

Of course, because we don't have full information on the existence of non-existence of the Snarl, we don't know whether those are truly the stakes. Nevertheless, it's possible in theory.

Benthesquid

2013-09-15, 04:51 PM

We actually do have a (partial) definition of what redemption (maybe) means (to one particular individual) in the OOTSverse.

"... redemption requires more than simply the execution of your duty, even if you follow that duty to the end. True redemption demands that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds. That you atone for the actions that caused the Twelve Gods to turn away from you. That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong... Redemption is a rare and special thing, after all. It is not for everyone." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html)

2.5 cats

2013-09-15, 04:52 PM

With the standard disclaimer that I don't speak for the gods, I'd say that playing a key role in successfully saving the entire world [1] from domination by an evil lich and/or annihilation by an unleashed Snarl would earn anyone a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for any and every non-Team-Evil vile act I've seen in the course of this comic and then some.

[1] I'm saying IF and only if they pull it off, which is yet to be determined. I'm also assuming that their actions don't cause the world to suffer an equivalently bad or worse fate.

veti

2013-09-15, 05:04 PM

We actually do have a (partial) definition of what redemption (maybe) means (to one particular individual) in the OOTSverse.

Fair enough, but I think that is specifically what Miko's redemption would require. For instance, "duty" obviously has quite a different meaning to Miko. And there's no sign that Vaarsuvius's god (the unnamed ancient elven god of knowledge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html)) has "turned away from her".

Gil-Galad II

2013-09-15, 05:20 PM

Fair enough, but I think that is specifically what Miko's redemption would require. For instance, "duty" obviously has quite a different meaning to Miko. And there's no sign that Vaarsuvius's god (the unnamed ancient elven god of knowledge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html)) has "turned away from her".

Good point, but I suspect that at least part of the quote could maybe be possibly considered as being applicable to Vaarsuvius. Specifically, the admitting of one's own wrongness...which, to someone as arrogant and intelligent as V would be hard indeed, I imagine.

Warren Dew

2013-09-15, 05:57 PM

Benthesquid

2013-09-15, 06:01 PM

Good point, but I suspect that at least part of the quote could maybe be possibly considered as being applicable to Vaarsuvius. Specifically, the admitting of one's own wrongness...which, to someone as arrogant and intelligent as V would be hard indeed, I imagine.

V has pretty well admitted that he messed up. I think she's got that bit down.

blacksabre

2013-09-15, 06:21 PM

I believe that there are certain acts in which there is no amount of repentance that will absolve a person from penance and punishment.

Every act needs to be looked at individually.
Did V know the breadth and consequences of hir actions, no.
Feel sorry and repentant and do good deeds as much as she/he might, punishment (by whom ever the authority who dishes that sourt of thing out) should be placed upon them.

I am to this day upset that Anakin Skywalker, after throwing the Emperor over a bannister , and consequently dieing, was viewed by the "Force" to be absolved of his evil deeds and get to stand by Yoda, and Obi-wan in all their Afterlife Force Glowyness

I call BS on that..
Vader slaughter innocents willingly...Personally killed Every youngling Padewan.. We're talking dozens of children ages 3-14..

There is no amount of repentance, remorse or acts of redemption that should grant Redemption for such acts...At least it wouldn't be if I were that Authority

David Argall

2013-09-15, 06:35 PM

Exactly what it says on the tin. Is redemption in the works for our favorite androgynous spellcaster?

Specifically:
Do you think Vaarsuvius can be redeemed for Familicide?
We have an in-comic expert opinion that V has a 50-50 shot. Anyone who wants to be more precise has to explain just why these experts are wrong. [Of course, we can go by technical language, and just say "Yes, V can be redeemed and the odds of that happening are 50%.]

If so, what steps do you think would be necessary for redemption?
Technically, V is already redeemed, in full, from the moment she said he was sorry. No other actions of any kind are necessary. Just "Go and sin no more." We often do demand it on practical grounds. We can't tell if our sinner is serious, nor that this will lead to a change in future behavior. & we worry that when sinner A gets out from under so easily, sinner B will be tempted to try the same thing. ... So we reasonably say "prove it".
But V is properly speaking already entirely redeemed and the the proper question is whether she will stay so. His past actions are not encouraging, but...
V does not need to go around obsessively trying to correct the harm she did by Familicide. He should be doing that anyway because such is a good deed and she is in the position to do that good deed. But the point that V did Familicide is only of historical interest when deciding what he should do.

Do you think V is currently on the path towards redemption? Do you think V will get there by the end of the comic?
A very strong chance of that. The theme of redeemed sinner is a very common one, and V is so far touching all the bases. Now our writer does have this urge to fool us, and a series of a dozen or so strips where she jumps to the side of the angels on one, only for him to be with the devils in the next, until there is finally a decision we don't expect is quite possible. But there are pretty high odds in V's favor.

DeadMG

2013-09-15, 06:36 PM

Redemption is not about paying back your evil deeds with good ones. You can't say "Well I murdered a thousand children today, so tomorrow I'mma save a thousand children from a horrible disease and boom, instant redemption!".

It is about changing sides from the forces of Evil to the forces of Good (or possibly Neutral, I guess, in D&D). Even if you accomplished much more as a soldier of Evil, the act of switching sides is what redeems you. Miko wasn't redeemed even by carrying out her duty because she never changed her opinions.

V can be redeemed if she makes a serious effort.

However, her contribution to saving the world from horrible oppression won't really count for much. As both the IFCC and Belkar/Durkula have stated, Xykon is against the entire world, Evil included, with his plot. There's nothing Good about being part of the quest to stop him. It's a Neutral act.

We will see how V is redeemed in her attitude to those she considers expendable or not worthy of her time.

The_Snark

2013-09-15, 06:36 PM

I don't think there's any point speculating about whether V will or won't achieve redemption - as the above posts indicate, there isn't really an objective measurement of that.

But I think V's character arc is definitely about redemption, at least at this point in the story. He or she has realized he did something horribly wrong. He admits he did something wrong (an important step for someone whose greatest flaw is pride). She's trying to do better. I think that, given the opportunity, he would try to make amends.

It doesn't necessarily mean he'll find redemption (whatever that means). There's a lot to make up for, and no guarantee he'll keep trying - it's hard. But he is trying, at the moment. (Unlike Miko, who I don't think ever quite understood what she did wrong.)

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-15, 08:16 PM

I'm going to repeat a single post I wrote from the Main Discussion thread:

Short of a very well worded Wish, Vaarsuvius would have to spend millions of gold pieces, of her own money in order to Resurrect her victims from the Familicide. And those victims would need to be willing to come back from the dead, which depends a great deal on which Clerics V hires to cast the Resurrection spells. Plus the Clerics (especially any Evil ones) will charge V through her metaphorical nose for repeated castings. But that could be one route for V to take, slowly, patiently, trying to identify whom she has murdered, Human, Dragon or Half-Dragon, and try to bring them back. Not only would she be undoing the harm she did to these people, she would learn patience, humility, and possibly to keep her temper in check. If she were to research some Epic spell, or cast Wish, to bring her victims back, she would have learned nothing at all about why she acted so rashly in Book Four. This goes not just for casting Familicide (which she did to make sure none of the ABD's kin would come looking for revenge, without considering the consequences of her actions) but when she abandoned the Azurite Fleet in the first place.

If V hadn't been so impatient, she could have gone with Durkon and Elan to meet Haley, Celia and Belkar in Greysky City. While the Azurite Fleet would still be miles from the Western Continent, and O-Chul would still be a prisoner, Team Evil would still be stuck in Azure City/Gobbotopia, the Draketooths (and many others) would still be alive, and the IFCC would have no pawn in the OotS. If V wants redemption, she needs to learn patience, humility, respect for the opinions of others, to anticipate the consequences of her actions, and to control her temper. Acknowledging she did something wrong is only the first step; V needs to undertake to become a different, better person. She can remain True Neutral, but she needs to correct the negative personality traits that led her to commit such a horrid act. Once she's sufficiently changed, and she tries to make amends to her victims, then she needs to go have a chat with the Elven clergy about what to do next. But I don't think it is impossible for her to acheive atonement and redemption; she feels remorse, she acknowledges that she committed a horrific act, and she's seen some of the consequences of that act. But she has a ways to go before she's done atoning. Trying to find a short-cut would be a sign that she's doing it wrong.

That encapsulates my opinion on V and redemption: she needs to atone for the character flaws she has which led her to decide that the most expeditious way to prevent any other Black Dragons from seeking revenge on herself, or her family, was to murder 1/4 of Stickworld's Black Dragons (along with thousands of humans who were unintended targets). She needs to work on getting rid of those flaws, and not try to seek a quick-fix to all her problems, including the problem of atonement and seeking redemption. She needs to try Resurrecting her victims, one at a time, until there are no more diamonds left to ground into powder in Stickworld, and she needs to do so out of her own pocket. Researching an Epic spell, using a carefully worded Wish, or calling upon some sort of artifact, is a sign that Vaarsuvius learned nothing, has not become a better person, and does not deserve redemption. Working to rid herself of her temper, impatience and arrogance is the path to V's redemption, IMO.

JavaScribe

2013-09-15, 08:33 PM

Excise

2013-09-15, 08:53 PM

[QUOTE=DaggerPen;16028830]

Do you think Vaarsuvius can be redeemed for Familicide?
If so, what steps do you think would be necessary for redemption?
Do you think V is currently on the path towards redemption? Do you think V will get there by the end of the comic?

1. Yes!

2. Sacrifice herself, and possibly part of her soul, for the greater good.

3. Yes!

DaggerPen

2013-09-15, 09:02 PM

We're talking about a universe where paladins can murder chromatic dragons and still be considered "Lawful Good" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) by the gods. Modern, conventional morality doesn't necessarily come into it.

:roy:: You're accepting as credible a statement that came out of Miko's mouth.

Paladins who kill chromatic dragons may still be "Lawful Good" if the dragon they slew was slain for the right reason - e.g., to defend a village, etc. Killing dragons with no idea as to the extent of their crimes, if any, when they pose no immediate threat, is a different thing. And Rich was trying to make fun of the "color coded for your convenience" idea there, which he's spoken before about virulently opposing:

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

There is a tradition of using non-human species in fantasy and science fiction as analogues for races. But that is not the only way to deal with them. I prefer my non-humans to be truely non-human with more than cosmetic differences.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

And that's it for me, I need to go to sleep.

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.

Pseudo_Nym

2013-09-15, 09:22 PM

There is no amount of repentance, remorse or acts of redemption that should grant Redemption for such acts...At least it wouldn't be if I were that Authority

No offense, then, but I'm really glad you're not. Repentance is redemption. When you're truly sorry for what you've done, really and utterly, then you have changed as a person. You have gone from evil to good, and you have been redeemed. Proving it is a different matter entirely, of course. An important one, to be certain, but not one relevant to the state of a soul.

JavaScribe

2013-09-15, 09:32 PM

:roy:: You're accepting as credible a statement that came out of Miko's mouth.

Paladins who kill chromatic dragons may still be "Lawful Good" if the dragon they slew was slain for the right reason - e.g., to defend a village, etc. Killing dragons with no idea as to the extent of their crimes, if any, when they pose no immediate threat, is a different thing. And Rich was trying to make fun of the "color coded for your convenience" idea there, which he's spoken before about virulently opposing:
In that case, forget it. V'll probably end up in Hades. Preferably in the presence of the dragons (s)he murdered.

Forikroder

2013-09-15, 09:45 PM

depends if by "redemption" you mean "get into a non-evil afterlife" then definently and already has

if you mean "redemption" as in forgive himself then almsot certainly no

if you mean "redemption" as in the internet people stop holding it againt him then its simply a matter of opinion and any discussion on this will simply be "my opinion VS your opinion"

IMO any person who saids V is evil simply because of one rash decision is a hypocrite

Paladins who kill chromatic dragons may still be "Lawful Good" if the dragon they slew was slain for the right reason - e.g., to defend a village, etc. Killing dragons with no idea as to the extent of their crimes, if any, when they pose no immediate threat, is a different thing. And Rich was trying to make fun of the "color coded for your convenience" idea there, which he's spoken before about virulently opposing:

EXACTLY

if you want to make a story showing that Racism is bad, you need to show how bad racism can get and demonstrate the extreme circumstances it leads to

however in order to do that you need to actually have racism in the story, and the one commiting the racism not realise that racism is bad (if the person commiting the act realises that its bad he or she wont go to extremes and the ability to deliver a message is hampered)

V was (99.9% likely) raised in a world where "black dragons are all evil beware" he (and most likely the entire OoTS population) was raised with the idea "these guys are OK to kill, these guys are not" because thats how the gods actually created the world (which eventually created TDO)

it was only after that he casted it that he realized how wrong his entire though process, entire view of the world even, was terribly wrong

so to tie that little rant to the topic, before casting Familicide V wasnt in a position to realise that was he was doing was really wrong

also interesting to note that Vs current position would be the perfect one to act as the middle man in negotiations between the world and goblins, he was raised in a world where Goblins are just XP, but has the experience needed to realise what damage such thinking brings

veti

2013-09-15, 09:48 PM

She needs to try Resurrecting her victims, one at a time, until there are no more diamonds left to ground into powder in Stickworld, and she needs to do so out of her own pocket.

So let's get this straight:

You want her to resurrect black dragons - the great majority of whom, by RAW, are Evil, and too powerful to be contained by anyone lower than mid-level at the very least - and turn them loose into the world - and in doing so, also to make it impossible for anyone else to be resurrected ever again?

I don't think that's a well thought out strategy.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-15, 10:07 PM

and in doing so, also to make it impossible for anyone else to be resurrected ever again?
I don't think this would necessarily be the outcome. Even if the Stickverse doesn't have the kind of geology that can create them from heat and pressure, diamonds can be harvested from the Elemental Plane of Earth.

JavaScribe

2013-09-15, 10:15 PM

Southern Cross

2013-09-15, 10:19 PM

And more to the point, the resurrection spell only works if the dead person wants to be brought back.

Forikroder

2013-09-15, 10:46 PM

You have a valid point about containment, but this isn't RAW, and I'm sure there are magical solutions to the diamond problem.

i always figured that used diamonds are teleported to the elemental plane of earth and then recycled into the material plane over time

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-15, 11:27 PM

So let's get this straight:

You want her to resurrect black dragons - the great majority of whom, by RAW, are Evil, and too powerful to be contained by anyone lower than mid-level at the very least - and turn them loose into the world - and in doing so, also to make it impossible for anyone else to be resurrected ever again?

I don't think that's a well thought out strategy.

You have a valid point about containment, but this isn't RAW, and I'm sure there are magical solutions to the diamond problem.

What I "want" isn't relevant. I was discussing what I would consider a valid way for Vaarsuvius to atone for casting Familicide. And my point is that trying a quick-fix is a sign that she is not properly atoning for her sin, because she is still the same short-tempered, impatient and egocentric Elf that she was when she chose to wipe out the ABD's entire family line with a single spell. V can't take short cuts if she wants to atone, because atonement and redemption are hard to achieve. There are rare examples, like Darth Vader, who earned redemption after a life of sin by performing a single noble deed, but those are rare, and often entail the death of the person in question.

Also it is impossible to create a short term shortage of diamond dust for spell components via supply and demand; spell descriptions do not call for a set amount of diamond dust, they call for a set value (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html) of diamond dust. As the price of diamonds goes up, fewer diamonds would be needed for spell components. :smallbiggrin:

Arcanist

2013-09-15, 11:35 PM

i always figured that used diamonds are teleported to the elemental plane of earth and then recycled into the material plane over time

Hmm... That is a first. Someone made me legitimately question the laws of conservation of energy in D&D... :smallconfused:

If I might quote Hinjo talking to Miku after she fell

Listen, Miko. I heard the same thing you did, and I managed to restrain myself from executing my liege. Isn't it worth considering that maybe you made a bad judgement call here? It happens. They wouldn't have an Atonement if it didn't need to be used once in a while.

Sure, V messed up and messed up bad, but is it truly beyond redemption? I wouldn't exactly say that. The road to redemption will be long and hard, but from the looks of it V might make it and I'm rooting for vis success. I mean, V has already accepted responsibility for what ve had been done so that is step 1 of many. It should also be noted that trying also counts for something in "stickworld".

Forikroder

2013-09-15, 11:38 PM

What I "want" isn't relevant. I was discussing what I would consider a valid way for Vaarsuvius to atone for casting Familicide. And my point is that trying a quick-fix is a sign that she is not properly atoning for her sin, because she is still the same short-tempered, impatient and egocentric Elf that she was when she chose to wipe out the ABD's entire family line with a single spell. V can't take short cuts if she wants to atone, because atonement and redemption are hard to achieve. There are rare examples, like Darth Vader, who earned redemption after a life of sin by performing a single noble deed, but those are rare, and often entail the death of the person in question.

Also it is impossible to create a short term shortage of diamond dust for spell components via supply and demand; spell descriptions do not call for a set amount of diamond dust, they call for a set value (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html) of diamond dust. As the price of diamonds goes up, fewer diamonds would be needed for spell components. :smallbiggrin:

trying to repair the problem like some little kid who tries to glue the vase he broke back together doesnt mean anything either, all it shows is that V is trying to bury his past by ressurecting them and then pretending it never happen, he has to accept what he did and face it head on

IMO i think the best way to "attone" maybe with Redcloak, V slaughtered black dragons based entirely on racist hate if he could work with redcloak and find a way to prevent goblins from being slaughtered for the same reasons then thats one way he can attone, instead of trying to pretend that it never happen he can instead take steps to ensure it never happens again and maybe find peace

Hmm... That is a first. Someone made me legitimately question the laws of conservation of energy in D&D...

i always figured that matter had to be constantly cycling between the material and elemental planes in order to prevent spells like create water (or whatever its called) from causing massive flooding

Scow2

2013-09-15, 11:47 PM

Eric Tolle

2013-09-15, 11:49 PM

1) A black dragon is going to be highly unlikely to allow itse lf to be resurrected by a neutral character... unless they think they can kill him.

2) Unless it's a teen rebelling against it's parent's values, resurrecting a black dragon is going to be an evil act.

Finally, the whole idea that one can just make up for something like Familicide by casting spells to bring the murdered back, just strikes me as cheap. Some things just shouldn't be fixable. Redemption in this case at least should include the knowledge that some actions can't be retracted.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-15, 11:50 PM

I've tried to make arguments about the $ value of the gold piece (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288600) (In OOTS Rich is setting it at a $1 btw, see the price of college in OTOoPCs, the price of makeup and comments from Haley about how much it costs to stay in a city), trying to deal with macroeconomics or ecology in a more than facile manner is probably useless.

Of course, one macroeconomic point to make is that a sudden flood of abandoned dragon treasure into the marketplace probably has extremely disruptive economic effects.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-15, 11:52 PM

Sure, V messed up and messed up bad, but is it truly beyond redemption? I wouldn't exactly say that. The road to redemption will be long and hard, but from the looks of it V might make it and I'm rooting for vis success. I mean, V has already accepted responsibility for what ve had been done so that is step 1 of many. It should also be noted that trying also counts for something in "stickworld".

I think that just acknowledging her guilt and feeling bad won't be enough for V. For starters, it makes for a boring story, compared to a story where V has to struggle to break her bad habits and become a better (if not Good) person during the atonement process. But trying does count, at least in the Lawful Good afterlife. The True Neutral afterlives may be more critical of success or failure. :smallwink:

Forikroder

2013-09-15, 11:53 PM

RblDiver

2013-09-16, 12:16 AM

I'm a bit surprised noone has brought up http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html yet.

"You're trying. ...People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then. They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier."

Yeah, V did a bad, bad thing (though in OOTSverse, in a way perhaps the "evil" black dragon killing counterbalanced the good innocents who died). But I see V as trying to make amends, and while it'll be a tough road to plow, V's made a good start.

Somniloquist

2013-09-16, 03:34 AM

IMO i think the best way to "attone" maybe with Redcloak, V slaughtered black dragons based entirely on racist hate if he could work with redcloak and find a way to prevent goblins from being slaughtered for the same reasons then thats one way he can attone, instead of trying to pretend that it never happen he can instead take steps to ensure it never happens again and maybe find peace

Seconding this, and this brings us back to the world in the rift. As far as I know (having yet to read Start of Darkness) even Redcloak doesn't know about that. You'd think that might have some kind of implications for his Plan, wouldn't you? And if Redcloak is too stubborn to see it, too fixated on the Plan as it was conceived to question the nature of the snarl, then it could be up to Vaarsuvius to put this knowledge to use.

And if they use it to change the fate of goblinkind? That would be the most fitting redemption story I can think of, and also totally awesome.

Gil-Galad II

2013-09-16, 09:25 AM

That encapsulates my opinion on V and redemption: she needs to atone for the character flaws she has which led her to decide that the most expeditious way to prevent any other Black Dragons from seeking revenge on herself, or her family, was to murder 1/4 of Stickworld's Black Dragons (along with thousands of humans who were unintended targets). She needs to work on getting rid of those flaws, and not try to seek a quick-fix to all her problems, including the problem of atonement and seeking redemption. She needs to try Resurrecting her victims, one at a time, until there are no more diamonds left to ground into powder in Stickworld, and she needs to do so out of her own pocket. Researching an Epic spell, using a carefully worded Wish, or calling upon some sort of artifact, is a sign that Vaarsuvius learned nothing, has not become a better person, and does not deserve redemption. Working to rid herself of her temper, impatience and arrogance is the path to V's redemption, IMO.

I disagree with that, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if V did attempt to Resurrect as many of the dragons/people as possible, why shouldn't she use epic magic, Wish, etc? Your argument, as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is confusing V's very real failings as a character with the Epic magic that unfortunately ended up in her power. The lesson that V should have learnt is not that arcane power is bad in and of itself, but that one needs to carefully use it - and that someone angry, impatient and arrogant is probably not the, ahem, ideal wielder of such power. I agree that it would be narratively unsatisfying, for V to just wave her magic wand and fix everything, but, if that power ends up in her hands, why shouldn't she?

Secondly, if you stand by your argument, or even if such magic doesn't exist, the sheer effort that V would have to go to to resurrect each and every being killed by Familicide would be so huge, surely there would be other, equally or more worthwhile tasks that V could turn to, if she is truly sorry and feels a need to repair damage. Which brings us to Gobbotopia...the idea of V living out her days as an ambassador/representative/mediator for the 'monsters' she was once content to slaughter seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate, and rather satisfying, end to her development, and, I suspect, would be the clearest sign that she had truly repented.

lio45

2013-09-16, 09:46 AM

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 10:18 AM

I disagree with that, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if V did attempt to Resurrect as many of the dragons/people as possible, why shouldn't she use epic magic, Wish, etc? Your argument, as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is confusing V's very real failings as a character with the Epic magic that unfortunately ended up in her power. The lesson that V should have learnt is not that arcane power is bad in and of itself, but that one needs to carefully use it - and that someone angry, impatient and arrogant is probably not the, ahem, ideal wielder of such power. I agree that it would be narratively unsatisfying, for V to just wave her magic wand and fix everything, but, if that power ends up in her hands, why shouldn't she?

Because it's not about Arcane power at all, it's about Vaarsuvius's very real character flaws. IMO she can not properly atone and earn redemption without going on a long and difficult character arc, at the end of which she is not the same Elf she was at the beginning. A "Hero's Journey" if you will. In this case, the path V takes to her goal is as important as arriving at the goal. Trying to take short cuts or quick-fixes will send her directly to Start, and she will not be able to collect $200.

Secondly, if you stand by your argument, or even if such magic doesn't exist, the sheer effort that V would have to go to to resurrect each and every being killed by Familicide would be so huge, surely there would be other, equally or more worthwhile tasks that V could turn to, if she is truly sorry and feels a need to repair damage. Which brings us to Gobbotopia...the idea of V living out her days as an ambassador/representative/mediator for the 'monsters' she was once content to slaughter seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate, and rather satisfying, end to her development, and, I suspect, would be the clearest sign that she had truly repented.

V didn't murder thousands of Goblins in a spiteful act of vengeance. If she were to become an ambassador to Dragon-kind, or try to improve the lot of Dragon-kind, that might be another path she could take, but it would also be one that can't involve short-cuts.

The point I'm trying to make is that short-cuts are bad when it comes to a story about a character seeking atonement. It creates a boring story, it freezes character growth and is a sign of poor writing. (Please note that I'm trying to keep the conversation as narrow as possible to avoid running afoul of the Board Rules.)

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 10:20 AM

I totally disagree with you on that...

If you're DMing a game that takes place in the real world, and whatever cult your characters are up to requires the target person to eat $15 worth of chicken breast, then sure, as a DM, you'll let them go ahead as long as they have $15 to spend, but if it requires to eat $15 worth of dodo breast (that modern $15 value having to be obtained by conversion from Dutch currencies of the 1600s in the best approximation possible using the available exchange rate data), then merely having the $15 isn't enough.

I was making a joke about inflation and cost of spell components. The D&D rules do not take into account the existence of inflation, so if the number of diamonds that are worth 5,000 gp today are worth 6,000 gp tomorrow, a spellcaster needs fewer diamonds for his components. :smallwink:

EDIT:

I'm a bit surprised noone has brought up http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html yet.

"You're trying. ...People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then. They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier."

Yeah, V did a bad, bad thing (though in OOTSverse, in a way perhaps the "evil" black dragon killing counterbalanced the good innocents who died). But I see V as trying to make amends, and while it'll be a tough road to plow, V's made a good start.

But it was a Deva making that argument, a being of pure Good. I'm not sure a Rilmani, a being of pure True Neutrality, would be willing to say that.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 10:35 AM

Pseudo_Nym

2013-09-16, 10:45 AM

Vaarsuvius in my opinion deserves nothing more than eternal damnation and endless torture.

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

Ahem. Sorry. My question is, which of these do you disagree with:

-Vaarsuvius could change enough to feel bad for what she's done, enough to truly desire to make up for her actions, even if actually "making up" for them is impossible.

-Such change would be sufficient to make her a good person, albeit a good person who's done terrible, possibly unforgivable things in her past.

-Good people don't deserve eternal damnation and endless torture.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 10:51 AM

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

Ahem. Sorry. My question is, which of these do you disagree with:

1. -Vaarsuvius could change enough to feel bad for what she's done, enough to truly desire to make up for her actions, even if actually "making up" for them is impossible.

2. -Such change would be sufficient to make her a good person, albeit a good person who's done terrible, possibly unforgivable things in her past.

3. -Good people don't deserve eternal damnation and endless torture.

Number 2.

The act she has committed is so far over the moral event horizon that redemption is impossible in my opinion. She is basically the nameless one in my opinion. The act she has committed is so grand and so dark, that it is impossible to recover from.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-16, 10:53 AM

-Such change would be sufficient to make her a good person, albeit a good person who's done terrible, possibly unforgivable things in her past.

-Good people don't deserve eternal damnation and endless torture.
Why should a label in a folder in a filing cabinet somewhere in the Outlands or Hades or Elysium matter more than an "unforgivable act"?

Morithias

2013-09-16, 10:55 AM

Why should a label in a folder in a filing cabinet somewhere in the Outlands or Hades or Elysium matter more than an "unforgivable act"?

That's actually a good question.

Is the other poster saying, I can commit endless lives of misdeeds, be on my death bed as chaotic evil monster....

...then put on a helm of opposite alignment, willingly fail my will save, become lawful good, and therefore go to heaven. Never paying any repentance for my crimes.

Kerim

2013-09-16, 11:01 AM

V is worthy of redemption because she was placed in a position of godhood. Her actions when under the influence of the three others are not to be judged. (The influence in the other three both in the literal sense, IE, the power they gave her, and the figurative one: The idea that they would influence her actions did enough to change her true intentions.) Power corrupts. She did what she did in a fit of rage, to save her family, and many others. Black Dragons are inherently evil, she saved many more lives by killing them all than those they would kill. Plus, due to the fact her magic killed them all quickly and relatively painlessly, she has given them a better fate in death than those they would get by the hand of adventurers.

Immediately after realizing what she had truly done, she showed remorse, and will probably work on trying to reconcile for those events. She will not end in a good plane, but I doubt she'll end up in eternal torture.

Pseudo_Nym

2013-09-16, 11:04 AM

Number 2.

The act she has committed is so far over the moral event horizon that redemption is impossible in my opinion. She is basically the nameless one in my opinion. The act she has committed is so grand and so dark, that it is impossible to recover from.

Possibly. It means you have a different definition of good than me, though, and incidentally a different definition of Good than the Player's Handbook.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

I think Vaarsuvius is capable of becoming such a being. One moving in the right direction, if perhaps in a bad place.

Why should a label in a folder in a filing cabinet somewhere in the Outlands or Hades or Elysium matter more than an "unforgivable act"?

If it's an accurate label it does. But I didn't say Good alignment, I said good person. For what it's worth, I don't believe in "unforgivable." Just like I don't believe in "impossible." Anything can happen, and anyone can change.

EDIT:

...then put on a helm of opposite alignment, willingly fail my will save, become lawful good, and therefore go to heaven. Never paying any repentance for my crimes.

Let's not bring mind control into this.

AKA_Bait

2013-09-16, 11:12 AM

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-16, 11:12 AM

If it's an accurate label it does. But I didn't say Good alignment, I said good person. For what it's worth, I don't believe in "unforgivable." Just like I don't believe in "impossible." Anything can happen, and anyone can change.
A good person, as you pointed out above in response to Morithias, gets a Good alignment. Becoming a good person means gaining a Good alignment; becoming a better person means either shifting alignment away from Evil and towards Good or shifting in the same direction within the "box" of a single alignment. We also know that right now V is a Neutral person.

Now, I do believe in unforgivable acts. My question is, assuming the powers that be agree with me (a pretty big assumption, I know), why does alignment, which includes acts but also intentions, demeanor, and ideology matter more than just the record of one's acts? What roles, if any, do intentions, demeanor, and ideology play in the decision to waive punishment for bad acts? What roles, if any, should they play?

Let's not bring mind control into this.
Good idea. Particularly as the only mind control that is even remotely relevant is V's domination of Yukyuk...oh now I see why you don't want to talk about it :smalltongue:

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 11:19 AM

I keep seeing the reference to the Giant's commentary regarding the moral character of V's casting of familicide being used as evidence that the destruction of the horde of black dragons was "Evil" within the alignment system of the game. I'm not at all sure that is true. Unless I'm misremembering, (SOD spoiler)

we don't see any paladins falling from the slaughter of goblins, including women and children, in the raid on Redcloak's village in SoD. That we don't indicates to me that mechanically speaking, within the game world, the killing of "Evil" creatures based on their alignment description is not an "Evil" act in and of itself.

Here's what the Giant has to say on this matter:

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

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

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

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

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

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

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896)

Morithias

2013-09-16, 11:25 AM

A good person, as you pointed out above in response to Morithias, gets a Good alignment. Becoming a good person means gaining a Good alignment; becoming a better person means either shifting alignment away from Evil and towards Good or shifting in the same direction within the "box" of a single alignment. We also know that right now V is a Neutral person.

Now, I do believe in unforgivable acts. My question is, assuming the powers that be agree with me (a pretty big assumption, I know), why does alignment, which includes acts but also intentions, demeanor, and ideology matter more than just the record of one's acts? What roles, if any, do intentions, demeanor, and ideology play in the decision to waive punishment for bad acts? What roles, if any, should they play?

This reminds me of an evil D&D character I once played.

She was an evil empress, who realized after studying history, something VERY interesting.

The hero only ever shows up to overthrow the empire AFTER the empire is abusing it's citizens.

A hero that comes to a happy population has no power against the government. People who are content, if not happy with their lives do not take up armed resistance.

Her whole campaign revolved around creating her utopia, her "perfect empire" where there was free healthcare, create food traps, housing given by the government, and so on.

Now you're thinking "how the hell is this evil?"

Well, because the only reason she was doing it, is so she could harvest the worship of her citizens and propel herself to god hood. To her power was her ultimate goal, but she realized that she didn't need violence or intimidate, or even fear to get what she wanted. Why kidnap a boy and force him to be your sex slave via mind control, when you can simply become a well liked divinely beautiful empress who can literally walk into a tavern and ask "does anyone want to come live in the palace as part of my harem" and get tons of volunteers.

She realized that without suffering, there is no hero, without a hero there is no rebellion, and without a rebellion, she stays in power....forever.

Good deeds...evil intentions.

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 11:29 AM

Morithias

2013-09-16, 11:34 AM

"Selfish motives" are not inherent proof of an Evil alignment- even in D&D. A person whose desire is for power- doesn't become Evil until they reach the point of being willing to cause harm and suffering to get it.

"Propelling oneself to godhood" can be a goal of Neutral characters as easily as Evil ones. It tends to be rarer for Good characters though.

Seems more like Good deeds, Neutral intentions to me.

Oh but that's the thing. She is perfectly WILLING to cause harm and suffering to get it.

But she realizes...she doesn't need to.

She is pragmatic to the extreme. Raised by a harvester devil, and blessed with the fire souled template by an Elder Evil. She is insane, she doesn't think like an ordinary person.

She realizes that all that matters, is getting what she wants, but she values something most villains don't.

She values peace of mind.

She realizes there is no point in ruling a country where you have to face an assassination attempt every other week. There is no point in ruling a country where you need an armed guard watching you 24/7 as you walk down the street, and there is no point of living in constant fear and paranoia knowing that all it takes is one bribe to your guards for an assassin to put a knife in your neck.

Her primary want in life, is to enjoy her life, and get as much power and enjoyment out of it as she can. Is she WILLING to commit evil and dark deeds? Hell yes.

Will she go OUT OF HER WAY to do them, when there are better and more pragmatic options? Hell no. She's not petty and she's not stupid.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-16, 11:34 AM

Now you're thinking "how the hell is this evil?"

Well, because the only reason she was doing it, is so she could harvest the worship of her citizens and propel herself to god hood. To her power was her ultimate goal

***

good deeds, evil intentions.
What's evil about wanting to be a god per se? What's evil about letting - as opposed to making - people adore you? What is this person taking away from her subjects, or anyone, for that matter? How is she "oppressing, hurting, or killing" anyone? That is, how did she earn that Evil alignment? The best comparisons with an Order of the Stick character I can draw are Tarquin and Redcloak, but both have extensive records of "oppression, hurting, [and] killing" to their name, while this person, unless you've omitted something very significant, does not.

EDIT: ninja'd by hamishspence. The response to him failed to satisfy me.

strijder20

2013-09-16, 11:35 AM

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 11:37 AM

This reminds me of an evil D&D character I once played.

She was an evil empress, who realized after studying history, something VERY interesting.

The hero only ever shows up to overthrow the empire AFTER the empire is abusing it's citizens.

A hero that comes to a happy population has no power against the government. People who are content, if not happy with their lives do not take up armed resistance.

Her whole campaign revolved around creating her utopia, her "perfect empire" where there was free healthcare, create food traps, housing given by the government, and so on.

Now you're thinking "how the hell is this evil?"

Well, because the only reason she was doing it, is so she could harvest the worship of her citizens and propel herself to god hood. To her power was her ultimate goal, but she realized that she didn't need violence or intimidate, or even fear to get what she wanted. Why kidnap a boy and force him to be your sex slave via mind control, when you can simply become a well liked divinely beautiful empress who can literally walk into a tavern and ask "does anyone want to come live in the palace as part of my harem" and get tons of volunteers.

She realized that without suffering, there is no hero, without a hero there is no rebellion, and without a rebellion, she stays in power....forever.

Good deeds...evil intentions.

That doesn't sound like an Evil character at all. Simply a Neutral one with a good head for politics. If I were a Paladin traveling through your "Evil" empress' kingdom and happened to be in a tavern when she was auditioning himbos for her harem, I'd go to a local temple and check to see if my Detect Evil power was on the fritz.

Did she sacrifice virgins? Eat the hearts of babies? Punch bunnies? At least in private? She sounds like a very smart, very charismatic politician, who's simply a little selfish, but smart enough to never act on her selfishness. That isn't Evil in D&D.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 11:38 AM

What's evil about wanting to be a god per se? What's evil about letting - as opposed to making - people adore you? What is this person taking away from her subjects, or anyone, for that matter? How is she "oppressing, hurting, or killing" anyone? That is, how did she earn that Evil alignment? The best comparisons with an Order of the Stick character I can draw are Tarquin and Redcloak, but both have extensive records of "oppression, hurting, [and] killing" to their name, while this person, unless you've omitted something very significant, does not.

EDIT: ninja'd by hamishspence. The response to him failed to satisfy me.

So basically in order to be evil, you need to go out of your way to kick puppies and torture people. You need to be a low-wisdom moron who rather than kick back and enjoy life in your mansion adored by endless people that your PR specialist has made love you, happy with the fact that now that you're a god and immortal that no one will ever end your rule.

You need to kick puppies, torture people, and accept the fact that the rebel army will eventually get lucky and kill you.

I'm sorry but the way you're talking makes me think you're saying "In order to be evil, you need to be a genre blind moron."

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 11:39 AM

V does say "Now no-one will come to avenge your defeat" afterward:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html

In practice, there's plenty of room for vengeful friends as well as relatives. And of course a vengeful deity of chromatic dragons.

So basically in order to be evil, you need to go out of your way to kick puppies and torture people.
Not necessarily- but having that desire to do so (which is indulged in when the being thinks they can get away with it)- may be a part of having an Evil alignment.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 11:42 AM

Can someone explain me why V's 'Familicide' is seen (by some) as a defensive act to prevent other black dragons from seeking revenge? Why would black dragons seek revenge on a spellcaster who killed two of their kin and is therefore definitely able to kill more of them? Don't black dragons get killed every day?

Darth Vaarsuvius says so:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.png "Had you simply attacked me, I would have left you dead. But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict. This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today's events will never rise again to threaten them." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-16, 11:42 AM

I'm sorry but the way you're talking makes me think you're saying "In order to be evil, you need to be a genre blind moron."
Hardly. Xykon of all people is quite genre-savvy, and I don't think anyone has claimed he was something other than Evil without their tongue firmly in their cheek (though this is the GitP board...). But in your response to Hamishspence you basically said that she's only Evil because she was raised by a presumably Evil being and had her mind tampered with by an Elder Evil. That's not enough in my book to be Evil. You need substantive Evil acts even if you prize alignment over straight acts. Just like it's not enough for V to intend never to kill another creature, to actually be nice to everyone she meets, and to adopt an ideology of racial harmony. These will always be outweighed by her act.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 11:43 AM

That doesn't sound like an Evil character at all. Simply a Neutral one with a good head for politics. If I were a Paladin traveling through your "Evil" empress' kingdom and happened to be in a tavern when she was auditioning himbos for her harem, I'd go to a local temple and check to see if my Detect Evil power was on the fritz.

Did she sacrifice virgins? Eat the hearts of babies? Punch bunnies? At least in private? She sounds like a very smart, very charismatic politician, who's simply a little selfish, but smart enough to never act on her selfishness. That isn't Evil in D&D.

Let me ask you a question.

What does she get out of those things?

What benefit does sacrificing virgins get her? What does eating the heart of a baby get her? What does a punching a bunny get her?

And what do they give her, that she can't get anywhere else.

This a woman who is so pragmatic, so logical and insane, that she hates non-magical jewelry. Seeing people who buy things like diamond rings as "idiot cavemen who are amused by shiny rocks."

The simple fact is that she can get anything she wants. Power, money, sex slaves, via legit means. There is no reason for her to commit stupid evil acts.

She. has. wisdom.

AKA_Bait

2013-09-16, 11:44 AM

Here's what the Giant has to say on this matter:

I don't think the Giant's commentary there solves the issue that I'm identifying though. Note he mentions that he omitted showing which Paladins were casting detect evil. In other words, that presumably would have made a difference as to whether they fall or not. Remember, goblins are only "usually" evil (if memory serves) so many of the adults and children would not be evil creatures and ping evil (i.e., valid targets without other justification).

Kish

2013-09-16, 11:45 AM

I'm sorry but the way you're talking makes me think you're saying "In order to be evil, you need to be a genre blind moron."
That's a strawman. Try, "In order to be evil, you need to do something evil."

Can you think of anything for the character you use as an example? If she had become a god, would she have hurt people for her own gain then, or would she have gone on saying, "It's clearly in my best interests for my worshipers to be happy and everyone else to like my worshipers, therefore I evilly command my worshipers to dedicate themselves to making the world a better place for everybody"?

Because if it's the latter...it's seeming like your definition of "evil" is either "desires power," or just, "has evil on her character sheet, why are you asking more questions?" Both of which I have a problem with.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-16, 11:45 AM

The simple fact is that she can get anything she wants. Power, money, sex slaves, via legit means. There is no reason for her to commit stupid evil acts.

She. has. wisdom.
Reading the ongoing descriptions of the person, and speaking strictly as a layman who has no idea what he's talking about, she sounds like a high-functioning psychopath. Psychopathy is not Evil, though a particular psychopath like Belkar might be.

Kerim

2013-09-16, 11:46 AM

Morithias:

She is neutral because she is WILLING to do such things. She would be evil if she WANTED to do such things, and would be willing to go out of her way to do such things.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-16, 11:49 AM

Let me ask you a question.

What does she get out of those things?

What benefit does sacrificing virgins get her? What does eating the heart of a baby get her? What does a punching a bunny get her?

And what do they give her, that she can't get anywhere else.

This a woman who is so pragmatic, so logical and insane, that she hates non-magical jewelry. Seeing people who buy things like diamond rings as "idiot cavemen who are amused by shiny rocks."

The simple fact is that she can get anything she wants. Power, money, sex slaves, via legit means. There is no reason for her to commit stupid evil acts.

She. has. wisdom.

Maybe I'm missing a significant piece of context about your PC, but she sounds like a smart, wise, and charismatic politician, and a Lawful Neutral one as well. I get that she did not commit "stupid" evil acts, but what about smart ones? Did she ever betray any of her allies? Did she ever murder someone when it was convenient (and she thought she could get away with it)? Did she spread lies and rumors about her rivals in order to destroy them? Did she have spies and assassins in rival kingdoms? What did she do that made her Evil?

Arcanist

2013-09-16, 11:52 AM

I think that just acknowledging her guilt and feeling bad won't be enough for V. For starters, it makes for a boring story, compared to a story where V has to struggle to break her bad habits and become a better (if not Good) person during the atonement process. But trying does count, at least in the Lawful Good afterlife. The True Neutral afterlives may be more critical of success or failure. :smallwink:

Feeling bad isn't enough and I'm sure anyone would disagree with that. Obviously reparations are required on ver end. The classic story of redemption is one where the protagonist suffers as a result of his/her own actions, but eventually comes to peace with their actions and pays their debts. To this end, Ve must make peace with verself and perform some action in the benefit for Chromatic Dragonkind.

Because it's not about Arcane power at all, it's about Vaarsuvius's very real character flaws. IMO she can not properly atone and earn redemption without going on a long and difficult character arc, at the end of which she is not the same Elf she was at the beginning. A "Hero's Journey" if you will. In this case, the path V takes to her goal is as important as arriving at the goal. Trying to take short cuts or quick-fixes will send her directly to Start, and she will not be able to collect $200.

Interesting. It appears that you are suggesting that V NOT use ver own skills to "fix" this, when ve used someone else's power to cause this. Blame the gun for the shooter and all that.

I don't think a Wish would be powerful enough to resurrect all of Chromatic Dragonkind and True Resurrection is out. I think increasing the Black Dragon population would be a fair return since they are an endangered species at the moment...

V didn't murder thousands of Goblins in a spiteful act of vengeance. If she were to become an ambassador to Dragon-kind, or try to improve the lot of Dragon-kind, that might be another path she could take, but it would also be one that can't involve short-cuts.

You keep saying that V shouldn't take "short cuts" and constrain ver to not be able to use magic (ver most notable ability). What? Do you expect ver to find a non-magical way to somehow resurrect all the dragons?

There is no Dragonkind nation for V to act as an ambassador to. The point is, is that V will be making it ver goal in life to prevent such a genocide from ever happening again. An interesting development would be to see V become a Cleric of Tiamat or a devout follower or something like that.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 11:53 AM

AKA_Bait

2013-09-16, 11:54 AM

Maybe I'm missing a significant piece of context about your PC, but she sounds like a smart, wise, and charismatic politician, and a Lawful Neutral one as well. I get that she did not commit "stupid" evil acts, but what about smart ones? Did she ever betray any of her allies? Did she ever murder someone when it was convenient (and she thought she could get away with it)? Did she spread lies and rumors about her rivals in order to destroy them? Did she have spies and assassins in rival kingdoms? What did she do that made her Evil?

Agreed. Some smart evil acts would almost certainly have been an option for her. They don't even need to be illegal or imprudent. Does she enjoy it when she fires someone who is depending on her employment to live? Has she protected evil-doers, allowing them freedom to commit more bad acts, because it helped her secure power?

Edit: Ninja'd for thread move.

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-16, 12:06 PM

Okay. Let's put some numbers to this.

In the strip Vaarsuvius said that she estimated to have killed off 1/4 of the black dragon population.

According to wikipedia.

"The world is made up of thousands of ethnic groups. Han Chinese represent about 18% of the global population."

And

"According to the 2011 U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World was 7,111,391,200"

So 18% of 7,111,391,200 then a quarter of that.

7,111,391,200*0.18*0.25 = 320,012,604

Now ask yourself.

Would you believe that if someone in modern day murdered over 320 MILLION Han Chinese people. That they would be "worthy of redemption."

Hell no.

According to Wikipedia's article on World War 2.

"Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities"

85 million.

This rhetorical crime is approximately FOUR TIMES as deadly as world war 2.

Well sure, after you make a random switch to percentages and then apply that percentage to an ethnic group millions of times the size of "black dragon." As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You're putting too much weight on the 1/4 thing - that was used for drama, not an estimate of just how many counts of 2nd Degree Murder V committed, especially not using anything from our world as a metric. There just aren't very many dragons compared to people.

To put this into a better perspective, were V to cast Familicide on my family, starting with me, she would get around 60-200 or so people, and 100% of my "line," for whatever that's worth. You can't turn around and say that it would be like killing every Hispanic person on the planet. It's just not. Heinous, yes. {SCRUBBED}

So in my opinion the math doesn't lie.

The math can always lie, frequently more effectively than words. See above.

If you believe Vaarsuvius is worthy of redemption.

Then you must also believe that you are willing to give redemption to the Nazis FOUR TIMES OVER.

Vaarsuvius in my opinion deserves nothing more than eternal damnation and endless torture.

I would not forgive the murder of 1/4 of the Chinese, I will not forgive the act of famicide.

There's a few other things to consider. V is, I thought, rather clearly going through the steps Soon Kim outlined for redemption. As stated previously in the thread, V's spectacularly evil act came under several extenuating circumstances {SCRUBBED} For one, it was a heat-of-the-moment decision, made under a lot of stress, while V was suffering from extreme fatigue and emotional shock and dealing with the entity who tried to literally murder her entire family and steal their souls - an act of disproportionate retribution that actually outweighed the killing of the mother black dragon's son. It was an emotionally driven action, something that Mr. Burlew is quite fond of, if his campaign-creation and RP notes are any indication. The black dragon hurt V with its nasty speech at the deserted island and subsequent murder attempt, so V hurt it back. We, the audience, could see that it was crossing a major line, but that's because we're a million miles removed from the situation and observing it rationally. There's nothing easier than hypothetical virtue. But if you've ever had a family member genuinely threatened by someone, you should know that calm, ethical decision making is not something people are good at in that scenario.

But I'm sure that's exactly the same thing as carrying out a systematic and cold-blooded extermination of a population because it was politically expedient, over the course of years. :smallannoyed: Please don't trivialize the Holocaust by dragging Hitler into discussions for the sake of giving your argument emotional weight.

The rest of V's arc, so far, has been learning about her own character flaws. Pride, arrogance, a misplaced belief in the innate superiority of magic in a world where power comes in many forms. But V is improving, mostly by applying her staggeringly high intelligence to the world around her (and to herself) instead of solely to arcane study. She has shrugged off - three times - very tempting methods of rationalizing away any guilt for what she's done, first by realizing that yes, she *is* to blame for the death of the Draketooths, the second that realizing that, while killing so many dragons might have been a net gain for team good, she shouldn't have done it, and the third by rejecting the imp's line of reasoning that she wasn't fully in control of her deeds while soul spliced. V has done a lot of maturing since Familicide.

And that's ultimately what redemption is about. There's no goal line. There's no set point where V is all better. Redemption isn't a destination, it's a journey - and really something of a life sentence that you have to commit yourself to. V is doing that even now, although the fallout from her earlier actions continues to accumulate, and if Burlew carries the arc all the way through, no party balloons are going to explode into reality from the Seven Mounting Heavens of the Celestial Plane.

The comparison to make is {SCRUBBED} between V and Miko.

"Perhaps if you had more time... but then, perhaps not. Redemption is a rare and special thing, after all. It is not for everyone."

V is an elf with most of her life to go. She *has* time, and will, by current indications, spend all of her long, long life trying to make up for what she's done. Perhaps not with a fancy resurrection spell or scheme, but somehow.

Personally, I liked the goblin rights idea the best, and it makes the most sense. Perhaps it will extend to all monster rights and perceptions. If V manages to defeat the dark side of the alignment system, she'll save countless innocent lives in the name of atoning for what she did for the innocents she killed. How better could they be remembered?

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 12:09 PM

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-16, 12:11 PM

A case could be made that the moment V took the splice, V stopped "suffering from extreme fatigue".

It's worth noting that the physical symptoms of "Going Without Trancing" (pallor, wrinkles etc) are not present when the splice ends.

Very possible! But also splitting hairs. The other thing V's soul splice arc was probably supposed to demonstrate was that people *do* tend to turn into raging buttwaffles when given way more power than they've ever wielded before.

Also the exhaustion was really the least of the reasons V would react with Epic Murder Mode.

David Argall

2013-09-16, 12:20 PM

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 12:22 PM

So our maximum estimate becomes... 350 mil/1000/10/4 = less than 7000, and likely less than 700. Still quite [dis]respectable numbers, but quite definitely within the range moral authorities call forgivable.

Not sure if there is such a thing as "moral authorities" in this context.

SavageWombat

2013-09-16, 12:31 PM

Maybe I'm missing a significant piece of context about your PC, but she sounds like a smart, wise, and charismatic politician, and a Lawful Neutral one as well. I get that she did not commit "stupid" evil acts, but what about smart ones? Did she ever betray any of her allies? Did she ever murder someone when it was convenient (and she thought she could get away with it)? Did she spread lies and rumors about her rivals in order to destroy them? Did she have spies and assassins in rival kingdoms? What did she do that made her Evil?

Durkon hasn't done any of those things either. But people still call him "evil" based on a presupposed predeliction to do them.

If beliefs have as much bearing as action on D&D alignment, then a woman who believes that "people are stupid cattle that live or die by my needs" could be evil even if she avoids abusing her power.

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 12:36 PM

It may be, that items like Helms of Opposite Alignment (or magical effects like Being Transformed Into A Vampire) affect the beliefs of the wearer and what they find emotionally pleasurable or unpleasant.

If belief is a primary factor- a person can change alignment without personally doing anything, so to speak.

Kish

2013-09-16, 12:59 PM

Durkon hasn't done any of those things either. But people still call him "evil" based on a presupposed predeliction to do them.
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I think Durkon is probably evil based on 1) my preexisting concept of what a D&D vampire is, and 2) the fact that his personality has clearly changed, from being the gentlest member of the Order to a harsher take-no-prisoners attitude.

If he doesn't do anything worse than breaking Zz'dtri's neck before he gets resurrected or the comic ends (whichever comes first), then I will assume the position that he never actually stopped being Lawful Good. If Rich posts tomorrow or the day after or next week, "Vampire Durkon isn't evil," my response will be, "Ooh, how mildly surprising," not, "B-b-b-but you can't, vampire, gah!"

Gil-Galad II

2013-09-16, 01:25 PM

Because it's not about Arcane power at all, it's about Vaarsuvius's very real character flaws. IMO she can not properly atone and earn redemption without going on a long and difficult character arc, at the end of which she is not the same Elf she was at the beginning. A "Hero's Journey" if you will. In this case, the path V takes to her goal is as important as arriving at the goal. Trying to take short cuts or quick-fixes will send her directly to Start, and she will not be able to collect $200.

V didn't murder thousands of Goblins in a spiteful act of vengeance. If she were to become an ambassador to Dragon-kind, or try to improve the lot of Dragon-kind, that might be another path she could take, but it would also be one that can't involve short-cuts.

The point I'm trying to make is that short-cuts are bad when it comes to a story about a character seeking atonement. It creates a boring story, it freezes character growth and is a sign of poor writing. (Please note that I'm trying to keep the conversation as narrow as possible to avoid running afoul of the Board Rules.)

Fair point, and I totally agree with you on the narrative side of things...short cuts are unsatisfying, and turn it into a somewhat pointless story. In the real world, well, that's another matter...but am happy to drop that particular point in the interests of keeping the thread from being locked. Plus, if I want a debate on true redemption, I'll probably look in other places than a stick figure comic forum...and yeah, I know it was kinda me who brought it up in the first place. :smallwink:

Hmm, yeah, the Dragon-kind ambassador could work...but I suspect Gobbotopia would be the path V goes down, amusingly enough because of the narrative. The city is now an established part of Stick World now, whilst all the dragons we've met, are...yeah, dead, bar one, making it difficult to introduce a whole new culture and set of characters. The parallels of goblins=evil=die and non-shiny dragons=evil=die have been made fairly clear, if not explicit, and it's much neater plot-wise than introducing a whole lot of dragons that we don't really know, and probably don't care about. Of course, I'm not writing the thing, so who knows...that's my thought, anyway.

lio45

2013-09-16, 01:44 PM

If beliefs have as much bearing as action on D&D alignment, then a woman who believes that "people are stupid cattle that live or die by my needs" could be evil even if she avoids abusing her power.

But upon dying, she'd definitely go to a Neutral afterlife, wouldn't she?

If I have urges to kill everybody, but I'm smart enough to know that I'd end up in jail sooner or later if I did, so instead I decide to get a good education, I move on to earn a good salary, I get everything I need legally (including decently-paid whores) and live my entire life as a law-abiding citizen, I'm certainly not going to end up in an Evil afterlife, right?

hamishspence

2013-09-16, 01:47 PM

According to Fiendish Codex 2, the Nine Hells at least won't let anyone in who hasn't committed at least 1 Evil act.

Don't know about the other Lower Planes though- Acheron and Pandemonium, aren't Evil enough to gain the Mildly Evil Aligned planar trait.

SavageWombat

2013-09-16, 01:51 PM

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I think Durkon is probably evil based on 1) my preexisting concept of what a D&D vampire is, and 2) the fact that his personality has clearly changed, from being the gentlest member of the Order to a harsher take-no-prisoners attitude.

If he doesn't do anything worse than breaking Zz'dtri's neck before he gets resurrected or the comic ends (whichever comes first), then I will assume the position that he never actually stopped being Lawful Good. If Rich posts tomorrow or the day after or next week, "Vampire Durkon isn't evil," my response will be, "Ooh, how mildly surprising," not, "B-b-b-but you can't, vampire, gah!"

This is actually what I consider to be the "most reasonable" interpretation of the data at hand.

But upon dying, she'd definitely go to a Neutral afterlife, wouldn't she?

If I have urges to kill everybody, but I'm smart enough to know that I'd end up in jail sooner or later if I did, so instead I decide to get a good education, I move on to earn a good salary, I get everything I need legally (including decently-paid whores) and live my entire life as a law-abiding citizen, I'm certainly not going to end up in an Evil afterlife, right?

Well, we don't actually know that. Belief counts as well as action. But I wouldn't use "urges to kill" for the example - I'd use "honestly believes he is justified in killing whomever he wants, but doesn't for fear of reprisal".

I have also argued that "I follow the rules of my faith for fear of going to Hell" is a less-good more-lawful position than Mt. Celestia would tolerate. But that's for another thread.

AKA_Bait

2013-09-16, 01:57 PM

This is actually what I consider to be the "most reasonable" interpretation of the data at hand.

Agreed.

Well, we don't actually know that. Belief counts as well as action. But I wouldn't use "urges to kill" for the example - I'd use "honestly believes he is justified in killing whomever he wants, but doesn't for fear of reprisal.

Isn't this exactly what Belkar is now thinking/doing?

lio45

2013-09-16, 02:23 PM

Well, we don't actually know that. Belief counts as well as action. But I wouldn't use "urges to kill" for the example - I'd use "honestly believes he is justified in killing whomever he wants, but doesn't for fear of reprisal".

That seems to go against Rich's logic for goblins and black dragons, though.

A baby black dragon hasn't yet done anything; it hasn't had the chance to act following its Evil instincts (intrinsic to its species), but at the same time, it also hasn't had the chance to life a non-Evil life if it chose to (as a sapient being). At that point in time, is it already Evil?

(FWIW, that conversation already took place countless times, I believe...)

Scurvy Cur

2013-09-16, 02:29 PM

Very possible! But also splitting hairs. The other thing V's soul splice arc was probably supposed to demonstrate was that people *do* tend to turn into raging buttwaffles when given way more power than they've ever wielded before.

Also the exhaustion was really the least of the reasons V would react with Epic Murder Mode.

Quoting this primarily because your other post might break my phone if I quote it, but it deserves a solid +many. And also because the "raging buttwaffles" comment still has me chuckling.

Redemption isn't about balancing the scorecard. It is the process of growing into a better person, experiencing sincere remorse, and doing the best job you can to be a good person in the future by acknowledging your flaws and changing yourself to overcome them. Atonement for V may come in the form of realizing, once he is done wallowing in remorse, that his arrogance and tendency to dismiss the worth of others led him to where he is now, and doing everything he can to not be that sort of a person anymore. Active, selfless concern for others, humility, and attempts to make lives better (no disintegrations), would all be good signs that he is on the right path.

Fish

2013-09-16, 02:47 PM

Gil-Galad II

2013-09-16, 04:53 PM

lio45

2013-09-16, 05:05 PM

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-16, 05:07 PM

Monkey wrench! *toss*

The Order is on a mission to save the world. This necessarily includes saving the evil people who live there. Is that a coincidental effect of saving the world? Is that a Good act (saving people without reward) or an Evil act (protecting evil people)?

You might say this is irrelevant. But your view on this will illuminate the Vaarsuvius problem. V is trying to save the world minus a bunch of black dragons.

The alignment system goes kinda screwy when you start talking about "saving the world" - as it perhaps should. One reason for making the stakes so high is to force the protagonists to see how far they'll go in order to keep such a dire thing from happening. To see what they'll sacrifice, who they'll make a deal with, etc. It's also a way to see which of them will use it as a rationalization for doing things they always wanted to anyway.

For the most part, though, modern morality in many cultures holds that preserving life and protecting innocents is the correct answer, regardless of whether or not evil people are saved in the process, as life is generally considered more valuable than just about anything else.

Though, the Trigun movie had an interesting take on what happens when you always try to save as many people as you can. /tangent

Back on topic, Roy & Crew are (or were) willing to work with Belkar, Vampire Durkon, Tarquin's gang, Girard Draketooth, the Oracle, Miko, the Starshines, the Theives' Guild, etc., even though all of those groups are either evil or have some sort of extremely bad relationship with one or more members of the OotS that would normally cause the PCs to stay away from them, because as Roy put it, "We're in a 'need every advantage we can get' sort of scenario."

To make the point more concise, a great deal of morality is relative. Heck, Haley spent three months basically looting Azure City at will, but the circumstances were so extreme that even the Azure City paladins weren't complaining. Ultimately, if the end goal is saving the world, no one is going to argue that it was a bad thing just because more evil people didn't die.

Sunken Valley

2013-09-16, 05:07 PM

Scow2

2013-09-16, 06:05 PM

Number 2.

The act she has committed is so far over the moral event horizon that redemption is impossible in my opinion. She is basically the nameless one in my opinion. The act she has committed is so grand and so dark, that it is impossible to recover from.Well, where I am from, the Forces of Good do not believe there is any such thing as a "Moral Event Horizon", and by extension, there is no act or person that is "past redemption". It's available to anyone, most just remain ignorant of it. If someone realizes the enormity of what they have done, and works to ensure that such an event will never come to pass again (And certainly not by their own hand)... what good is punishing them further? It will not rehabilitate them (They already are), nor will it protect anyone from them (They are not a threat anymore). Vengeance alone is merely another Wrong, and two Wrongs don't make a Right.

Okay. Let's put some numbers to this.

In the strip Vaarsuvius said that she estimated to have killed off 1/4 of the black dragon population.

According to wikipedia.

"The world is made up of thousands of ethnic groups. Han Chinese represent about 18% of the global population."

And

"According to the 2011 U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World was 7,111,391,200"

So 18% of 7,111,391,200 then a quarter of that.

7,111,391,200*0.18*0.25 = 320,012,604

Now ask yourself.

Would you believe that if someone in modern day murdered over 320 MILLION Han Chinese people. That they would be "worthy of redemption."

Hell no.

According to Wikipedia's article on World War 2.

"Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities"

85 million.

This rhetorical crime is approximately FOUR TIMES as deadly as world war 2.

So in my opinion the math doesn't lie.

If you believe Vaarsuvius is worthy of redemption.

Then you must also believe that you are willing to give redemption to the Nazis FOUR TIMES OVER.

Vaarsuvius in my opinion deserves nothing more than eternal damnation and endless torture.

I would not forgive the murder of 1/4 of the Chinese, I will not forgive the act of famicide. Since you seem to think the numbers are more important than any individual life, try running them again, and this time choose one of the smallest demographics in the known world, instead of largest. After all, "Black Dragons+Draketooth Clan" are certainly not the largest plurality population in the OotSverse. {SCRUBBED} why is giving someone who took out 25% of her targetted-for-genocide demographic "Four times over" the group that took out 78% of its targetted-for-genocide demographic?

Eww... I feel dirty trying to stoop to the level of arguing against a position that the number of innocents killed in an event can reduce its 'atrocity' nature.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 06:33 PM

Since you seem to think the numbers are more important than any individual life, try running them again, and this time choose one of the smallest demographics in the known world, instead of largest. After all, "Black Dragons+Draketooth Clan" are certainly not the largest plurality population in the OotSverse. Or, since you've already invoked Godwin's Law and brought up the Nazis... why is giving someone who took out 25% of her targetted-for-genocide demographic "Four times over" the group that took out 78% of its targetted-for-genocide demographic?

Eww... I feel dirty trying to stoop to the level of arguing against a position that the number of innocents killed in an event can reduce its 'atrocity' nature.

Actually I think the percentages are the most important. Since reducing such a large percent of the population falls into one of two categories. If it's a small population, it can force them into inbreeding and eventually breed themselves into extinction. It's a large population, there's a huge number of innocents.

I'm just saying, she killed off 25% of a race. A full QUARTER.

lio45

2013-09-16, 06:51 PM

No one cares about the fact that V killed 25% of the species. It could have been 10%, it could have been 40%, the act would've been the same morally.

"V killed a very large number of black dragons" is the relevant act. (+ "And a number of humans related to them by blood")

Killing 250 people isn't two point five times as Evil as killing 100 people. (FTR, I also feel kinda... weird, having to swoop down to that level of argumentation.)

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-16, 07:03 PM

Scow2

2013-09-16, 07:14 PM

Actually I think the percentages are the most important. Since reducing such a large percent of the population falls into one of two categories. If it's a small population, it can force them into inbreeding and eventually breed themselves into extinction. It's a large population, there's a huge number of innocents.

I'm just saying, she killed off 25% of a race. A full QUARTER.{SCRUBBED} However... the number or percentage doesn't matter. The number of innocent people deliberately killed without genuine remorse needed to be considered an atrocity is one. However... there are no atrocities that are beyond redemption, though it can be difficult for someone to acknowledge all that they have done wrong, which makes redemption harder. However, even with redemption, it's not a "Get out of jail free" card - the weight still remains throughout the committer's life.

Morithias

2013-09-16, 07:28 PM

DnD Husbandry 101: Humans and dragons can mate with anything. Anything.

And eventually the bloodline becomes so thin that the race basically no longer exists eventually. Oh sure there will be people with human or draconic blood, but no actual humans or dragons.

Scow2

2013-09-16, 07:59 PM

And eventually the bloodline becomes so thin that the race basically no longer exists eventually. Oh sure there will be people with human or draconic blood, but no actual humans or dragons. Only if Dragons only breed with Humans, and Humans only breed with Dragons, and the offspring of each only breed with the weaker bloodline of the two (Or either on a 50/50 split) or each other.

Infinite

2013-09-16, 08:01 PM

Atonement. That is all I have to say.

RadagastTheBrow

2013-09-16, 09:31 PM

But upon dying, she'd definitely go to a Neutral afterlife, wouldn't she?

If I have urges to kill everybody, but I'm smart enough to know that I'd end up in jail sooner or later if I did, so instead I decide to get a good education, I move on to earn a good salary, I get everything I need legally (including decently-paid whores) and live my entire life as a law-abiding citizen, I'm certainly not going to end up in an Evil afterlife, right?

Isn't that ultimately winning the system? "I have urges to choke every new person I meet, but if I play very, very strictly by the rules, I'll escape the Great Fiery Prison Down Below and skid into Lawful Neutral for all eternity. Game and match."

As I'd imagine, this person IS still basically malevolent, hence Evil, but through an extraordinary feat of willpower managed to control it for an entire lifetime. A simple reward of "Not tortured for eternity" seems a fair price for that sort of thing. The eternal smug satisfaction of, well, being Evil and getting away with it is inconsequential. Nobody got hurt despite the vast resources and inclination to do so. Well played.

Scow2

2013-09-16, 09:37 PM

Isn't that ultimately winning the system? "I have urges to choke every new person I meet, but if I play very, very strictly by the rules, I'll escape the Great Fiery Prison Down Below and skid into Lawful Neutral for all eternity. Game and match."

As I'd imagine, this person IS still basically malevolent, hence Evil, but through an extraordinary feat of willpower managed to control it for an entire lifetime. A simple reward of "Not tortured for eternity" seems a fair price for that sort of thing. The eternal smug satisfaction of, well, being Evil and getting away with it is inconsequential. Nobody got hurt despite the vast resources and inclination to do so. Well played.If someone can control their urges, no matter how vile, then they don't affect their alignment. Most creatures and people can't control their urges very well, though. In fact, it's possible for a sociopathic sadist to even function as a Paladin if they have a strong and exhaustive enough code to hold them up and abide by (Such as my long-running, campaign-hopping Pathfinder Gnoll Paladin.)

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-16, 11:43 PM

And eventually the bloodline becomes so thin that the race basically no longer exists eventually. Oh sure there will be people with human or draconic blood, but no actual humans or dragons.

DnD Husbandry 102: Evolution is a joke, and genetics is the punchline. There's a prestige class that turns you into a half-dragon from being a 2% dragon. Also a ritual that changes your base creature type, or just what you are. And a spell that brings you back from the dead as something else. And several spells that turn you into something else for the sake of making babies. There are several ways to restart an extinct species.

Half the entries in later monster manuals weren't so much genetic polymorphism as half-finished wizard experiments. Lazy writing? Sure, but this is not a world where inbreeding and chromosomes are a thing. This is a world where Down Syndrome and AIDS can be cured by taking 3 levels of Paladin.

Scow2

2013-09-17, 12:52 AM

Half the entries in later monster manuals weren't so much genetic polymorphism as half-finished wizard experiments. Lazy writing? Sure, but this is not a world where inbreeding and chromosomes are a thing. This is a world where Down Syndrome and AIDS can be cured by taking 3 levels of Paladin.
Actually, I'm not so sure about Down Syndrome... I think a lot of "Mental Diseases" are represented in D&D as critically-low mental attributes and attribute combinations.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-17, 11:13 AM

{SCRUBBED}

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-17, 11:17 AM

DnD Husbandry 102: Evolution is a joke, and genetics is the punchline. There's a prestige class that turns you into a half-dragon from being a 2% dragon. Also a ritual that changes your base creature type, or just what you are. And a spell that brings you back from the dead as something else. And several spells that turn you into something else for the sake of making babies. There are several ways to restart an extinct species.

Half the entries in later monster manuals weren't so much genetic polymorphism as half-finished wizard experiments. Lazy writing? Sure, but this is not a world where inbreeding and chromosomes are a thing. This is a world where Down Syndrome and AIDS can be cured by taking 3 levels of Paladin.

Actually, I'm not so sure about Down Syndrome... I think a lot of "Mental Diseases" are represented in D&D as critically-low mental attributes and attribute combinations.

Can we tone this conversation down before the mods decide to lock the thread? Please? We've already passed the Godwin's Law threshold. :smallannoyed:

lio45

2013-09-17, 11:48 AM

If someone can control their urges, no matter how vile, then they don't affect their alignment.

That's also my interpretation.

For example, males of nearly all species have, genetically hardwired in, the basic urge to try and spread their genes as much as possible; raping left and right is Evil, thinking "I'd hit that" extremely often is not.

Scow2

2013-09-17, 11:52 PM

I'm gonna answer this post in this thread!
Well, some people are just desperate to defend mass murder for some reason. *shrug*Mass murder commited by someone who was not fully aware of the extent or repercussions of vir actions at the time, committed in the span of a single word uttered. An impulse with horrific consequences - the closest analogy would be giving a kid a loaded gun.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-17, 11:55 PM

Mass murder commited by someone who was not fully aware of the extent or repercussions of vir actions at the time, committed in the span of a single word uttered. An impulse with horrific consequences - the closest analogy would be giving a kid a loaded gun.
We're having the state of mind argument in the "why is V benched" thread.

Cerlis

2013-09-17, 11:59 PM

Well, some people are just desperate to defend mass murder for some reason. *shrug*

P.S. No one has ever done this.

So dont pretend like it.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-18, 12:02 AM

P.S. No one has ever done this.

So dont pretend like it.
Scow2 just did in the "why is V constantly benched" thread (which, per the Giant's order and the egg on my face, is no longer playing host to that discussion), claiming mitigating circumstances that were refuted in forum discussions weeks after the strip containing familicide was posted and which were refuted again in strip 834.

She only realized she had no right to base her decision on the presumption that her victims were "malevolent by nature" only after she had already done so, and realized the extent of her actions.
She could and should have realized it in the moment. A reasonable person would have. The threat to her family was over, she wasn't acting in the heat of passion. She deliberately brought the ABD back to make her suffer. She wantonly cast the spell, no urgency. There's no mitigating circumstance here.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 12:03 AM

We're having the state of mind argument in the "why is V benched" thread.Not since the Giant kicked it out of there. And on that note:

She could and should have realized it in the moment. A reasonable person would have. The threat to her family was over, she wasn't acting in the heat of passion. She deliberately brought the ABD back to make her suffer. She wantonly cast the spell, no urgency. There's no mitigating circumstance here.Well, V wasn't a reasonable person at the time - the threat to the family WASN'T over - "Black Dragons" had proven that they have familial bonds, and any number could have come to avenge the ABD - V didn't know of any... but also didn't know of the ABD herself until it was too late. Also, three evil souls whispering in one's head will screw up anyone's judgement. She WAS acting in the head of passion, which provided the motivation to want to make the ABD suffer for the torment she had inflicted on V through the threat to the family. She wasn't acting rationally at the time. She hadn't been acting rationally at any point between failing to save the soldiers in Azure City and getting kicked back to the order with O-Chul by the MitD.

Do you have any proof of Mind/body dualism being bunk in OotS? That's one of the first things to be enforced in any setting where Free Will explicitly exists.

And yes, she had eventually realized the magnitude of her error - but I highly doubt she would have come anywhere near that conclusion had she not been forcibly shown the flaw in her thinking that the entire world had normalized. Right now, she's the only person in the world who knows "Killing Black Dragons and other sapient creatures en-mass simply for what they are is Wrong" - And actually mean it, not merely her usual flippant "And that would be Wrong" response to why omnipotent elven wizards aren't ruling the world through arbitrarily-large fireballs - though she may have now realized why arbitrarily-large fireballs are wrong, instead of merely stating so with the subtext of "I'm saying it's wrong only because I was told to think it is wrong, for some reason."

Had Vaarsuvius not had the soul-crushing revelation of the extent of the damage of her act, her soul would be headed straight to the IFCC inbox upon a truly-deserved death. But the extent of the epiphany is enough to redeem her... if she can act on it.

Cerlis

2013-09-18, 12:11 AM

...Really? Racism is a defense? Vaarsuvius' assumption that black dragons were inherently valid targets wasn't "foolish"; it was evil. You do not have to be a cackling caricature like Xykon or Tarquin, knowing you're evil and reveling in it, to commit atrocities.

No but there is a big difference between killing many many black dragons which supposedly deserve it, and accidentally killing many uninvolved people who probably didnt deserve it: and Intentionally killing all of them.

thats why there exists
Murder in the First Degree
Murder in the Second Degree
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter

among many other definitions of "doing something that results in someone dying"

Fair enough, but I think that is specifically what Miko's redemption would require. For instance, "duty" obviously has quite a different meaning to Miko. And there's no sign that Vaarsuvius's god (the unnamed ancient elven god of knowledge) has "turned away from her".
__________________

Not necessarily. Replace Twelve Gods with the Elven God. Then as for Duty...well thats the entire reason why Evil Durkon and V are fighting Xykon in the first place. Regardless of their own personal things they know they NEED to do it. As powerful adventurer's is their duty. All that "With great power " stuff.

because in reference to that quote, BEFORE V was basically fighting Xykon and his minions for Experience. Even saving the world doesnt register on the GoodVsEvil scale (probably) if it was done for selfish reasons. Its not good enough for V to save the world, he has to:enter Soon's text here

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-18, 12:12 AM

Not since the Giant kicked it out of there. And on that note:
So noted :smallsmile:

Well, V wasn't a reasonable person at the time - the threat to the family WASN'T over - "Black Dragons" had proven that they have familial bonds, and any number could have come to avenge the ABD - V didn't know of any... but also didn't know of the ABD herself until it was too late. Also, three evil souls whispering in one's head will screw up anyone's judgement. She WAS acting in the head of passion, which provided the motivation to want to make the ABD suffer for the torment she had inflicted on V through the threat to the family. She wasn't acting rationally at the time. She hadn't been acting rationally at any point between failing to save the soldiers in Azure City and getting kicked back to the order with O-Chul by the MitD.
The imminent threat was over. What's more, the particular threat the ABD posed was not just that she would simply kill Inkyrius and the children (I hesitate to call them V's "family"). She proposed to bind their souls too. You and others have argued in the past that this was a mitigating circumstance. But it cuts the other way. Why should V have believed that any black dragon other than this particular one would do such a thing? Who gave her the right to make that call?

The Directors explained to Qarr that Haerta, Ganonron, and Jephdon had as much control over V's actions "as the cheerleaders have over a football game". Their words are on record, and they're not terribly persuasive...to a reasonable person. They would be persuasive to someone who was already inclined to commit acts of heinous evil, but that's because their appeals were to ego, to pride, and to greed. They were not good arguments by any stretch of the imagination. Are you seriously suggesting that people should listen to and heed advice like "make her suffering exquisite" on the merits?

No, V knew exactly what she was doing. Do not pretend otherwise.

And yes, she had eventually realized the magnitude of her error - but I highly doubt she would have come anywhere near that conclusion had she not been forcibly shown the flaw in her thinking that the entire world had normalized.
As Kish pointed out above and as the Giant pointed out in the alien intelligences thread, racism, no matter how much of a cultural norm, is not a defense.

Right now, she's the only person in the world who knows "Killing Black Dragons and other sapient creatures en-mass simply for what they are is Wrong" - And actually mean it, not merely her usual flippant "And that would be Wrong" response to why omnipotent elven wizards aren't ruling the world through arbitrarily-large fireballs - though she may have now realized why arbitrarily-large fireballs are wrong, instead of merely stating so with the subtext of "I'm saying it's wrong only because I was told to think it is wrong, for some reason."

Had Vaarsuvius not had the soul-crushing revelation of the extent of the damage of her act, her soul would be headed straight to the IFCC inbox upon a truly-deserved death. But the extent of the epiphany is enough to redeem her... if she can act on it.
Too little, too late.

{SCRUBBED}

No but there is a big difference between killing many many black dragons which supposedly deserve it, and accidentally killing many uninvolved people who probably didnt deserve it: and Intentionally killing all of them.

thats why there exists
Murder in the First Degree
Murder in the Second Degree
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
No, no, no. You do not get to claim "there are many kinds of homicide, therefore this particular homicide was not murder." V coolly came to the decision to cast familicide. V intended to kill any number of black dragons by doing so. Any number of black dragons ended up dead. That's murder.

Koo Rehtorb

2013-09-18, 12:20 AM

As far as I'm concerned, redemption is a state of mind.

If V admits she was wrong, feels genuine remorse for it, and takes the appropriate steps to correct the flaws in her personality that led to it; then she is redeemed.

Cerlis

2013-09-18, 12:22 AM

No, no, no. You do not get to claim "there are many kinds of homicide, therefore this particular homicide was not murder." V coolly came to the decision to cast familicide. V intended to kill any number of black dragons by doing so. Any number of black dragons ended up dead. That's murder.

Someone said that V didnt intend on killing humans

Someone said that the fact that he wanted to kill dragons means he wanted to kill humans (basically) (Unless this person deciding to completely misunderstand who he was quoting)

I said that there is a big difference between accidentally killing someone and intentionally killing someone (which is is something everyone agrees with)

I wasnt even talking about dragons.

So please dont put words into my mouth.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 12:26 AM

So noted :smallsmile:

The imminent threat was over. What's more, the particular threat the ABD posed was not just that she would simply kill Inkyrius and the children (I hesitate to call them V's "family"). She proposed to bind their souls too. You and others have argued in the past that this was a mitigating circumstance. But it cuts the other way. Why should V have believed that any black dragon other than this particular one would do such a thing? Who gave her the right to make that call?Collective (Limited and erroneous) understanding of Black Dragon psychology at the time of the mass-murder.

The Directors explained to Qarr that Haerta, Ganonron, and Jephdon had as much control over V's actions "as the cheerleaders have over a football game". Their words are on record, and they're not terribly persuasive...to a reasonable person. They would be persuasive to someone who was already inclined to commit acts of heinous evil, but that's because their appeals were to ego, to pride, and to greed. They were not good arguments by any stretch of the imagination. Are you seriously suggesting that people should listen to and heed advice like "make her suffering exquisite" on the merits?It's harder to ignore advice coming from directly within one's own skull than outside it. They were preying on her fury. And the "as cheerleaders have over a football game" line came from the Fiend prone to twisting everything into a Collegiate Sports metaphor.

As Kish pointed out above and as the Giant pointed out in the alien intelligences thread, racism, no matter how much of a cultural norm, is not a defense.But, as a cultural norm, it takes someoen to actually realize that Racism is not a defense. In order for injustice to be corrected, it must first be identified. Vaarsuvius is the first known person in the setting to identify the injustice.

Too little, too late.Actually, it's a textbook "Road to Damascus" moment, and the core event in almost all cases of Redemption. The thing about redemption is that it doesn't require an equal amount of arbitrary "Good" to counterbalance the extent of the Evil - all it requires is a thorough rejection of the evil mentality, and a dedicated lifelong pursuit of correcting that line of thinking in the real world.

It's bunk in real life. Dungeons and Dragons follows real life physics except where it carves out specific exceptions. Wide and often ridiculous though these exceptions may be, allowing mind-body dualism is not one of them. The Order of the Stick follows Dungeons and Dragons except where it carves out specific exceptions. Wide and often ridiculous as these exceptions may be, allowing mind-body dualism is not one of them. I do not recall Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom in D&D being tied in any way to Fortitude or Constitution.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-18, 12:27 AM

I said that there is a big difference between accidentally killing someone and intentionally killing someone
In this particular case, I'm not sure that's true. There was only one act here.

The Giant

2013-09-18, 12:27 AM

Cerlis

2013-09-18, 12:38 AM

In this particular case, I'm not sure that's true. There was only one act here.

well its fact that Vaarsuvius used decided to Kill a black dragon because he was endangering himself and his party. Its a fact that Vaarsuvius willingly killed a black dragon intent on killing V's family and taking their souls. And its a Fact that as vengence V evilly decided to obliterate the dragon's entire family.

its also a fact that V had no idea there was an entire family of Non black dragons related to this black dragon.

Making their deaths indeed accidental.

I'm not saying it wasnt wrong and V shouldn't have to atone. But someone pointed out that the Huge amount of the people Murdered where Murdered accidentally and that it shouldnt be considered "as bad" as intentional murder (say 80 years in prison instead of life in 100 years in prison) which i think is a legitimate point and not overshadowed by the fact that this separate crime, of intentionally murdering an entire family of black dragons.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-18, 12:48 AM

Wow. OK, a lot of red text today.

Yes, you can talk about Familicide in this thread. What you cannot talk about are:

The Nazis.
Mind/body dualism and/or the existence of the soul in real life.
Whether or not V was Morally Justified in casting Familicide.

If you can continue this conversation without any of those being mentioned, great. If not, then I'll lock this thread too and then no one will be able to talk about Familicide for another month.

Expect scrubbings and infractions.

At this point I'd just like to see a few days without Familicide. But since its brought up.

Is there a in-comic purpose to this discussion? Are we saying we expect or want to see V treated in the future. Are we suggesting V's alignment is now evil (if so how evil, worse than Redcloak?)

Are we simply heaping moral scorn on V?

Cerlis

2013-09-18, 12:53 AM

At this point I'd just like to see a few days without Familicide. But since its brought up.

Is there a in-comic purpose to this discussion? Are we saying we expect or want to see V treated in the future. Are we suggesting V's alignment is now evil (if so how evil, worse than Redcloak?)

Are we simply heaping moral scorn on V?

personally i liked the bit i think Porthos brought up

about V being neutral, so atoning might require less effort. Unless a we think that the part of V who thinks that other people are bags of XP ect ect is what MAKES him neutral. I think that would be good talk

Reddish Mage

2013-09-18, 01:05 AM

personally i liked the bit i think Porthos brought up

about V being neutral, so atoning might require less effort. Unless a we think that the part of V who thinks that other people are bags of XP ect ect is what MAKES him neutral. I think that would be good talk

That would suggest that V is good now or headed there because it appears that part of V's personality is fast going.

Whatever "taint" is on V's soul, I don't see it dragging her actions into the deep end going forward. Which makes the issue one of what the outsiders are going to say about V (the fiend's only gives it a 50/50 chance they'd get his sole, and that was before any repentance).

That's the in-story stuff the way I read it.

Porthos

2013-09-18, 01:24 AM

personally i liked the bit i think Porthos brought up

Thot I felt my ears burning. :smallsmile:

Since I'm not posting in this thread (and I don't plan to beyond this post :smalltongue:) allow me to repost my idea from the main discussion thread that you were talking about:

At the risk of igniting the whole Familicide/redemption talk, there is something that has been bugging me about it the whole time.

Redemption itself.

Many people have been bringing up the words of Soon as the definitive article as how to reach redemption.

Maybe so. Certainly so from a (Lawful) Good point of view.

One problem with that. V is not, and possibly never has been, Good.

"No, stuff, Porthos. Tell us something we don't know", I hear V's detractors say.

Well, it's an important point to raise I feel.

To 'make up' for casting Familicide V might very well have to seek redress from those he's wronged.... If he was trying to get into a Good Afterlife.

But a Neutral One? Especially a True Neutral one? Then the whole "Seek to atone for an act of great evil by doing good deeds for the rest of my life" is practically written for those of a True Neutral viewpoint. Certain Druids of previous editions would certainly nod their heads in agreement.

So when we talk about 'redemption' we might want to consider 'From What Alignment Viewpoint'. I certainly agree that V is in for tough sledding to get in a Lawful Good afterlife, or any Good afterlife for that matter.

But True Neutral? That might very well still be on the cards.

I think this whole "looking at redemption from the wrong angle" is something that should at least be considered.

....

If not debated for 20 pages. :smalltongue:

Back to your post:

about V being neutral, so atoning might require less effort. Unless a we think that the part of V who thinks that other people are bags of XP ect ect is what MAKES him neutral. I think that would be good talk

I do want to clarify one point while I'm here though.

It's not so much less effort, but different effort. Depending on just how whacked off the Evil Scale TPTB that are running around in True Neutral land view Familicide, they could decide that it would take a lifetime of very good and selfless deeds to address the evil that V wrought onto the world.

A way to look at it might be this:

Good: Seek to make amends to the people you wronged.
Neutral: Seek to make amends to the world at large.

Or not. Or maybe it only applies to those Druids who constantly natter on about Cosmic Balance and the like.

Still, I don't want to make it sound that I think it will be easier for V to try to seek to undo the damage he did to the fabric of the world by casting the Big F. I just think it might, just might, be a different path. One more suited for characters of Neutral alignment than those of Good.

====

ETA::::

I want to slightly clarify my point a bit further whilst I am still here.

It could be, and I'm still working this out in my head, that a True Neutral person might feel that they only way they can live with themselves after committing a horrible atrocity is to in fact spend a lifetime Doing Good Work. With Doing Good Work being defined as Whatever.

It's not so much 'paying off karmic debt' or even 'undoing the harm that Familicide caused to the universe' per se, but instead: What would a person who has an True Neutral outlook on life do when they are faced with the knowledge that they have done great harm?

As a Compare and Contrast (albeit on a smaller scale) take Roy and Elan in the Bandit Camp. Roy, when he realized he was being a jackass, first beat himself up and then staged a heroic rescue. From my perspective, part of the Interview With the Deva was either figuring out what Roy's real motivations were there, or getting him to face up to the fact that he acted in a Lawful Good manner AFTER he realized he erred.

See, it's not the ill deed so much as the reaction to ill deed and what one does afterwards that might count the most when it comes to an alignment look on life. When V was wallowing in self-pity, he wasn't doing himself any favors. Miko kept trying to blame everyone but herself. And Redcloak? Well one could write an rather long essay about the self-denial he is in. :smalltongue:

So how V decides to face his ill deed and how he decides to address it could indeed say much about him. It's not so much that V will need to do many great deeds to stay True Neutral, it's a True Neutral person would want to do such things to make up for what they did. By extension a Good person might want to do different things to 'make up' for what they did. If they feel that it can ever be made up for.

And it's that wanting to do it that makes the character the alignment that they are.

Cerlis

2013-09-18, 01:56 AM

Thot I felt my ears burning. :smallsmile:

Since I'm not posting in this thread (and I don't plan to beyond this post :smalltongue:) allow me to repost my idea from the main discussion thread that you were talking about:

Back to your post:

I do want to clarify one point while I'm here though.

It's not so much less effort, but different effort. Depending on just how whacked off the Evil Scale TPTB that are running around in True Neutral land view Familicide, they could decide that it would take a lifetime of very good and selfless deeds to address the evil that V wrought onto the world.

A way to look at it might be this:

Good: Seek to make amends to the people you wronged.
Neutral: Seek to make amends to the world at large.

Or not. Or maybe it only applies to those Druids who constantly natter on about Cosmic Balance and the like.

Still, I don't want to make it sound that I think it will be easier for V to try to seek to undo the damage he did to the fabric of the world by casting the Big F. I just think it might, just might, be a different path. One more suited for characters of Neutral alignment than those of Good.

====

ETA::::

I want to slightly clarify my point a bit further whilst I am still here.

It could be, and I'm still working this out in my head, that a True Neutral person might feel that they only way they can live with themselves after committing a horrible atrocity is to in fact spend a lifetime Doing Good Work. With Doing Good Work being defined as Whatever.

It's not so much 'paying off karmic debt' or even 'undoing the harm that Familicide caused to the universe' per se, but instead: What would a person who has an True Neutral outlook on life do when they are faced with the knowledge that they have done great harm?

As a Compare and Contrast (albeit on a smaller scale) take Roy and Elan in the Bandit Camp. Roy, when he realized he was being a jackass, first beat himself up and then staged a heroic rescue. From my perspective, part of the Interview With the Deva was either figuring out what Roy's real motivations were there, or getting him to face up to the fact that he acted in a Lawful Good manner AFTER he realized he erred.

See, it's not the ill deed so much as the reaction to ill deed and what one does afterwards that might count the most when it comes to an alignment look on life. When V was wallowing in self-pity, he wasn't doing himself any favors. Miko kept trying to blame everyone but herself. And Redcloak? Well one could write an rather long essay about the self-denial he is in. :smalltongue:

So how V decides to face his ill deed and how he decides to address it could indeed say much about him. It's not so much that V will need to do many great deeds to stay True Neutral, it's a True Neutral person would want to do such things to make up for what they did. By extension a Good person might want to do different things to 'make up' for what they did. If they feel that it can ever be made up for.

And it's that wanting to do it that makes the character the alignment that they are.

Kinda like how a Chaotic Evil Halfing is having trouble figuring out what these weird Good people want from him. CUs his version of what makes up for bad stuff is different than a neutral or good persons

Porthos

2013-09-18, 02:12 AM

Kinda like how a Chaotic Evil Halfing is having trouble figuring out what these weird Good people want from him. CUs his version of what makes up for bad stuff is different than a neutral or good persons

Such classic examples as...

:belkar:: WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM ME!

and

:belkar:: No matter how many times I hear that*, I still don't understand it.

* Origins slight spolier White Texted: We don't want you to murder any of us!

:smallbiggrin:

Possibly. It's certainly along the lines that I'm going over in my head about all of this.

More than one person has noted that he is starting to understand what 'makes up for bad stuff'. Which might be the first (of many) step(s) for said Halfling to be different than he was before.

Still, that is a debate for another thread. Which, as I think about it, will probably happen soon enuf on this forum. :smalltongue:

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-18, 09:56 AM

Well, V wasn't a reasonable person at the time - the threat to the family WASN'T over - "Black Dragons" had proven that they have familial bonds, and any number could have come to avenge the ABD - V didn't know of any... but also didn't know of the ABD herself until it was too late.

Completely contradicted by The Giant's commentary to DStP. The threat was over, but V reached the opposite conclusion she'd held before the ABD appeared. Previously V considered Dragons to be solitary monsters who had no familial bonds, and therefore would not seek revenge for the murder of their children. Afterwards V decided that any relative of the ABD was a threat to her family. Neither conclusion was supported by available facts, and therefore her actions were taken when the threat to V's family was over. The ABD was dead, her mate was dead, and her son was dead. That was her entire immediate family, and the fact that V had to use Create Greater Undead just exact her revenge on the ABD speaks volumes about V's motivations. V was in full control of her faculties when she cast Familicide.

SavageWombat

2013-09-18, 10:27 AM

V was in full control of her faculties when she cast Familicide.

I find that a little strong. V was sleep-deprived, giddy with newfound power, probably shaking with adrenalin from the fear/anger/rush of the situation.

V was effectively drunk-driving when he made the bargain and follow-through, not fully lucid and rational. Of course, he has no more excuse than a drunk-driver does for the consequences thereof.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-18, 10:59 AM

I find that a little strong. V was sleep-deprived,

First, Elves do not sleep in D&D 3.X, they Trance. V was Trance deprived. Secondly, read what Cedrik has to say (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html) in Panel three of strip #634. The instant the Splice took hold (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html), Darth V received the benefits of a full Trance.

giddy with newfound power, probably shaking with adrenalin from the fear/anger/rush of the situation.

V was effectively drunk-driving when he made the bargain and follow-through, not fully lucid and rational. Of course, he has no more excuse than a drunk-driver does for the consequences thereof.

The IFCC archfiends explicitly tell Qarr that V was in full control of her actions, because she'd been convinced she wasn't responsible for her actions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

I believe that any further discussion of this matter, beyond what was shown in these strips, will go into "morally justifed" territory.

Goosefeather

2013-09-18, 11:15 AM

V was under the impression that there would be "alignment feedback" from the souls. That belief contributed to conditioning V's actions, in the same way that people act drunk after drinking beer that they don't know is non-alcoholic. Plus, of course, there was a psychological and emotional maelstrom going on in V's mind - emotions cloud our judgement and lead us to behave irrationally.

Again, this is not to exculpate V, just to point out that 'in full control of her faculties' doesn't really give a complete picture of what was going on.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-18, 01:39 PM

First, Elves do not sleep in D&D 3.X, they Trance. V was Trance deprived. Secondly, read what Cedrik has to say (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html) in Panel three of strip #634. The instant the Splice took hold (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html), Darth V received the benefits of a full Trance.

The IFCC archfiends explicitly tell Qarr that V was in full control of her actions, because she'd been convinced she wasn't responsible for her actions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

I believe that any further discussion of this matter, beyond what was shown in these strips, will go into "morally justifed" territory.

I don't see whats left to discuss. It seems these points are pretty clear:

1. V has done a very bad thing in the opinion of the Giant, and that the purpose of his writing about the matter was to speak out against these things and to inject SoD matters into the main comic and to extend his thinking about goblins to dragons. He's detailed his thinking quite a bit in the locked thread "the literary merits of Alien Intelligence," I'd give it a good long while before we get even more details of his thinking.

3. V's eventual afterlife is open to debate. The books suggest afterlife is heavily dependent on what alignment is at the time of death and actions around that time (except when under magical influence).

4. V's faculties were not impaired according to the fiends, but may have been under the impression they were.

We talk an awful lot of redemption but most of these posts don't distinguish between redemption in terms of change of alignment, afterlife, in the readers' eyes, in V's own eyes, and the Gaint's eyes.

Is there another topic to speak about other than our moral outrage at V or lack thereof?

Zmeoaice

2013-09-18, 01:39 PM

The ABD was dead, her mate was dead, and her son was dead. That was her entire immediate family, and the fact that V had to use Create Greater Undead just exact her revenge on the ABD speaks volumes about V's motivations. V was in full control of her faculties when she cast Familicide.

Well, she did say she had a brother she was visiting when she left YABD alone.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 02:52 PM

I think Porthos summed up my arguments in favor of V's redemption than I could. But V doesn't need to die for redemption to occur - everyone dies sometime, and, given her new (Much more humble and circumspect) personality, doing so would neither prove nor solve anything.

The "wallowing in self-pity" seems like a trivial and destructive part of the process (And it did keep drifting toward the wrong lessons), but it's important to the redemption process in figuring out exactly where and what went wrong, to prevent the events from snowballing to that sort of point again, to treat the disease, not merely the symptom.

well its fact that Vaarsuvius used decided to Kill a black dragon because he was endangering himself and his party. Its a fact that Vaarsuvius willingly killed a black dragon intent on killing V's family and taking their souls. And its a Fact that as vengence V evilly decided to obliterate the dragon's entire family.

its also a fact that V had no idea there was an entire family of Non black dragons related to this black dragon.

Making their deaths indeed accidental.

I'm not saying it wasnt wrong and V shouldn't have to atone. But someone pointed out that the Huge amount of the people Murdered where Murdered accidentally and that it shouldnt be considered "as bad" as intentional murder (say 80 years in prison instead of life in 100 years in prison) which i think is a legitimate point and not overshadowed by the fact that this separate crime, of intentionally murdering an entire family of black dragons.Actually, I'd still consider EVERY one of those deaths to be Second-Degree murder, at least. That they were commited in ignorance, bigotry, and GIFT (Or, in V's case, "GUAPFT) doesn't matter to the atrocity of the crime, but it does matter to the efforts of redemption.

The lines that made me figure V did have concern for Familicide being used to prevent a future cycle of revenge against V and vir family are:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.png "This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today's events will never rise again to threaten them."
and the next's strip's http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.png "Now no one will come to avenge your defeat"
lines, implying that protecting her family from future retributions WAS a major contributing factor to choosing Familicide.

At those moments in the strip, V was definitely "Evil" - but she eventually ended up getting sense knocked back into her.

Also, the Familicide strip answers another question that's been bothering everyone about Durkon: Yes, intelligent undead do have the original soul.

Paseo H

2013-09-18, 04:35 PM

SavageWombat

2013-09-18, 05:07 PM

I believe that any further discussion of this matter, beyond what was shown in these strips, will go into "morally justifed" territory.

I wasn't saying anything about "morally justified", I was saying that V was not in a state where his actions were determined solely by rational choice. His thinking was impaired.

I specifically stated that this does not absolve him in any way.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 05:38 PM

I've been mulling over it at length for the past few days, sometimes in conjunction with farming timeless coins with my paladin, and I've come to an idea about redemption:

I was wrong.

Not only does V need to will everyone back to life, even the black dragons in spite of the danger of doing so...

The act will mean nothing unless said black dragons are sure to continue doing bad things to innocents.

It's supremely selfish to want to be completely free of taint. If we let V have a way to amend his actions, without further risk of harm, that would make it way too easy for him.

No, he should have to risk his soul further, by giving godspeed to the certain harm to innocents, because anything else would be setting the bar too low, and we certainly can't have V ever resting easy, right?Are you being sarcastic?

If not... V's acts have made the world a worse place. In order to achieve cosmic redemption/absolution, she needs to make the world a better place than it was before... but doesn't need to try to "Undo" the evil act she did. If anything, 'undoing' it would likely devalue the atrocity committed. The redemption needs to reinforce, not negate, the message and implications of the atrocity. Look forward, not behind.

Warren Dew

2013-09-18, 05:42 PM

The lines that made me figure V did have concern for Familicide being used to prevent a future cycle of revenge against V and vir family are:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.png "This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today's events will never rise again to threaten them."
and the next's strip's http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.png "Now no one will come to avenge your defeat"
lines, implying that protecting her family from future retributions WAS a major contributing factor to choosing Familicide.
Indeed.

At those moments in the strip, V was definitely "Evil" - but she eventually ended up getting sense knocked back into her.
If Vaarsuvius was evil aligned then, when did the return to a neutral alignment occur? Or do you think Vaarsuvius is still evil aligned now?

Also, the Familicide strip answers another question that's been bothering everyone about Durkon: Yes, intelligent undead do have the original soul.[/QUOTE]

DaggerPen

2013-09-18, 05:54 PM

Actually, I'd still consider EVERY one of those deaths to be Second-Degree murder, at least. That they were commited in ignorance, bigotry, and GIFT (Or, in V's case, "GUAPFT) doesn't matter to the atrocity of the crime, but it does matter to the efforts of redemption.

Slight tangent - what do GIFT and GUAPFT stand for?

Zmeoaice

2013-09-18, 06:12 PM

Slight tangent - what do GIFT and GUAPFT stand for?

Greater Internet Fudgewad Theory.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 06:47 PM

If Vaarsuvius was evil aligned then, when did the return to a neutral alignment occur? Or do you think Vaarsuvius is still evil aligned now?That question is much harder to answer due to how D&D handles alignment. In fact, she may have even been Neutral throughout it (But taking a Nosedive toward Evil) - As horrific as the act was, and reprehensible her reasoning and behavior, it was less than a few minutes of her life out of dozens if not over a hundred 'waking' years (Which seperates it from most other historical real-world and fictional acts of horrific villainy, which usually take years of planning, months or years of execution, and no regrets in hindsight.)

On the other hand, while it was only one moment of evil action, she's had QUITE a while of inert (Usually mildly)Evil Intentions (See: any time she said "And that would be wrong"). However... given how fast she backtracked from her actions during the Soul Splice, she may have never actually turned Evil... but, after reading the relevant section in the BoVD, it's possible that she is technically Evil for 1d10x10 days after the event.

D&D's alignment system really doesn't handle transient acts of evil of this caliber very well. If she's not Neutral since her Pity Party scene, the steps to get back there may include but are not limited to:
Confession to a suitable moral authority - Not because someone must judge her, but because she cannot hide her guilt from the world.
A change in mindset to not only abhor the event and not risk ever repeating it, but also preventing the same situation in others.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-18, 07:06 PM

...after reading the relevant section in the BoVD, it's possible that she is technically Evil for 1d10x10 days after the event.

D&D's alignment system really doesn't handle transient acts of evil of this caliber very well. If she's not Neutral since her Pity Party scene, the steps to get back there may include but are not limited to:
Confession to a suitable moral authority - Not because someone must judge her, but because she cannot hide her guilt from the world.
A change in mindset to not only abhor the event and not risk ever repeating it, but also preventing the same situation in others.

Is that list from BoVD or is that a ruling of your own?

The alignment system doesn't have any rules for handling a "transient act of great evil" at all. One the one hand, we have a very great evil. One the other hand, it was a one off event that V regretted (it was as you call it "transient"). The former suggests that V should immediately become evil, the latter gives a reason for keeping the alignment the same. In actuality, the fiends (assuming they know what they are talking about) gave it 50/50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) on the soul, and didn't comment on the actual alignment changing.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 07:09 PM

Is that list from BoVD or is that a ruling of your own?

The alignment system doesn't have any rules for handling a "transient act of great evil" at all. One the one hand, we have a very great evil. One the other hand, it was a one off event that V regretted (it was as you call it "transient"). The former suggests that V should immediately become evil, the latter gives a reason for keeping the alignment the same. In actuality, the fiends (assuming they know what they are talking about) gave it 50/50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) on the soul, and didn't comment on the actual alignment changing.My own interpretation of the situation. (The two bullets were for if she hasn't already reverted back to/never changed from Neutral).

Reddish Mage

2013-09-18, 07:29 PM

My own interpretation of the situation. (The two bullets were for if she hasn't already reverted back to/never changed from Neutral).

The concept of "suitable moral authority" escapes me.

Belril Duskwalk

2013-09-18, 08:53 PM

The concept of "suitable moral authority" escapes me.

A variety of definitions could be drafted, but given V's current situation, if she follows Scow's theory, her specific answer is probably: Roy.

Demolator

2013-09-18, 09:04 PM

I don't know if V will ever get full redemption, but I'm pretty sure she's at least on the right track. She's seen the error of her ways and is doin' some good, saving the world and helping her team and everything.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 09:06 PM

A variety of definitions could be drafted, but given V's current situation, if she follows Scow's theory, her specific answer is probably: Roy.Roy works. Durkon works if there's a Durkon still in there who'd not be like "meh". Even Belkar or Haley might work. Hinjo and O-Chul could work. An Angel or Cleric could work (Regardless of alignment - but you'd probably want to avoid Evil ones anyway, either due to bias or risk of further temptation).

... Essentially, it can't be kept "my dirty little secret", but it doesn't have to be released to the public at large - not everyone who suffered because of V's indiscretion will be as circumspect on the issue, and she'd be targetted by vengeful retribution of assorted validity and legitimacy.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-18, 09:09 PM

Given the Johnny Cash reference in the strip title, it's interesting that he has something to say on the subject. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcmbFKstspk)

veti

2013-09-18, 09:31 PM

Also it is impossible to create a short term shortage of diamond dust for spell components via supply and demand; spell descriptions do not call for a set amount of diamond dust, they call for a set value (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html) of diamond dust. As the price of diamonds goes up, fewer diamonds would be needed for spell components. :smallbiggrin:

That raises all sorts of silly scenarios...

1. I'm a cleric, I make sure I always have 5k worth of diamonds on my person in case of an emergency resurrection. Unbeknownst to me, however, I've just entered a mining town, where everyone's pockets are bulging with diamonds and nobody will give anything like 5k for these ones. Suddenly, my spell won't work.

2. As above, but a stupidly high-level caster has just teleported millions' worth of diamonds into the world from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The market price has dropped by 10%. Again, my spell won't work.

3. I'm an Epic-level Lawful Good wizard. I work out that I can make resurrections way easier, for everyone, by controlling the world supply of diamonds. I put a ward between the Prime Material and the Elemental Plane of Earth (or wherever the heck they come from) so that no-one but me can summon anything from there. Then I collect diamonds from all over the world, and keep them in my own vaults, thus causing the price (outside said vaults) to rocket. Now you can perform a resurrection with just a tiny pinch of diamond dust, and I'll give away such pinches for free to any Good cleric who asks.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the people who wrote the rules have ever actually played the game...

LadyEowyn

2013-09-18, 09:44 PM

I don't think the folks who wrote D&D were really thinking about economics. The cost of a spell presumably represents the game creators' view of how difficult/costly it should be to be able to use that spell.

And with regard to your first two questions, if you paid 500 GP for the diamonds, they still work, regardless of demand for them in your current location. In regard to the third one, it doesn't work because the cleric hasn't paid you 500 GP for the diamond dust. If you wanted to take the 500 GP, give the diamond dust, and then give back the 500 GP, that would work, but in that case you're just giving away the 500 GP, the same as you could even if the price of diamonds remained the same.

Also, the third example presumes that diamonds are a particularly scarce resource, which they're not. (In our world they're quite common; it's just that in the real world de Beers owns most of them and use their monopoly power to keep the price high.) And at any rate, in the D&D world I presume diamonds are exactly as rare or common as your GM says, and that condition is determined by how hard your DM wants to make it to resurrect people.

Warren Dew

2013-09-18, 09:51 PM

3. I'm an Epic-level Lawful Good wizard. I work out that I can make resurrections way easier, for everyone, by controlling the world supply of diamonds. I put a ward between the Prime Material and the Elemental Plane of Earth (or wherever the heck they come from) so that no-one but me can summon anything from there. Then I collect diamonds from all over the world, and keep them in my own vaults, thus causing the price (outside said vaults) to rocket. Now you can perform a resurrection with just a tiny pinch of diamond dust, and I'll give away such pinches for free to any Good cleric who asks.
If you give it away for free, it's not 5k worth.

lio45

2013-09-18, 09:53 PM

If you wanted to take the 500 GP, give the diamond dust, and then give back the 500 GP, that would work, but in that case you're just giving away the 500 GP, the same as you could even if the price of diamonds remained the same.

Unless I'm missing something, no, you're not giving away anything but the tiny pinch of diamond dust in that case.

veti's example works, like you said... after the price of diamonds has skyrocketed, you can sell your tiny pinch of diamond dust for 5k to Good clerics, and then, before they leave, in a totally unrelated matter, you ask them to guess a number between 1 and 100 -- there's a 5k prize to be won if they guess correctly.

lio45

2013-09-18, 10:00 PM

If you give it away for free, it's not 5k worth.

Yes, it's worth 5k. It's just that by having made the price artificially skyrocket, you're now so rich (in diamonds) that you can afford to give 5k worth of diamonds to basically anybody who will use it in a way you approve.

If the universe declares that there has to be a transaction, then you sell it for 5k, but there's got to be a given amount of time after which you're allowed to give the 5k back in a way or another in an "unrelated" business... especially if it happens AFTER the resurrection.

Step 1) You sell 5k worth of diamond dust (a tiny pinch) to a Good cleric. (Who gives you his home address.)

Step 2) Good cleric uses it on a resurrection that you had approved prior to making the deal.

Step 3) One month later, one of your messengers shows up at Good cleric's place to offer him a spontaneous tribute of 5k in gold, because "you like him".

Paseo H

2013-09-18, 10:01 PM

Are you being sarcastic?

If not... V's acts have made the world a worse place. In order to achieve cosmic redemption/absolution, she needs to make the world a better place than it was before... but doesn't need to try to "Undo" the evil act she did. If anything, 'undoing' it would likely devalue the atrocity committed. The redemption needs to reinforce, not negate, the message and implications of the atrocity. Look forward, not behind.

It was established by others in earlier threads that the means suggested so far don't do anything to address the actual wrong done, and don't constitute anything unselfish. Even selfish people have an interest in saving the world, so that doesn't count.

Scow2

2013-09-18, 10:15 PM

It was established by others in earlier threads that the means suggested so far don't do anything to address the actual wrong done, and don't constitute anything unselfish. Even selfish people have an interest in saving the world, so that doesn't count.
Saving the world from the Snarl isn't the target of V's redemption. Vaarsuvius is not the only one who has wronged the world through a callous dismissal of the other races. But she is one of the only ones with the knowledge and power to start the end of "But they're an Evil Monster!"-incited murders and violence.

And @Johnny Cash's 'I hung my head' - his case was Life for a Life (And even then, his death doesn't really do anything for those of the man he killed), and a Lawful, not 'neutral' Redemption. He also wasn't in (Or believed he was in) any position of power or responsibility to make the world better. Suicide-by-Jury is for those who do not have access to any other method of redemption.

Through her atrocity, V also gained wisdom, and it would be irresponsible to letthat go to waste.

Amphiox

2013-09-19, 04:09 AM

DaggerPen

2013-09-19, 04:54 AM

You know, I'm used to innocuous rules discussions devolving into discussions of Familicide and the like, but less so the other way around.

lio45

2013-09-19, 07:40 AM

The price of diamonds may be fixed by fiat by the gods for all we know....

Try "Fixed by the DM".

PCs typically aren't Epic-level wizards, so it's not so catastrophic that the system might somewhat break down at that level (meaning that such a powerful character has plenty of ways to game the system).

Alabenson

2013-09-23, 03:17 PM

That raises all sorts of silly scenarios...

1. I'm a cleric, I make sure I always have 5k worth of diamonds on my person in case of an emergency resurrection. Unbeknownst to me, however, I've just entered a mining town, where everyone's pockets are bulging with diamonds and nobody will give anything like 5k for these ones. Suddenly, my spell won't work.

2. As above, but a stupidly high-level caster has just teleported millions' worth of diamonds into the world from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The market price has dropped by 10%. Again, my spell won't work.

3. I'm an Epic-level Lawful Good wizard. I work out that I can make resurrections way easier, for everyone, by controlling the world supply of diamonds. I put a ward between the Prime Material and the Elemental Plane of Earth (or wherever the heck they come from) so that no-one but me can summon anything from there. Then I collect diamonds from all over the world, and keep them in my own vaults, thus causing the price (outside said vaults) to rocket. Now you can perform a resurrection with just a tiny pinch of diamond dust, and I'll give away such pinches for free to any Good cleric who asks.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the people who wrote the rules have ever actually played the game...

Obviously the price of diamonds in D&D is controlled by the fantasy equivalent of the DeBeers corporation :smalltongue:

Regarding V's need for redemption, while the casting of Familicide was clearly a very evil act, I do think there are several very important mitigating factors that need to be considered.
1) The souls that were spliced to V weren't quite as incapable of influencing V as the IFF thought.
I'm not arguing that V wasn't responsible for hir actions. However, it should be noted that V was operating under severe trance deprivation and immense emotional stress. Essentially, V was operating in conditions that would greatly increase hir susceptibility to suggestion, and in fact are commonly used by cults and other groups to facilitate brainwashing. While this isn't enough to completely exonerate V, a very strong case could be made for diminished capacity.

2) V's primary intent was the protection of hir family.
V did not cast Familicide simply because s/he wanted to kill a sizable portion of the Stickworld's dragon population; s/he did so to prevent another, possibly larger and more powerful dragon from targeting hir family. Again, while this does not excuse the casting of Familicide, it should be considered as a mitigating factor.

Ultimately, I'd say that V's redemption is not only possible, but, given that V has acknowledged hir own guilt, fairly likely.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-23, 03:41 PM

2) V's primary intent was the protection of hir family.
V did not cast Familicide simply because s/he wanted to kill a sizable portion of the Stickworld's dragon population; s/he did so to prevent another, possibly larger and more powerful dragon from targeting hir family. Again, while this does not excuse the casting of Familicide, it should be considered as a mitigating factor.

Ultimately, I'd say that V's redemption is not only possible, but, given that V has acknowledged hir own guilt, fairly likely.

I think that's a little too close to "morally justified" territory. A better way of looking at it is through the lens of V's alignment, True Neutral. A True Neutral character may kill a monster threatening her family, without violating her Alignment. It is an Evil act to then go and kill every member of that monster's family in revenge for the original monster threatening the True Neutral character's family, since there are other ways to protect the family without resorting to revenge. V could have arranged for her family to relocate to Sigil, sent them to live with the Azurites colonizing the Western Continent, or asked Aarindarius to place them under his personal protection. She chose to cast Familicide.

Alabenson

2013-09-23, 03:55 PM

Kish

2013-09-23, 04:01 PM

As I said repeatedly, I'm not arguing that casting Familicide wasn't an evil act; it absolutely was an evil act. However, V was not casting Familicide out of revenge or spite, but rather as a way of eliminating the possibility of some other dragon deciding to take revenge for V's killing of the dragon that just tried to kill hir family.
You're taking a feeble, transparent excuse as gospel truth.

Vaarsuvius is many things, but "so stupid as to believe that anyone who might come to avenge this black dragon who I just killed to protect my adopted children and my spouse, must be a blood relative of hers" isn't one of them. She had mentioned two other dragons she was on friendly terms with: "That nice green dragon girl" and her son's uncle. "Coincidentally," neither of them was related to her (unless she speaks of her brother in a very weird and stilted way that would be perfectly appropriate were she instead speaking of her dead mate's brother). "That, and no less, is the price of threatening my family." It was torture for torture's sake, and it was all about Vaarsuvius' ego.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-23, 04:01 PM

As I said repeatedly, I'm not arguing that casting Familicide wasn't an evil act; it absolutely was an evil act. However, V was not casting Familicide out of revenge or spite, but rather as a way of eliminating the possibility of some other dragon deciding to take revenge for V's killing of the dragon that just tried to kill hir family. Still an evil act, but not as evil an act.
If this is so, how do you explain the reanimation of the ABD's head? V didn't need the ABD to be alive to be a valid target of the spell. She was no more alive as a greater undead than she was as an inanimate head, and in any case, the Giant's description of familicide doesn't specify whether the initial target has to be alive. The fact that step 1 of the spell doesn't require a living link between creatures it affects argues against the requirement that the initial target be alive.

What's more, there are the soul splices' words to consider. "The pain ended too soon," they say. "We have only begun to bring misery". V "concurs". As has been pointed out, the actual people killed by familicide never learned how they died or why. Only the ABD knew why, because V let her know.

The only explanation for familicide is that V wanted to make the ABD suffer. Anything else is pure apologism.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-23, 04:24 PM

I think that's a little too close to "morally justified" territory. A better way of looking at it is through the lens of V's alignment, True Neutral. A True Neutral character may kill a monster threatening her family, without violating her Alignment. It is an Evil act to then go and kill every member of that monster's family in revenge for the original monster threatening the True Neutral character's family, since there are other ways to protect the family without resorting to revenge. V could have arranged for her family to relocate to Sigil, sent them to live with the Azurites colonizing the Western Continent, or asked Aarindarius to place them under his personal protection. She chose to cast Familicide.

The term "monster" though we use it in a non-biased way, already suggests the creature may be by its nature dangerous to humans other sentient beings. By word of the Giant it seems V's act was wrong at least in part because of V's mental attitude. However, V is also wrong because she targeted dragons who did not threaten her family, and were not necessarily evil. Importantly the Giant rejects the "always evil" alignment that gets plopped on black dragons and claims its bigoted to put such on creatures that are not "inherently magical" (I read that to mean "essentially magical").

It would be interesting to talk of such hypotheticals as "what if black dragons were depicted as of standard D&D" would they necessarily be evil enough often enough (probably hopelessly unclear, and suffer questions of how evil and how often when the answer starts to approach "always"). I would note that I think the Giant dismisses that standard of stereotyped specie behaviors by having ABD specifically say she didn't give a damn about the starmetal (or the treasure for that matter). It takes us way to far afield.

As far as any threat to V's family, by word of the Giant the threat was over with ABD. V might have justified to herself at the time that she was doing so, however, it is to be considered in the comic a thin excuse. We might consider it a better excuse, however, but if we consider black dragons as human beings (which is the frame of mind Rich is trying to put us in) we would realize we are attempting to generalize to a species the behavior of a single enraged mother. This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she is acting outside the parameters that D&D normally assigned to Black Dragons.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-23, 04:27 PM

You're taking a feeble, transparent excuse as gospel truth.

Vaarsuvius is many things, but "so stupid as to believe that anyone who might come to avenge this black dragon who I just killed to protect my adopted children and my spouse, must be a blood relative of hers" isn't one of them. She had mentioned two other dragons she was on friendly terms with: "That nice green dragon girl" and her son's uncle. "Coincidentally," neither of them was related to her (unless she speaks of her brother in a very weird and stilted way that would be perfectly appropriate were she instead speaking of her dead mate's brother). "That, and no less, is the price of threatening my family." It was torture for torture's sake, and it was all about Vaarsuvius' ego.

If this is so, how do you explain the reanimation of the ABD's head? V didn't need the ABD to be alive to be a valid target of the spell. She was no more alive as a greater undead than she was as an inanimate head, and in any case, the Giant's description of familicide doesn't specify whether the initial target has to be alive. The fact that step 1 of the spell doesn't require a living link between creatures it affects argues against the requirement that the initial target be alive.

What's more, there are the soul splices' words to consider. "The pain ended too soon," they say. "We have only begun to bring misery". V "concurs". As has been pointed out, the actual people killed by familicide never learned how they died or why. Only the ABD knew why, because V let her know.

The only explanation for familicide is that V wanted to make the ABD suffer. Anything else is pure apologism.

I'm with Kish and Zimmer on this one: V cast Familicide out of revenge and spite. The whole spell seems intended as a means of revenge; while we don't have the spell description, it seems likely that the target of the spell must be a creature, not a corpse. Haerta probably wanted it that way, since why go to all the trouble of killing someone's family, if they aren't privy to it, at least for a little while.

There were plenty of ways for V to keep her spouse and kids safe, without committing genocide.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-23, 04:29 PM

The term "monster" though we use it in a non-biased way, already suggests the creature may be by its nature dangerous to humans other sentient beings. By word of the Giant it seems V's act was wrong at least in part because of V's mental attitude. However, V is also wrong because she targeted dragons who did not threaten her family, and were not necessarily evil. Importantly the Giant rejects the "always evil" alignment that gets plopped on black dragons and claims its bigoted to put such on creatures that are not "inherently magical" (I read that to mean "essentially magical").

It would be interesting to talk of such hypotheticals as "what if black dragons were depicted as of standard D&D" would they necessarily be evil enough often enough (probably hopelessly unclear, and suffer questions of how evil and how often when the answer starts to approach "always"). I would note that I think the Giant dismisses that standard of stereotyped specie behaviors by having ABD specifically say she didn't give a damn about the starmetal (or the treasure for that matter). It takes us way to far afield.

As far as any threat to V's family, by word of the Giant the threat was over with ABD. V might have justified to herself at the time that she was doing so, however, it is to be considered in the comic a thin excuse. We might consider it a better excuse, however, but if we consider black dragons as human beings (which is the frame of mind Rich is trying to put us in) we would realize we are attempting to generalize to a species the behavior of a single enraged mother. This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she is acting outside the parameters that D&D normally assigned to Black Dragons.

Which Black Dragons are we comparing her to? The one in Xak Tsaroth, guarding the Disks of Mishakal? She was quite intelligent, and was defeated only through Deus ex Machina and a seeming self-sacrifice by Goldmoon.

veti

2013-09-23, 05:09 PM

PCs typically aren't Epic-level wizards, so it's not so catastrophic that the system might somewhat break down at that level (meaning that such a powerful character has plenty of ways to game the system).

Oh, I don't think my hypothetical LG wizard would "break" the system. On the contrary, I think it'd be a neat premise. "In this world, Resurrections are effectively controlled by this one guy named Debiers. You can contact him by Sending anytime, and he'll teleport the diamond dust to you. There are rumoured to be such things as black market diamonds, but the people who have them generally keep very quiet about it, for fear of attracting Debiers's attention."

Scow2

2013-09-23, 07:14 PM

DarkShoes

2013-09-23, 08:01 PM

2) V's primary intent was the protection of hir family.
V did not cast Familicide simply because s/he wanted to kill a sizable portion of the Stickworld's dragon population; s/he did so to prevent another, possibly larger and more powerful dragon from targeting hir family. Again, while this does not excuse the casting of Familicide, it should be considered as a mitigating factor.

I don't believe his intent was to protect his family. The dragon was DEAD at the time, thus no threat at all. Even if his goal was to protect his family, Familicide is probably not the best way to protect your family from dragons. They live a long time, which means they have a long time to gain allies. Allies that may or may not be dragons. A quarter of the black dragon population would be able to have a lot of allies.

Not only that, it was shown that V pissed off Tiamat, which may not be to manifest physically. But she might have a lot of worshippers, which could include other chromatic dragons. Which would probably want to kill the elf that managed to kill one quarter of a dragon species with one spell.

With that speculation in mind, he just painted his family and himself with a bright pink target, which incidentally wouldn't be there if he did not cast Familicde

Forikroder

2013-09-23, 08:06 PM

I don't believe his intent was to protect his family. The dragon was DEAD at the time, thus no threat at all. Even if his goal was to protect his family, Familicide is probably not the best way to protect your family from dragons. They live a long time, which means they have a long time to gain allies. Allies that may or may not be dragons. A quarter of the black dragon population would be able to have a lot of allies.

Not only that, it was shown that V pissed off Tiamat, which may not be to manifest physically. But she might have a lot of worshippers, which could include other chromatic dragons. Which would probably want to kill the elf that managed to kill one quarter of a dragon species with one spell.

With that speculation in mind, he just painted his family and himself with a bright pink target, which incidentally wouldn't be there if he did not cast Familicde

gee its not like the only reason that dragon was targetting his family was because V killed an entirely different dragon

how does he know that there isnt a nother dragon taht would be even more enraged after the ABDs death and go to even more extremes to avenge it?

Skarn

2013-09-23, 08:08 PM

Protecting her family was partial,
And also incredibly stupid if you consider that the other 3/4ths of the Black Dragon population might be siblings/cousins/friends of ones that died in the second wave, meaning there's now hundreds of angry confused dragons to deal with, not to mention Tiamat. V really didn't think that through. Good thing the IFCC did.

Porthos

2013-09-23, 08:45 PM

how does he know that there isnt a nother dragon taht would be even more enraged after the ABDs death and go to even more extremes to avenge it?

He doesn't. He also doesn't know whether or not the hundreds of dragons that would be targeted by this spell would attack his family. Or even have heard about the incident.

He did, however, know that Familicide wouldn't deal with any of the friends of the Ancient Black Dragon who might be a bit miffed at her demise.

Personally I rather think it was more likely a friend of the ABD would go ballistic on V's hide than, say, a seventh cousin, once removed.

Your mileage may vary, however.

SavageWombat

2013-09-23, 08:52 PM

I never thought V cast the spell out of revenge or spite.

He thought it was practicality.

But in truth it was "I was looking over my new spell list and saw this AWESOME epic-level spell and just HAD to cast it."

theNater

2013-09-23, 09:59 PM

gee its not like the only reason that dragon was targetting his family was because V killed an entirely different dragon

how does he know that there isnt a nother dragon taht would be even more enraged after the ABDs death and go to even more extremes to avenge it?
Familicide doesn't reduce the chance that some creature will want to come after Vaarsuvius' family for revenge. Most likely, it increases it significantly.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-23, 11:01 PM

And also incredibly stupid if you consider that the other 3/4ths of the Black Dragon population might be siblings/cousins/friends of ones that died in the second wave, meaning there's now hundreds of angry confused dragons to deal with, not to mention Tiamat. V really didn't think that through. Good thing the IFCC did.

Actually, it is impossible for the ABD to have any remaining relatives, Black Dragon or otherwise. That's how thorough Familicide is. That doesn't mean that the ABD's relatives didn't have friends who might start wondering why hundreds of their Black Dragon acquaintances dropped dead, nor does it prevent friends of the human victims from seeking revenge on V.

hamishspence

2013-09-24, 01:05 AM

The term "monster" though we use it in a non-biased way, already suggests the creature may be by its nature dangerous to humans other sentient beings.

As V points out, "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-24, 11:43 AM

As V points out, "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

I was using the term in the sense of "a hostile creature about to slaughter V's mishpocha", not in a pejorative sense. It could be a Dragon, a Dire Bear, a Mind Flayer, an Umber Hulk, a Brain Collector or The Tarrasque; it could also refer Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids.

There is another point I'd like to raise: V's tactics in the fight were intended to kill the ABD, not to protect her family. Casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction on the ABD's Anti-Magic Field (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html) was a necessary first move, and the buffs V cast during the Time Stop (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) were also needed, but why cast Delayed Blast Fireball? Why not cast Shapechange first, and then gather up Inkyrious and her children and Greater Teleport back to the Azurite Fleet?

The answer is that V wanted to revel in her newfound power, and she wanted to kill the ABD in as painful a way as possible (i.e. being eaten from the inside out). As V noted at the end of Book Four, she was wielding her magic like a cudgel, rather than a scalpel. Part of the process of V's atonement arc has been to use her spells more judiciously. She still casts Fireballs, but she also buffs the party, Charms and Dominates weak willed enemies and acts like a Controller rather than a Blaster. In a sense, by confronting her character flaws, V is becoming a more Optimized Player Character. Who knew that the Giant was intended to include a satire of the Stormwind Fallacy in "OotS"? :smallwink:

Jasdoif

2013-09-24, 12:24 PM

There is another point I'd like to raise: V's tactics in the fight were intended to kill the ABD, not to protect her family. Casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction on the ABD's Anti-Magic Field (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html) was a necessary first move, and the buffs V cast during the Time Stop (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) were also needed, but why cast Delayed Blast Fireball? Why not cast Shapechange first, and then gather up Inkyrious and her children and Greater Teleport back to the Azurite Fleet?You mean, why didn't Vaarsuvius leave the ABD behind, knowing it she was capable of waiting for the opportunity to strike at Vaarsuvius' family because that's exactly what the ABD had been doing with Vaarsuvius? Without some reason to think the ABD would just give up, I can understand why Vaarsuvius wouldn't think "maintaining the status quo" was an acceptable option.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-24, 01:41 PM

You mean, why didn't Vaarsuvius leave the ABD behind, knowing it was capable of waiting for the opportunity to strike at Vaarsuvius' family because that's exactly what the ABD had been doing with Vaarsuvius? Without some reason to think the ABD would just give up, I can understand why Vaarsuvius wouldn't think "maintaining the status quo" was an acceptable option.

What I mean is that V spent three rounds after the Time Stop toying with the ABD, rather than killing it outright at the start, or making sure her loved ones were safe, and then killing it outright. Vaarsuvius was reveling in her power, making decisions intended to inflict pain on the ABD for her temerity in targeting V's family, and leaving Inkyrious pinned to a tree with broken branches.

Warren Dew

2013-09-24, 01:57 PM

There is another point I'd like to raise: V's tactics in the fight were intended to kill the ABD, not to protect her family. Casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction on the ABD's Anti-Magic Field (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html) was a necessary first move, and the buffs V cast during the Time Stop (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) were also needed, but why cast Delayed Blast Fireball? Why not cast Shapechange first, and then gather up Inkyrious and her children and Greater Teleport back to the Azurite Fleet?
Because it would have been stupid to assume the dragon would not interfere with gathering up the family.

Kish

2013-09-24, 02:03 PM

it
I wonder, is calling an established-female nonhumanoid villain "it" better or worse than calling her "him."

Jasdoif

2013-09-24, 02:22 PM

What I mean is that V spent three rounds after the Time Stop toying with the ABD, rather than killing it outright at the start, or making sure her loved ones were safe, and then killing it outright. Vaarsuvius was reveling in her power, making decisions intended to inflict pain on the ABD for her temerity in targeting V's family, and leaving Inkyrious pinned to a tree with broken branches.Hmm. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where V's loved ones were genuinely safe while the ABD was right there. A simple decision on her part to sacrifice pain in favor of expediency, and Vaarsuvius' wife and kids find themselves direct targets, with a lot fewer defenses than Vaarsuvius had available. Killing the ABD first would be the best way to ensure the safety of Vaarsuvius' family. I'm also pretty sure shapechange was only so effective because Vaarsuvius had been swallowed at that point, moreso than the attack forms offered by V's chosen form would normally be.

You do have a point though; I wonder what V was doing between the ABD's full attack and finger of death...and then again between finger of death and the swallow.

I wonder, is calling an established-female nonhumanoid villain "it" better or worse than calling her "him."Figures, I missed the pronoun when I reworded the sentence to address the dragon instead of her ability to wait for opportunities.... :smallsigh: I'm going to say it's equally wrong.

Kish

2013-09-24, 02:38 PM

Hmm. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where V's loved ones were genuinely safe while the ABD was right there.

I think your phrasing suggests a very simple one: One where Inkyrius and the children were not there. Surely an epic-level conjurer whose specific field of study was teleportation would not have needed to go along with everyone he teleported; there was no reason the noncombatants couldn't have spent the entire battle at a healer, being treated for their injuries before the ancient black dragon was even dead.

And in any event, Vaarsuvius spent their surprise round deliberately using a spell they knew had no chance of killing the ancient black dragon, just so they could taunt her about how her son had mewled helplessly while being shredded to a thousand lifeless specks of ash.

Figures, I missed the pronoun when I reworded the sentence to address the dragon instead of her ability to wait for opportunities.... :smallsigh: I'm going to say it's equally wrong.
Glad to hear it was an accident. :smalltongue:

(A depressing number of people did call her "him" when this was all current events.)

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-24, 02:56 PM

Hmm. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where V's loved ones were genuinely safe while the ABD was right there.

I think your phrasing suggests a very simple one: One where Inkyrius and the children were not there. Surely an epic-level conjurer whose specific field of study was teleportation would not have needed to go along with everyone he teleported; there was no reason the noncombatants couldn't have spent the entire battle at a healer, being treated for their injuries before the ancient black dragon was even dead.

Gononron had just such a spell: Epic Teleport! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html)

And in any event, Vaarsuvius spent their surprise round deliberately using a spell they knew had no chance of killing the ancient black dragon, just so they could taunt her about how her son had mewled helplessly while being shredded to a thousand lifeless specks of ash.

I assume we're talking about V casting Quickened Disintegrate, right? Casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction at the AMF was a prerequisite for anything V was going to use against her. Quickened Otiluke's Freezing Sphere would have done more damage, even on a successful Reflex Save, but V was looking to taunt the ABD with memories of her lost son.

Jasdoif

2013-09-24, 04:02 PM

I think your phrasing suggests a very simple one: One where Inkyrius and the children were not there. Surely an epic-level conjurer whose specific field of study was teleportation would not have needed to go along with everyone he teleported; there was no reason the noncombatants couldn't have spent the entire battle at a healer, being treated for their injuries before the ancient black dragon was even dead.It's certainly in the realm of possibility...but there isn't any indication that such a possibility actually came to fruition. It's not exactly fair to expect Vaarsuvius to have used a spell that we don't actually know was researched.

And in any event, Vaarsuvius spent their surprise round deliberately using a spell they knew had no chance of killing the ancient black dragon, just so they could taunt her about how her son had mewled helplessly while being shredded to a thousand lifeless specks of ash.Huh. I'd always read that as Vaarsuvius expecting it to work and then taunting the ABD instead of admitting the spell failed. But you're right, a single disintegrate spell would have next to no chance of killing the ABD outright without damage-boosting metamagic, and if V was using a series of disintegrates we'd have seen more than one while the ABD was still alive. And V using one to dispose of the ABD post-Familicide clearly indicates it could have been cast earlier.

So OK, at the very least Vaarsuvius approached the goal of saving his/her family in an inefficient fashion, one that played well with V's desire for vengeance.

Gononron had just such a spell: Epic Teleport! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html)That spell teleported Vaarsuvius along with it, though; I think the idea was for a spell to have teleported Vaarsuvius' family to safety while V stayed behind and prevented the ABD from becoming a recurring threat.

Kish

2013-09-24, 04:24 PM

It's certainly in the realm of possibility...but there isn't any indication that such a possibility actually came to fruition. It's not exactly fair to expect Vaarsuvius to have used a spell that we don't actually know was researched.
Accepting that premise even though I have quite a bit of trouble with the idea that Ganonron was perforce on the front lines of every invasion he teleported an army for, how about Forcecaging her/his family then? Or simply breaking out the level 9+ instant-death spells immediately instead of messing around? Telling us what epic spells Jephton invented? (I'd be inclined to bet they were in the "destructive" category.)

Jasdoif

2013-09-24, 05:18 PM

Accepting that premise even though I have quite a bit of trouble with the idea that Ganonron was perforce on the front lines of every invasion he teleported an army for,Fair enough, let me elaborate there.

Did Ganonron cut corners on the casting time of his "not me" spell, thinking any invasion not worth his presence didn't need to have its teleportation done within a round? If so, the time involvement would be too much for V's purposes. The unmodified casting time for an epic spell is one minute, after all. Or maybe he used a connection similar to Wormhole for mass transit? If so, what would stop the ABD from following?

That's the problem when trying to evaluate potential custom spells; there's far too many variables involved to really isolate what the effects would be in one particular case. It's far too easy to find perfect and unacceptable options at the same time o_o

how about Forcecaging her/his family then?If the ABD had another antimagic field available, she could simply cast it then land right next to V's family through the forcecage...kinda like how she escaped V's forcecage the first time around. The odds of a single full attack ending V's family on the ABD's next turn are rather high, and V would need to disjunction the AMF again for most of his/her other spells to affect the ABD.

Or simply breaking out the level 9+ instant-death spells immediately instead of messing around? Telling us what epic spells Jephton invented? (I'd be inclined to bet they were in the "destructive" category.)I think we're in agreement on this point; disintegration was a poor choice if eliminating the ABD as quickly as possible was actually V's goal.

Paseo H

2013-09-24, 10:30 PM

I wonder, is calling an established-female nonhumanoid villain "it" better or worse than calling her "him."

Still better than what the ABD deserves to be called, in light of everything.

Meanwhile, another stumbling block to just up and hiding the family is that ABD has the Oracle on her side. My guess is that he's respectful to dragons and probably doesn't restrict them as much, and is only grudgingly selling aid to others for money.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-24, 11:32 PM

Still better than what the ABD deserves to be called, in light of everything.

Meanwhile, another stumbling block to just up and hiding the family is that ABD has the Oracle on her side. My guess is that he's respectful to dragons and probably doesn't restrict them as much, and is only grudgingly selling aid to others for money.

V could have dropped Inky and the kids with the Azurites, then popped back and fought the ABD. That way she's giving priority to her family, rather than indulging in spiteful attacks. Once her family was safe, V could then go on the offensive against the ABD, who was a legitimate threat to V's family.

Liliet

2013-09-25, 03:21 PM

Well, V was totally absolutely Evil and vir intention was painful revenge, not just protecting vir family.

What you folks are kinda forgetting here is what kind of mechanism revenge is in the first place. It's a mechanism for protection. It is there to send a message: "do NOT mess with me and mine, or THIS will happen". It's not sadism at its core, it's warning for all the others who might one day become enemies: DO NOT.

Of course you can make an argument that it would hardly work as such in V's case, given that the only person to get such a message was dead at the end of the sequence, but there were also vir kids and spouse there, and potentially any number of spectators. This is a defence mechanism that does not work from cautious judgement and evaluating the results, it's a half-subconsious urge to PROTECT FROM THE FUTURE ATTACKS.

(And I say that the friends and family members of dead Black dragons, if they don't know that V was powered-up by a splice and can't do such things anymore, are not exactly likely to try and repeat Mama Black Dragon's feat - they know the consequences of her attempt.)

Of course it was poor judgement, and in any case submitting to your violent half-subconcious defence mechanisms is not something to brag about, but many have already mentioned V's emotional state at the moment. Even though the physical fatigue from trance-deprivation was not there at the moment, the emotional fatigue from six months of trying and failing to contact a close friend who might be in danger or already dead without any support (Durkon and Elan were not exactly supportive), from six months of absolutely irrational survivor's guilt and nightmares, from utterly destroyed because of all this self-worth... all this was not desintegrated the moment fiends cast the spell, because it did not do any mind control, as they themselves have admitted. It did not fix V's mind in any way, it only made it worth by loosening vir control over virself (people acting drunk after being told they drank alcohol is an actual psychological phenomenon, not something to blame a person for)... and the cheerleaders.

The cheerleaders might have little to no effect on the outcome of the football game (I never did the research, but I bet they DO), but the voices in your head (rather than somewhere at the edge of the field that you might barely see or hear in your concentration) telling you to act, when this act is what your subconcious urges are already telling you to do, when your self-control is loosened and you can barely think straight out of... ooh, let me just try to list all strong emotions of V's at the moment.
1) guilt:
1a) survivor's guilt that kept vir from trancing throughout these months - it was not magically cured with the splice;
1b) guilt of putting vir family in danger by vir irresponsible actions;
1c) guilt of vir own pride and inability to admit being wrong - regardless of how much this actually guided vir decisions, fiends did a very good job of awakening it;
2) fear:
2a) fear of Haley being hurt or dead - V hasn't been able to contact her for half a year, anything might have happened to her on the enemy territory in close proximity to an epic lich and his near-epic cleric sidekick;
2b) fear of being absolutely useless and powerless like V has been all this time;
2c) fear of being late and vir family already having been hurt (which also came true when V arrived at the scene);
4) anger:
3a) anger at IFCC for basically forcing vir to admit vir weakness;
3b) anger at virself for... see above, in guilt;
3c) anger at Mama Black Dragon for, well, you know what.

V started regaining control after venting on Mama Black Dragon and receiving a shock of reminder from vir spouse about how this looked from their perspective. The emotional peak started going down, and V was able to ignore the voices while dealing with Katos, and during the fight of Xykon actually had to concentrate - and as the result, was more or less normal upon losing it. Except, y'know, wrecking guilt that, unlike fear or anger, didn't go anywhere and more or less defined vir actions up to the present moment.

Familicide was horrible, Evil and impractical. But I'm afraid that any of us would have done something like that on V's place (starting with seeing an army of hobbos running towards the breach).

What V virself is actually guilty of is a) lack of forethought inexcusable for Int18 (at least); b) lack of empathy, kinda understandable with vir backstory and subpar Charisma but still generally considered to be a guilt; c) racism and prejudice which enabled the situation with YABD in the first place. I can't imagine it arising if instead of a black dragon the team encountered a similarly aggressive PC-race hermit.

Also, all that redemption is about is changing your ways. The catch is that saying "I'm sorry and won't do this anymore" is much easier and does not equal to actually changing, which is why people generally expect to see more of a redeemed person's effort before believing them.

Nobody, including the deva, blames Roy for abandoning Elan, because not only he saw an error of his ways, not only he came back to set right what once went wrong, when a remotely similar situation arose later, Roy donned a humiliating belt without a second thought. Roy changed, and it's obvious. He is no longer the person that would abandon their teammate to an unknown fate, no matter how irritating that teammate can be at times.

Now, what it means for V to truly change is a big question. V has multiple despicable qualities that played a part in Familicide situation.

1) Racism and prejudice. V already realised it was very wrong, but it's a question to what measure ve internalised this knowledge. Will V in the future see each intelligent monster just the way V would see a human or an elf? That remains to be seen. If ve does so on-screen, this point is cleared. And I think it's quite likely.

2) Over-reliance on arcane magic. V has tried to change it from the start of this book, but given that vir whole life has revolved around arcane might, this can be a bit difficult to change. This can have a multitude of resolutions, from V forgetting the lesson and just focusing on getting Epic magic, to V trying really hard but still slipping from time to time, to V eventually giving up magic studies and settling with a family (highly unlikely). Anyway, this is not a big crime, so I think I'll consider V redeemed even if ve takes the first path.

3) Arrogance. This is really difficult because this is, I think, essentially an inferiority superiority complex (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InferioritySuperiorityComplex), and there is a reason they are combined in one. V really needs a psychologist to deal with that one. What ve can accomplish on vir own is, I think, a total crippling crash of self-esteem. I'd prefer to see our good old arrogant wizard back, thanks. I have no idea how likely any outcome is here, and people can, of course, have varied opinions on how big a crime this is. So a question.

4) Poor impulse control. Now this is something we have not seen much of yet, something that is really crucial to V's failure (because of see above, I won't call it a crime), something that is possible to fix if you try hard enough, and something that will require a lot of work to overcome. I'd love to see it as a part of redemption storyline, and I think it's quite likely we'll see it and V will succeed. If only because it's not that hard to do for a writer, and yet impressive on part of a character.

5) Lack of empathy. Something that made Inky sue V for divorce, quite likely had a hand in V's disregard of YABD and generally added to V's less-than-sympathetic traits. I say it is not really V's fault but rather a mental condition: V clearly genuinely cares for vir family, and yet had been treating them so poorly, maybe ve could not do anything about it. I doubt this issue will really be solved, and I doubt it is needed. After all, we got a glimpse of V being antisocial long before the start of vir personal arc, and vir creative use of Explosive Runes even became a universally-loved running gag (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RunningGag), so it might be not so bad after all.

6) Self-centeredness and pursue of pesonal power. Now this is an important point, as this is what separates True Neutral V from vir Good teammates. How likely is it that V is going to become altruistic and generally a Good person? I say yes, it is likely, and we've already seen parts of it. V didn't seem all that selfish while helping O-Chul, signing a divorce paper, waiting for a revenant to kill vir... I think this is the kind of redemption people were talking about when expecting V to start protecting goblin rights, dedicate vir life to Good and so on. It would be really satisfying to see it, and it would be very ironic from IFCC point of view. I say it is not necessary for V's redemption, because hey, remember back then when V's pursue of Ultimate Arcane Power was a running gag (doilies, for example)? Nobody seemed to object to it, now did they? Now that it brought us such horrible results people suddenly started hating V for what they previously were perfectly content with. Or those who disliked V for it previously started voicing their objections, I don't really know.

7) Occasional sadism. See poor YukYuk and Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion. This is something V hasn't acknowledged as wrong yet, but I think that if V reforms in regards to the point directly above (becomes an altruistic Good person, or at least closer to it) ve is likely to change this habit, too. I hope. I really do.

So we have 7 redemption paths, and different people might have different opinion on which of them are most important. I say only the first is crucial, while the seventh is highly desirable, and everything else is optional, but hey, it's my opinion, and others are entitled to have theirs.

Point of all this wall of text is, change is in the end the only thing required for redemption as such. No punishment or life-dedicated-to-serving. So why do some people demand it?

Warning! Attempt at analysing real people inside! Proceed with care!

Easy. It's the same mechanism that pushed V to Familicide: revenge. These people want the genocider to suffer, so that no-one dares to ever do it again. They keep repeating that it the crime is horrible because they are extremely scared of something like that happening to them. They draw parallels to Nazis, because Nazis are something that really happened on the similar scale, and this is the reason they are scared. There is no thick line between fiction and reality, and the emotional reaction is the same as if it happened in real life, except perhaps milder.

Our desire for justice as in "punishment to criminals" is a desire for legalised revenge. These mechanisms aren't gone anywhere, they are here, in us, in our legal system, because it works on the same assumption: if we punish those who do wrong, they will be a warning to the others. No matter what officials say, jail is not about reforming criminals, it's about scaring other people away from the criminal path. That's how it works.

So these people who label V as unforgivable condemn vir for disproportionate revenge, and yet, I think, are ultimately driven by the same. Not disproportionate, or course, but the motive is essentially the same. I think it's kinda ironic
While I'm in no way a professional psychologist, I take deep interest in this science and have been reading on it ever since prepubescent age, when I stumbled upon the books about bringing up little children and interacting with teens. I admit that my opinion is not authoritative, but I think it carries some weight. Please don't beat me.

Kish

2013-09-25, 03:33 PM

What you folks are kinda forgetting here is what kind of mechanism revenge is in the first place.

I never believed "revenge is a mechanism for protection" to forget. It's a worse claim than just "Vaarsuvius' motivation was protection, not sadism" on its own.

(And I say that the friends and family members of dead Black dragons, if they don't know that V was powered-up by a splice and can't do such things anymore, are not exactly likely to try and repeat Mama Black Dragon's feat - they know the consequences of her attempt.)

People have proposed that before. My response has always been that this presumes the friends and loved ones are willing to live in fear for the rest of Vaarsuvius' life. Maybe if you were a black dragon's loved one, you would be, but my response would be more along the lines of, "I'd better strike with overwhelming power the first time and make sure this maniac has not the slightest chance to respond; if I don't do anything s/he will probably decide my mother's brother's cousin's nephew's former roommate slighted her/him in some way anyway."

(Setting aside the fact that, after making that blanket claim about revenge being about protection, you're assuming they'd all be perfectly willing to give up on their claim to revenge.)

Familicide was horrible, Evil and impractical. But I'm afraid that any of us would have done something like that on V's place (starting with seeing an army of hobbos running towards the breach).

This is really insulting. Will you please speak for yourself if you must defend mass murder.

Jasdoif

2013-09-25, 04:01 PM

Familicide was horrible, Evil and impractical. But I'm afraid that any of us would have done something like that on V's place (starting with seeing an army of hobbos running towards the breach).This is really insulting. Will you please speak for yourself if you must defend mass murder.Yeah...Vaarsuvius' elimination of the ABD's extended family isn't any more acceptable than the ABD's goal of eliminating V's spouse and children. V and the ABD both had the chance to end matters with the other's death (the ABD could've killed V rather easily in her AMF back on the island), but both chose to instead make the other suffer via disproportionate response against those in no way responsible for their grievances.

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-25, 04:11 PM

What you folks are kinda forgetting here is what kind of mechanism revenge is in the first place. It's a mechanism for protection. It is there to send a message: "do NOT mess with me and mine, or THIS will happen". It's not sadism at its core, it's warning for all the others who might one day become enemies: DO NOT.
What is the point of arguing this? You acknowledge below that V has a sadistic streak. It is fully on display in strips 636-639, from the smug "quickened disintegrate" to everything that follows V not being "done with the dragon." Revenge per se might not be sadism at its core, but this particular act of revenge was shot through with V's enjoyment of ABD's anguish.

the emotional fatigue from six months of trying and failing to contact a close friend who might be in danger or already dead without any support (Durkon and Elan were not exactly supportive), from six months of absolutely irrational survivor's guilt and nightmares
Durkon and Elan were extremely supportive up until V metaphorically spat in Elan's face and washed her hands of them both. Durkon in particular was concerned for V's health and well-being, no matter how much she irked him. But again, does any of this actually matter beyond making V seem sympathetic? Did any of these things actually factor into V's thinking in the moment? The same goes for any of the emotions you list below. Do any of them matter beyond making V sympathetic to some generic reader?

The cheerleaders might have little to no effect on the outcome of the football game (I never did the research, but I bet they DO)
An aside, but they're there mostly to fill time, for the benefit of the spectators (especially the TV spectators) much more than for the players.

Familicide was horrible, Evil and impractical. But I'm afraid that any of us would have done something like that on V's place (starting with seeing an army of hobbos running towards the breach).
I'm pretty sure any of us in V's position would have died horribly at the breach, not being spellcasters with access to invisibility. :smallwink:

I can't imagine it arising if instead of a black dragon the team encountered a similarly aggressive PC-race hermit.
Your imagination fails to take into account the actual events of the comic. Prior to coming to YABD's cave, V nearly killed the half-orc (PC race!) parking attendant with explosive runes for having inconvenienced her.

Also, all that redemption is about is changing your ways.
Per Soon, this is beyond most people.

Point of all this wall of text is, change is in the end the only thing required for redemption as such. No punishment or life-dedicated-to-serving. So why do some people demand it?

Warning! Attempt at analysing real people inside! Proceed with care!
That's a nice high horse you're on.

The point is actually to demand the impossible. When you demand something a person is actually incapable of giving you (such as a complete one-eighty in outlook, behavior, and identity), you expose how far they are actually willing to go.

Breccia

2013-09-25, 05:01 PM

Ok, I haven't done this one yet. I'll bite.

"Do you think Vaarsuvius can be redeemed for Familicide?"

Yes.

"If so, what steps do you think would be necessary for redemption?"

V is one of the major players in a quest to save every dragon, mortal, and undead being, and their immortal souls, from the cold black forever of complete oblivion. The stakes literally do not get any higher. Further, V is also taking into consideration the planet on the other side of the Rift, which could be in the same situation -- a planet filled with complete strangers, to whom V owes nothing. I think that's a pretty good step.

"Do you think V is currently on the path towards redemption? Do you think V will get there by the end of the comic?"

Yes and yes. V has already admitted wrongness, which following Soon's comments on the subject, is a necessary step. V is also not subject to the demanding moral and ethical regulations as paladins are, which to me, implies that redemption is an easier task than it would have been for Miko.

Yes I know that sounds kind of "ends justify the means" and that's not a Lawful Good, or possibly even Chaotic Good, philosophy. But "redemption" does not mean "instant graduation to LG", nor do I think V wants to be LG anyhow. What V did is 100% uncalled for, even if it did only work as originally intended (and not, say, killing off the entire Draketooth clan as an unexpected side-effect). But I think, in a True Neutral sense, if V were instrumental in resolving the Rift situation, there would be some amount of forgiveness given to someone who risked everything and saved the entirety of existence from complete nonexistence. And I think that's what V is heading for. I've always associated V with True Neutral, and in terms of restoring some kind of balance, what V's doing is heading that way.

'Course, if it turns out there is no Snarl...

Kish

2013-09-25, 05:07 PM

risked everything and saved the entirety of existence from complete nonexistence.
I note a logical impossibility here. If the entirety of existence did not get saved from complete nonexistence, then Vaarsuvius would have nothing to risk. There is no risk nor sacrifice in disarming a bomb which you know will kill you if you do not disarm it.

hamishspence

2013-09-25, 05:11 PM

zimmerwald1915

2013-09-25, 05:17 PM

Spock gets a lot of applause for his sacrifice to save the crew in Wrath of Khan, despite the fact that he's guaranteed to die whatever he does (since he's the only one that's tough enough to live long enough in a contaminated reactor room to carry out that operation.

Same principle may be being applied to V.
In the reactor room he got blasted in the face with antimatter (and yet somehow survived long enough to give a poignant farewell, never mind his leaving behind a corpse...). If the ship had exploded he'd have just gotten badly burned and knocked around, after which his body fluids would have evaporated into space.

Which is a worse way to go? Does it matter?

Kish

2013-09-25, 05:19 PM

Oh? Perhaps I misunderstood, then.

Breccia, do you expect some manner of sacrifice from Vaarsuvius above and beyond her/his continued participation in Roy's quest along with the rest of the Order?

hamishspence

2013-09-25, 05:23 PM

In the reactor room he got blasted in the face with antimatter (and yet somehow survived long enough to give a poignant farewell, never mind his leaving behind a corpse...). If the ship had exploded he'd have just gotten badly burned and knocked around, after which his body fluids would have evaporated into space.

Which is a worse way to go? Does it matter?I think it was radioactive coolant gas rather than antimatter that was doing the damage.

Also- if he'd done nothing, his katra would have been lost forever, whereas, by decanting it into McCoy, then performing the repair, he ensured that there was at least a chance that McCoy would return it to Vulcan safely (I doubt he foresaw his body coming back to life on the Genesis planet).

Liliet

2013-09-25, 05:43 PM

I never believed "revenge is a mechanism for protection" to forget. It's a worse claim than just "Vaarsuvius' motivation was protection, not sadism" on its own.
What is it, then? Well... if you don't agree with this point, I don't know how to convince you. It's kinda self-evident to me, but I have no idea how to prove it.

People have proposed that before. My response has always been that this presumes the friends and loved ones are willing to live in fear for the rest of Vaarsuvius' life. Maybe if you were a black dragon's loved one, you would be, but my response would be more along the lines of, "I'd better strike with overwhelming power the first time and make sure this maniac has not the slightest chance to respond; if I don't do anything s/he will probably decide my mother's brother's cousin's nephew's former roommate slighted her/him in some way anyway."
Yes, they are probably going to kill V. But they most certainly won't try to make V suffer by hurting vir family. Which is, I guess, worse from V's point of view.

(Setting aside the fact that, after making that blanket claim about revenge being about protection, you're assuming they'd all be perfectly willing to give up on their claim to revenge.)
If they are halfway rational, they will. They will probably try to kill V, as I have acknowledged, but unless they are batpoop insane they won't try to harm vir family and brag about it to vir.

Of course that is all assuming that they know that V did it and don't know ve doesn't have access to such magic anymore, which is a pretty low-chance assumption. V was acting irrationally, his subconcious urges failed to take into account obvious problems with an idea. That's kinda my point.

This is really insulting. Will you please speak for yourself if you must defend mass murder.
I'm just pointing out that no-one of us has been in V's position and no-one of us has been tested like that. If you were and remained good, you are a rare exception (because such situations are not exactly common) and I apologise. Aside from that, we don't know what we would do.

Yeah...Vaarsuvius' elimination of the ABD's extended family isn't any more acceptable than the ABD's goal of eliminating V's spouse and children. V and the ABD both had the chance to end matters with the other's death (the ABD could've killed V rather easily in her AMF back on the island), but both chose to instead make the other suffer via disproportionate response against those in no way responsible for their grievances.
It was not rational and it was not about suffering. It was about preventing all the others from doing something like this again, ever.

What is the point of arguing this? You acknowledge below that V has a sadistic streak. It is fully on display in strips 636-639, from the smug "quickened disintegrate" to everything that follows V not being "done with the dragon." Revenge per se might not be sadism at its core, but this particular act of revenge was shot through with V's enjoyment of ABD's anguish.
You think V was full of joy at the moment?

Have you never experienced moments where you got deep satisfaction of hitting or breaking something, or slamming a door?

It's not the same of course, and I do admit V can be sadistic, but I think that the treatment of ABD was not based on that. It was venting.

Durkon and Elan were extremely supportive up until V metaphorically spat in Elan's face and washed her hands of them both. Durkon in particular was concerned for V's health and well-being, no matter how much she irked him.
From V's point of view, they were not, because they didn't do anything to help find Haley. Durkon even admits at the end that he was kinda wrong about it.

What's most important, however, was that V did not get emotional support ve needed. Of course Elan and Durkon had no way of knowing that and can't be blamed for it, but them not being to blame did not help V cope with the situation.

But again, does any of this actually matter beyond making V seem sympathetic? Did any of these things actually factor into V's thinking in the moment? The same goes for any of the emotions you list below. Do any of them matter beyond making V sympathetic to some generic reader?
Of course. When you are making a decision, everything that is in your head in the moment matters, however irrelevant it may seem. When you are rational and calm, you can conciously separate your emotions about different things and react appropriately, but how often do people blow up at a person who did nothing wrong but came up to them at the wrong moment?

It does not "morally justify" V's actions, whatever the hell that might mean, but it explains them. It makes V relatable.

To commit Familicide while in calm mind, one has to be a villain. To commit Familicide at such a moment, one needs to have a real emotional turmoil and clouded judgement.

The intent of the action matters. The motive of the action matters. What do you think V's motive was? Keeping in mind sheer impracticality of such "protection"?

I'm pretty sure any of us in V's position would have died horribly at the breach, not being spellcasters with access to invisibility. :smallwink:
I appreciate the joke, but I hope you do understand that I included spellcasting ability into "V's position".

Okay, maybe disintegrating Kubota was also a display of V's own personal jerkiness multiplied by vir emotional state, and most people wouldn't do that. I have no experience of prolonged sleep deprivation combined with survivor's guilt and repeated failure to find a friend who is most probably in danger, so I won't know. But neither will you, unless you ever actually were in such a situation, in which case I deeply apologise and accept your right to judge V.

Your imagination fails to take into account the actual events of the comic. Prior to coming to YABD's cave, V nearly killed the half-orc (PC race!) parking attendant with explosive runes for having inconvenienced her.
V was not the only one in that cave. There is such thing as peer pressure. Even if V's personal morality was OK with killing someone and taking their stuff, ve wouldn't do it in front of vir Good teammates.

And "nearly killing" seemed to just leave some surface burns. A bit mean for a practical joke, true, but it was nowhere near "killing", judging from the result. And V probably knew it. And would not have actually killed the half-orc, I believe.

Per Soon, this is beyond most people.
Of course, changing your personality is extremely difficult and rare. But saving the world isn't easy and common too (except it a gag context of DnD setting), and guess what, OotS are doing just that.

V is a protagonist of the story, this means that the more unusual and dramatic something is, the more likely it is to happen to vir. This narrative law has even been mentioned repeatedly in-comic, for crying out loud.

And V has already started changing. V that arrogantly brushed aside everything as not important compared to vir arcane might is not the same V that tried to limit virself to support. V that killed a young black dragon without a second thought is not the same V that explained to Blackwing that not all black dragons were necessarily Evil.

The point is actually to demand the impossible. When you demand something a person is actually incapable of giving you (such as a complete one-eighty in outlook, behavior, and identity), you expose how far they are actually willing to go.
Well, V is not here to hear your demands, so the point kinda falls flat.

Yes, I do agree that characters being mad with V and demanding the impossible from vir in-universe are completely justified and in the end serve for vir own good. But we are readers here. We have a luxury of an objective viewpoint and insight into events that the characters in-story don't have.

Kish

2013-09-25, 05:52 PM

The intent of the action matters. The motive of the action matters. What do you think V's motive was?

I'm not Zimmer, but my answer is "brutal sadism."

"The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
:vaarsuvius: "I concur. Create Greater Undead! *mass murder* *lovingly detailed explanation of mass murder to entity who is there only to witness her family's slaughter, followed by "That, and nothing less, is the price of threatening my family. Disintegrate"*

You disagree, I get that. I do not understand how the dripping sadism is not obvious to you, as you apparently do not understand how I see dripping sadism.

Jasdoif

2013-09-25, 06:02 PM

Yes, they are probably going to kill V. But they most certainly won't try to make V suffer by hurting vir family. Which is, I guess, worse from V's point of view.I dunno...killing V's family before going after Vaarsuvius directly might appeal to some of them.

It was not rational and it was not about suffering. It was about preventing all the others from doing something like this again, ever.It'd be a lot easier to accept that it wasn't about suffering, if Vaarsuvius didn't go into such detail with the ABD about how deeply her family line had been extinguished, before disintegrating her animated head. Assuming that animating her head was required to cast familicide in the first place.

Which still doesn't account for the "side effect" that swaths of intelligent creatures that had never even heard of Vaarsuvius (or family) were killed off to do it.

malloyd

2013-09-25, 08:15 PM

Per Soon, this is beyond most people.

This has actually always puzzled me a little bit. Whether or not redemption ought to be hard in "reality", it's not particularly tough in D&D. There's a trivial shortcut, which is even mentioned in the comic, the Atonement spell. Miko could've been redeemed pretty much right away if she'd been sane enough to admit to a mistake enough to want to be. Durkon can redeem V shortly after the next sunset, if she asks him to.

Mind you this only deals with the effects with respect to your alignment, class restrictions, the gods and your afterlife, psychological consequences are still your own problem, but still.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-25, 11:08 PM

V will never be redeemed in my eyes until s/he apologizes for what s/he said about Therkla to Elan. :smallyuk:

Nordom

2013-09-25, 11:47 PM

I dunno...killing V's family before going after Vaarsuvius directly might appeal to some of them.

It'd be a lot easier to accept that it wasn't about suffering, if Vaarsuvius didn't go into such detail with the ABD about how deeply her family line had been extinguished, before disintegrating her animated head. Assuming that animating her head was required to cast familicide in the first place.

Which still doesn't account for the "side effect" that swaths of intelligent creatures that had never even heard of Vaarsuvius (or family) were killed off to do it.

It's worth pointing out that 1) people can have multiple motivations for the same act and 2) casting familiacide and taunting the dragon about casting familiacide are two seperate acts anyway.

You could, for instance believe that V wouldn't cast the spell purely out of spite but, since s/he was casting it anyway for more practical reasons, was willing to take the opportunity to rub salt in the wound.

My own opinion on the subject is that V's defining trait in the period leading up to this point was a sort of single-minded thoughtless impatience. Everything not directly related to stopping Xykon was a pointless, unnecessary distraction, and V's first last and only instinct was to bludgeon it into submission with the biggest baddest magical cudgel s/he could get his hands on.

Sometimes that worked out to everyone's benefit (greater teleporting the refugees to a new settlement), sometimes it worked okay (disintigrating the evil noble without trial) and sometimes it didn't work at all (trying to take Xykon head on). In all cases, however, V is only thinking in terms of what will get hir back to what s/he considers important, regardless of ethical implications or longer term consequences. Because taking the time to consider those things would, itself, be yet another distraction.

Familiacide was in that same basic structure of decisions. S/he was trying to protect his family, sure, but at the same time s/he was viewing the very need to protect his family as yet another distraction. So s/he wanted to sweep away even the remotest possibility of having to repeat this encounter and not even pausing for a moment to consider the consequences.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 12:49 AM

Mind you this only deals with the effects with respect to your alignment, class restrictions, the gods and your afterlife, psychological consequences are still your own problem, but still.

If you believe Fiendish Codex 2- one needs the atonement spell and to apologize and make restitution to those wronged by one's actions, to clear one's soul of "Corruption" which accrues with certain Evil acts.

Absent that (if one is extremely repentant at death yet has a high Corruption) one is reincarnated as a Hellbred instead of going on to the Evil, Neutral or Good afterlives.

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 01:02 AM

It's worth pointing out that 1) people can have multiple motivations for the same act and 2) casting familiacide and taunting the dragon about casting familiacide are two seperate acts anyway.

You could, for instance believe that V wouldn't cast the spell purely out of spite but, since s/he was casting it anyway for more practical reasons, was willing to take the opportunity to rub salt in the wound.Assuming the reasons for casting familicide were in fact practical, since I'm not convinced there....If you're suggesting that there were practical reasons to taunt the ABD after familicide was cast, I'd like to hear them. If not, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make here; like you said, the taunting is a separate act from familicide. Familicide's reasons aren't binding on the taunting; and if rubbing salt in the wound was the only reason for the taunting then the taunting was done for the sake of suffering.

Familiacide was in that same basic structure of decisions. S/he was trying to protect his family, sure, but at the same time s/he was viewing the very need to protect his family as yet another distraction. So s/he wanted to sweep away even the remotest possibility of having to repeat this encounter and not even pausing for a moment to consider the consequences.I'm not seeing how Vaarsuvius could have come up with the estimate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html) of one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet without evaluating the consequences of casting familicide. Because all those deaths were the consequences of familicide. V glossing over the deaths because he/she considered the lives of the dragons to be unimportant, I can believe...But consciously disregarding the lives that familicide would end suggests a very different mental attitude for Vaarsuvius then failing to consider the existence of those lives in the first place.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 02:21 AM

Assuming the reasons for casting familicide were in fact practical, since I'm not convinced there....If you're suggesting that there were practical reasons to taunt the ABD after familicide was cast, I'd like to hear them. If not, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make here; like you said, the taunting is a separate act from familicide. Familicide's reasons aren't binding on the taunting; and if rubbing salt in the wound was the only reason for the taunting then the taunting was done for the sake of suffering.

The distinction I'm trying to make is between indulging in a bout of sadism in and of itself (especially when said sadism is directed at someone who wanted to torture your children for all eternity) and being sadistic enough to commit genocide for revenge. If V had decided to reanimate the dragon's head and give it to Belkar for use as a new litterbox and not cast familiacide at all would there be seven thousand conversations about whether or not s/he could ever be redeemed?

I'm not seeing how Vaarsuvius could have come up with the estimate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html) of one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet without evaluating the consequences of casting familicide. Because all those deaths were the consequences of familicide. V glossing over the deaths because he/she considered the lives of the dragons to be unimportant, I can believe...But consciously disregarding the lives that familicide would end suggests a very different mental attitude for Vaarsuvius then failing to consider the existence of those lives in the first place.

High Int low Wis, to oversimplify. I'm not saying V didn't realize s/he was about to kill a bunch of dragons. I'm saying s/he never took the time to ponder the ethical implications thereof. It wasn't "it's okay they're just evil dragons" it was "it doesn't matter if it's okay or not I'm busy trying to save the world over here and therefore anything I do is a priori justified if it means I can work without these constant interruptions". I'm not saying the latter attitude was right, or well thought out, or that his single-mindedness wasn't a symptom of deeper flaws and insecurities. I'm just saying that sadism and/or speciesism aren't generally V's core flaws and that arrogance, impatience, and a fetishized obsession with arcane power being the best solution to all problems are more likely proximate causes for hir actions.

Paseo H

2013-09-26, 06:12 AM

Nordom

2013-09-26, 09:43 AM

I disagree about sadism not being part and parcel to V's flaws.

He's used explosive runes on multiple occasions to punish one of the party members. He's even gone so far as to threaten his own party members on a couple of occasions, most notably when Elan refused to lie to Hinjo about V disintegrating Kubota.

It may take a backseat to his monomaniacal obsession with the arcane, but his penchant for harming others was ever present.

This may be too fine a distincion to really matter for most people, but I tend to view his "penchant for harming others" as flowing mostly from his more fundamental arrogance and impatience. He gets frustrated when other people make demands on his time or attention that he sees as beneath him and he lashes out in dumb, crude, hurtful ways. He doesn't start from the point where he just likes hurting people.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 10:01 AM

Not sure if this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html

was a hint that V generally didn't enjoy cruelty even when carrying it out, or not.

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 12:41 PM

The distinction I'm trying to make is between indulging in a bout of sadism in and of itself (especially when said sadism is directed at someone who wanted to torture your children for all eternity) and being sadistic enough to commit genocide for revenge."In and of itself"? It was Vaarsuvius who cast familicide, without which the opportunity of taunting about it wouldn't have existed at all.

If it were someone else who cast familicide and Vaarsuvius taunted the ABD over it, then this would be a lot easier to accept. As it is, V's expression of sadism over V's own actions makes it nigh impossible to discount sadism as V's primary reason behind the action in the first place. Not without allowing any practical reason excuse to mitigate sadism, anyway.

If V had decided to reanimate the dragon's head and give it to Belkar for use as a new litterbox and not cast familiacide at all would there be seven thousand conversations about whether or not s/he could ever be redeemed?You mean...if Vaarsuvius hadn't killed one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet, would there as many conversations about V needing redemption because of killing one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet? Probably not (although I wouldn't be surprised if they happened anyway, on this forum :smalltongue: )

The ABD established herself as a threat. She expressed her intentions of killing Vaarsuvius' family, in a way that suggested she couldn't be talked out of it, and demonstrated she had the capability of doing so. Eliminating that threat was a reasonable reaction on V's part.

Reanimating her into a litterbox would certainly be overkill, also gross...but she, at least, had done something to warrant retributive behavior at V's hand. The members of ABD's extended family killed by familicide, though? What, exactly, had all of them done to deserve any hardship from V, much less death?

High Int low Wis, to oversimplify. I'm not saying V didn't realize s/he was about to kill a bunch of dragons. I'm saying s/he never took the time to ponder the ethical implications thereof. It wasn't "it's okay they're just evil dragons" it was "it doesn't matter if it's okay or not I'm busy trying to save the world over here and therefore anything I do is a priori justified if it means I can work without these constant interruptions".Ponder? Really? It would take pondering for Vaarsuvius to realize that killing an intelligent creature might be wrong? I...think it's actually far more worrisome to consider that "killing is OK!" could be V's default perspective, instead of sadistic overreaction.

BlackDragonKing

2013-09-26, 12:52 PM

Ponder? Really? It would take pondering for Vaarsuvius to realize that killing an intelligent creature might be wrong? I...think it's actually far more worrisome to consider that "killing is OK!" could be V's default perspective, instead of sadistic overreaction.

This is a minor segway from the issue, but if the Sapphire Guard's past actions and Team Peregrine's outlook are any indication, this is not at all an unusual default perspective in response to "monstrous races". The "liberators" among the elves clearly think killing is A-OK if the victim is a goblin, so it's not that unusual for "killing chromatic dragons is OK" to be a default viewpoint of an adventurer.

This doesn't make it right, I'm just pointing that out. I do personally believe that V cast Familicide out of a vindictive need to see ABD SUFFER for threatening her family more than anything else, though. It wasn't just sadistic persecution of a defeated enemy, it was sadistically torturing someone she hated beyond all reason or mercy.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 02:22 PM

"In and of itself"? It was Vaarsuvius who cast familicide, without which the opportunity of taunting about it wouldn't have existed at all.

If it were someone else who cast familicide and Vaarsuvius taunted the ABD over it, then this would be a lot easier to accept. As it is, V's expression of sadism over V's own actions makes it nigh impossible to discount sadism as V's primary reason behind the action in the first place. Not without allowing any practical reason excuse to mitigate sadism, anyway.

I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the "practical excuse" was cutting off the cycle of dragon killing/revenge dragon attack before it could crop up on hir again. It was an overkill solution to a purely hypothetical problem, but that's how far gone V was by that point. That familiacide also provided an opportunity to emotionally torment the black dragon was, at most, gravy.

You mean...if Vaarsuvius hadn't killed one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet, would there as many conversations about V needing redemption because of killing one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet? Probably not (although I wouldn't be surprised if they happened anyway, on this forum :smalltongue: )

And this was my point. No one think's V needs redemption for "being sadistic", they think s/he needs redemption for one specific act, and therefore hir sadism is only relevant to the degree it informed that act. "Comitted atrocity and was also needlessly sadistic" != "comitted atrocity because s/he was needlessly sadistic".

There's certainly support for the latter view in the particular strip where the deed is actually done, but my personal reading is that it doesn't gel with V's arc and motivations up until that point. V's increasingly dominating personality attributes post Azure City were a myopic focus on an impossible task and an increasingly irrational impatience with anything that took time away from that task. From my perspective, it makes more sense to view V's actions as part of that arc and hir sadism as essentially incidental, than to assume s/he was just so enraged by the threat to a family s/he only kind of vaguely cared about that s/he developed a sudden fixation on sadistic revenge.

Reanimating her into a litterbox would certainly be overkill, also gross...but she, at least, had done something to warrant retributive behavior at V's hand. The members of ABD's extended family killed by familicide, though? What, exactly, had all of them done to deserve any hardship from V, much less death?

They were potential future interruptions to hir work.

I...think it's actually far more worrisome to consider that "killing is OK!" could be V's default perspective, instead of sadistic overreaction.

As a very basic idea "preventing the destruction of the world takes precedence over the survival of some finite number of innocent lives" isn't entirely insupportable. But, regardless of how you feel about consequentialist morality in general, V had driven hirself to a point where that basic idea meant moral considerations no longer applied because s/he was busy "defeating Xykon" (i.e researching an impossible spell to solve a problem that would eventually sort itself out on its own because s/he was feeling desperate and powerless after hir experience in Azure City).

Does this version of events make V a better or worse person than the version where s/he cast familiacide just be be a jerk to someone who'd ticked hir off? That's entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Kish

2013-09-26, 02:26 PM

And this was my point. No one think's V needs redemption for "being sadistic",
How I wish people would give over making claims about what "no one" and "everyone" thinks, particularly where Vaarsuvius is concerned.

The fact that Vaarsuvius tortured a helpless prisoner didn't shock* anybody that I know of because Vaarsuvius had already demonstrated s/he was capable of so much worse. And for no other reason.

*Though it did nauseate some.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 02:37 PM

How I wish people would give over making claims about what "no one" and "everyone" thinks, particularly where Vaarsuvius is concerned.

The fact that Vaarsuvius tortured a helpless prisoner didn't shock* anybody that I know of because Vaarsuvius had already demonstrated s/he was capable of so much worse. And for no other reason.

*Though it did nauseate some.

Okay fine, consider my phrasing refined to "people aren't holding endless arguments over whether or not V needs redemption for 'being sadistic'". Is that satisfactory?

Kish

2013-09-26, 02:44 PM

Nordom

2013-09-26, 03:22 PM

Not really. I mean, it's better, but again...there aren't arguments over Vaarsuvius' sadism because the genocide kind of overshadows the perennial ever-since-the-beginning-of-the-comic displays of sadism, not because the sadism is somehow unimportant. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you might want to start over.

Was there really anywhere near this much heat and argumentation over V before familiacide? I wasn't around at the time so, if there was, I'll confess I made a bad assumption and withdraw the clause entirely. If, as I suspect, there wasn't, then my point is that V's background level of sadism, whatever you percieve that to be, isn't in and of itself what's driving the majority of criticism and analysis of hir character.

And honestly even that's incidental to the larger argument of my posts in this thread, which is that it's entirely reasonable to acknowledge V's displayed sadism while casting familiacide without neccessarily reading sadism as hir overriding motivation.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 03:33 PM

Was there really anywhere near this much heat and argumentation over V before familiacide?

Killing Kubota and, particularly, threatening Elan when Elan suggested he'd tell Hinjo what had happened, certainly sparked a lot of discussion.

Kish

2013-09-26, 03:37 PM

Cerussite

2013-09-26, 04:03 PM

Remember, "It seems like a logical response to me. As the size of an explosion grows, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero"? This is fundamentally who Vaarsuvius is: A character whose instincts would make her/him unambiguously Neutral Evil if s/he didn't usually restrain them. All it takes is an enemy being a racial "legitimate target," such as a kobold or a chromatic dragon, and s/he starts acting like a more imaginative Belkar.

This has nothing to do with "legitimate targets". V has been shown as utterly unable to resolve problems through any means but unrestricted application of explosive arcane power. How did V defuse the whole Kubota situation? Disintegrate. How did V resolve Belkar's infatuation with her? By nuking him repeatedly. It was her default way of seeing the world until she understood the repercussions of that explosive behavior taken to its logical extreme in the case of the ABD and Xykon - that if she had thought it through instead of just heading to nuke the biggest thing around, she could have accomplished a great deal more.

This way of seeing things, and no more, is what she has to atone for. Her alignment is TN, and I'd argue that her undoubtedly Good efforts to save the world balances the Evil she's done, and that her current Lawful efforts to think things through before are an atonement for the somewhat Chaotic manner in which she approached problems.

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 04:07 PM

I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the "practical excuse" was cutting off the cycle of dragon killing/revenge dragon attack before it could crop up on hir again. It was an overkill solution to a purely hypothetical problem, but that's how far gone V was by that point. That familiacide also provided an opportunity to emotionally torment the black dragon was, at most, gravy.I think you're understanding me correctly, to a point. I'm suggesting that the "gravy" was in fact the entire reason Vaarsuvius...let's say "made mashed potatoes", to put the gravy to use. "Cutting off the cycle" was just a convenient excuse, or at best an ancillary reason.

And this was my point. No one think's V needs redemption for "being sadistic", they think s/he needs redemption for one specific act, and therefore hir sadism is only relevant to the degree it informed that act. "Comitted atrocity and was also needlessly sadistic" != "comitted atrocity because s/he was needlessly sadistic".Hmm...the part about it being relevant as far as it informed the act, I agree with.

I believe Vaarsuvius' sadism is the primary factor behind V's decision to cast familicide. And further I believe that, without V's sadism as a factor, familicide would not have been cast. So yes, V does need redemption on account of being sadistic.

There, now I've even communicated it, not just thought it. :smalltongue:

But I'm serious. If sadism weren't the primary factor behind V's decision, I'd expect to have seen some behavorial sign of remorse or regret. Something like not animating the ABD's head if familicide didn't require a creature as the initial target, or performing animate-familicide-disintegrate in sequence if it did. Perhaps even something as cheap as apology for the necessity of the action, if "necessity" was actually V's main reason. Even a regretful sigh or moment of silence.

But I saw none of that. I saw Vaarsuvius animate the ABD's head, explain the desire to punish her, cast familicide, and then explain the expected results and tell her to suffer in the afterlife right before disintegrating her. Without any expression of remorse or regret in there at all. V seemed rather pleased with the casting, even.

So...I'm pretty sure sadism was the primary cause.

They were potential future interruptions to hir work.Potential, future interruptions? With those two qualifiers, the entirety of the universe fits that definition. Carte blanche for death seems particularly...convenient for Vaarsuvius, I would think.

BlackDragonKing

2013-09-26, 04:12 PM

If Vaarsuvius had never demonstrated sadism anywhere else...I would still find looking at,
"The pain ended too soon."
"We have only begun to bring misery."
"There is still so much we can do."
:vaarsuvius: "I concur. Create Greater Undead!" *slaughter the family of animated enemy who is established as caring a great deal about her family*
*explain, in loving detail, to animated enemy what Vaarsuvius just did just did*
:vaarsuvius: "This, and no less, is the price of threatening my family."

and saying, "That was not primarily or solely motivated by a sadistic desire for the ancient black dragon to suffer exquisitely, with 'assert power and satisfy ego' as the first secondary motivation that springs to mind" utterly incomprehensible. It's like arguing that Tarquin's attitude toward Nale wasn't cold.

Remember, "It seems like a logical response to me. As the size of an explosion grows, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero"? This is fundamentally who Vaarsuvius is: A character whose instincts would make her/him unambiguously Neutral Evil if s/he didn't usually restrain them. All it takes is an enemy being a racial "legitimate target," such as a kobold or a chromatic dragon, and s/he starts acting like a more imaginative Belkar.

I wouldn't say that V's instincts are unambiguously Neutral Evil. V doesn't buy into Elan's habit of letting even mortal enemies live, but that's hardly an evil trait, Neutral people kill their enemies all the time, particularly pragmatists. V is socially retarded due to her only relationship unrelated to her studies being her marriage, which was strained due to her studies taking priority; blowing things up with magic is exceptionally easy to V, and interacting with others is very hard. If you poured that into something like ninjutsu training, V would be the kind of person who considered a smoke bomb an acceptable response to any awkward turn in the conversation. If a monster attacks V, V kills it without much compassion or malice, but she doesn't appear to go seeking things to kill because it gives her a rush to annihilate things with magic. It does, however, mean V has very little mercy for things she hates; she hates the Linear Guild, so she's A-OK with getting rid of them forever. She hates Belkar because she finds him an abhorrent little thug, so she sees nothing wrong with using explosive runes to express her distaste while Belkar's Good teammates are more restrained. On the other hand, V feels extremely guilty early on about hurting Elan's feelings, and goes insane during the party split because the guilt of not being able to save the Azurites haunts her. She clearly feels BAD when innocent people get hurt, which is not a Neutral Evil instinct. If she had Neutral Evil instincts, comprehending familicide's scope would not have horrified her nearly as much as it did.

Now, take what I mentioned earlier about having no mercy for something she hates, and combine that with what the ABD threatened her family with. A LOT of people of much stronger moral fibre than V will tend towards Evil acts if they are in retribution against someone that has threatened their spouse and children. V hated the ABD at the time of the soul splice more than anything, so yes, her inclination was absolutely to hurt it as badly as she could possibly imagine. This has nothing to do with V's stance on the "Always Chaotic Evil" debate, and everything to do with V being given near-omnipotence at a point in her life when she has an enemy she will do anything to torture as badly as she can and a LOT of unresolved frustrations she can take out on it.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 04:17 PM

multilis

2013-09-26, 04:25 PM

Neutral people kill their enemies all the time, particularly pragmatists.
So do good guys. Roy is supposedly likely to make good afterlife and it didn't even come up as issue in interview with diva that #0011 he slaughters "mostly evil" goblins in their sleep in likely their homes. (As X explains when you abandon a dungeon all sorts of creatures make it their homes)

What is the difference between "mostly evil goblins" and "always evil" black dragons? Roy taught his OOTS members well, you kill them in sleep with a smile! That isn't evil. Paladins do it all the time without falling, taking out entire village including children.

What really is evil though is the games of lust and seduction that V plays with Belkar. V was still married when kept passing Belkar seductive magic runes. The dragon/splice business was clearly a ploy to get V's mate to divorce V.

What kind of monster makes a deal with the IIFC just to get a divorce so they can mate with an evil workmate? For this there is no hope of redemption!

Paseo H

2013-09-26, 04:28 PM

This may be too fine a distincion to really matter for most people, but I tend to view his "penchant for harming others" as flowing mostly from his more fundamental arrogance and impatience. He gets frustrated when other people make demands on his time or attention that he sees as beneath him and he lashes out in dumb, crude, hurtful ways. He doesn't start from the point where he just likes hurting people.

A little too fine, yes. There's few if any examples of V showing a desire for prolonged torment as opposed to simple assault/murder (at least before what he and Belkar did to the kobold at the pyramid), nonetheless all that adds up to a sadistic streak, in my book.

I would say that the sadistic streak is real and meaningful even if it proceeds from the arrogance and impatience.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 04:30 PM

A case could be made that strip 20 was the first hint at it- even Belkar looks shocked:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html

Nordom

2013-09-26, 04:48 PM

But I'm serious. If sadism weren't the primary factor behind V's decision, I'd expect to have seen some behavorial sign of remorse or regret. Something like not animating the ABD's head if familicide didn't require a creature as the initial target, or performing animate-familicide-disintegrate in sequence if it did. Perhaps even something as cheap as apology for the necessity of the action, if "necessity" was actually V's main reason. Even a regretful sigh or moment of silence.

But any of that would mean that there was no sadism at all in V's behavior, which is emphatically what I'm not saying. To torture your previous metaphor you're basically arguing that if there is gravy on the mashed potatoes then that means the sole overriding reason to make the mashed potatoes must necessarily have been for the gravy.

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 05:28 PM

But any of that would mean that there was no sadism at all in V's behavior, which is emphatically what I'm not saying.It would show that sadism wasn't the primary factor in V's behavior. It's really hard for me to accept that there was sadism in V's behavior, and that sadism was the only attitude V displayed throughout the ordeal, without sadism being the driving factor.

To torture your previous metaphor you're basically arguing that if there is gravy on the mashed potatoes then that means the sole overriding reason to make the mashed potatoes must necessarily have been for the gravy.It's more like I saw "HAVE GRAVY - NEED MASHED POTATOES TO GO WITH" all over the grocery list on V's refrigerator. Now, I like a good sauce myself (although I have a preference for sauces with a mayonnaise and/or tomato base), and I accept that most sauces aren't as good outside their accompaniment role...but the mashed potato connection is a stretch unless V really likes gravy. :smalltongue:

Paseo H

2013-09-26, 05:31 PM

Nothing better than a good gravy.

jere7my

2013-09-26, 06:28 PM

The fact that Vaarsuvius tortured a helpless prisoner didn't shock* anybody that I know of because Vaarsuvius had already demonstrated s/he was capable of so much worse. And for no other reason.

Well, it was also hilarious.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 07:12 PM

It would show that sadism wasn't the primary factor in V's behavior. It's really hard for me to accept that there was sadism in V's behavior, and that sadism was the only attitude V displayed throughout the ordeal, without sadism being the driving factor.

Well, observe also hir dismissive impatience with hir family and hir explicit statement about how s/he's making sure no one else is there to seek vengeance. I'll admit, in the moment, hir explicit glee at the dragon's torment gets more screen time but it's not literally the only thing present.

But my counterpoint, as mentioned, is that my ascribed motivations mesh better with the specific way V had been devolving up until that point.

It's more like I saw "HAVE GRAVY - NEED MASHED POTATOES TO GO WITH" all over the grocery list on V's refrigerator. Now, I like a good sauce myself (although I have a preference for sauces with a mayonnaise and/or tomato base), and I accept that most sauces aren't as good outside their accompaniment role...but the mashed potato connection is a stretch unless V really likes gravy. :smalltongue:

It's more like you saw hir pour a ludicrous amount of gravy on some pretty sketchy looking potatoes, then go on and on for two strips about how delicious that gravy was. But then you forgot s/he'd been spending the last six months compulsively carboloading for some marathon s/he was clearly never going to run. Dud(ette) was straight addicted to starches by that point, and that needs to be taken into account however delicious the gravy was.

Kish

2013-09-26, 07:16 PM

Well, it was also hilarious.
No accounting for tastes.

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 07:44 PM

Well, observe also hir dismissive impatience with hir family and hir explicit statement about how s/he's making sure no one else is there to seek vengeance. I'll admit, in the moment, hir explicit glee at the dragon's torment gets more screen time but it's not literally the only thing present.

But my counterpoint, as mentioned, is that my ascribed motivations mesh better with the specific way V had been devolving up until that point....OK, so you're telling me what didn't get screen time is more important...and that V's behavior before the whole thing is more important. So that would mean...what happened on-panel, during the entire thing is insignificant in regards to what caused it all?

No, I can't accept that. If it really takes discarding the event to properly evaluate that event, then something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

It's more like you saw hir pour a ludicrous amount of gravy on some pretty sketchy looking potatoes, then go on and on for two strips about how delicious that gravy was. But then you forgot s/he'd been spending the last six months compulsively carboloading for some marathon s/he was clearly never going to run. Dud(ette) was straight addicted to starches by that point, and that needs to be taken into account however delicious the gravy was.That may be what you saw, but it certainly isn't what I saw.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 08:28 PM

...OK, so you're telling me what didn't get screen time is more important...and that V's behavior before the whole thing is more important. So that would mean...what happened on-panel, during the entire thing is insignificant in regards to what caused it all?

What got more screentime is more important than what got less screentime, but what got at least a little bit of screentime is at least a little important. And what had been happening for the entire story arc before the event is also very important.

If it really takes discarding the event to properly evaluate that event, then something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

I don't fully disagree with this. The fact that most of what was depicted in the familiacide strips and most of what was depicted in the strips leading up to the familiacide strips point to two seperate interpretations is honestly kind of frustrating.

Cerussite

2013-09-26, 08:41 PM

What really is evil though is the games of lust and seduction that V plays with Belkar. V was still married when kept passing Belkar seductive magic runes. The dragon/splice business was clearly a ploy to get V's mate to divorce V.

I like the way you think. It's like Haley passing love notes to Elan mid azure city siege, only with pink script that's exploding (with love).

Jasdoif

2013-09-26, 08:53 PM

I don't fully disagree with this. The fact that most of what was depicted in the familiacide strips and most of what was depicted in the strips leading up to the familiacide strips point to two seperate interpretations is honestly kind of frustrating.The way I look at it is that Vaarsuvius' drive to gain more/better arcane power was his/her key focus between the end of the Azure City battle (if not sooner) and accepting the deal with the IFCC, enough that it subdued V's other traits. After the deal, when Vaarsuvius believed he/she had "ultimate arcane power", that inhibition was gone, freeing V to more fully express those other traits...and V's sadism happened to be one of the stronger traits.

Basically, that the deal with the IFCC tied into V's desires on such a scale that it fast-forwarded V's "devolution", as you phrased it, making the personal change abrupt.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 10:02 PM

The way I look at it is that Vaarsuvius' drive to gain more/better arcane power was his/her key focus between the end of the Azure City battle (if not sooner) and accepting the deal with the IFCC, enough that it subdued V's other traits. After the deal, when Vaarsuvius believed he/she had "ultimate arcane power", that inhibition was gone, freeing V to more fully express those other traits...and V's sadism happened to be one of the stronger traits.

Basically, that the deal with the IFCC tied into V's desires on such a scale that it fast-forwarded V's "devolution", as you phrased it, making the personal change abrupt.

That's a fair enough way of squaring the circle. My personal preferred interpretation is that, drunk with power and with History's Greatest Monsters whispering in his head, he was ladling on a lot of extra generic evil fluff onto what had already become his signature M.O. (that being destroy all potential obstacles with maximal magic). But I think this is the point where we can agree to disagree and move on.

Silverionmox

2013-09-27, 05:43 AM

V did three things wrong at the time of familicide:

- Disproportionate use of force/Power tripping

- Lack of concern for collateral damage

- Dealing with the devil.

He certainly has become aware of all three of those. By definition, redemption can come only afterwards. He already has been adapting his behavior somewhat to these new insights, we'll see what opportunities the story still throws his way.

Lino

2013-09-27, 05:59 AM

I always thought V's powertrip was a consequence of what happens when Roy is not there to watch over the Order. It's not only Belkar that needs Roy's monitoring, practically all of the others need Roy around to get the best out of themselves. That's what makes Roy the most likeable, actually.
V will get over it because V will talk about it at some point. So far, V has kept this affair its own little secret, only its raven being aware of it. I bet at some point V will feel like confessing it to the others. Things will happen at that stage.

hamishspence

2013-09-27, 06:17 AM

So far, V has kept this affair its own little secret, only its raven being aware of it. I bet at some point V will feel like confessing it to the others. Things will happen at that stage.

V has already made the decision, and dropped hints. It's only the fact that they're in the middle of a battle, that prevents V from saying any more than "i did bad stuff" at the moment:

V not going into more details is a concession to Roy effectively saying, "Why are we talking about this right now?" The point is that Roy now knows that there is something that happened that V hasn't told him.

Or, from a meta point of view, the point is that I don't need to spend three pages talking about this right in the middle of a battle scene just to show that V has decided to tell Roy at the first possible opportunity.

Breccia

2013-09-27, 10:46 AM

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Kish. I honestly didn't think anyone would respond.

I note a logical impossibility here. If the entirety of existence did not get saved from complete nonexistence, then Vaarsuvius would have nothing to risk. There is no risk nor sacrifice in disarming a bomb which you know will kill you if you do not disarm it.

Not true. V can happily settle down in the Para-Elemental plane of Ranch Dressing, for example. Maybe even forcibly relocate others, such as the Order, mate, and children. Choosing not to take that option counts as both risk and sacrifice.

There is also enhanced risk to the people directly involved. If the Snarl exists, and if it's sentient and angry, it's quite likely that it will attack. People near rifts/gates could be subject to grab/snuff attacks, even if they are successful as a team. It's like defusing a nuke. A nuclear weapon is filled with high-powered conventional explosives. There are a lot of ways that could go horribly wrong that don't happen to trigger a mushroom cloud, but still kill everyone nearby, such as the defuser.

Breccia, do you expect some manner of sacrifice from Vaarsuvius above and beyond her/his continued participation in Roy's quest along with the rest of the Order?

Do I expect more for redemption to be earned? From a True Neutral standpoint, no. V is choosing to confront the most dangerous force in the known multiverse personally. And is asking nothing in return for it. From a "restore the balance" standpoint, I think that's plenty. Other alignments would differ, but again, I don't think V going for redemption is the same as V becoming Lawful Good (for example).

Take a page from the movie Armageddon. Holy crap, am I about to cite Armageddon in an ethics debate? The hell is wrong with me?...Anyhow, the miners, believed by NASA to be the only real shot they had at stopping the asteroid, were basically allowed to ask for anything they wanted. Results varied, but they all chose "never pay taxes again, ever".Think about that: they made it collectively clear, that if the US Govt still made them pay taxes after saving every known living thing in the universe, including themselves, that they wouldn't have done it, and would rather let everyone die. Even if they were bluffing, the fact that they were asked to make a list, and this item was on the list, makes such a decision believable. The US Govt could have said "no, you know full well you'll die if you don't go up there". Then what? V is in no such position. V is trying to save the entire Prime Plane for nothing in return. I think that, again from a TN perspective, is enough.

That said:

Do I think V will go above and beyond? Yes. I feel the comic is leaning in that direction. If it came to a self-sacrifice to stop the Snarl, I think...ok I actually think Durkon might volunteer first, but V would be second. It seems to fit the direction of the character arc.

Take a look at the movie Armageddon, where...holy crap, am I about to cite Armageddon twice? I need to get premium cable...anyhow, at the end, it turns out

Bruce Willis has to stay behind and blow up the asteroid manually, after everyone else has fled to safety. Most of the rest of the team was ready, even eager, to take that job, because they knew what was involved.

The same thing could very easily happen here, and especially considering the nature of the situation, I think it's possible a spellcaster could be placed at higher risk than the rest of the party. And I think V would do that, not just out of logic, but as a way to make amends.

Kish

2013-09-27, 10:55 AM

Not true. V can happily settle down in the Para-Elemental plane of Ranch Dressing, for example.

So you did not actually mean "the entirety of existence."

That would seem to change your claim substantially. And...the rest of this post reads to me like it's based on a presumption that whatever the Snarl might potentially destroy is fundamentally unconnected to Vaarsuvius, something that belongs to some stranger who Vaarsuvius might choose to help out of the goodness of her/his heart. ("V is in no such position"? What?) The idea that not kidnapping a bunch of people is a sacrifice is just...One tiny step better than Xykon is not "True Neutral."

Breccia

2013-09-27, 11:57 AM

So you did not actually mean "the entirety of existence."

No, I suppose not. I've been working under the assumption that the Snarl would destroy "the world" basically meaning the OotS's world, the Prime Plane (for lack of better terms). I say so because

a) There has not been any hint at all of any gates on other worlds.

b) The Snarl took out the "Greek" pantheon, but not the others, suggesting its reach is at least partly restricted by planar boundries, and

c) the IFCC's surprisingly relaxed attitude towards the possibility of the Snarl getting out of hand. Evil creatures are notoriously concerned about their existence, as opposed to good creatures which value sacrifice as a virtue. The fact that the IFCC, even in private moments, aren't sweating bullets implies they know they're safe. The meeting with Tiamat ended with offering to slay more good dragons, which they call trivial, rather than "eh, doesn't matter, Tiamat will be unmade so who cares".

And...the rest of this post reads to me like it's based on a presumption that whatever the Snarl might potentially destroy is fundamentally unconnected to Vaarsuvius, something that belongs to some stranger who Vaarsuvius might choose to help out of the goodness of her/his heart. ("V is in no such position"? What?) The idea that not kidnapping a bunch of people is a sacrifice is just...One tiny step better than Xykon is not "True Neutral."

Not intentionally. The rest of my post, and my position, is that the Snarl will destroy everything (in the Prime Plane, at least). Connection to V is incidental and irrelevant. I'm working under the assumption that, if there is a Snarl and if it does escape, it will wipe the playing field entirely. V's family, the Order, Xykon, Tarquin, wizard guy, the village of Lickmyoragneballshalfling, and the millions, maybe billions, of other living, undead and elemental creatures that happen to be in the Prime when that happens.

As to the "not kidnapping" part, I suppose I should clarify. V does have the power to leave what I believe to be the threatened dimension, and take people along (by force, if needed), pretty sure. I was pointing out that V could do this, it is possible. I was not implying that V should, or even that it would be a sacrifice not to. Doing so would be an evil act. Choosing not doing so, however, is not a good act: it is simply not evil. The "sacrifice" was referring to was V, soul and body, could be whiffed out of reality even if they were successful in stopping the Snarl, which I think is a valid possibility V has considered. I did, however, phrase it very poorly, as the post went through several edits and paragraphs got moved around. That one's my bad.

Southern Cross

2013-09-28, 04:42 AM

I thought that V has Conjuration as one of his opposition schools?

Reathin

2013-09-28, 09:05 AM

Exactly what it says on the tin. Is redemption in the works for our favorite androgynous spellcaster?

Specifically:

Do you think Vaarsuvius can be redeemed for Familicide?
If so, what steps do you think would be necessary for redemption?
Do you think V is currently on the path towards redemption? Do you think V will get there by the end of the comic?

1. Yes. Putting aside that the Forces of Good, particularly on a cosmic scale, often wish to bring out the best in people (although certainly not all. Some are more smite-happy and put punishment as a higher priority), it's in their own self interest not to declare anything of such a scale that it can't be redeemed, since that merely closes doors on stopping people who have done horrible wrongs from wanting to change their ways. Someone changing their ways is less likely to perpetuate evil on their road to Good, which is a win for Cosmic Forces of Good. A villain who believes himself irredeemable and wants to change will likely eventually shrug his/her shoulders and go "well, in for a penny..." and be a better (read: worse) villain.

2. The first critical step, realizing and admitting she was wrong, has already occured. Indeed, that realization was so strong and so sincere (but only truly after V realized that killing the DRAGONS was wrong too, not just the side effects with the Draketooth clan) that it hit her like a speeding, anachronistic train. Next step, wanting to make amends and moving toward that (even harder now that she has to worry about the IFCC). She's doing that now. I sincerely doubt she has to do something along the lines of resurrecting each and every individual killed by Familicide (partially for storyline reasons, partially for sheer scale) and making amends. I don't think saving the world alone will be enough either, even though that would save far more people than she killed. In the end, it's not about some cold calculus of saved/ended. It can't be, or else the importance of all those peasents and fighters and wizards and bards, gods and heroes and monsters and such become nothing more than numbers, not people. The only people who want that are math related horrors from Mechanus, and nobody likes them.

3. As I said before, yes, she's definitely on the path. Will she reach it before the stories over? Well, the Giant made a big deal about just how important and special redemption is, not just one atonement spell away, so I think that she will, in the end. Not sure what form that will take, but I'm waiting for it.

I've always liked V the most among the Order, because I like to believe I share many of her strengths, (warping the very fabric of reality with a wave and a word excluded) and I know we share many weaknesses. Casting Familicide was the single most memorable moment in the comic for me (horrible, sure, but it took my brain some time to get to that point because I was so in awe with its scale as a spell. It was the first Epic spell that really made me think it was special, not just a bigger version of a 1-9 one). I'm really rooting for her redemption.