Is V really repentant?

[Zmflavius]

On the one hand, it seems to me that you could date the start of V's redemption to the point in comic 842 when he begins to feel regret for casting familicide.

However, it seems to me that to judge from it and the strips that follow, V is only really repentant because he inadvertently killed an extremely large number of humans, and has expressed little to no remorse for the fact that he has murdered roughly a quarter of a sapient species, which was unlike the deaths of the humans, completely intentional. And, it seems to me that he cannot be truly remorseful until he acknowledges and regrets this particular action as well.

Thoughts?

[Kish]

Vaarsuvius expressed remorse for the murders of the dragons here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html).

If s/he did not...then yes, s/he would be irredeemably evil, and no amount of hand-wringing over having killed mostly-humans would even relate to redemption.

[Porthos]

:vaarsuvius:: Until this moment I had never considered that any of the dragons I slew were anything but ravenous killers. Can I be certain though? Can I be sure that not one found a more peaceful existence? They were mortals with free will, after all - no matter how few choose to exercise it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

and

:vaarsuvius:: Perhaps, by some cold calculus the net benefit of villains lost to innocents sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make.

--

I would also point out that we have barely seen whatever journey V may or may not undertake from the fallout of this. We have two whole more books left, after all. :smallwink:

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, it's nigh impossible, IMO, to counterbalance a deed like that with good works. So my take would be, it doesn't matter whether or not V feels true remorse, because said feeling does absolutely no good to his victims.

Note that I don't dislike V. I just don't feel that even partial redemption in any meaningful sense of the word is possible for her.

[SavageWombat]

How about we just agree that V is no longer fooling himself about the nature of his actions, and leave "repentant" aside before the argument starts.

[Maryring]

Yes. Yes he is.

[Rodin]

How about we just agree that V is no longer fooling himself about the nature of his actions, and leave "repentant" aside before the argument starts.

Well, repentant means regretting the action and wishing for forgiveness, which the quotes Porthos gave clearly show.

Whether or not V can be redeemed is a different question entirely, but I think it's a fair bet that V is going to give it hir best shot.

[Zmflavius]

Ohhh...I forgot about that strip. Never mind.

[jidasfire]

Well, the whole is X person redeemed question is often rather subjective and open to interpretation. Fans are a pretty varied lot, and many see the requirements for forgiveness being no greater than a genuine desire to improve one's self, others seem to think it amounts to a scorecard which must be balanced in terms of positive and negative, while others see great enough sins as unforgivable, and no amount of deeds ever capable of putting right what was done wrong.

Me? Well, I'll say that I want Vaarsuvius to succeed in becoming a better person. I think it's apparent from the way Rich is showing his/her story progress that s/he is genuinely trying. From the commentary in the books, Rich made the comment that V's motivation, that of achieving ultimate magical power, was more villainous than heroic, and given this, and given that the OOTS-verse is a moral universe (that is, one in which actions are either right or wrong, or somewhere along that scale, and in which those actions have consequences befitting them), it seems to me that V was someone who, unfortunately, had to get worse before s/he got better. His/her redemption could only have happened after skirting the edge of damnation. Does this justify all the evil actions? No, but in terms of the story, it does mean the triumph will be sweeter if it does come to pass.

So how could V put things right? Well, s/he's already started by acting on the words of the pretty high moral authority of Soon Kim, who speaks of redemption as something for which the baseline is at least acknowledging that one did something wrong, and it's pretty evident that we are now at least there. From here on is purely speculative on my part in terms of redemption, but I think they are fairly reasonable requirements. Next is putting that new understanding of one's self into action through improved behavior. I think we've seen some of that as well, though it's a bit early to say just to what degree it's occurring. V is showing him/herself to be less trigger-happy and judgmental, which was what led to the strife with the black dragon and its many consequences in the first place. Finally, V has to put right what was done wrong. Now, does this mean resurrecting all the dragons and humans killed? Sadly that seems impossible, and moreover, would not make for a terribly interesting story. No, what I think V has to do in this case is deal with the greater problems caused by the deal. That being, the IFCC. Making the deal with the fiends put V in the unique position of having knowledge of a threat to the cosmos at least as bad as Xykon, Redcloak, the Dark One, and the Snarl. Having that knowledge allows him/her to attempt to learn what they're up to and try to stop them. Moreover, the duel with Xykon gave V (through Blackwing) knowledge of the world within the rift, which could prove valuable as well. I think if V properly follows up on these avenues, s/he could potentially take some of the disasters caused by the deal and flip them on their head into something positive.

Now, for all this, I expect some people will never be satisfied. I suppose that's just how art goes as it is subjective and no one's ever going to fully agree. Still, my opinion is that Vaarsuvius's desire to succeed, and the author's efforts to show us the sincere attempts, foreshadow an eventual state of at least partial redemption. It's a hard redemption arc, I fully admit, but I suspect Rich would say an easy one would not be worth reading about.

[ThePhantasm]

Remorse and guilt? V is definitely feeling those.

Repentance? That's a pattern of life, a chance in character, which takes place after true and lasting remorse. Repentance has yet to be really seen, I think... though we may be seeing the first signs of it.

[Ward.]

I can't imagine V will ever repent, she may go nuts in a 100 years and try to undo familicide if she doesn't reoncile with her family.
She'a definitly remorseful and if she succeeds in saving reality from the snarl and an evil liche then she'll probably get cut some slack towards nuetral heaven.

[Trillium]

What is funny, killing evil creatures in battle is OK, but simply wiping them out is somehow bad.

And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

[Porthos]

What is funny, killing evil creatures in battle is OK, but simply wiping them out is somehow bad.

Not touching this one at all.

...

I figure whatever points I would want to raise are gonna be covered somewhere in the next 600 posts that are inevitably going to follow in this thread. :smalltongue:

However, I will comment on this...

And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

You know, and I'm just spitballing here, I'm pretty sure that the Azurites did get punished karmically for their actions (quiet, Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html) :smalltongue:). And I'm also fairly certain that the comic itself tried to show, that, hey, maybe what the Sapphire Guard did came around to bite them in the ass, and perhaps, just perhaps, the way that some of them went about trying to protect reality wasn't the wisest way to do things.

Just as V is realizing that perhaps, just perhaps, he didn't proceed in the wisest way when he popped off Familicide.

Probably a coincidence, though. :smallwink:

[Trillium]

You know, and I'm just spitballing here, I'm pretty sure that the Azurites did get punished karmically for their actions (quiet, Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html) :smalltongue:). And I'm also fairly certain that the comic itself tried to show, that, hey, maybe what the Sapphire Guard did came around to bite them in the ass, and perhaps, just perhaps, the way that some of them went about trying to protect reality wasn't the wisest way to do things.

Just as V is realizing that perhaps, just perhaps, he didn't proceed in the wisest way when he popped off Familicide.

Probably a coincidence, though. :smallwink:

Since calamity struck NOT those Azurites, who commited those crimes, but their somewhat more innocent descendants (we'll leave out the fact, that Azurites didn't even know about the Sapphire Guard, because nations must answer for their governments) - I don't think a concept of karma applies here.

[theNater]

What is funny, killing evil creatures in battle is OK, but simply wiping them out is somehow bad.
You ready to have your mind blown? Killing good creatures in battle is OK.

When one creature is attacking another, whatever its motivations and whatever its alignment, it is a neutral act for the one being attacked to defend itself with lethal force. Back when Miko and Roy first met, neither would have been doing an evil act if they had killed the other, as Roy was engaged in self-defense and Miko had reason to believe that she was executing a dangerous and unrepentant criminal.

The morality of an act does not depend on the alignment of the victim. It can depend on the actions of the victim, and evil characters more often engage in acts that warrant violent reactions, but killing someone who isn't a threat to anyone simply because they have an evil alignment is not OK.

And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?
I don't know. What? Are you trying to suggest that one of these monstrously evil acts was OK?

[Porthos]

Since calamity struck NOT those Azurites, who commited those crimes,

We don't know what happened to the people who committed those crimes, good or bad.

We have no idea how many of them Fell (if any) or what else happened to them down the line.


but their somewhat more innocent descendants (we'll leave out the fact, that Azurites didn't even know about the Sapphire Guard, because nations must answer for their governments) - I don't think a concept of karma applies here.

Late at night, so I don't have time to whip out commentary from W&XP, but the decimation of the Sapphire Guard was pretty much a case of chickens coming home to roost. If you consider 'karma' too strong of a word to describe that, so be it. But it is fairly obvious, to me at least, that the fall of Azure City was at least partially in consequence of prior actions of the SG.

Now if one wants to point out that many/most of the SG (and by extension the Azurites) didn't deserve to have what happened to them since they committed no crimes, I'd agree with that. But as I said in the last thread that delved into this topic, the fact that unjust things happened to all sides in this conflict is one of the major drivers of the war continuing.

To put my point another way, I think one of the things that this comic is saying is that the 'genocide of goblin villages' was perhaps, again just perhaps, not exactly a just and noble thing.

<<<NOTE::: I am leaving to the side the more fiddly arguments over the very real fact that we have a rather incomplete knowledge of just what happened in that more or less 60 to 80 year timespan that occurred between the founding of the Sapphire Guard and the sacking of Azure City.

Mostly because it is irrelevant to the themes of the conflict that the comic is exploring (IMO). But also because since there is very little textev about that incomplete knowledge (pretty much by definition), all I really can do is just rehash/rephrase the endless arguments that have already been made on those points. And enough electrons have splatted against computer screens on those subjects to last me quite a while thankyewveddymuch. :smallwink:>>>

So to answer your question yet another way, what is the difference between the two? Well, one group pretty much got decimated for their actions, lost their homeland, and put reality at risk. The other carelessly slaughtered hundreds if not thousands and put reality at risk.

....

So not much, apparently. :smalltongue:

Well, except for the fact that at least V is re-examining his prior actions. No real clue about what's left of the SG, as the virtual camera hasn't been focused much on them. But I will be at least a little surprised if there isn't some reflection for prior misdeeds as a group from what is left of the SG.

But that's for the future. Possibly. :smallwink:

[zimmerwald1915]

May I just say, while my popcorn pops, that there is a lot of sloppy thinking and flinging around of imprecisely-defined terms in this thread? Repentance and redemption, while related concepts, are not the same thing. Look at how the verbs are constructed. "Repent" is either a command from the speaker to the subject, or when the speaker is the subject, refers to the speaker's own deeds as the object. It is internal. Repentance is repudiation of one's deeds, not disclaiming responsibility for them, but disdaining them and the attitudes that led to them and resolving to do differently. When "redeem" takes the speaker as the subject, the object is always something other than the speaker. Redemption has very little to do with oneself and much more to do with how others elect to see the "redeemee". It stems from forgiveness. The redeemee can do things to elicit forgiveness, such as asking the people she wronged for it (which in turn has various prerequisites like recognizing the true nature and magnitude of one's crimes and repenting of them), but ultimately redemption is out of the redeemee's hands.

Can we all, for purposes of this thread, drop the redemption topic right now before it gets out of hand, and focus on repentance?

[Graustein]

Yes, I think they are.

V hasn't yet atoned for their crime, and might not ever. They haven't recognised its enormity either, and might not ever. But V now is undoubtedly further along the path than they were prior to entering that pyramid. Whether they ever reach the end of that path is yet to be determined, but as far as I can tell they're making every effort and definitely learning valuable lessons.

It's like Soon said, redemption isn't for everyone. I don't think it's something as binary as a yes redeemed/no not redeemed thing.

[Trillium]

We don't know what happened to the people who committed those crimes, good or bad.

We have no idea how many of them Fell (if any) or what else happened to them down the line.



Late at night, so I don't have time to whip out commentary from W&XP, but the decimation of the Sapphire Guard was pretty much a case of chickens coming home to roost. If you consider 'karma' too strong of a word to describe that, so be it. But it is fairly obvious, to me at least, that the fall of Azure City has at least partially in consequence of prior actions of the SG.



Sure thing. We DON'T KNOW. We have zero evidence any of them fell. Sure, there are speculations about Soon falling, but that could've been for a variety of reasons - like commanding to lock Kraagor in the Rift, for instance.

Yeah, I agree that Azurites brought that upon themselves. But karma means not some person's late revenge, but fate's payback to the actual sinner.
Destruction of Azure City was Redcloak's personal vendetta.
There is no reason to assume that the fate, or the Twelve Gods, or any other higher power considers preemptive genocide of enemies an evil act.



I don't know. What? Are you trying to suggest that one of these monstrously evil acts was OK?

Azurites are still good guys. Sapphire Guard were still good guys. Blood of goblinoid children didn't make them evil, as we can see.

[zimmerwald1915]

But karma means not some person's late revenge, but fate's payback to the actual sinner.
I'm just gonna leave this here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15924763&postcount=71) The whole post is worth reading, but the important bit is as follows.


Any sense of it [the conquest, exile, enslavement and ethnic cleansing of the Azurites] being "fitting" was intended in the vein of dramatic irony, not moral rightness. I realize, after re-reading it just now, that I used the word "Karma" which is often associated with moral justice on behalf of the universe, but I meant it more in the sense of, "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

[Amphiox]

Since calamity struck NOT those Azurites, who commited those crimes, but their somewhat more innocent descendants (we'll leave out the fact, that Azurites didn't even know about the Sapphire Guard, because nations must answer for their governments) - I don't think a concept of karma applies here.

The traditional concept of karma not infrequently results in repercussions for descendants, and even sometimes reincarnated future lives.

In fact, in the traditions from which the concept of karma derived, it is in fact MORE common for karma to strike descendent generations, and for those descendents to be required to make some recompensense (in the cosmic sense) to atone for their ancestor's bad karma, than for karma to actually strike the guilty during their lifetime (or at least THAT lifetime).

Because the concept of karma was developed as a means of dealing with and coming to terms with a harsh real world reality - sometimes bad people do bad things and GET AWAY WITH IT, completely. They live rich and happy and fulfilled, and die peacefully and satisfied. Their victims never see justice. Their crimes are never addressed.

How can such a thing be made consistent with the concept of a just universe? Hence the idea of karma, that even in future lives and future generations, the evils of the past WILL be answered. It was created to be both comfort and aspiration. To comfort us who see evil go unanswered in the world by reassuring us that some time in the nebulous future, justice will be served, and to inspire us to strive to make the concept real, and bring real justice into the world.

[Porthos]

There is no reason to assume that the fate, or the Twelve Gods, or any other higher power considers preemptive genocide of enemies an evil act.

Again, way too late at night for me to whip out commentary (this time from DStP in regards to genocide), so I will simply point out this bit directly from the comic:

"After that stunt with the dragons, I think we have a 50-50 chance of ending up with [V's soul] anyway." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

Seems to me the IFCC thought V's actions were on the deep end of the alignment pool. :smallwink:

[Trillium]

Again, way too late at night for me to whip out commentary (this time from DStP in regards to genocide), so I will simply point out this bit directly from the comic:

"After that stunt with the dragons, I think we have a 50-50 chance of ending up with [V's soul] anyway." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

Seems to me the IFCC thought V's actions were on the deep end of the alignment pool. :smallwink:

It very well may be of a high number of non-evil somewhat-innocent mortals killed, plus inadvertently furtherting the Archfiends' goals.

[zimmerwald1915]

It very well may be of a high number of non-evil somewhat-innocent mortals killed, plus inadvertently furtherting the Archfiends' goals.
V willfully furthered the Directors' goals when she accepted the Soul Splice. Why should inadvertently furthering their goals (assuming familicide impacted their goals at all) make a difference one way or another, given that? And what indication is there that the Directors knew that familicide targeted any beings other than dragons? Qarr certainly didn't (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html), and he was watching the same image the Directors were.

[SlashDash]

We already saw a discussion on redemption in the comics
0464 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html)

It seems that V clearly did part of what Soon is saying already: V admits to being wrong and V also tried to prevent it from happening again, which I would say is on the course of fixing things up.


Whether this is enough or not is an entirely different discussion

But I would say at the very least V is on the path.

[Trillium]

Someone should draw a fanfic about how the gods soul-splice Miko to V, and together they seek redemption (V) and repentance (Miko) for their evil deeds.

[Niknokitueu]

:vaarsuvius:: Until this moment I had never considered that any of the dragons I slew were anything but ravenous killers. Can I be certain though? Can I be sure that not one found a more peaceful existence? They were mortals with free will, after all - no matter how few choose to exercise it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

and

:vaarsuvius:: Perhaps, by some cold calculus the net benefit of villains lost to innocents sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make.

--

I would also point out that we have barely seen whatever journey V may or may not undertake from the fallout of this. We have two whole more books left, after all. :smallwink:
Well, this kinda answers the thread. V is really repentant (or at least he appears to sincerely say so to himself, which is kinda the point).

The next two books will hopefully show whether he earns redemption.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[theNater]

Azurites are still good guys. Sapphire Guard were still good guys. Blood of goblinoid children didn't make them evil, as we can see.
Didn't you just recently point out that the Azurites we've met are not the same ones who participated in the attacks?

The people who killed goblinoid children were doing evil, just as Vaarsuvius was when casting Familicide. The people who killed goblinoid children(probably) had an opportunity to identify their evil acts and repent, just as Vaarsuvius does. Of course, Vaarsuvius is just starting that process, while the others have almost certainly all reached some sort of conclusion of it by now, even if that conclusion is "died during the process".

[Souhiro]

Come on! Keep in mind that altough a year has passed since V discovered his crimes, it has been a few hours at most.

How could he search for forgiveness? He has been fighting for life since then!!

[Rodin]

There is no reason to assume that the fate, or the Twelve Gods, or any other higher power considers preemptive genocide of enemies an evil act.



We have Word of Giant that it was evil. See Zimmerwald's quote.

I remain astounded that there is a "genocide is morally Good" faction out there, and one which authorial fiat seems to have no impact on, at that.

But boy, does it ever make the urge to Godwin the conversation a difficult one to resist.

[Trillium]

We have Word of Giant that it was evil. See Zimmerwald's quote.

I remain astounded that there is a "genocide is morally Good" faction out there, and one which authorial fiat seems to have no impact on, at that.

But boy, does it ever make the urge to Godwin the conversation a difficult one to resist.

I never said "genocide is Good".
First, it is not "good", it is "not considered Evil by higher powers".
Secondly, "genocide of evil enemies".
Thirdly, isn't genocide a thing that all adventurers do? Decimating creatures to take their loot?

[zimmerwald1915]

Thirdly, isn't genocide a thing that all adventurers do? Decimating creatures to take their loot?
"Genocide" isn't a synonym for "murder and theft". Neither is it "a word I use to describe bad things I don't like". It is the willful, purposeful, intentional destruction of a whole gens, meaning basically a racial, national, political, or other social group. Implying anything else is frankly offensive.

[Rodin]

Some examples:

Invading a Hobgoblin fortress full of warriors preying on the countryside to save the village from their banditry: Not genocide, and a Good act to boot.

Azure city army successfully fending off a Hobgoblin army: Also not genocide. Whether it's a Good act or merely Neutral depends on whether self-defense is considered Good. Certainly not Evil.

Azure city army beating Hobgoblin army which then attempts to surrender, but the surrender is ignored and the Hobgoblins are slaughtered to the last man: Also not genocide, the entire army were aggressors. It is, however, an atrocity and a clearly Evil act, regardless of the alignment of the creatures involved.

Azure city army beating Hobgoblin army, then sending out an expeditionary force to exterminate all Hobgoblin villages anywhere to prevent it ever happening again: Genocide, Evil act far worse than simply not accepting a surrender.

Azure city army hearing that Hobgoblins live over the mountain range, and deciding to kill them because they're Hobgoblins: Genocide, and supervillain-level Evil.

[Kish]

Thirdly, isn't genocide a thing that all adventurers do? Decimating creatures to take their loot?
Zimmer addressed the others, but, not only "no" but obviously no. I defy you to point to anywhere in the comic where Roy or Elan or Durkon--or even Haley--kills someone because of wanting that person's loot. Traditionally, adventurers kill enemies (human and otherwise) because those enemies are bandits, or are serving an evil mage in that evil mage's plans for world domination, or the like. "D&D is about killing and robbing" is a pure strawman, for all that it comes up whenever anyone wants to argue that no one should be objecting to a character in anything based on D&D acting like a psychopath.

[Trillium]

"Genocide" isn't a synonym for "murder and theft". Neither is it "a word I use to describe bad things I don't like". It is the willful, purposeful, intentional destruction of a whole gens, meaning basically a racial, national, political, or other social group. Implying anything else is frankly offensive.

If you count amount of creatures killed by an average adventurer, it stretches even the boundaries of "serial murder". Random goblin warband plundering a village is "murder and theft". Actions of a typical party of adventurers are formal genocide on alignment basis.

What I am trying to say here, while V committed a pretty heinous act, it is by no means different to Azurites killing goblins, any adventurers killing monsters or armies of Rohan exterminating the Uruk-Hai - except in time efficiency, of course.
But while a few Azurites may have fallen (only if they were paladins - non-paladin soldiers suffered literally no consequences), and the adventurers and the Free Peoples are hailed as heroes, V literally goes to Hell for hir acts.

And people still condemn hir for killing dragons. Okay, (s)he could've thought about possible human descendants, hybrids, alignment-less whelps (since it seems to be a case in OOTSverse) - but we can't say that V is worse than aforementioned examples just because of decimating the blackdragonkind.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you count amount of creatures killed by an average adventurer, it stretches even the boundaries of "serial murder". Random goblin warband plundering a village is "murder and theft". Actions of a typical party of adventurers are formal genocide on alignment basis.
Speak for your own games. Or don't, since apparently they're appallingly boring hack and slash fests that require players to turn their brains and hearts off for hours at a time to enjoy. Personally, I'd rather play in something more like what Kish described.

[JBiddles]

Yes, she is. V broke down sobbing when she realised that Familicide didn't just kill off Evil Black Dragons (an act that she might have been kidding herself was just about excusable, as it could have saved innocent lives and was in defence of family) but also Neutral and Good beings, and then also considered that perhaps some of the dragons she killed weren't all utterly Evil and dangerous to innocent people.

V never committed genocide, in that she did not try to kill off all Black Dragons, but merely the family of the ABD who threatened her own family. Her actions were Evil, sure, but they weren't genocide, and she had some pretty damn good extenuating circumstances. Redemption, then, is within her reach.

[Sir_Leorik]

Do we really need to rehash that

a) V committed genocide, an unspeakable act;

b) V is now truly repentant, not just for murdering Humans related to the ABD, but to murdering any creatures with Familicide.

She realizes that even if the majority of the Black Dragons she murdered with Familicide were unrepentantly Evil, she had no right to murder them and their families. That's the first step of V's repentance, a step Miko, for example, was never willing to take.

[TheWatcher]

{{scrubbed}}

[Sir_Leorik]

Killing someone because they were part of a military unit trying to kill you: Okay.

Killing someone's family because one person in their family (who you then killed) was part of a military unit that tried to kill you: Not okay.

If a member of my family is in the military, and you are in the military..

Does that make me a valid target? Especially if there is no true sign that I am even following the idelology of my family member? (And even if I do, there is no proof I am invested in it enough to take up arms; and can still be convinced to more peaceful ideals.)

This is a real world morality problem, and the main argument against the use of violence against civilians..

Let's try to leave the real world's real problems alone for the purposes of this post, okay? :smallwink:


Effectively, it is about having enough respect for human beings (or for the sake of the comic 'sapient creatures') to give them the right to choose, and not punishing them for decisions they did not make or desire...

Effectively, in the armed services, we call this:

"The Deadly Force Triangle"

"Opportunity."
"Intent."
"Capability."

Deadly force is not authorized (not saying mistakes don't happen when people are terrified, stressed, exausted, or confused and I do not wish to make this a "current" real-world politics discussion) unless an enemy meets the above 3 requirements..

But effectively? We opperate under the assumption that it is moral and lawful to kill a person whom has shown:

Capability to kill someone. (Has a weapon; ie; is not a disarmed prisoner.)
Opportunity to kill somone. (Is in range with that weapon; ie; not knife 60 ft away.)
Intent to kill someone. (Is maneuvering, aiming, or otherwise moving themselves into a position to use that weapon. ie; flipping people off is not intent to kill.)

Insulting you at 200 yards doesn't show. Waving a knife at 30 feet doesn't show all three (unless they have a hostage).

For the record? I've never been in any kind of combat situation; but effectively.. Varsuvius killed a bunch of creatures that he did not know all had capability (could have been a pacifist monk!). Did not necessarily all have opportunity (babies).. and did not necessarily have intent to kill (unless maybe in self defense.)

There have been canon Lawful Evil Golden Dragons. And? Being evil (aka; Selfish) is not reason enough to kill someone, as any long-term paladin player walking through a village market using 'Detect Evil' on farmers will tell you.

Evil farmers exist.

In D&D and other Tabletop RPGs this is referred to as the "prisoner dilemma" (not to be confused with the Logic Problem regarding non-zero sum problems). When a party of PCs encounter enemies, and those enemies surrender, what are you supposed to do with the enemies? Does it make a difference if you're in a forest, not far from the Keep on the Borderlands as opposed to three miles from the Vault of the Drow? For the purpose of this argument let's assume that an adult enemy of the same general size is comparable. An unarmed Kobold and an unarmed Gnome are similar, just like an unarmed Human and an Unarmed Hobgoblin are. An Adult Green Dragon is a danger to its captors, as is a Beholder. Also, what if one party member is a Paladin or other Lawful Good PC who feels obliged to accept a legitimate surrender, vs. Chaotic Good PCs who refuse to believe that the prisoner won't turn on them later?

All of this assumes that the PCs and the enemies fought in a combat encounter during an adventure. V's case, where she cast Familicide is more akin to Emerikol the Chaotic casting Fireballs in the middle of Greyhawk to kill a pickpocket, as shown in the 1E PHB. There are more efficient ways to stop a pickpocket, and ways that don't endanger innocent lives. V's problem was that she didn't consider that maybe there were ways to safeguard her family without lashing out at Black Dragons she'd never encountered. It never occurred to V that not all Black Dragons might not be Evil, and even the ones that were didn't deserved to have their lives snuffed out without warning.

Now V is acknowledging a simple thing: she was wrong. Her actions were wrong. When she saw Roy about to destroy a Gate, V and Blackwing tried to warn him not to, because the consequences of his actions were unknown and could potentially lead to loss of innocent life. So yeah, V's really repentant. She's taken steps that Miko never did in her life, as noted by Soon.

[Amphiox]

V never committed genocide, in that she did not try to kill off all Black Dragons, but merely the family of the ABD who threatened her own family. Her actions were Evil, sure, but they weren't genocide, and she had some pretty damn good extenuating circumstances. Redemption, then, is within her reach.

Whether you want to call what V did genocide or mass mass murder really doesn't change the terms of the debate. It is not as if genocide were actually a notably worse crime except on a wholly arbitrary emotional level.

(And "genocide" means murder of an ethnic group -not necessarily a species. The extermination of an entire lineage of Black Dragons related by blood sure seems to qualify for that distinction to me)

[AlaskaOOTSFan]

V becomes the Nameless One from Planescape:Torement.

[TheWatcher]

Let's try to leave the real world's real problems alone for the purposes of this post, okay? :smallwink:



In D&D and other Tabletop RPGs this is referred to as the "prisoner dilemma" (not to be confused with the Logic Problem regarding non-zero sum problems). When a party of PCs encounter enemies, and those enemies surrender, what are you supposed to do with the enemies? Does it make a difference if you're in a forest, not far from the Keep on the Borderlands as opposed to three miles from the Vault of the Drow? For the purpose of this argument let's assume that an adult enemy of the same general size is comparable. An unarmed Kobold and an unarmed Gnome are similar, just like an unarmed Human and an Unarmed Hobgoblin are. An Adult Green Dragon is a danger to its captors, as is a Beholder. Also, what if one party member is a Paladin or other Lawful Good PC who feels obliged to accept a legitimate surrender, vs. Chaotic Good PCs who refuse to believe that the prisoner won't turn on them later?

All of this assumes that the PCs and the enemies fought in a combat encounter during an adventure. V's case, where she cast Familicide is more akin to Emerikol the Chaotic casting Fireballs in the middle of Greyhawk to kill a pickpocket, as shown in the 1E PHB. There are more efficient ways to stop a pickpocket, and ways that don't endanger innocent lives. V's problem was that she didn't consider that maybe there were ways to safeguard her family without lashing out at Black Dragons she'd never encountered. It never occurred to V that not all Black Dragons might not be Evil, and even the ones that were didn't deserved to have their lives snuffed out without warning.

Now V is acknowledging a simple thing: she was wrong. Her actions were wrong. When she saw Roy about to destroy a Gate, V and Blackwing tried to warn him not to, because the consequences of his actions were unknown and could potentially lead to loss of innocent life. So yeah, V's really repentant. She's taken steps that Miko never did in her life, as noted by Soon.

Although I draw parallels to real life events people have encountered to draw moral comparisons and parallels to things people have experience or knowledge in/on.

In every other way, I agree with you on your post.


Whether you want to call what V did genocide or mass mass murder really doesn't change the terms of the debate. It is not as if genocide were actually a notably worse crime except on a wholly arbitrary emotional level.

(And "genocide" means murder of an ethnic group -not necessarily a species. The extermination of an entire lineage of Black Dragons related by blood sure seems to qualify for that distinction to me)

Agreed. This meets the qualifications (even if it is incredibly simplistic in execution -- push-button morality; which is why I used the nuclear bomb example above) for the definition of ethnic/racial/species cleansing; V is truely horrified by it after the fact, as you can see by all the screaming, drama, self-judgement--

I love this comic.

[SavageWombat]

As a friend of mine once said, "If you kill all the baby kobolds, what will the next generation of adventurers level up on?"

[TheWatcher]

As a friend of mine once said, "If you kill all the baby kobolds, what will the next generation of adventurers level up on?"

That is horrible.

...

lol.

[Anarion]

If you count amount of creatures killed by an average adventurer, it stretches even the boundaries of "serial murder". Random goblin warband plundering a village is "murder and theft". Actions of a typical party of adventurers are formal genocide on alignment basis.

What I am trying to say here, while V committed a pretty heinous act, it is by no means different to Azurites killing goblins, any adventurers killing monsters or armies of Rohan exterminating the Uruk-Hai - except in time efficiency, of course.
But while a few Azurites may have fallen (only if they were paladins - non-paladin soldiers suffered literally no consequences), and the adventurers and the Free Peoples are hailed as heroes, V literally goes to Hell for hir acts.

And people still condemn hir for killing dragons. Okay, (s)he could've thought about possible human descendants, hybrids, alignment-less whelps (since it seems to be a case in OOTSverse) - but we can't say that V is worse than aforementioned examples just because of decimating the blackdragonkind.

This post has absolutely no sense of scale. My mind boggles that you would consider what most adventuring parties do to be even remotely close to genocide.

I think the thread has done an excellent job pointing out the distinction between fighting an army and killing every member of a race. But, what kind of D&D games do you run? The amount of dice you'd need to roll to kill the number of black dragons that V killed as a regular party is staggering. It would probably take weeks of real time, even if your game consisted of nothing but simulating fights with black dragons.


V becomes the Nameless One from Planescape:Torement.

This does sum up the situation rather nicely.

[sengmeng]

"Repentance" and "Penance" and "Redemption" are the domains of real world religions. The cosmology of OotSverse is not ours. It's not explained if a tally of good acts vs bad acts determines one's final resting place. It seemed that way with Roy's afterlife experience, but we don't know. We don't know who will judge Vaarsuvius, or how that's determined. This whole argument is just "what I think." You can only answer based on your definitions of those words, which are different from person to person and different within OotSverse. To me, repentance means being sorry for what you've done and implies a promise not to do it again, so V is repentant by my definition. By hir own definition? I'm not so sure. V hirself may feel s/he needs to take steps to pay somehow, and to make sure that s/he never enters into a conflict so grossly misinformed again (which could be a reasonable interpretation of promising not to do it again).

And why the arguments about what is and what is not genocide? It doesn't matter. Genocide is wrong the way murdering an innocent person is wrong, except in higher numbers. What V did was kill a lot of creatures whose guilt or innocence was unknown. That's wrong. It doesn't need to qualify for the extra-special level wrong label of "genocide." It's really really bad anyway. The only way that genocide is wrong moreso than just murdering a high amount of innocent people is that it deprives the world of a unique cultural viewpoint, which V did not (except for the weird cult of paranoia of the Draketooths, I guess, but the world wasn't really getting to know them either).

TL;DR version: The question of V's repentance is subjectively based on whether or not you personally believe s/he has the capacity to feel bad enough about it. I say yes; everyone else is free to interpret as they will.

[TheWatcher]

This post has absolutely no sense of scale. My mind boggles that you would consider what most adventuring parties do to be even remotely close to genocide.

I think the thread has done an excellent job pointing out the distinction between fighting an army and killing every member of a race. But, what kind of D&D games do you run? The amount of dice you'd need to roll to kill the number of black dragons that V killed as a regular party is staggering. It would probably take weeks of real time, even if your game consisted of nothing but simulating fights with black dragons.



This does sum up the situation rather nicely.

Killing children is bad if those children have no:


Capability. Intent. Opportunity.

If someone with all three of those things physically has the opportunity to surrender, and they do not take it? Killing them is not wrong.

If you massacure countless individuals without giving them that opportunity to surrender? Yes. You're wrong.

We are talking about a medieval world, where not everyone (2 hp peasants whom make 2 silver a paycheck count as everyone) has continuous access to the convenience of magic.

Prisoners are difficult.

Interestingly, in the morality of D&D~ A Paladin is allowed to execute prisoners; even without trial. In 2nd edition, Perigon The Paladinson or whatever his name was.. was The Open Lord of Waterdeep. Attacking any of the Lords of Waterdeep, as per the laws of his time was a sentence of death without trial as per source material.

So-- honestly? I think killing a defeated enemy is more of a 'Neutral' action then an evil one. Especially when it becomes a tactical disadvantage. While I don't agree with this in the modern world-- I can reasonably justify it in medieval times, and it was commonly done in The Wild West, before infrastructure existed.

If you found a bandit, and you captured him? You hung him out in the wilds; Lonesome Dove style.

I liked Jake Spoon.. :(

[Amphiox]

If we shear away the philosophies of real world religions (which we are prohibited from discussing anyways), what does the term "redemption" even mean? Outside of more precise terms like "restitution", or "recompense" (which we should use instead if that is what we are talking about), then redemption basically means being forgiven.

But the question then becomes by whom? Will V be redeemed if she can come to forgive herself? Could other people in the comic forgiving V be enough? Does it require a Black Dragon doing the forgiving? Does it specifically have to be V's individual victim's offering forgiveness in afterlife? The planar entities that control and judge the afterlife? Tiamat, the Black Dragons' patron deity?

I get the feeling though that when most of us talk about V's redemption, it really boils down to the meta aspect of whether WE, the readers, forgive him. And in that sense, the question of what it will take can only be discussed, never determined, because it is an individual decision for each of us.

For myself, I consider V already redeemed. Because for me redemption only requires her to recognize her wrong and be sorry for it, and thus demonstrate that she has become inside, a better person the one who committed the crime.

But I make a distinction between "redemption" and "justice". Redemption is a gift to be given, and no one who receives it actually can deserve it at the moment it is granted, or else it is not redemption but simply recognition of a reward deserved. But justice, ie absolution for the crime, requires more than forgiveness, it requires restitution, which V has not yet made. The question of course arises as to what restitution counts as "enough".

[Anarion]

And why the arguments about what is and what is not genocide? It doesn't matter. Genocide is wrong the way murdering an innocent person is wrong, except in higher numbers. What V did was kill a lot of creatures whose guilt or innocence was unknown. That's wrong. It doesn't need to qualify for the extra-special level wrong label of "genocide." It's really really bad anyway. The only way that genocide is wrong moreso than just murdering a high amount of innocent people is that it deprives the world of a unique cultural viewpoint, which V did not (except for the weird cult of paranoia of the Draketooths, I guess, but the world wasn't really getting to know them either).


I agree with your point here. I think the definitional argument is just useful shorthand for arguing with the guy saying that what regular D&D parties do is genocide and isn't wrong.

Also, as far as the cosmology goes, I would be surprised if the Giant ever shows us V's ultimate fate on camera. We certainly won't get the kind of review that Roy got. So, probably it will be a subjective question of how each individual reader feels about the character when the story is over.

Edit: TheWatcher, how come you quoted me? Your post has nothing to do with my earlier post.

[Gnoman]

Killing children is bad if those children have no:


Capability. Intent. Opportunity.

If someone with all three of those things physically has the opportunity to surrender, and they do not take it? Killing them is not wrong.

If you massacure countless individuals without giving them that opportunity to surrender? Yes. You're wrong.

We are talking about a medieval world, where not everyone (2 hp peasants whom make 2 silver a paycheck count as everyone) has continuous access to the convenience of magic.

Prisoners are difficult.

Interestingly, in the morality of D&D~ A Paladin is allowed to execute prisoners; even without trial. In 2nd edition, Perigon The Paladinson or whatever his name was.. was The Open Lord of Waterdeep. Attacking any of the Lords of Waterdeep, as per the laws of his time was a sentence of death without trial as per source material.

So-- honestly? I think killing a defeated enemy is more of a 'Neutral' action then an evil one. Especially when it becomes a tactical disadvantage. While I don't agree with this in the modern world-- I can reasonably justify it in medieval times, and it was commonly done in The Wild West, before infrastructure existed.

If you found a bandit, and you captured him? You hung him out in the wilds; Lonesome Dove style.

I liked Jake Spoon.. :

In the first example, the prisoner in question would have to be caught in the act of of committing a capital crime before being executed according to the laws of the city. In this situation, the paladin would be cating in full accordance with known, written laws that apply in very narrow circumstances. Even then, without more information it is impossible to label this as a "Good" act by RAW. Simply holding a position is never Evil, so unless you can point to a specific instance where a Paladin performed or ordered such an execution (as opposed to holding the post in times when no executions took place), there is no room to argue it based on RAW.

In the second, there is not a single RAW source to demonstrate that that sort of summary execution is not Evil. Quite the opposite. Killing out of convenience is Always Evil by RAW.

[orrion]

What is funny, killing evil creatures in battle is OK, but simply wiping them out is somehow bad.

And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

Thanks for the facepalm, Trillium.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Guys, guys.

Vaarsuvius realizes that what he did was monstrously wrong, and she feels great soul-crushing despair over it (when was the last time we saw V cry? Not when his/her mate was threatened, not when s/he was served divorce papers, not when s/he saw his/her children's legs broken, house burned down and mate crucified on a tree. This hit him/her hard.).

I don't know if V is trying to make things right or do whatever it takes to turn around.

I think the debate here is over whether or not V *spending the rest of his/her life doing penitence, service and all manner of good things to the remaining black dragons, or whatever good thing that could help one become redeemed* would in any way balance out any of the bad from Familicide; or whether since no amount of good would bring back those black dragons V cannot, in any way, fix this or make it better.

I'm not sure that anything can, in fact, outweigh that atrocity when you measure good works against bad works. Maybe a Wish to ressurrect all the black Dragons and to bring back all their treasure (and even double it).



If you found a bandit, and you captured him? You hung him out in the wilds; Lonesome Dove style.

I liked Jake Spoon.. :(

Wow. I found the only other person on the entire internet who ever read that book.

We all liked Jake Spoon, but the person I really felt for in that scene was Newt.


V becomes the Nameless One from Planescape:Torement.
I would so read the heck out of this fanfic.

[TheWatcher]

We all liked Jake Spoon, but the person I really felt for in that scene was Newt.


Make me want to cry. ; . ;

[theNater]

If you count amount of creatures killed by an average adventurer, it stretches even the boundaries of "serial murder".
Killing and murder are not synonyms. If an army a million strong attacks someone, and the person being attacked kills them all in combat, no murder has occurred.

But while a few Azurites may have fallen (only if they were paladins - non-paladin soldiers suffered literally no consequences), and the adventurers and the Free Peoples are hailed as heroes, V literally goes to Hell for hir acts.
Vaarsuvius went to Hell for entering into a bargain with fiends in which one of the agreed-upon terms was that Vaarsuvius would go to Hell for a set period of time. The final destination of Vaarsuvius' soul has yet to be determined.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

See, this is why we need to have campaigns where you don't fight monsters; but fight, I don't know, a multicellular colony of malaria acting as a single organism the size of a grisly grizzly bear. Except there are loads of those organisms and they're not sentient, sapient, or really more complicated than a slime mold.

Wait, no, that's still killing.

Giant. Bacteriophages. Yeah, that's where it's at.

[Keltest]

See, this is why we need to have campaigns where you don't fight monsters; but fight, I don't know, a multicellular colony of malaria acting as a single organism the size of a grisly grizzly bear. Except there are loads of those organisms and they're not sentient, sapient, or really more complicated than a slime mold.

Wait, no, that's still killing.

Giant. Bacteriophages. Yeah, that's where it's at.

If its a virus rather than a bacteria, then the disease golem isn't alive, since viruses are not alive. Thus, no killing.

[SavageWombat]

See, this is why we need to have campaigns where you don't fight monsters; but fight, I don't know, a multicellular colony of malaria acting as a single organism the size of a grisly grizzly bear. Except there are loads of those organisms and they're not sentient, sapient, or really more complicated than a slime mold.

Wait, no, that's still killing.

Giant. Bacteriophages. Yeah, that's where it's at.

You do it Ender's Game style - the enemy are drones with no minds or genetic future of their own, but you still need to decide whether to kill the queen or not.

Actually, that sounds like Jim Butcher's Codex Alera.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Viruses are alive. They're the simplest possible forms of life, but they are truly alive.

In regards to the OP, V is truly repentant. S/he realized what s/he did was wrong, and desires to fix it. That's true redemption right there.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Viruses are alive. They're the simplest possible forms of life, but they are truly alive.

In regards to the OP, V is truly repentant. S/he realized what s/he did was wrong, and desires to fix it. That's true redemption right there.

Okay, then we need to fight robots.

[zimmerwald1915]

See, this is why we need to have campaigns where you don't fight monsters; but fight, I don't know, a multicellular colony of malaria acting as a single organism the size of a grisly grizzly bear. Except there are loads of those organisms and they're not sentient, sapient, or really more complicated than a slime mold.

Wait, no, that's still killing.

Giant. Bacteriophages. Yeah, that's where it's at.
Has someone been marathoning Voyager? Be honest.

[Anarion]

Okay, then we need to fight robots.

Lasers and mechanical explosions. That's certainly the way children's programming has handled it for years.

Not sure that really solves our current issue though, which has to do with how different people view the idea of repentance. I think it varies person to person whether repentance has to do with how someone feels now, or whether it requires somehow making amends for past deeds (and could thus be impossible for the most heinous acts.)

[zimmerwald1915]

Not sure that really solves our current issue though, which has to do with how different people view the idea of repentance. I think it varies person to person whether repentance has to do with how someone feels now, or whether it requires somehow making amends for past deeds (and could thus be impossible for the most heinous acts.)
How does repentance refer to anything other than how someone feels? The action of repenting lies in repudiating one's previous actions and attitudes. It is an internal process. Making amends, asking forgiveness, seeking atonement and making restitution are things someone might do after repenting, they are part of atonement, and readers might point to that as evidence of repentance, but they are not part of repentance itself.

What repentance is really shouldn't be up for debate. What is up for debate - and what is not the subject of this thread - is whether repentance is enough to inspire forgiveness. That is ultimately a judgment every character and reader must make for themselves.

[Amphiox]

Sometimes killing is necessary. Sometimes killing is the least bad of many bad options. Sometimes killing a sentient creature is necessary, and/or the least bad of many bad options.

It is not a problem to depict killing, even of sentients, per se. That alone is simply a depiction of a "factual" occurence, within the parameters of the fictional world.

The thing that is important is the choice that leads to the killing. The decision to kill. The weighing of the options. The conclusion of necessity. The evaluation of more bad versus less bad.

The problem lies when this choice is depicted as trivial and without consequence.

Because the choice is not trivial. It is among the most profound choice any free-willed being can make. The consequences are far-reaching. It should not be glossed over as merely a prelude to some exciting action.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Viruses are alive. They're the simplest possible forms of life, but they are truly alive.

There is not an agreed-upon definition of "life". Many of the disagreements among biologists come down to whether or not viruses count as a life form.

(I say "no", because I think "made of cells" should be part of the definition, and they aren't.)

[Rodin]

Okay, then we need to fight robots.

I'm not so sure....


Does this unit have a soul?

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Has someone been marathoning Voyager? Be honest.

Sorry my friend, I haven't (is it okay for me to call you my friend).

Do you recommend it?

[zimmerwald1915]

Sorry my friend, I haven't (is it okay for me to call you my friend).
Go right ahead :smallredface:


Do you recommend it?
Not really. It's just that there's an episode where Janeway and the Doctor fight off a colony of giant bacteriophages, and it matched so closely the description you gave of the Ultimate Politically Correct Action Sequence that I couldn't help but be amused.

[Sir_Leorik]

Okay, then we need to fight robots.


Lasers and mechanical explosions. That's certainly the way children's programming has handled it for years.

Which led to "The Transformers" being the most realistic children's cartoon of the '80's. The Autobots and the Decepticons suffer mass casualties, their surgical procedures are as gripping as anything this side of "M*A*S*H*", and we see their troops suffering from lack of adequate supplies. Contrast that with "G.I. Joe" ("Duke's... in a coma!"), "He-Man and The Masters of the Universe" (Fun fact: He-Man always uses the flat of his blade!) or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (1987) (Leonardo is the least effective Turtle... unless he's fighting killer robots!). :smallamused:

[TheWatcher]

I agree with your point here. I think the definitional argument is just useful shorthand for arguing with the guy saying that what regular D&D parties do is genocide and isn't wrong.

Also, as far as the cosmology goes, I would be surprised if the Giant ever shows us V's ultimate fate on camera. We certainly won't get the kind of review that Roy got. So, probably it will be a subjective question of how each individual reader feels about the character when the story is over.

Edit: TheWatcher, how come you quoted me? Your post has nothing to do with my earlier post.

Re-reading to figure that out; maybe I edited? I thought I was quoting Jake Spoon, but maybe I misclicked? If I am a little sporatic; on pain killers due to recent impact with a car in a cross-walk. >_<; Sorry! Will rego over my posts today and see what the hell I was typing yesterday.

After Re-reading;
It was loosely related.

I was trying (and I guess failing) to mention that I believed the Azurites attacks MAY (we have no way of knowing the actual past interactions between Azurites and Red Cloak's Goblin village(s)) ... and no way to know how far in the past those attacks took place.. could easily be child perception of events, etc. We do not know)

... are far more easily justifiable (easily justifiable, not necessarily justified) then V's wholesale slaughter of hundreds (or thousands) of dragons that were not even aware of that black dragon's existance.. hense V's remorse.

We cannot judge the truth, or baseness of the experiences of a goblin against the soldiers from Azure City's past without more information.

While I doubt Red Cloak is lying; I don't think we have all the information (as with most things in Order of the Stick.) Although I have not read the pre-quil books on OOTS yet~

Note to self; Wow. I ramble even when I am lucid.

[mhsmith]

Yes, she is. V broke down sobbing when she realised that Familicide didn't just kill off Evil Black Dragons (an act that she might have been kidding herself was just about excusable, as it could have saved innocent lives and was in defence of family) but also Neutral and Good beings, and then also considered that perhaps some of the dragons she killed weren't all utterly Evil and dangerous to innocent people.

V never committed genocide, in that she did not try to kill off all Black Dragons, but merely the family of the ABD who threatened her own family. Her actions were Evil, sure, but they weren't genocide, and she had some pretty damn good extenuating circumstances. Redemption, then, is within her reach.

Actually...

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DarthV.pngGiven your kind's low rate of reproduction, I estimate that I have eliminated approximately one-quarter of the black dragons on the planet. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

So yeah, I'd say that certainly counts.

[The Giant]

And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

None. There is no difference. Except narratively, because one was a main character taking an action as part of the primary story while the other was a backstory relating to tertiary characters. Thus the repercussions of one is of key importance to the plot while the other is a background issue, at best.


I never said "genocide is Good".
First, it is not "good", it is "not considered Evil by higher powers".

Yes, it is.


Thirdly, isn't genocide a thing that all adventurers do? Decimating creatures to take their loot?

"Genocide" does not mean "a lot of killing." It has a specific meaning. Look it up, if you must. Adventurers do not commit genocide, generally speaking.


There is no reason to assume that the fate, or the Twelve Gods, or any other higher power considers preemptive genocide of enemies an evil act.

It is. It is an evil act. Always. Without exception. Period. Genocide is always evil, guys.

[The Giant]

And the rest is pretty deep into the Morally Justified zone, so…Thread locked.