WARNING: FAMLICIDE THREAD! Eviler Wizard then V who is (likely) good [Archive]

Saambell

2014-02-04, 04:05 PM

martianmister

2014-02-04, 04:09 PM

Who is this wizard?

EDIT: The Doctor from Doctor Who?

Ramien

2014-02-04, 04:13 PM

Considering most of those cease to be evil when context is applied, I think the case for
Harry Dredsen
being evil is pretty weak.

Keltest

2014-02-04, 04:14 PM

Who is this wizard?

EDIT: The Doctor from Doctor Who?

it looks like Harry Dresden

Oakianus

2014-02-04, 04:35 PM

Performing a evil act - even an act as mind-bogglingly evil as Familicide - doesn't actually make V evil. In fact, if we go with the wanky "Tendencies" bollocks, I'd say that V leans more toward NG than NE ever since the casting of Familicide.

Not that I think she's actually that close to NG at this point. There'd be a whole lot of development that would have to happen for that to be the case. But V's certainly not irredeemably evil by any stretch, and I'm not entirely sure why this defense via Dresden is being mounted.

Landis963

2014-02-04, 04:40 PM

OK, this comparison is laughably terrible for several reasons.

-The Mentor sicced a literally demonic assassin on him.
-The Pixies were set free after a short chat, and later paid in pizza.
-The FBI agents were a) werewolves, b) trying to kill him, c) and abusing their position.
-Said "personal reasons" included "safeguarding Excalibur from being unmade" and "protecting an innocent."
-The "Being of Compassion" (bwahahaha) was possessed by a demonic force who severely misguided her, and was threatening to choke the world in uncontrolled growth.
-Said captive's pleas for help were mocking, and specifically intended to tie the hands of the paladins present.
-Said horrific torture and death was not his fault.
-He specifically does not let the fallen angel get any farther than the ad campaign.
-"Gives position of power to Soul Eating Demon" What? I don't remember this.
-This ancient monster zombie was very much terrestrial, very much a lesser evil as opposed to the ethereal threat it was raised to help avert, and to quote the man himself; "I was going to put the dino back!"
-Because he didn't know that the Teenage Girl was a black-magic user, nor that the Creatures of Horror were piggybacking on her workings.
-If this is the "destroying the city block" incident I'm thinking of, he did it to fight his way out of a trap that vampires put him in.
-Again, the paladin's crippling was not his fault, IIRC, and allowed the holy knight in question a happy retirement instead of a going-away party in a cemetery.
-"Casts Famlicide equivalent on an ENTIRE SPECIES" of blood-sucking monsters "using an Infant" vampire who had just succumbed to bloodlust after 10+ years of abstaining "and Carving its heart out!"

Remember, kids, context is important.

Gift Jeraff

2014-02-04, 04:46 PM

V:
-killed someone because they looked evil and s/he didn't want to spend time on a trial
-seeks power for the sake of power
-mocked the ancient black dragon about how her son mewling helplessly before s/he killed him
-enslaved a kobold, forced them to eat cat feces, and used them to test for traps
-suggested killing and soul binding prisoners
-threatened to kill Elan
-cast invisibility on her/himself before fleeing from the war, instead of casting it on someone else
-harmed a paladin in order to prevent her from bringing justice to a known murderer
-associates with a murderer and a vampire
-asked a devil for power
-accepted help from a devil, daemon, and demon
-took tips from a demon
-gave relationship advice to a demon
-didn't want to kill a powerful psion who co-rules an evil regime, yet had no problem burning said regime's poor helpless mooks
-tells physics to sit down and shut up
-made Elan and Belkar cry
-blows up teammates for fun
-breaks tables s/he doesn't own, just to flaunt his/her power
-is a pompous jerk in general
-neglects her/his spouse and loyal familiar
-wallowed in self-doubt when s/he knew her/his teammates were fighting mummies; his/her neglect lead to Durkon's death

V is the most evilest of evils.

oppyu

2014-02-04, 05:04 PM

-made Elan and Belkar cry
Since Belkar is evil, I think V making Belkar cry was morally justified.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-04, 05:24 PM

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-04, 05:30 PM

Nothing good ever comes of these Familicide threads.
Well, there's the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation. That's pretty good.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-04, 05:41 PM

Well, there's the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation. That's pretty good.

Yeah, but if I want to do that I'll head over to the "Dumbing of Age" thread on the Webcomics board and rant about the sewer that is the "Dumbing of Age" comments section. (Seriously, what is wrong with those people? And why does Willis egg them on in the alt-text? :smallyuk:)

SavageWombat

2014-02-04, 07:23 PM

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.

If you weren't - the list is wildly argumentative.

Keltest

2014-02-04, 07:24 PM

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.

If you weren't - the list is wildly argumentative.

I would go so far as to say "Wrong"

Kish

2014-02-04, 07:46 PM

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

KillianHawkeye

2014-02-04, 07:52 PM

Witholding important contextual information only serves to distort the message of whatever information you actually choose to reveal.

Keltest

2014-02-04, 08:01 PM

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

Shows what you know :smalltongue:

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-04, 08:11 PM

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.
That's what I got out of the OP. Of course the context for familicide has been hashed over dozens upon dozens of times on these boards, and it's nowhere near as mitigating as Landis' post seems to indicate he believes the context for Dresden's actions is. I wouldn't know, never having read the books [ :smallredface: ], but I suspect we'd have different opinions on that.

Plactus

2014-02-04, 08:12 PM

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

Rich Burlew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=14856)

Jim Butcher (http://www.jim-butcher.com/jim)

...I can see the resemblance.

Socksy

2014-02-06, 02:58 AM

He's neutral-or-chaotic good to start with at least, does anyone have any idea where the latest book leaves him on the alignment charts?

Landis963

2014-02-06, 03:13 AM

That's what I got out of the OP. Of course the context for familicide has been hashed over dozens upon dozens of times on these boards, and it's nowhere near as mitigating as Landis' post seems to indicate he believes the context for Dresden's actions is. I wouldn't know, never having read the books [ :smallredface: ], but I suspect we'd have different opinions on that.

It's true. In context, those actions are very reasonable and far more heroic than Harry gives himself credit for. He has lapses, of course, (I recall one time when he was having far too much fun beating a lawyer-friendly-xenomorph to notice its victim bleeding out on the floor), but he's always shaken and guilty enough about it, and it's never really moral-event-horizon material - again, in context.

And you really should read the books. (Although you can basically skip the one with the werewolves - it changes essentially nothing, a central character acts stupidly vindictive for very little reason, and it gets much better in book 3 all around)

BrokenChord

2014-02-06, 03:22 AM

unbeliever536

2014-02-06, 04:03 AM

V:
...
-gave relationship advice to a demon
...

Horror of horrors!

Sith_Happens

2014-02-06, 04:06 AM

-The Pixies were set free after a short chat, and later paid in pizza.

Because enabling someone's drug addiction is totally the Good thing to do.:smalltongue:

Rodin

2014-02-06, 04:32 AM

Familicide is an Evil spell, but casting a single Evil spell is not enough to change a Character's Alignment.

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.

From a story-telling standpoint though, V's personality hasn't swerved towards Evil as a result - rather the opposite, in fact.

I tend to lean towards the "V is still True Neutral...but only just" line of thinking. The remorse and subsequent change in character helps in that regard. If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.

Landis963

2014-02-06, 09:15 AM

Because enabling someone's drug addiction is totally the Good thing to do.:smalltongue:

He didn't know how much they liked pizza until they formed an honor guard for him in its name. :smallwink:

Keltest

2014-02-06, 09:32 AM

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.

From a story-telling standpoint though, V's personality hasn't swerved towards Evil as a result - rather the opposite, in fact.

I tend to lean towards the "V is still True Neutral...but only just" line of thinking. The remorse and subsequent change in character helps in that regard. If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.

The way I would run it and (I believe) the way some PHBs describe it is that one of two ways a neutral alignment on the good-evil scale is handled is that they do an equal number of good and evil deeds to maintain a balance (like the Diablo cult of Rathma), rather than not doing any deeds that are definitely good or evil.

hamishspence

2014-02-06, 10:07 AM

The way I would run it and (I believe) the way some PHBs describe it is that one of two ways a neutral alignment on the good-evil scale is handled is that they do an equal number of good and evil deeds to maintain a balance (like the Diablo cult of Rathma), rather than not doing any deeds that are definitely good or evil.

The Necromancers in Diablo are more

"if either angels or demons Take Over The World, it's doomed- so oppose whichever side has the upper hand".

So it has less to do with "doing good/evil deeds" and more to do with "keeping both sides from winning the contest for the world"

Kish

2014-02-06, 10:11 AM

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.
Indeed. I would add that "Familicide was an Evil spell" misses the point. I don't give a damn if the spell has the Exalted descriptor; what matters is that Vaarsuvius committed mass murder based on racism.

tomandtish

2014-02-06, 10:50 AM

It's true. In context, those actions are very reasonable and far more heroic than Harry gives himself credit for. He has lapses, of course, (I recall one time when he was having far too much fun beating a lawyer-friendly-xenomorph to notice its victim bleeding out on the floor), but he's always shaken and guilty enough about it, and it's never really moral-event-horizon material - again, in context.

And to further muddy the waters, while the creature is fleeing HIM, there's no guarantee it is going to flee the scene altogether. I actually think he assumes a little too much self-guilt here. He thinks it might have, but given what the creature is imitating one of the aliens from the Alien franchise there's no certainty of that.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-06, 11:38 AM

If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.
Erm, V did immediately go back to her old ways (it'd be more accurate to say she never abandoned them in the first place), as seen in Sandsedge. It took another two weeks, almost the entire book, for her to begin to step away from that.

Locnil

2014-02-06, 11:51 AM

I am going to list a series of out of context evil actions of a Wizard who is still probably good.

-Killed their Mentor
-Lures Pixies into Traps
-Kills FBI agents
-Starts war over personal reasons
-Murders Being of Compassion (in a style like stabbing Superman with a kryptonite dagger)
-Beats a captive brutally when he had surrendered then leaves him to crawl over shattered glass to get help
-Gets Paladin Horrifically tortured and killed
-accepts Fallen Angel into mind
-Gives position of power to Soul Eating Demon
-Creates Zombie of Ancient Monster
-Sends Creatures of Horror after Teenage girl
-Destroys city block simply because he is frustrated
-Gets Another paladin Crippled for life
And now for the big one:
-Casts Famlicide equivalent on an ENTIRE SPECIES using an Infant and Carving its heart out!
Even now feels no regret for the species only about how it impacts his life.

He is still the hero and probably still good.
V looks nice(ish) to that.
Can someone list V's Evil acts? cause its probably shorter.

Huge Dresden Files fan, but somehow I still didn't get it until that last bit. Incidentally, though, it wasn't an infant - it was his on-again, off-again girlfriend.

Where this comparison fails, though, is context. You're right that in context Dresden looks to be the world's biggest monster - this is even brought up a few times in the books. But in context he's pretty much a hero through and through, barring a few blind spots.

Even with context, though, V is still kinda dickish at best. He's getting better, but there's still a long way to go.

137beth

2014-02-06, 01:10 PM

Well, there's the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation. That's pretty good.

Pretty Good? The real question is whether the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation is Morally Justified.
And the answer is no, threads about familicide are not Morally Justified, ever.

Aolbain

2014-02-06, 02:06 PM

What is the purpose of this thread? Beyond spoiling the crap out of the Dresden Files for me?

Keltest

2014-02-06, 02:43 PM

What is the purpose of this thread? Beyond spoiling the crap out of the Dresden Files for me?

These aren't spoilers. Theres so much context removed from them that they actually give a false impression of actual events.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-06, 05:32 PM

What is the purpose of this thread? Beyond spoiling the crap out of the Dresden Files for me?

I honestly feel that there is no longer any purpose in any Familicide threads, with or without Dresden Files spoilers. We can go around and around endlessly, and we will not change anyone's minds. Inevitably all such threads are doomed to be locked.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-06, 05:35 PM

I honestly feel that there is no longer any purpose in any Familicide threads, with or without Dresden Files spoilers. We can go around and around endlessly, and we will not change anyone's minds. Inevitably all such threads are doomed to be locked.
Then propose to the mods that familicide threads ought to be banned as surely as morally justified threads. Personally, I never saw much purpose in banning discussions of topics that are raised by the comic and which the author clearly wants us to think deeply about, but there you go.

Happy Gravity

2014-02-06, 05:42 PM

These aren't spoilers. Theres so much context removed from them that they actually give a false impression of actual events.
Spoilers without context are still spoilers, creating a set of expectations that wouldn't have been there otherwise. :/

LadyEowyn

2014-02-06, 05:46 PM

Keltest

2014-02-06, 05:55 PM

Spoilers without context are still spoilers, creating a set of expectations that wouldn't have been there otherwise. :/

Yeah, but theyre wrong. You aren't actually spoiling anything if you deliberately foster expectations of events that don't take place.

Man, do I feel pretentious now... too many big words.

Happy Gravity

2014-02-06, 06:10 PM

Yeah, but theyre wrong. You aren't actually spoiling anything if you deliberately foster expectations of events that don't take place.

Man, do I feel pretentious now... too many big words.
Those events *do* take place. The context is just different. Someone reading through Fool Moon, after reading that Dresden kills FBI Agents in this thread will go "Ah, so these are the guys he kills!" Once the Fallen are introduced, they will expect Dresden at some point to take up a coin.

Why? Well, that's still up in the air for that reader, but there's the expectation of an event that does happen later, that would not have been there otherwise. Which is a spoiler.

I'm using spoiler tags, which is kind of like closing the barn door after all the animals have escaped and prospered in the wild for several generations, but why not.

Keltest

2014-02-06, 06:12 PM

Those events *do* take place. The context is just different. Someone reading through Fool Moon, after reading that Dresden kills FBI Agents in this thread will go "Ah, so these are the guys he kills!"

Why? Well, that's still up in the air for that reader, but there's the expectation of an event that does happen later, that would not have been there otherwise. Which is a spoiler.

As for why I'm not using spoiler tags? Kind of like closing the barn door after all the animals have escaped and prospered in the wild for several generations.

Well not all of them are false, but if I were to say (and I feel confidant anyone continuing to read the conversation no longer cares about the spoilers, but ill do it anyway) that Dresden has a child with a red court vampire, its not at all what happens, even though the mother does become a red court vampire for all of 10 seconds.

Happy Gravity

2014-02-06, 06:15 PM

Keltest

2014-02-06, 06:20 PM

Ack, you caught my post before I edited. :smalltongue:

Besides that awkwardness, I really don't know what you mean by what you said. That's not on the out-of-context-without-spoiler-tags list in the original post, and as you've said it's flat-out not very accurate.

well for example "Starts wars over personal reasons."

its explicitly stated in just about every book since that he was deliberately set up to use as a scapegoat so the red court could start the war, to the point where the other VAMPIRES are going after some of their own who try to stop the war by killing Dresden.

Happy Gravity

2014-02-06, 06:26 PM

Keltest

2014-02-06, 06:31 PM

He still did "start" the war. He still made the decision, that first act of aggression in the context of politics in that world, regardless of how much he was set up to do it. The fact that it really wasn't his fault doesn't matter to our out-of-context first post, or to himself. I think.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I really lack the energy to push something so trivial as the exact definition on a spoiler, especially on a forum for something completely different.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-07, 01:21 AM

ReaderAt2046

2014-02-09, 08:55 AM

This particular part of the forum isn't for discussing the Dresden Files.

And while I have some issues with Jim Butcher's designation of genocide against the Red Court as A-OK (aside from creating a power vacuum), the situations are not comparable because Jim's pretty clear on the Red Court being Always Evil, whereas Rich is unequivocal on the idea that there is no such thing as Always Evil and that you can't decide a person deserves death based solely on their creature type. The in-universe morality of the two fictional works is not the same.

Actually, Rich does seem to endorse the Always Evil stereotype when applied to demons, and I believe depicting the Red Court as Always Evil is justified, considering that the only way to become Red Court is by killing another human being.

SavageWombat

2014-02-09, 11:32 PM

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 12:36 AM

I'd say that Dresden's thoughts and feelings on the subject of his "moral lapses" have been more-than-adequately explored. You don't always get to make the best, most righteous choice in the heat of the moment.

Which brings us right back to Vaarsuvius...
I'm pretty sure "the heat of the moment" had passed by the time the dragon was reduced to shredded bits of flesh.

RickDaily12

2014-02-10, 01:15 AM

I'm pretty sure "the heat of the moment" had passed by the time the dragon was reduced to shredded bits of flesh.

Hold it for a second.

This by no means excuses the extent to which Vaarsuvius performed this, but I'm seriously doubting your claim's implications here. In what way was that not in the heat of the moment?

That right there was a Dragon who V hadn't known for longer than all of minutes. In those minutes, it was revealed that the ABD was stalking hir, could kill hir, but chose to target hir family instead, while making it quite clear how easily deductible it was to do so beyond V's reach. The "Heat of the Moment" begins there, and as we saw, escalated quickly*. "How do I eliminate the threat of the dragon while ensuring the safety of my family" was that moment. Certainly, the death of the ABD removed the immediate threat against the family. But then again, how long passed between the threat being non-recognizable, to nearly impossible to stop? And given the Dragon's prior ties to V (or more to the point, complete lack there of), the idea that someone new could intrude to attack again so suddenly would always have to be at the back of your mind.

From the viewpoint of V, someone who finds security in guarenteed results, and in the position of power to ensure it, the method used to do it was outrageous, but the intentions there were undeniably understandable. "How do I ensure the safety of my family" has yet to be solved in hir mind. So- can you suppose an equally-foolproof less-costly way of reaching that end in V's spot at that point in time? Because if you spend longer than about 18 seconds, you've taken longer than V to reach that guaranteed outcome. Justifying the mass murders of several innocents based on color of scale was the evil and racist part of things. V makes it clear twice, though, that it never would have been done if the family wasn't threatened. You have one, obviously evil way of protecting your family (and it was in V's power to do so after promising the later forfeiture of soul), but could there have been another, safer, more benevolent way of ending that threat in V's ability to see it done in that way?

You make it sound as though in that instant of the dragon's death, V's worries over the family should have been quelled instantly, when it's quite obvious that a threat to them still existed at that time.

* - I also find it interesting to note that the IFCC didn't even suggest a feasible way of saving V's family without their usage all along. In their alternative, Q'arr was still used as a pawn in order to get things moving. This absolutely held no guarentee for either of V's wishes. There wasn't, and never ever were too many options at hir disposal after ABD's first attack.

theNater

2014-02-10, 02:40 AM

You have one, obviously evil way of protecting your family (and it was in V's power to do so after promising the later forfeiture of soul)...
This, right here, is the great lie of Familicide. The suggestion that the slaughter of the dragon's blood relatives will somehow protect Vaarsuvius' family, which consists of one spouse and two adopted children, from the family of the dragon. If anybody in the OotSverse knows that blood doesn't make family, Vaarsuvius does.

Instead of clearing out all possible threats, Familicide multiplies them; the spouses, adopted relatives, steprelatives, and friends of thousands now have legitimate grievances against Vaarsuvius. You ask for a better plan to protect those three elves? Do nothing. It is unlikely the dragon had more than a handful of living relatives who were close enough to her to seek vengeance; now even Elan has cause.

Rodin

2014-02-10, 03:18 AM

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 04:12 AM

I also think we have very different definitions of "in the heat of the moment". Stopping to talk to your spouse, make sure they are okay, and then go back to an already defeated opponent to raise them from the dead, taunt them with their failure, then gleefully commit genocide, then continue with the taunting...

V's blood was made of ice throughout that entire scene.
Pretty much this. "Heat of the moment" implies that one's emotions are running so high that one's actions aren't really under one's complete control. The "heat" in the idiom is the burning of the cheeks and earlobes caused by rapidly-flowing blood, which is itself indicative of the fight-or-flight response. As you so aptly point out, V's emotions ran completely the other way in the scene in question. Her actions were not hormonal, but calculated.

Aah, now this is beginning to feel like a real familicide thread.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 08:55 AM

Pretty much this. "Heat of the moment" implies that one's emotions are running so high that one's actions aren't really under one's complete control. The "heat" in the idiom is the burning of the cheeks and earlobes caused by rapidly-flowing blood, which is itself indicative of the fight-or-flight response. As you so aptly point out, V's emotions ran completely the other way in the scene in question. Her actions were not hormonal, but calculated.

Aah, now this is beginning to feel like a real familicide thread.

Im sorry but, regardless of the implications of the spell itself, the idea that because V was not flushed, he was not under pressure of any sort is ludicrous. He was still exerting enormous willpower maintaining the soul splices, and was under enormous time constraints what with his soul being sold based on the duration of the splice and all.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 10:03 AM

Im sorry but, regardless of the implications of the spell itself, the idea that because V was not flushed, he was not under pressure of any sort is ludicrous. He was still exerting enormous willpower maintaining the soul splices, and was under enormous time constraints what with his soul being sold based on the duration of the splice and all.
How does "being under pressure of some sort" or "exerting willpower" equate to "being so lost in one's emotions as to not be in control over one's actions?"

Keltest

2014-02-10, 10:16 AM

How does "being under pressure of some sort" or "exerting willpower" equate to "being so lost in one's emotions as to not be in control over one's actions?"

being "in the heat of the moment" does not mean unable to control oneself. It means that one will likely act on impulse, without thinking things through. Action is demanded NOW so they have to do it or bad things will happen. Its used as an excuse for doing stupid things because more often than not your first thought is not going to be your best idea.

Other comics show V literally freaking out when made to sit still doing nothing, literally screaming variations of "I have no time for this! go away puny mortals!" whenever people try to simply talk to him. He is clearly not sitting still and thinking about the possible consequences of doing things like relying on his worst save in order to maintain enough power to not die to Xykon.

SavageWombat

2014-02-10, 11:00 AM

How does "being under pressure of some sort" or "exerting willpower" equate to "being so lost in one's emotions as to not be in control over one's actions?"

Also, do not assume that we're arguing that V is not ultimately responsible for said actions. Just that his reasoning was impaired at the time.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 12:14 PM

Also, do not assume that we're arguing that V is not ultimately responsible for said actions. Just that his reasoning was impaired at the time.
Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the excuse of extreme emitonal disturbance. The problem I have is that for the excuse to come into play, there needs to actually be an emotional disturbance. "Being rushed" is not an emotional disturbance. Neither is "having to multitask" or "being stressed." You need more than that. If you want to argue that months of pent-up frustration culminated in massive overkill, I'd respond that the catharsis, the actual release of tension caused by personal triumph, the salvation of Inky and the kids, and the consequent lowering of the stakes came at the moment of the dragon's death. Everything afterwords was deliberate, gratuitous ego-stroking fueled not by extreme emotional disturbance, but by a studied intention to enjoy pain.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 12:42 PM

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the excuse of extreme emitonal disturbance. The problem I have is that for the excuse to come into play, there needs to actually be an emotional disturbance. "Being rushed" is not an emotional disturbance. Neither is "having to multitask" or "being stressed." You need more than that. If you want to argue that months of pent-up frustration culminated in massive overkill, I'd respond that the catharsis, the actual release of tension caused by personal triumph, the salvation of Inky and the kids, and the consequent lowering of the stakes came at the moment of the dragon's death. Everything afterwords was deliberate, gratuitous ego-stroking fueled not by extreme emotional disturbance, but by a studied intention to enjoy pain.

So you are suggesting that the moment the threat is ended, any and all emotions and feelings associated with that threat are instantly deactivated?

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 12:48 PM

So you are suggesting that the moment the threat is ended, any and all emotions and feelings associated with that threat are instantly deactivated?
I'm suggesting that in this specific case, the extreme emotional disturbance "need to vent my pent-up frustration on something" properly so called ended when the something in question was reduced to shredded bits of flesh. I am not prepared to call "need to go out of my way to enjoy the pain of others" an extreme emotional disturbance. It is a state of mind, to be sure, but it does not fall under the rubric of either "extreme disturbance," which implies gross deviation, in kind and not degree, from a person's normal behavior caused by some factor extrinsic to the base-state psyche of the person. As has been brought up in the dozens of familicide threads before this, Vaarsuvius likes [liked?] enjoying seeing those who have slighted her in pain, and she enjoys [enjoyed?] causing that pain. See Belkar, Miko, the orc parking attendant, etc.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 12:55 PM

I'm suggesting that in this specific case, the extreme emotional disturbance "need to vent my pent-up frustration on something" properly so called ended when the something in question was reduced to shredded bits of flesh. I am not prepared to call "need to go out of my way to enjoy the pain of others" an extreme emotional disturbance.

Then you are misinterpreting what has been said. The decision to cast familicide was a result of the emotional turbulence caused by V's utter impotence followed by a fate-worse-than-death threat to his family (plus being somewhat power drunk) causing V to act impulsively. Killing the dragons before they can continue the cycle is one of the simplest* ways to ensure the scenario wont repeat itself.

* Simple, not easy for most creatures.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 01:19 PM

Then you are misinterpreting what has been said. The decision to cast familicide was a result of the emotional turbulence caused by V's utter impotence followed by a fate-worse-than-death threat to his family (plus being somewhat power drunk) causing V to act impulsively. Killing the dragons before they can continue the cycle is one of the simplest* ways to ensure the scenario wont repeat itself.

* Simple, not easy for most creatures.
Being power drunk is not an emotional disturbance, it is [was?] V's base-state frame of mind. See Trigak. The threat to Inky and the kids raises a defense of others scenario besides the extreme emotional disturbance, and I hope we can all agree that the justification to use deadly force in a defense of others scenario ends when the threat to those others stops being imminent. Knocking down those two arguments leaves two remaining: that V was so disturbed emotionally by her ongoing "utter impotence" in the matter of finding Haley that this colored all her actions, even those that had no bearing on finding Haley, and that the threat to V's family both caused an extreme emotional disturbance in the first place and that said disturbance was ongoing at the time of familicide.

For the first, I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the disturbances "need to prove my non-utter impotence by finding Haley" and "need to vent my frustration at my utter impotence in the matter of finding Haley." Both stem from the same emotional place and differ only in their cathartic culmination. We can look to when V experienced some kind of catharsis, when she stopped feeling utterly impotent and frustrated at her utter impotence, in order to determine which she was actually feeling at the time. To me, the moment when she engages, never mind defeats, the dragon shows this catharsis. She is smilingly confident. She casts time stop and her buff routine not with the desperation with which she had used prismatic spray, but at complete ease. Her speech to Inky is not emotional, but clinical. Her "I still need to fix everything" after the fact comes off not as frustrated, but as almost wistful. The conclusion I draw is that V no longer feels frustrated and utterly impotent at this point. The fact that she becomes frustrated later is of no moment. The frustration comes from a different place: the universe's seeming conspiracy to prevent her from solving all the Order's problems with her power. But this is not an extreme emotional disturbance, but a logical outgrowth of the part of V's base-state personality that I outlined in the first sentence my first paragraph.

We don't need to address the question of whether the threat to V's family disturbed V, because we can reach the easier question of whether the disturbance, assuming it existed, was over at the time of familicide. If it was, there is no need to explain its genesis or resolution. V demonstrated in her dialogue that would render her emotional disturbance in the matter of her family ongoing: if Inky's injuries, or the kids', were immediately life-threatening. She appreciated that they were not well before casting familicide. Furthermore, when speaking to them, she treated them with the same cold, dismissive manner she had used in normal situations. I'm having trouble reconciling normal, base-state behavior with extreme emotional disturbance. If you want to argue that V was repressing her emotions, I'll accept that point, because an extreme emotional disturbance, practically by definition, can no longer be repressed. If V had her emotions under control, then they are not a mitigating excuse, no matter how strong they might have actually been.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 01:32 PM

Well yes, AFTER you smash everything into pieces and then smash those pieces into more pieces, youre going to feel significantly less impotent. Its sort of a side effect of all-consuming power.

But youre still missing the point. Especially with your comment about his personality before the dragon showed up, it was practically the same, except that his allies had NOT deliberately provoked V, and V had significantly less power (not to mention no rest). he threatened to kill Elan for having different priorities than him!

Im curious why youre unable to accept V being furious with the ABD and therefore was impulsive in his attempt to bring the hurt on and protect his family as a logical explanation. Yes, he stopped to make sure that his inaction wouldn't result in the death of his family anyway, but that doesn't mean that he felt he was done punishing the dragon and/or gloating.

Kish

2014-02-10, 01:36 PM

Im curious why youre unable to accept V being furious with the ABD and therefore was impulsive in his attempt to bring the hurt on and protect his family as a logical explanation.
I believe Zimmer's point is that a defense counsel who defended a charge of mass murder with, "Your Honor, my client was really angry at someone related to one of his victims" would be rightly laughed out of court.

Not that Vaarsuvius committed mass murder with a sense of Vulcanlike detachment--that would, indeed, seem to be significantly closer to the arguments of Vaarsuvius' defenders, the people who claim it was about "defending her/his family" rather than brutal vengeance.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 01:38 PM

I believe Zimmer's point is that a defense counsel who defended a charge of mass murder with, "Your Honor, my client was really angry at someone related to one of his victims" would be rightly laughed out of court.

Not that Vaarsuvius committed mass murder with a sense of Vulcanlike detachment--that would, indeed, seem to be significantly closer to the arguments of Vaarsuvius' defenders, the people who claim it was about "defending her/his family" rather than brutal vengeance.

Well then he/she outright ignored the "were not attributing justification, only motivation." bit earlier.

Kish

2014-02-10, 01:41 PM

You don't always get to make the best, most righteous choice in the heat of the moment.

Which brings us right back to Vaarsuvius...
If that is not intended to be a defense, I have to say that "mass murder based on anger and racism is not the best, most righteous choice" is taking understatement to the point of parody.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 01:43 PM

If that is not intended to be a defense, I have to say that "mass murder based on anger and racism is not the best, most righteous choice" is taking understatement to the point of parody.

I will not even pretend I am capable of understanding when people on the internet turn sarcasm and/or hyperbole mode on or off mid paragraph anymore. I just wont.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 01:46 PM

Well yes, AFTER you smash everything into pieces and then smash those pieces into more pieces, youre going to feel significantly less impotent. Its sort of a side effect of all-consuming power.
And if your emotional disturbance is caused by frustration at impotence, a cathartic display of power leading to feeling less impotent would tend to diminish your emotional disturbance, no?

But youre still missing the point. Especially with your comment about his personality before the dragon showed up, it was practically the same, except that his allies had NOT deliberately provoked V, and V had significantly less power (not to mention no rest). he threatened to kill Elan for having different priorities than him!
How is this relevant? We've already established together that V was emotionally disturbed in some way at the time she engaged the dragon. Where we differ is the degree to which she was disturbed (was it extreme or not?) and when the disturbance ended. How does bringing up factors contributing to the disturbance establish that end-point?

Im curious why youre unable to accept V being furious with the ABD and therefore was impulsive in his attempt to bring the hurt on and protect his family as a logical explanation. Yes, he stopped to make sure that his inaction wouldn't result in the death of his family anyway, but that doesn't mean that he felt he was done punishing the dragon and/or gloating.
Stop conflating different terms. Extreme emotional disturbance is 1) caused by exposure to extremely unusual and overwhelming stress (I think we can agree that V was exposed to such) and 2) characterized by extreme emotional reaction leading to a loss of self-control, the overbearing of reason by extreme, intense feelings, and the failure of a person's usual intellectual controls. "Impulsiveness" implies ill-considered, hasty decision-making, not decision-making characterized by "overborne reason." Are you prepared to argue that V's reason was overborne at the time she cast familicide? I don't see it. I see V employing her "usual intellectual controls" to suppress her emotions when addressing Inky. I'm not sure it's even possible to cast wizard spells when one's reason is overborne by intense emotion; that sounds like a description of the enraged condition or the rage spell to me.

SavageWombat

2014-02-10, 02:46 PM

If that is not intended to be a defense, I have to say that "mass murder based on anger and racism is not the best, most righteous choice" is taking understatement to the point of parody.

Considering that our legal system (well, here in the US) makes a direct distinction between murder in the heat of the moment, and cold-blooded premeditated murder, I think it's relevant.

Kish

2014-02-10, 02:48 PM

Considering that our legal system (well, here in the US) makes a direct distinction between murder in the heat of the moment, and cold-blooded premeditated murder, I think it's relevant.
I am unfortunately not allowed to respond to that here. (Or at all certain you're allowed to say it here. :smalltongue:) So I'll just say that I agree with Zimmer for...some reason which I cannot explain.

SavageWombat

2014-02-10, 03:00 PM

I am unfortunately not allowed to respond to that here. (Or at all certain you're allowed to say it here. :smalltongue:) So I'll just say that I agree with Zimmer for...some reason which I cannot explain.

If you think my statement was forbidden territory, then I submit that line was crossed a good page or two ago and the thread should probably end.

At least it had a fair warning from the outset.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 03:00 PM

Considering that our legal system (well, here in the US) makes a direct distinction between murder in the heat of the moment, and cold-blooded premeditated murder, I think it's relevant.
I haven't heard of this "US," but here in the Independent Republic of Lake Wobegon, killing in self-defense, in defense of others, in the heat of passion or under the effects of extreme emotional disturbance is not murder. Which is rather the point.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 03:02 PM

I haven't heard of this "US," but here in the Independent Republic of Lake Wobegon, killing in self-defense, in defense of others, in the heat of passion or under the effects of extreme emotional disturbance is not murder. Which is rather the point.

Well, assuming that lethal action wasn't a massive overreaction of course.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-10, 04:09 PM

I haven't heard of this "US," but here in the Independent Republic of Lake Wobegon, killing in self-defense, in defense of others, in the heat of passion or under the effects of extreme emotional disturbance is not murder. Which is rather the point.

I think I have heard of this Lake Wobegon place. Correct me if I am wrong, zimmerwald, but doesn't that mythical place require someone acting in self-defense or defense of others to stop using lethal force once the threat is subdued? For example if one were to cast Sleep on a home intruder, one would be constrained from coup de grace-ing said sleeping intruder, but would need to restrain him with strong rope (50' hempen, or silken) until the constable and his men arrive? To do otherwise, and coup de grace the sleeping home intruder, would not that be considered manslaughter or even murder, since the intruder is now rendered helpless? :smallconfused:

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 04:13 PM

I think I have heard of this Lake Wobegon place. Correct me if I am wrong, zimmerwald, but doesn't that mythical place require someone acting in self-defense or defense of others to stop using lethal force once the threat is subdued? For example if one were to cast Sleep on a home intruder, one would be constrained from coup de grace-ing said sleeping intruder, but would need to restrain him with strong rope (50' hempen, or silken) until the constable and his men arrive? To do otherwise, and coup de grace the sleeping home intruder, would not that be considered manslaughter or even murder, since the intruder is now rendered helpless? :smallconfused:
Let me answer your question with a question. Would the killing of someone who had at one time presented but is at the time of the killing no longer presenting an imminent deadly threat or imminent threat of bodily harm to yourself or someone else still be killing in self-defense or defense of others?

Keltest

2014-02-10, 04:18 PM

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-10, 04:24 PM

Let me answer your question with a question. Would the killing of someone who had at one time presented but is at the time of the killing no longer presenting an imminent deadly threat or imminent threat of bodily harm to yourself or someone else still be killing in self-defense or defense of others?

Ah, but that raises other questions. How many minutes or seconds after the threat is peacefully neutralized was said former threat attacked and slain? Was the killer aware that the threat was no longer a threat? And if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the killer was aware that the threat was no longer a threat to life and limb and that he was no longer acting in self-defense, would the killer be punished as severely as one who murders with intent?

Indeed there are many questions that can be raised, but in Vaarsuvius' case, she was wholly justified in killing the Ancient Black Dragon to defend her family (even if she did go overboard with eating the ABD's flesh). But afterwards the ABD was dead, and there was no sign of imminent reprisal. What V did was for vengeance, plain and simple, no matter that she was speaking of preventing reprisals. There were lots of ways to prevent a reprisal against V's family that didn't include "Step 2: Genocide".

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 04:34 PM

Ah, but that raises other questions. How many minutes or seconds after the threat is peacefully neutralized was said former threat attacked and slain? Was the killer aware that the threat was no longer a threat? And if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the killer was aware that the threat was no longer a threat to life and limb and that he was no longer acting in self-defense, would the killer be punished as severely as one who murders with intent?

Indeed there are many questions that can be raised, but in Vaarsuvius' case, she was wholly justified in killing the Ancient Black Dragon to defend her family (even if she did go overboard with eating the ABD's flesh). But afterwards the ABD was dead, and there was no sign of imminent reprisal.
Is there a point to this tangent? We agree that the dragons killed by familicide did not present any kind of imminent threat to Inky, the kids, or V herself.

What V did was for vengeance, plain and simple, no matter that she was speaking of preventing reprisals. There were lots of ways to prevent a reprisal against V's family that didn't include "Step 2: Genocide".
Er, yes. This ought to go without saying. This was also not what the argument about mitigating excuses for killing was about. That argument was about whether V's emotional state overbore her reason at the time familicide was cast. I don't think anyone claimed that V's need for to cause the dragon as much pain as possible ever overbore her reason. Which is not to say that she did not feel such an emotion. She most certainly did. She simply reasoned out the best way to cause the dragon as much pain as possible, and executed it with rational self-control.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 04:42 PM

Is there a point to this tangent? We agree that the dragons killed by familicide did not present any kind of imminent threat to Inky, the kids, or V herself.

Er, yes. This ought to go without saying. This was also not what the argument about mitigating excuses for killing was about. That argument was about whether V's emotional state overbore her reason at the time familicide was cast. I don't think anyone claimed that V's need for to cause the dragon as much pain as possible ever overbore her reason. Which is not to say that she did not feel such an emotion. She most certainly did. She simply reasoned out the best way to cause the dragon as much pain as possible, and executed it with rational self-control.

In retrospect, from the perspective of a dead dragon, there were a lot worse things V could have done, the least of which would be keeping the head animated and impotent forever. While he manages to irk off Tiamat pretty well, presumably the dragons have some sort of afterlife for them in Tiamat's domain (wherever that is) that isn't unpleasant and the ABD gets to reunite with her son. Plus, its not like Every dragon is personally acquainted with every other dragon that shares a distant relation with it.

It seems to me like it was roughly the equivalent of nuking, say, all of Europe because a relative happened to live there. Tragic, terrible and monstrous, but not especially personal.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-10, 04:48 PM

Er, yes. This ought to go without saying. This was also not what the argument about mitigating excuses for killing was about. That argument was about whether V's emotional state overbore her reason at the time familicide was cast. I don't think anyone claimed that V's need for to cause the dragon as much pain as possible ever overbore her reason. Which is not to say that she did not feel such an emotion. She most certainly did. She simply reasoned out the best way to cause the dragon as much pain as possible, and executed it with rational self-control.

In the author commentary in DStP Rich says that when V originally killed the YABD she didn't think twice about the other, older dragon living in the cave, because she viewed Dragons as monsters to kill for XP and treasure. After the ABD came and threatened V's family, V's attitude shifted to: "Now I must wipe out all of the ones who might attack!" V was still looking at Dragons as monsters to be killed, only this time she was lashing out at thousands with one spell. It was only when she arrived in the Draketooth Pyramid that V was able to see the wrong she had done in assuming that all of those creatures were Evil and that V deserved to be the arbiter of their fate.

V wasn't acting from some state of emotional confusion; she was acting from anger, bigotry and a desire to protect her family, which combined with Haerta to spell genocide.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 05:07 PM

In retrospect, from the perspective of a dead dragon, there were a lot worse things V could have done, the least of which would be keeping the head animated and impotent forever. While he manages to irk off Tiamat pretty well, presumably the dragons have some sort of afterlife for them in Tiamat's domain (wherever that is) that isn't unpleasant and the ABD gets to reunite with her son. Plus, its not like Every dragon is personally acquainted with every other dragon that shares a distant relation with it.

It seems to me like it was roughly the equivalent of nuking, say, all of Europe because a relative happened to live there. Tragic, terrible and monstrous, but not especially personal.
You might want to re-tune your calibration to match the dragon's actual character. Her mate had been slain by adventurers to make a suit of armor, and she took that personally. Her son was killing in his home by adventurers, and she took that personally. She spent a great deal of gold (that she would have had to gather anew, since the Order stole her hoard) tracking down the person responsible to punish personally. And she did it by attacking that person's family. Clearly family meant a great deal to her. Attacking her family specifically, as far and wide as possible, was the best way V knew how to cause her pain. Look at her reaction just before V was about to cast. She was desperate, surrendering even, to a contemptible, fragile, pointy-eared monkey. She plead for their lives, and her pleas went unanswered. Afterwords she is barely coherent, as V monologues to her about how her family's death is all her fault. V then sends her back to the afterlife to face them, now having to bear that guilt, forever. You say V could have given her a fate worse than death? That's what she got.

V wasn't acting from some state of emotional confusion; she was acting from anger, bigotry and a desire to protect her family, which combined with Haerta to spell genocide.
You do know you're preaching to the choir, right? I am arguing that V was, at the time she cast familicide, in rational control over her actions. "Not acting from emotional confusion" is practically indistinguishable from "in rational control over one's actions."

Keltest

2014-02-10, 05:12 PM

You might want to re-tune your calibration to match the dragon's actual character. Her mate had been slain by adventurers to make a suit of armor, and she took that personally. Her son was killing in his home by adventurers, and she took that personally. She spent a great deal of gold (that she would have had to gather anew, since the Order stole her hoard) tracking down the person responsible to punish personally. And she did it by attacking that person's family. Clearly family meant a great deal to her. Attacking her family specifically, as far and wide as possible, was the best way V knew how to cause her pain. Look at her reaction just before V was about to cast. She was desperate, surrendering even, to a contemptible, fragile, pointy-eared monkey. She plead for their lives, and her pleas went unanswered. Afterwords she is barely coherent, as V monologues to her about how her family's death is all her fault. V then sends her back to the afterlife to face them, now having to bear that guilt, forever. You say V could have given her a fate worse than death? That's what she got.

The guilt would be undermined a lot by Tiamat it(?)self chewing out the IFCC for causing the familicide. And even then, we have no idea to what degree the ABD regarded most of the other dragons. Yes, family was clearly important, but all we know for sure about how far that extended is that she cared about her mate and son.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 05:38 PM

The guilt would be undermined a lot by Tiamat it(?)self chewing out the IFCC for causing the familicide. And even then, we have no idea to what degree the ABD regarded most of the other dragons. Yes, family was clearly important, but all we know for sure about how far that extended is that she cared about her mate and son.
We also know that she considered family important enough to try and hurt someone else as much as possible by targeting their family. She clearly hadn't derived the knowledge that targeting V's family would hurt V from personal observation. Every direct observation she could conceivably have made of V would have argued against that conclusion. She was distant from everyone she interacted with, invariably spoke coldly towards them, and never failed to dismiss their concerns. She could have asked the Oracle, but as far as we know the Oracle is not an expert at providing psychological profiles. To me it seems clear that she was projecting what would hurt her the most and assuming it would also hurt V the most.

What makes you think the dragon would be privy to Tiamat's call to Director Lee? Or that she'd necessarily feel any less guilty in her heart of hearts? Or that Tiamat would talk to her at all? Or that Tiamat wouldn't agree with Vaarsuvius? By chewing out Director Lee, she demonstrated the she doesn't only blame Vaarsuvius for what happened.

Keltest

2014-02-10, 05:46 PM

We also know that she considered family important enough to try and hurt someone else as much as possible by targeting their family. She clearly hadn't derived the knowledge that targeting V's family would hurt V from personal observation. Every direct observation she could conceivably have made of V would have argued against that conclusion. She was distant from everyone she interacted with, invariably spoke coldly towards them, and never failed to dismiss their concerns. She could have asked the Oracle, but as far as we know the Oracle is not an expert at providing psychological profiles. To me it seems clear that she was projecting what would hurt her the most and assuming it would also hurt V the most.

What makes you think the dragon would be privy to Tiamat's call to Director Lee? Or that she'd necessarily feel any less guilty in her heart of hearts? Or that Tiamat would talk to her at all? Or that Tiamat wouldn't agree with Vaarsuvius? By chewing out Director Lee, she demonstrated the she doesn't only blame Vaarsuvius for what happened.

She could have asked the oracle "how can I make V hurt the most?" (not literally using that phrasing of course).

Anyway, its all speculation at this point. While the dragon was observing V and had the oracle available, theres little to no indication that the ABD cares about dragons outside her immediate family.

I think weve run into a dead end in the conversation. Unless you see something that I don't, were arguing "what ifs" at each other, and while its interesting I don't think it actually furthers a point.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-10, 05:59 PM

I think weve run into a dead end in the conversation. Unless you see something that I don't, were arguing "what ifs" at each other, and while its interesting I don't think it actually furthers a point.
Fair enough. Til the next thread, then?

Keltest

2014-02-10, 06:02 PM

Fair enough. Til the next thread, then?

indeed

/handshake

SavageWombat

2014-02-11, 12:44 AM

I submit that strip 944 teaches that the correct answer to the whole question is "boy, that's really too big a question for any human to really answer".

This may be directed at the forum.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-11, 12:53 AM

I submit that strip 944 teaches that the correct answer to the whole question is "boy, that's really too big a question for any human to really answer".

This may be directed at the forum.
Conversely, Roy lays out two visceral responses a reasonable person might be expected to have: outrage and horror.

oppyu

2014-02-11, 01:01 AM

If people start arguing about Roy's reaction to Familicide, would it still be a Familicide argument?

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-11, 01:02 AM

If people start arguing about Roy's reaction to Familicide, would it still be a Familicide argument?
Sure, why not? We already argue about the Directors' reactions, Tiamat's reactions, Vaarsuvius' reactions, Blackwing's reactions, and each other's reactions. What's one more? :smallbiggrin:

Keltest

2014-02-11, 07:43 AM

Sure, why not? We already argue about the Directors' reactions, Tiamat's reactions, Vaarsuvius' reactions, Blackwing's reactions, and each other's reactions. What's one more? :smallbiggrin:

Heck, we even argued about the dragon's reactions there for a bit. It would be rude to exclude people now.

Sir_Leorik

2014-02-11, 10:46 AM

The guilt would be undermined a lot by Tiamat it(?)self chewing out the IFCC for causing the familicide.

By chewing out Director Lee, she demonstrated the she doesn't only blame Vaarsuvius for what happened.

Tiamat chewed out Director Lee (possibly both metaphorically and literally) because without the soul splice V would not have been able to wipe out 1/4 of the planet's Black Dragon population. As far as Tiamat was concerned, the IFCC Directors gave nuclear launch codes to a small child and told her how to press the buttons and turn the keys.

Conversely, Roy lays out two visceral responses a reasonable person might be expected to have: outrage and horror.

I think Roy's reaction is more one of shock than outrage. Familicide is just too big for him to comprehend. Maybe if he were to spend some time contemplating it he'd be able to move on to outrage, but he's stuck at shocked and horrified right now.

Ghost Nappa

2014-02-11, 11:37 AM

1) It was no pre-meditated on Vaarsuvius' part. I do not believe Vaarsuvius planned to cast Familicide before fighting the ABD, but I consent that Vaarsuvius was level-headed for enough time for zir actions to be pre-meditated.

Allow me to clarify, because I will likely get **** for saying it even if I do. Between the kill of the ABD in #638 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) and Familicide on #639 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) there's only five panels that show Vaarsuvius' shift from "defense of family" to "preemptive removal of future hostilities," starting from,

:vaarsuvius: "Good. Because I am not done with the dragon" (in Panel 5.)

I do not think Vaarsuvius actively planned to use that spell immediately and sort of just pieced the thing together following the victory. It was the equivalent mindset of getting into a street fight, beating the guy up, and kicking them in the face and ribs while they are defenseless and weak. But with a totally different scale.

2) Roy's response is intended to be both the intended response to Familicide.

The Giant has made it very clear on multiple occasions that genocide is inexcusably evil. Roy's reaction in #944 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0944.html) is intended to show the difficulties of discussing the subject - especially when the murderer is 1) your friend 2) repentant 3) would take it back if they could. The issues, implications, and problems caused by a single action with the huge impact that it has means no one can afford to underestimate the scale involved. But there is almost no one qualified to vouch on the subject, something which Roy is more than forward about.

:roy: I'm the the guy who hits things, not a philosopher...This...am I supposed to be mad at you? Or just horrified?

3) Tiamat's reaction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html). I just thought of this today. If the Oracle knew what Vaarsuvius would do, and the Oracle sees the future because of Tiamat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html), why did Tiamat not try to either 1) prevent the tragedy or 2) Warn the ABD (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html)? I am stumped right now on this issue.

4) We like talking about it.

There's no other reason why despite having multiple locked threads from discussion of this spell that we continue to discuss it to the point where it becomes necessary to stick the word "WARNING" in Capital letters across the title. Kind of a morbid obsession.

Aside:

Ironically, even though Vaarsuvius cast Familicide intending to prevent future retribution from claiming zir family, Vaarsuvius lost them to zir own hubris (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html).

Also, I think the Oracle only likes Haley and Elan now.

Kish

2014-02-11, 11:43 AM

It is unambiguous that Vaarsuvius did not, two seconds after s/he was born, think, "One day, I will slaughter many dragons with one spell!" It was not premeditated in that the amount of time Vaarsuvius planned to do it was limited. It is equally unambiguous that Vaarsuvius did not cast Familicide on a living dragon during a battle.

On another note, I wish people would stop speaking as though Vaarsuvius' feeble excuse for torturing the ancient black dragon was gospel truth. Vaarsuvius did not lose her/his family by trying to defend them. Vaarsuvius lost her/his family by showing how brutally sadistic s/he truly was in front of them. S/he didn't need to be transported by uncontrollable rage to chortle about "a silent symphony I cannot share" while forcefeeding cat poop to one Acceptable Target and s/he didn't need to be transported by uncontrollable rage to slaughter dozens or hundreds of Acceptable Targets.

Ghost Nappa

2014-02-11, 12:10 PM

I am uncertain if this is directed at me specifically, but I feel that it is given the word choice and time between them. So, responses are bolded.

It was not premeditated in that the amount of time Vaarsuvius planned to do it was limited.

You have phrased it far better than I did.

On another note, I wish people would stop speaking as though Vaarsuvius' feeble excuse for torturing the ancient black dragon was gospel truth. Vaarsuvius did not lose her/his family by trying to defend them. Vaarsuvius lost her/his family by showing how brutally sadistic s/he truly was in front of them.

I am not in disagreement with this. I have however forgotten the word "intending" in my previous post, which is a crucial distinction. Revising...

S/he didn't need to be transported by uncontrollable rage to chortle about "a silent symphony I cannot share" while forcefeeding cat poop to one Acceptable Target and s/he didn't need to be transported by uncontrollable rage to slaughter dozens or hundreds of Acceptable Targets.

zimmerwald1915

2014-02-11, 04:05 PM

I think Roy's reaction is more one of shock than outrage. Familicide is just too big for him to comprehend. Maybe if he were to spend some time contemplating it he'd be able to move on to outrage, but he's stuck at shocked and horrified right now.
I did not say anything about Roy's actual reaction. I said Roy laid out two reactions a reasonable person might be expected to have. Put another way, Roy imagines that most people, upon hearing V's off-panel speech, would feel either outrage or horror. I don't think this is an inaccurate imagining.

1) It was no pre-meditated on Vaarsuvius' part.
This whole point is simply a meditation on the question of how long pre-meditation takes. The only actions we can know for certain not to be premeditated are actions like reflexes which don't involve the reasoning parts of the brain. Any longer period of time chosen is bound to be arbitrary. This suggests that we look not to time period, but to state of mind. Which brings us back to reason being overborne by something else. Do you think Vaarsuvius was not rational, that is, governed to no extent by reason, at the time she cast the spell?

theNater

2014-02-11, 04:08 PM

I do not think Vaarsuvius actively planned to use that spell immediately and sort of just pieced the thing together following the victory. It was the equivalent mindset of getting into a street fight, beating the guy up, and kicking them in the face and ribs while they are defenseless and weak.
This metaphor misses a step. After beating the guy up, our attacker paused briefly to tell a third party of the intent to kick the guy while he's down, then kicked the guy.

That's premeditation; the fact that it was premeditated only by seconds rather than hours or days is irrelevant.

3) Tiamat's reaction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html). I just thought of this today. If the Oracle knew what Vaarsuvius would do, and the Oracle sees the future because of Tiamat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html), why did Tiamat not try to either 1) prevent the tragedy or 2) Warn the ABD (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html)? I am stumped right now on this issue.
It is not unheard of for dieties in fiction to be able to grant abilities to their followers that they themselves do not have. It's possible Tiamat simply can't see the future.

allenw

2014-02-11, 04:34 PM

It is not unheard of for dieties in fiction to be able to grant abilities to their followers that they themselves do not have. It's possible Tiamat simply can't see the future.

And if she could, she still couldn't do anything to prevent it, in a setting such as this (apparently).

WindStruck

2014-02-11, 07:17 PM

As with all these morality debates, context is key. That is, the circumstances leading up to said questionable events and the intentions of the actions. This is a nice piece of slander on Harry Dresden.

Ghost Nappa

2014-02-11, 10:37 PM

This whole point is simply a meditation on the question of how long pre-meditation takes. The only actions we can know for certain not to be premeditated are actions like reflexes which don't involve the reasoning parts of the brain. Any longer period of time chosen is bound to be arbitrary. This suggests that we look not to time period, but to state of mind. Which brings us back to reason being overborne by something else. Do you think Vaarsuvius was not rational, that is, governed to no extent by reason, at the time she cast the spell?

That's premeditation; the fact that it was premeditated only by seconds rather than hours or days is irrelevant.

Both fair points. I chose the term "pre-meditation" because of it's association with murder and killing, but the only thing I am convinced of is that V did not have the intention of committing genocide before the fight. The debate on this issue is a bit moot since there is a total lack of evidence either way and I retract the terminology I have attempted to use to express my thoughts in response to the text I have boldened from zimmer. I find it to be a satisfactory counter-argument. Striking text in previous post...