A New Vaarsuvius Redemption thread

[SavageWombat]

Too much Vaarsuvius in the sticky thread.

One topic in the 944 thread is whether V can find redemption at all for his crime. Feel free to continue this.

My question to be added: Is it necessary for purposes of the storyline, either the main or simply V's personal arc, for this question to be resolved at all?

If we got to the final page of the last book, and V said "well, I'm off to continue wearing hair-shirts and trying to atone for my crimes" - or V dies trying to save the world - would the readership (and the author) feel the story element had served its purpose?

Maybe Rich just sees this sub-plot as the logical consequences of a more-or-less amoral character who values power more than anything.

[AKA_Bait]

Redemption is a rare and special thing. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) So, yes, as part of V's arc I think we will see him/her redeemed. Roy does have a point, basically the same point Soon makes, about acknowledging the mistake and actively trying to make it right.

I think V's redemption is the logical character development for a non-evil character who mistook power for an ends, when it is actually just a means.

[NerdyKris]

I would be seriously bothered by having a character essentially turning to the reader and saying "Yup, Vaarsuvius is redeemed now!".

Roy is right. Vaarsuvius committed a crime that is simply unfathomable. It would do a massive disservice to the story to boil it down to "Well, V did X, so it balances out the intentional and unintentional murder of thousands of sentient creatures.". That's a judgment best left to the reader.

And I can't really imagine any scenario where Vaarsuvius gets to say "Okay! All done, I can stop feeling guilty now!". Again, the crime was too great. All Vaarsuvius can do is live with it and try to mitigate the damage. Not everything needs to be wrapped up neatly in a story. Sometimes the "ending" is simply that the character goes on living their life. We don't need to see his final judgment for the story to be over, and I think showing it would make the story weaker no matter what the decision.

[Smolder]

:roy: On the one hand, what you did was irredeemably evil. On the other hand, our weak-willed team would never have made it through a pyramid full of homicidal illusionists. So, assuming we defeat Xykon, we owe it all to Familicide.

[Muenster Man]

Personally, I'd prefer it if the answer stayed ambiguous. The question of whether or not V can be redeemed may be too big to resolve in the comic. If V isn't redeemed after trying, it could easily come off as saying "no matter how hard you try or how remorseful you are, some actions can never be redeemed," and that may be a pretty bleak conclusion, especially after Roy said "trying counts for a lot." Alternatively, if V does get redeemed through a lot of effort, it might trivialize mass genocide by putting some quantitative weight to that action that can be balanced out with enough Good. Kind of like a simple numerical Karma system from modern games.

Either way, the story runs the risk of giving an easy answer. If we got a scene similar to where the Deva was assessing Roy's actions and gave a definitive answer, it might feel like a cheap resolution. But then again, The Giant has impressed me with a lot of his writing, especially in the latter half of this comic. If he has an answer planned, it'll probably be worth including.

Edit: NerdyKris said it better than I could

Editx2:
:roy: On the one hand, what you did was irredeemably evil. On the other hand, our weak-willed team would never have made it through a pyramid full of homicidal illusionists. So, assuming we defeat Xykon, we owe it all to Familicide.
Uhh, I'm not sure that Roy would say that :smalleek: Also, if the illusionists were still there, there's still at least a small chance that they could at least have come to a compromise before they ever reached that illusion. It's unlikely, but it's probably more likely than Roy seeing that silver lining and claiming Familicide was necessary for saving the world.

[Amphiox]

The storyline can satisfactorily end with V in the process of seeking redemption, without telling us whether she has or will achieve it. The denouement can have V going off into the sunset on a lifelong quest to redeem himself.

The storyline can satisfactorily end with V making an enormous sacrifice and dying that helps save the world, leaving the every member of the audience to decide for themselves if that is or is not enough to have redeemed her.

The storyline can satisfactorily end with V failing to atone, saying "f-it, I'm embracing evil now", and having the Order or someone else having to put her down.

In essence, the narrative doesn't require V's redemption storyline to be resolved to reach a satisfactory conclusion, it merely needs it to be addressed.

[Kruploy]

Redemption? V isn't evil, a single act, no matter how devastating does not make a person evil. In his anger, V simply acted rashly and lashed out. It just so happened that he was in possession of a supreme amount of power at the same moment.

His reaction wasn't all that different from a man protecting his family against a very real and lethal danger. An example would be a teenager protecting his mom from a robber and killing the robber in the process in the heat of the moment.

The point is, V isn't evil. He is not actively malicious or wishing to do harm or even excessively ruthless. He even displayed deep remorse for the big F.

If you really think that the above is no excuse for his actions, look no further than what he is trying to accomplish with Roy and the party. V selflessly risks life and limb fighting against an extremely powerfu evil lich sorceror and his giant army despite not even being promised a reward. If he succeeds he will have saved the world and every being on it, that is more than enough to make up for the body count of Familicide.

[Liliet]

OK, I'll ask it here.

What is redemption?

Definitions, please.

[Rakoa]

OK, I'll ask it here.

What is redemption?

Definitions, please.

Here you go! (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=redemption+definition)

[Kruploy]

Here you go! (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=redemption+definition)

{SCRUBBED}

[Liliet]

Here you go! (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=redemption+definition)

Ok, so your definition of redemption is "google it". Accepted.

Will Vaarsuvius ever google it? Or will ve forever stay ignorant? The discussion is started!


(Seriously though, I didn't mean that I didn't know what redemption was. I just wanted people to post their own definitions, because they could be pretty different or be undetermined at all. In other words, I love semantics arguments. They often make a lot more sense than the arguments they originate from)

[Gift Jeraff]

I would be seriously bothered by having a character essentially turning to the reader and saying "Yup, Vaarsuvius is redeemed now!".

Roy is right. Vaarsuvius committed a crime that is simply unfathomable. It would do a massive disservice to the story to boil it down to "Well, V did X, so it balances out the intentional and unintentional murder of thousands of sentient creatures.". That's a judgment best left to the reader.

And I can't really imagine any scenario where Vaarsuvius gets to say "Okay! All done, I can stop feeling guilty now!". Again, the crime was too great. All Vaarsuvius can do is live with it and try to mitigate the damage. Not everything needs to be wrapped up neatly in a story. Sometimes the "ending" is simply that the character goes on living their life. We don't need to see his final judgment for the story to be over, and I think showing it would make the story weaker no matter what the decision.

Took the words out of my keyboard.

[mucat]

Redemption? V isn't evil...
That's not the point.

Someone doesn't have to be evil-aligned to need redemption. V committed a horrendous crime, and has to figure out how to live with that knowledge. (Or whether it is even possible to try.)

And I would say that for a crime of that magnitude, the question of redemption is one that can't be resolved, only tackled again every day of V's life. If V were ever able to say "I'm at peace with myself now," then it's a peace she doesn't deserve. The people she killed are still dead. There's no way to repay that debt to them. But if she doesn't keep trying to make those impossible payments, it's even worse.

Life does go on (if you're unrelated to the ABD, anyway.) After a while, V will spend less time thinking about her crime, and more thinking about the good works she's engaged in. It could be a good life, with times of real and deserved happiness. But she'll never earn the right to call the debt redeemed.

[Rakoa]

Seriously though, I didn't mean that I didn't know what redemption was. I just wanted people to post their own definitions, because they could be pretty different or be undetermined at all. In other words, I love semantics arguments. They often make a lot more sense than the arguments they originate from

Ahh, yeah, don't worry, I was just being a smartass. You can't argue about redemption until someone defines the term, otherwise you get people responding to arguments about different things entirely.

Edit: For example, see above. Kruploy seems to think that redemption is changing your alignment from Evil to something else, whereas Mucat seems to think that redemption is atoning for a misdeed.

So in short, I agree with you. Definitions would help this debate progress, if you ask me.

[jere7my]

OK, I'll ask it here.

What is redemption?

Definitions, please.

There is no such thing as redemption in a vacuum. A character can only be redeemed in someone's eyes, whether it's their god's, an arbiter of their alignment's afterlife, their friends', their victims', the audience's, the author's, their own...they can't just get to a point and say "I am objectively redeemed." It's always up to someone else.

If they're seeking redemption according to a god or an archon, then they get to set whatever arbitrary tasks they like. If we're talking about what the audience thinks, everyone will have their own standards. If we're talking about getting to the end of the story and everyone earning rewards or penalties proportional to their moral standing, then the story is a morality play, and less interesting to me personally.

[Vinyadan]

There is no such thing as redemption in a vacuum. A character can only be redeemed in someone's eyes, whether it's their god's, an arbiter of their alignment's afterlife, their friends', their victims', the audience's, the author's, their own...they can't just get to a point and say "I am objectively redeemed." It's always up to someone else.

If they're seeking redemption according to a god or an archon, then they get to set whatever arbitrary tasks they like. If we're talking about what the audience thinks, everyone will have their own standards. If we're talking about getting to the end of the story and everyone earning rewards or penalties proportional to their moral standing, then the story is a morality play, and less interesting to me personally.

i very much agree with the need of an external entity to redeem v. after all, it was the daeva who declared the elan&bandits case solved.
the latin verb redimere from which the action name redemptio comes litterally means to buy back. it was used a.e. when someone bought a slave's freedom back. the redimer is the one who pays to give you back your freedom from your sins or hell or death itself. the fact that v's sin cannot be paid by himself (how do you even pay satisfactorily for a sin, if you cannot put things back together) requires someone to make a jump and somehow act for him. will it happen? will his victims or gods purge him of his sins?
and now, the weather forecast!:smallbiggrin:

[Loreweaver15]

Zimmerwald/Kish in five!

Four!

Three!

[zimmerwald1915]

Zimmerwald/Kish in five!

Four!

Three!
Since you asked...

I share Amphiox's position. Nothing about the story of The Order of the Stick demands any kind of resolution to V's arc, such as it is.

[SavageWombat]

There is no such thing as redemption in a vacuum. A character can only be redeemed in someone's eyes, whether it's their god's, an arbiter of their alignment's afterlife, their friends', their victims', the audience's, the author's, their own...they can't just get to a point and say "I am objectively redeemed." It's always up to someone else.

If they're seeking redemption according to a god or an archon, then they get to set whatever arbitrary tasks they like. If we're talking about what the audience thinks, everyone will have their own standards. If we're talking about getting to the end of the story and everyone earning rewards or penalties proportional to their moral standing, then the story is a morality play, and less interesting to me personally.

I had never considered this before, and I think you're absolutely right. Maybe we need a "Things People Other than Rich Said" archive.

[Keltest]

Since you asked...

I share Amphiox's position. Nothing about the story of The Order of the Stick demands any kind of resolution to V's arc, such as it is.

Just to be completely contrary to our normal friendly debate, I agree. Redemption is not a quantifiable thing. The closest we will ever see is if V goes out of his way to be good during the remaining books.

[Kish]

Did someone express interest in what it would take for me to consider Vaarsuvius to have atoned for the mass murder?

I am afraid all I can say is, "I'll know it when I see it." Rich may declare Vaarsuvius to have atoned with or without my agreement, of course. I am confident he will not declare, 1) "Vaarsuvius helped save the world from Xykon and therefore Vaarsuvius atoned for the mass murder," 2) "The problem with what Vaarsuvius did was that it was doing something big with uncertain consequences, rather than that it was mass murder based on racism," or, in any form, 3) "A decision which Vaarsuvius made by presuming the black dragons s/he killed would do horrible things if they were alive is a correct decision." I think there is a fair chance that Vaarsuvius, like Miko, will die during the course of the story without which afterlife s/he goes to ever being spelled out.

[Happy_Tea]

Redemption? V isn't evil, a single act, no matter how devastating does not make a person evil. In his anger, V simply acted rashly and lashed out. It just so happened that he was in possession of a supreme amount of power at the same moment.

His reaction wasn't all that different from a man protecting his family against a very real and lethal danger. An example would be a teenager protecting his mom from a robber and killing the robber in the process in the heat of the moment.

And then that teenager googled the robber who he'd just killed in self defense, finding out everyone who was related to him, and everyone related to them and so on to a certain point, and went and killed them too regardless of who they were or what they'd done in life. Wait, actually, the reaction is a bit different.

Which is kind of the point of the redemption debate - V isn't on the path of redemption because she killed the threat to her family (most can accept her as justified for doing that), it's because of what she did after, and the reason she did it. She appreciates now what she did was wrong. I don't think V is evil, but she committed an act that was evil, the scope of which makes atoning for it difficult to impossible - which had further unforeseen consequences, due to her fantastical racism, that made it even worse (the assumption she was merely killing black dragons who it was fine to kill because they were merely black dragons).


The point is, V isn't evil. He is not actively malicious or wishing to do harm or even excessively ruthless.

We'll not actively malicious, wishing to do harm or excessively ruthless except with the whole Familicide thing. Which tends to be how things work, regardless of how nice a guy one every other day of the week, you only have to commit one act of malicious mass murder to be malicious mass murderer.


He even displayed deep remorse for the big F.

Which is a good start.


If you really think that the above is no excuse for his actions,

An excuse for familicide? No, I don't think "I was trying to protect my family, and did something rash" is really an excuse for Familicide.


look no further than what he is trying to accomplish with Roy and the party. V selflessly risks life and limb fighting against an extremely powerfu evil lich sorceror and his giant army despite not even being promised a reward. If he succeeds he will have saved the world and every being on it, that is more than enough to make up for the body count of Familicide.

I guess if one goes by headcount alone - then theoretically if you snuff out many thousands of lives (a chunk intentionally, and many more because you didn't think it through) for no good reason it more than makes up for it as long as you feel bad about it afterwards and then save a billion (a billion you were going to be saving anyway, regardless of whether you killed those thousands earlier or not).

Or, it remains not ok, but it is excusable in a nebulous way in relation to a nebulous concept of redemption. Which does speak to the relativity of the concept of redemption - how, if, when V is redeemed really depends on how one defines it in relation to her, and what authority decides such things. That's why I mirror the view of others in this thread - I doubt there'll suddenly be a line where V or someone get's to turn to the audience and go "I'm redeemed now". But there may be a point where I'll personally think "I think you've redeemed yourself V", even if the story doesn't state that. And it could differ from that of other people.

[SavageWombat]

And then that teenager googled the robber who he'd just killed in self defense, finding out everyone who was related to him, and everyone related to them and so on to a certain point, and went and killed them too regardless of who they were or what they'd done in life. Wait, actually, the reaction is a bit different.

Would it be fair to compare V's action to Michael Corleone in Godfather, preemptively striking against the other families? (Not a film buff)

[Sir_Leorik]

OK, I'll ask it here.

What is redemption?

Definitions, please.

In terms of this comic? There have been a few discussions, most notably Soon talking to a dying Miko, Roy being interviewed by the Deva handling his case, the IFCC Directors discussing Vaarsuvius and Redcloak and Right-Eye's discussions in Start of Darkness (especially when Right-Eye is trying to convince Redcloak to abandon the plan and run away with him). Here's what we know:

Redemption is special. Not everyone can achieve it in their lives. Miko made a single mistake that undid everything "special" about her, and as a result she lost her paladin-hood, and was consigned to Arcadia rather than Celestia. She refused to acknowledged she'd done anything wrong, let alone taken steps to set things right.

Redemption has to take place either during your lifetime (or through the actions of living relatives dedicated to your memory or honor). The Deva, while discussing the Bandit Incident, and Roy leaving Elan behind so Roy could look for the starmetal, was quite clear on this point: if Roy had left Elan to die and hadn't gone back to save him (and the rest of the party) the Deva wouldn't have gotten any flack for tossing Roy's file into the bin headed for the Outlands. She also discusses why Roy got to enter Celestia and Eugene did not: Roy was trying to set things right up until the very end, while Eugene abandoned his Blood Oath early on. Eugene took the Blood Oath of Vengeance on Xykon in the heat of anger over being unable to locate his mentor's murderer, and he abandoned the search in a fit of frustration at Keeno's poor hearing. (Seriously, the guy was an Elf Rogue; they usually have good hearing.)

On the same token: you have to constantly keep trying. You can't ever give up, even when you're falling to your death at maximum velocity (20d6 falling damage!). Roy never stops trying to do the right thing, and neither does Elan or Durkon (well, before he became a Vampire, at least). Haley, Vaarsuvius; they have a lot of trouble doing the right thing. Belkar could care less about doing the right thing. But Roy, Elan and Durkon, even if they don't know what they're doing (especially if they don't know what they're doing) never stop trying. Sometimes that causes heartache, or they make mistakes, but they don't give up.

On the other hand, as seen in SoD, sometimes you need to reevaluate your life and take a look at your priorities, and that's what led to Right-Eye's redemption. The fact that Right-Eye failed to redeem his brother doesn't mean he never stopped trying either, but first Right-Eye had to make a choice, a choice Redcloak could not make.

Finally, there is the possibility of one Good person convincing another person to redeem themselves. The most notable example in this comic is O-Chul showing kindness to the MitD, leading to the MitD to secretly switch sides from Team Evil. O-Chul was patient, kindhearted and willing to listen to the MitD. If Roy is willing to serve as a sounding board for V, to lead her not only on the battlefield but through a very difficult and dangerous moment for V, maybe Roy can fulfill the same role for V that O-Chul did for Monster-San.

[Happy_Tea]

Would it be fair to compare V's action to Michael Corleone in Godfather, preemptively striking against the other families? (Not a film buff)

Possibly, and that is how V rationalized it at the time - though it wasn't a very strong one, V's primary goal seemed more about making the ABD suffer after he'd stopped her being a threat to his family, then actually eliminating plausible future threats to his family (which in Mafia films other families usually always are).

Which makes the greater act more carelessly evil, than consciously so (whether that makes it better or worse is debatable).

Of course if the most fitting comparison is a ruthless, major figure in organized crime going all out destroying threats to him and his... well, it doesn't do much much for V's case.

[Lombard]

My question to be added: Is it necessary for purposes of the storyline, either the main or simply V's personal arc, for this question to be resolved at all?

Clearly. There was no in-story reason to take V that low otherwise. (It's rather like Chekhov's gun in that regard.) Familicide added next to nothing to the main story element, other than clearing the Draketooths out of the way which could have been accomplished using any number of devisements with us none the wiser. However, Familicide is the central element of V's personal arc, and it was basically the beginning of it as I don't count V's services in comedic relief as any sort of personal arc. Familicide, and the events leading up to it, began V's "real"/slash/"serious" story and those who imagine that it must not lead to redemption clearly need to be sent off to Prof. Tarquin's Narrative 101 seminar. This week I think his topic is "how I accomplished my goals for Elan without anyone noticing". :elan:

[zimmerwald1915]

Prof. Tarquin's Narrative 101 seminar.
Erm, RateMyProfessor says he disembowels his failing students, for not listening to him, his best students, so they can't pose a future threat to him, and the rest "as a warning to others."

[mucat]

Erm, RateMyProfessor says he disembowels his failing students, for not listening to him, his best students, so they can't pose a future threat to him, and the rest "as a warning to others."
Man, I hate those reviews where you can just tell the student doesn't care about learning the material, only about not being disemboweled. :smallfrown:

[Liliet]

Listing what redemption is not and when it must be achieved does not explain what it is.

About it only being achieved in regards to a specific authority, not objectively, is a very good point. Doesn't explain what it is still, but already points out that it can mean different things to different people.

Is redemption forgiveness? Does "V is redeemed in my eyes" mean "I forgave V"?


As for my opinion, I don't expect specifically "redemption". What I want from V is for vir to change. And I think this is what we've already started seeing.

I guess it's just that I think that V's worst _quality_ is not what driven vir to Familicide, but what enabled her to torture the kobold and get enjoyment out of it. V's worst deed is Familicide, but V's hysterics in the pyramid were enough for me to tick it as "paid". Well, unless V at some point acts contrary to the change the realization brought about, but I don't think ve will.

[oppyu]

Personally, I'm beginning to think this whole 'redemption' concept is ludicrously vague and nebulous. Nobody can agree on a definition for redemption, and nobody seems to know for certain what redemption for Vaarsuvius would be.

In my opinion, redemption is more internal than external. Vaarsuvius could go ahead and save the world, devote the rest of hir life doing heroic things and then sacrificing hirself to defend a group of sickly orphans from Surtur, but if V didn't acknowledge Familicide as being a hideously immoral act inside then ve couldn't count as atoning or being redeemed. However, if V was somehow transformed into a Level 1 Commoner with no ability to effect external change on the world after Familicide, and still had the same emotional breakthroughs and overwhelming regret ve does now and spend the rest of hir life acting roughly in accordance with those breakthroughs and regret, then ve could be redeemed (in my opinion, obviously).

Also, at no point can V or anyone have a sudden status shift to 'Redeemed'. It's learning from your mistakes and trying to improve yourself that count as atonement, not one shining moment of self-sacrifice, coming clean or an accumulative amount of suffering equivalent to hir crimes. If Vaarsuvius coasts through life easily overcoming any obstacle and achieving hir dreams with no external repercussions for hir actions while maintaining an appropriate level of regret and self-recrimination, would it be impossible for hir to redeem hirself? Is it hir fault the universe refuses to punish hir for hir actions?

So in summary, I wouldn't call V redeemed right now, but ve is acting like someone who accepts the magnitude of hir sins and is actively working to improve hirself and atone for hir wrongs. As long as V maintains this attitude, then ve deserves the benefit of the doubt and has a status of 'Currently Counts As Redemptive, Although Has Not Reached a Permanent Status of Redeemed Because That's Impossible'.

[Keltest]

Clearly. There was no in-story reason to take V that low otherwise. (It's rather like Chekhov's gun in that regard.) Familicide added next to nothing to the main story element, other than clearing the Draketooths out of the way which could have been accomplished using any number of devisements with us none the wiser. However, Familicide is the central element of V's personal arc, and it was basically the beginning of it as I don't count V's services in comedic relief as any sort of personal arc. Familicide, and the events leading up to it, began V's "real"/slash/"serious" story and those who imagine that it must not lead to redemption clearly need to be sent off to Prof. Tarquin's Narrative 101 seminar. This week I think his topic is "how I accomplished my goals for Elan without anyone noticing". :elan:

I always read the Familicide as motivation for character development, which up to that point V had gotten very little of. By that interpretation its not necessary that the question be definitively answered (and in fact would probably cheapen the moral threshold that V crossed if it was.) V has definitely developed as a character; we see more of his emotions and personality this book than we do in the rest of the comic combined.

[Sir_Leorik]

Erm, RateMyProfessor says he disembowels his failing students, for not listening to him, his best students, so they can't pose a future threat to him, and the rest "as a warning to others."

Bah, everyone knows that site's biased. After all, every student Professor Scoundrel has taught "Lessons of Love 101" has given him a positive rating, even if he neglected to grade their papers, was half-drunk in the teachers' lounge half the time, and always ran off with the class' material possessions on his airship, often leaving half the female portion of the class pregnant! Not to mention Adjunct Professor Belkar, who has terrified class after class in "Home Economics 101", but always gets favorable reviews from those who live long enough to taste the gourmet meals he makes. :smalltongue:


I always read the Familicide as motivation for character development, which up to that point V had gotten very little of. By that interpretation its not necessary that the question be definitively answered (and in fact would probably cheapen the moral threshold that V crossed if it was.) V has definitely developed as a character; we see more of his emotions and personality this book than we do in the rest of the comic combined.

This is pretty much borne out by the author commentary in DStP. Rich wanted to develop V, but the only aspect of her persona was that she was a power hungry Wizard. So he decided to give V what she wanted, first by having The Oracle reveal that she could attain "ultimate arcane power", then by having V's magic fail her multiple times, so that V would accept the Archfiends' offer, and then by having V revel in her power by doing something utterly horrific. Then Rich had Xykon take the power away, and at this point he began rebuilding her. The first step was bringing back Blackwing and Explosive Runes, which had been intentionally absent from DStP up till that point. Next V began to use her spells creatively, helping O-Chul get the phylactery away from Xykon. As Book Five progressed, V and Blackwing are now confidantes, and V was trying to use her magic in more creative and constructive ways. Finally V has a one-two punch to the gut: she learns the extent of Familicide, and then she learns about the "fine print" in her deal with the IFCC Directors.

As a result, V is humbler (albeit still somewhat arrogant; she has a bit of a way to go), more respectful, and less prone to anger (especially when Blackwing is pulling Jiminy Cricket duty, and V isn't stuck on an Inner Plane made of salad dressing). But V has a ways to go, both in terms of character development and trying to atone for her actions. But she's started, and she's trying and some of us think that has to count for something.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

See, in my mind, Belkar always taught Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit, allowing him to perfect both his culinary skills (because every chef learns the weaknesses of various fruits) and his fighting skills.

[Sir_Leorik]

See, in my mind, Belkar always taught Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit, allowing him to perfect both his culinary skills (because every chef learns the weaknesses of various fruits) and his fighting skills.

No, no, because everyone knows an instuctor teaching Self-Defense Against Fresh Fruit who's worth his salt never leaves any of his class alive to give reviews (good or bad).

:smalleek: "You... you killed him!"

:belkar: "Of course I did! He was attacking me with a banana! Now you two dweebs grab the passionfruit... I still have some aggression to work out!"

Belkar just Intimidates the class so much they're too scared to write a bad review. On the other hand, those who survive the class to week three describe Belkar's cooking as worth being anyone's last meal. :smallwink:

[Lombard]

Erm, RateMyProfessor says he disembowels his failing students, for not listening to him, his best students, so they can't pose a future threat to him, and the rest "as a warning to others."

Lol... good riff

Anyways after reading some more comments I feel less absolute about my prior statement in the thread. See, I was thinking that it just wouldn't be good storytelling if V went on the redemption journey but never achieved it. I imagined some big something like, V dies to save the world like Bruce Willis in Armageddon sort of thing... which to me is still probably the most awesome choice? But at the same time I can't deny the zen allure of the calculus which has V drawing ever closer to (but never reaching) redemption as time moves towards infinity and the chorus chants "it is the journey, not the destination..." :durkon:

[NerdyKris]

Well, I suppose Vaarsuvius could be redeemed by literally raising every victim from the dead, which is a possibility in a world of magic and gods taking an active role in mortal affairs.

But I'd wonder how such an occurrence would come about in a non cliched manner.

[Kish]

Well, I suppose Vaarsuvius could be redeemed by literally raising every victim from the dead, which is a possibility in a world of magic and gods taking an active role in mortal affairs.

But I'd wonder how such an occurrence would come about in a non cliched manner.
Vaarsuvius always wanted more arcane power than anyone else. Before, s/he just wanted to sit on it like a dragon sitting on a hoard.

Now, s/he actually has something to do that would take an amount of arcane power comparable to Haerta's.

[zimmerwald1915]

Vaarsuvius always wanted more arcane power than anyone else. Before, s/he just wanted to sit on it like a dragon sitting on a hoard.

Now, s/he actually has something to do that would take an amount of arcane power comparable to Haerta's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't V having arcane power comparable to Haerta's imply that Xykon would be a level-appropriate encounter for the Order? And haven't you expressed very reasonable doubts that that will ever occur? Given these two things, is it not reasonable to conclude that V will not achieve arcane power within the scope of the story?

[Kish]

It is reasonable to presume that Vaarsuvius will not gain levels from XP and equal Haerta's level that way before the end of the story. That's not quite the same as a "yes" to what you're asking, however; if I had said "the comic will not end by Vaarsuvius defeating Xykon in single combat" about four or five hundreds strips ago, the same logic you're using would have gone from that to "Vaarsuvius will never command the power of three epic-level mages."

[Keltest]

It is reasonable to presume that Vaarsuvius will not gain levels from XP and equal Haerta's level that way before the end of the story. That's not quite the same as a "yes" to what you're asking, however; if I had said "the comic will not end by Vaarsuvius defeating Xykon in single combat" about four or five hundreds strips ago, the same logic you're using would have gone from that to "Vaarsuvius will never command the power of three epic-level mages."

Im fairly confidant that the comic will not end with V defeating Xykon in single combat simple because

A: Xykon cheats. do not let him convince you otherwise.

and B: he's Roy's nemesis, and part of V's character development is to NOT show off their magical might for the sake of it anymore.

Plus, if V was able to do that, it would majorly undermine the roles of the rest of the team.

[jere7my]

Well, I suppose Vaarsuvius could be redeemed by literally raising every victim from the dead, which is a possibility in a world of magic and gods taking an active role in mortal affairs.

But I'd wonder how such an occurrence would come about in a non cliched manner.

That would involve raising some number of brutal, sadistic, powerful multiple murderers, possibly well over half of those killed, and sending them off to kill more innocents. (We don't know how many of the dragons were "typical" D&D black dragons, but I don't think we have any reason to think the bulk of them were anything but horrific.) That creates a whole 'nother kettle of moral issues.

She could hold a sort of afterlife trial for each one, I guess, or only raise the ones who went to non-evil afterlives. Those also raise complicated moral questions.

[Loreweaver15]

Im fairly confidant that the comic will not end with V defeating Xykon in single combat simple because

A: Xykon cheats. do not let him convince you otherwise.

and B: he's Roy's nemesis, and part of V's character development is to NOT show off their magical might for the sake of it anymore.

Plus, if V was able to do that, it would majorly undermine the roles of the rest of the team.

That's not what Kish is saying. Kish is saying that V's redemption efforts and power-gaining will extend far beyond the story, if she survives it, and THAT is where her power would end up equaling/exceeding Haerta's.

[Keltest]

That's not what Kish is saying. Kish is saying that V's redemption efforts and power-gaining will extend far beyond the story, if she survives it, and THAT is where her power would end up equaling/exceeding Haerta's.

oh. Well in that case I don't think we'll ever know, unless we have a "XXX" years later panel or a sequel story.

[Kish]

That would involve raising some number of brutal, sadistic, powerful multiple murderers, possibly well over half of those killed, and sending them off to kill more innocents. (We don't know how many of the dragons were "typical" D&D black dragons, but I don't think we have any reason to think the bulk of them were anything but horrific.) That creates a whole 'nother kettle of moral issues.

She could hold a sort of afterlife trial for each one, I guess, or only raise the ones who went to non-evil afterlives. Those also raise complicated moral questions.
If Vaarsuvius in any way, passively or actively, reaffirms "black dragons can be assumed to belong dead because of being black dragons," then, as far as I'm concerned, s/he can forget the entire concept of "redemption" and get used to the idea of spending eternity in Hades. The only morally correct answer to, "What would these thousands of sapients do if they were resurrected?" is "What they choose to do."

It is, I think, at this point a given that I and the people who consider themselves Vaarsuvius' fans will not both be satisfied with Vaarsuvius' story's outcome. (Unless, possibly, Rich does do the "Vaarsuvius winds up dead and somewhere unstated like Miko" thing, leaving me to conclude that Vaarsuvius has gone to warmer climes and Liliet to conclude that Vaarsuvius is happily learning everything about magic, or otherwise leave it up in the air.)

[zimmerwald1915]

Something to consider: any suitably Epic spell that could revive all the dragons at once might work like resurrection and allow them a choice whether to come back or not. Any that choose to come back to do evil, that choice is on their heads, not V's. Giving someone the option to choose to do evil or good is not necessarily evil itself.

[Porthos]

That would involve raising some number of brutal, sadistic, powerful multiple murderers, possibly well over half of those killed, and sending them off to kill more innocents. (We don't know how many of the dragons were "typical" D&D black dragons, but I don't think we have any reason to think the bulk of them were anything but horrific.) That creates a whole 'nother kettle of moral issues.

She could hold a sort of afterlife trial for each one, I guess, or only raise the ones who went to non-evil afterlives. Those also raise complicated moral questions.

I think one of problems here is being Judge Jury and Executioner in the first place. It wasn't V's place to judge them all worthy of death so it wouldn't be his place to pick and choose who gets to return.

Me? I've always had some qualms with the "Craft an Epic Spell(s) to Bring Everyone Back, Possibly Decades Later" anyway for two reasons. Well, three.

A) If we're talking decades later, randomly bringing back everyone to life who died may very well be just as disruptive as it was killing them in the first place.

I could go all Taoist here as well about about the wisdom of doing such a thing, but who can say whether or not the mods would think it was a good or bad thing to post?

...

Actually I can guess whether or not they would approve so I shan't. :smalltongue:

B) Related to that last bit, even in D&D one can't unring a bell. Sure, you can bring everyone back. But all of the chaos, disruption, and general horribleness that occurred because of Familicide can't be undone. Not unless you literally undo it by going back in time or some such silliness that I highly highly doubt will happen in this comic.

No, V gone did bad. REALLY bad. V will have to live with the consequences. V will have to try to 'fix things', for whatever definition of 'fix' there is.

Perhaps most controversially:

C) It feels slightly cheap to me. An easy way out for V to say, "Whoops. My Bad. Evens now?"

Yes, bringing back everyone who was unjustly killed could very easily be argued as the just thing to do. It's been done eloquently so by quite a few posters. But it almost smacks to me of hitting the RESET switch. As if 'just' saying one word makes everything all better now.

I'm not sure I am explaining it right, but it just doesn't quite sit well with me.

Now I know there are those who say, "That's just the start". So preemptively, I say "Fair Enough". But I guess I am saying I think there are a few problems with Super Duper Epic Bring Everyone Back spell cast years later that I don't think gets quite enough attention here.

----

If V could cast such a spell right this second, should he? Of course he should. No qualms whatsoever.

But five years down the line? Ten? One Hundred? Three Hundred (Elves live a long time after all :smallwink:)? Is there in fact a cutoff where one says, "Sorry, V. Good thought. Heart's in the right place. But you missed your window here"?

I'm not sure I have the answer to that. But I do know I feel a sense of unease when thinking about it.

[oppyu]

I don't know if resurrecting a bunch of highly dangerous sentient creatures who are heavily implied to lean towards Evil is a great idea... it kind of feels like facilitating a mass prison break, then congratulating yourself on the innocent escapees as well as the guilty ones who'll go on to live productive and crime-free lives outside of the self-defeating penal system, while ignoring the ones who were in jail for a reason.

If V didn't have the authority to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner, does ve have the authority to act as Judge, Jury and Pardoner?

[jere7my]

If Vaarsuvius in any way, passively or actively, reaffirms "black dragons can be assumed to belong dead because of being black dragons," then, as far as I'm concerned, s/he can forget the entire concept of "redemption" and get used to the idea of spending eternity in Hades. The only morally correct answer to, "What would these thousands of sapients do if they were resurrected?" is "What they choose to do."

Then the deaths of any and all innocents that the dragons kill would be on Vaarsuvius's hands. Is that better?

If you're a sniper who kills a team of crazed bombers that is just about to blow up an orphanage, but one of your shots accidentally takes out a sweet little old (non-crazed) granny as well, and you're given the chance to wish your shot away, knowing that the granny (and the bombers) would live but the orphans would die, what is the "morally correct" thing to do?

We have no reason to think OotS black dragons average out to neutral, like humanoids. We have reasons to think they don't: 1) they're based on D&D black dragons, which are nearly always evil, 2) one of the two we've met was interested in soul binding and torturing children, and the other acted precipitously if not outright evilly, and 3) Vaarsuvius thinks that a black dragon who'd chosen not to do evil would be a possible, but not probable, concern. By the law of averages, some of those dead black dragons were going to kill innocents in the future—some may have been in the process of doing so when Vaarsuvius cast familicide. Casting "Summon Black Dragon" to four thousand random spots around the world would certainly not be a "morally correct" thing to do. We can't assume that they would be better off dead, I agree, but neither can we assume that they are innocent fluffy bunnies who deserve to be resurrected.

It's a complicated question. It raises a lot of moral issues. There's nothing simple about it. I would say that Vaarsuvius choosing to exercise that power, without any sort of moral review of the beings she was raising, would demonstrate that she's learned nothing.

Edit: What if she'd learned familicide had, through some unlikely chain of events, taken out Xykon and Redcloak? What if she knew that there would be no way of stopping them from destroying the world if she brought them back, along with all the Draketeeth and the dragons? Would it be "morally correct" to let those sapients do what they choose to do, at the cost of millions or billions of lives?

[Jasdoif]

If V could cast such a spell right this second, should he? Of course he should. No qualms whatsoever.

But five years down the line? Ten? One Hundred? Three Hundred (Elves live a long time after all :smallwink:)? Is there in fact a cutoff where one says, "Sorry, V. Good thought. Heart's in the right place. But you missed your window here"?

I'm not sure I have the answer to that. But I do know I feel a sense of unease when thinking about it....no, I don't think there can be a cutoff. Because if there is a cutoff...the only person whose measurement of it would matter is Vaarsuvius', as the one who could cast (or not) the spell. So then we're at Vaarsuvius deciding whether or not the victims of Familicide deserve to live, and the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" thing you mentioned comes up.

You make a good point about the sudden reintroduction of the Familicide victims being disruptive to the world....But then, Familicide's effects continue to be disruptive, and I figure the best way to mitigate that disruption would be to undo the root cause. Which would be disruptive in its own right, sure; but all change is disruptive to one degree or another.

To me, "it's not OK to bring them back because of what disruption it might cause" is very similar to "it was to OK to kill them in the first place because of what they might have done". I don't agree with either of them.

[zimmerwald1915]

Then the deaths of any and all innocents that the dragons kill would be on Vaarsuvius's hands. Is that better?
Says who? The dragons have free will; any deaths they cause in malice will be weighed against their souls, not V's. A life-giver's moral state is in no way affewcted by the freely-chosen acts of his progeny. Tarquin is no better for having fathered Elan, and no worse for having fathered Nale.

Besides, it's not like V has to spring a mass-resurrection on the world. She can put the word out that there is likely to be a spike in the black dragon population, giving those in the areas most likely to be affected time to prepare a defense if they want.

[jere7my]

Says who? The dragons have free will; any deaths they cause in malice will be weighed against their souls, not V's. A life-giver's moral state is in no way affewcted by the freely-chosen acts of his progeny. Tarquin is no better for having fathered Elan, and no worse for having fathered Nale.

And if I let Hannibal Lecter loose in the nursery, and he happens to eat a lot of babies, well—not my fault! He has free will!

Edit: In D&D terms, it sounds like you're telling me you see nothing wrong with summoning an ancient red dragon in downtown Cliffport, then teleporting away. Yes?

[Keltest]

Says who? The dragons have free will; any deaths they cause in malice will be weighed against their souls, not V's. A life-giver's moral state is in no way affewcted by the freely-chosen acts of his progeny. Tarquin is no better for having fathered Elan, and no worse for having fathered Nale.

V would be as responsible as the guy who hands his friend who has a drinking problem beer money. Yes, technically its possible he wont get drunk, and if he does its certainly his own fault, but that doesn't mean the friend is any less to blame for enabling it.

its different when giving birth because the baby is not imprinted with a personality already. Nale was (probably) not evil at birth, but anyone resurrecting him now that he has died would be directly responsible for bringing the evil person that he was when he died back.

[jere7my]

This is my basic point: Undoing a moral choice is a new moral choice. The results of the undoing weigh as heavily as the results of the doing. One doesn't cancel out the other; they could both be terribly wrong.

[Jasdoif]

This is my basic point: Undoing a moral choice is a new moral choice. The results of the undoing weigh as heavily as the results of the doing. One doesn't cancel out the other; they could both be terribly wrong.The choices don't cancel each other out; but the effects of each can run against each other, allow the "undo" choice to mitigate the effects of the original choice.

[jere7my]

The choices don't cancel each other out; but the effects of each can run against each other, allow the "undo" choice to mitigate the effects of the original choice.

Certainly they can, but choosing blindly to undo the choice is a recapitulation of Vaarsuvius's original mistake.

[Keltest]

The choices don't cancel each other out; but the effects of each can run against each other, allow the "undo" choice to mitigate the effects of the original choice.

"can" being the operative word here. Theres not much to indicate that resurrecting the people that familicide killed would be worth the cost that the dragons would inflict, especially since by this time the gap they left would have been filled.

[Porthos]

I guess another way to put my unease about all of this (again presuming it is done years from now if only because I heavily doubt V can possibly research something like this in a short amount of time) is I just don't think one can use a sledgehammer to undo the damage a sledgehammer did in the first place.

V saw a problem and took a sledgehammer to it. With malicious intent. We all saw the consequences of that, and V is only now really getting a grasp of the implications of it.

To take another sledgehammer to try to fix things? It just says to me that V didn't learn a damn thing about Power being the end all and be all of Solving Problems.

My gut just says that this is a problem that requires a scalpel or a chisel. Or, to put the analogy back on track, a whole lot of epoxy. I just think that if V is gonna do this right, it has to be done methodically.

V casting a blanket, "Everyone's better now. Hope it all turns out alright" spell just repeats the mistake.

I'm not against the idea of V going to each and every place affected by this and offering to bring back folks one, two or even groups at a time as being (part of) the price to pay to 'fix things'. Mostly because that is showing the type of personal responsibility and attention to detail that was completely lacking before. It may not be the only way to 'fix things' either, but that's besides the point to this side-discussion.

Now this is certainly a harder row to hoe than the blanket Epic Spell that's been mooted on occasion. But, well, whoever said this will be easy?

[GAAD]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm hoping V does receive redemption, for one reason.
AFTER V's EVENTUAL DEMISE
:vaarsuvius: I did it! Finally! Despite all my misdeeds, I still received redemption. So there.
:miko: Cease rubbing it in my face, obvious spawn of hell!

They proceed to engage in an EPIC BATTLE in the AFTERLIFE for NO REASON
Yeah. That is pretty stupid.

So was Pacific Rim.

[SavageWombat]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm hoping V does receive redemption, for one reason.
AFTER V's EVENTUAL DEMISE
:vaarsuvius: I did it! Finally! Despite all my misdeeds, I still received redemption. So there.
:miko: Cease rubbing it in my face, obvious spawn of hell!

They proceed to engage in an EPIC BATTLE in the AFTERLIFE for NO REASON
Yeah. That is pretty stupid.

So was Pacific Rim.

Made me laugh.

[Kish]

Certainly they can, but choosing blindly to undo the choice is a recapitulation of Vaarsuvius's original mistake.
If--and only if--you consider Vaarsuvius' original mistake to have been, "Doing something big without considering the consequences."

I gather a number of people do. I do not. I consider it to have been "mass murder based on genocidal racism." Thus, I do not find "What Vaarsuvius did was wrong because s/he did something big without considering the consequences" to be in any way superior to, "What Vaarsuvius did was not wrong."

[Keltest]

If--and only if--you consider Vaarsuvius' original mistake to have been, "Doing something big without considering the consequences."

I gather a number of people do. I do not. I consider it to have been "mass murder based on genocidal racism." Thus, I do not find "What Vaarsuvius did was wrong because s/he did something big without considering the consequences" to be in any way superior to, "What Vaarsuvius did was not wrong."

Please identify where racism had anything to do with either the specific spell chosen or the decision to go after her family at all. Im pretty tired of hearing you say that without backing it up at all.

[jere7my]

If--and only if--you consider Vaarsuvius' original mistake to have been, "Doing something big without considering the consequences."

I gather a number of people do. I do not. I consider it to have been "mass murder based on genocidal racism." Thus, I do not find "What Vaarsuvius did was wrong because s/he did something big without considering the consequences" to be in any way superior to, "What Vaarsuvius did was not wrong."

If Vaarsuvius had gone through the dragons one by one before casting familicide, she probably would have found that most, or certainly some, of them were guilty of murdering and torturing innocents. That's how black dragons tend to be in D&D, and nothing we've seen in OotS has led me to think Rich's black dragons are any different. Killing the guilty dragons would not have been an evil act; it was indiscriminately killing all the dragons, without looking at each case individually, and without considering half-dragons and their descendants, that made it an evil (and racist) act.

So yes, acting without considering the consequences was a big part of what she did wrong. If she had considered the consequences more carefully, and only killed those dragons who were guilty of murder, then I wouldn't have any qualms with what she'd done. (Leaving aside my real-world feelings about the death penalty.)

[Kish]

Keltest, do you seriously believe Vaarsuvius would have cast Familicide if a human had been the one threatening to kill her/his children?

If the answer is "no," then the question is beyond ridiculous, rather than merely indicating not having read Vaarsuvius' lines related to the incident very carefully. In neither case will I stop commenting on the bloody obvious because you'd rather pretend it's not there. If you want me to tell you how to put me on ignore, I certainly can.

[Keltest]

Keltest, do you seriously believe Vaarsuvius would have cast Familicide if a human had been the one threatening to kill her/his children?

If the answer is "no," then the question is beyond ridiculous, rather than merely indicating not having read Vaarsuvius' lines related to the incident very carefully. In neither case will I stop commenting on the bloody obvious because you'd rather pretend it's not there. If you want me to tell you how to put me on ignore, I certainly can.

Yes, I do think its quite probable that, had he been attacked by a human coming after him for killing his/her family and on a similar threat level to necessitate the soul splice, he would have cast familicide still.

Im asking you again to please justify the stance, because while you may think its "bloody obvious" that does not mean that it is either the intended conclusion or a commonly reached one.

[jere7my]

Keltest, do you seriously believe Vaarsuvius would have cast Familicide if a human had been the one threatening to kill her/his children?

Kish, do you believe that OotS black dragons and humans have the same distribution of alignments? If you do, that may explain our disagreement.

Me, I think they have free will, and killing them because they're black dragons is indeed racist. Even so, most of the adults are probably murderous bastards who have killed before and plan to kill again. If it were shown to be otherwise, I would reconsider my stance.

[Kish]

Kish, do you believe that OotS black dragons and humans have the same distribution of alignments? If you do, that may explain our disagreement.

No, our disagreement is that you think it matters. I'm opposed to killing anyone (or, having killed someone already, leaving them dead) based on what you think they're going to do in the future. Particularly since I see absolutely no way for Vaarsuvius to get to judging that anyone except perhaps Xykon belongs dead based on actions without either also arriving at, "Vaarsuvius belongs dead," or reintroducing racism by adding a "not applicable if you [are an elf/are in some other way a race combination that lets Vaarsuvius out]" clause.

[Keltest]

No, our disagreement is that you think it matters. I'm opposed to killing anyone (or, having killed someone already, leaving them dead) based on what you think they're going to do in the future. Particularly since I see absolutely no way for Vaarsuvius to get to judging that anyone except perhaps Xykon belongs dead based on actions without either also arriving at, "Vaarsuvius belongs dead," or reintroducing racism by adding a "not applicable if you [are an elf/are in some other way a race combination that lets Vaarsuvius out]" clause.

Given that you add the "based on racism" tag every time you state your stance, you quite obviously think that it matters quite a bit.

[jere7my]

No, our disagreement is that you think it matters. I'm opposed to killing anyone (or, having killed someone already, leaving them dead) based on what you think they're going to do in the future. Particularly since I see absolutely no way for Vaarsuvius to get to judging that anyone except perhaps Xykon belongs dead based on actions without either also arriving at, "Vaarsuvius belongs dead," or reintroducing racism by adding a "not applicable if you [are an elf/are in some other way a race combination that lets Vaarsuvius out]" clause.

Are you opposed to killing those who have killed and tortured innocents (in the OotS world)? Does it matter to you whether they're repentant or whether they cheerfully intend to kill again? Does it matter that Vaarsuvius came to the conclusion that she deserved to die, and only agreed to go on so she could atone for her deeds? If she interviewed a dead black dragon, and it told her it couldn't wait to get back to eating villagers, should she still raise it?

Is it racist to, given the choice, prefer to summon a gold dragon to downtown Cliffport than a black dragon?

[Jasdoif]

No, our disagreement is that you think it matters. I'm opposed to killing anyone (or, having killed someone already, leaving them dead) based on what you think they're going to do in the future.This is pretty much where I am.

In particular, I disagree with the idea that intentionally leaving all the Familicide victims dead is a good idea, because of evil deeds some of them have done. I don't see how the innocent victims of Familicide could be viewed as deserving to pay for the rest of them.

[The Grim Author]

This is pretty much where I am.

In particular, I disagree with the idea that intentionally leaving all the Familicide victims dead is a good idea, because of evil deeds some of them have done. I don't see how the innocent victims of Familicide could be viewed as deserving to pay for the rest of them.

They don't, but that's the point. V did something horrible, indiscriminate, and likely irreversible.

Think about it: What would Haerta have done with this spell? If any Divine Caster with access to resurrection spells could undo the effects, it would defeat the point. Haerta would have wanted to slay every last family member and ensure that they never came back to haunt her. She wouldn't allow someone —*even a God —*to undo her hard work (researching an Epic Spell is an incredibly difficult task).

I wouldn't be surprised if the spell literally destroyed the souls of those it killed.d

[Rodin]

Yes, I do think its quite probable that, had he been attacked by a human coming after him for killing his/her family and on a similar threat level to necessitate the soul splice, he would have cast familicide still.



This is my stance on the racism issue also. V did that out of desire to demonstrate superior arcane power as well as a desire for revenge (primarily the first, I think, after the humiliating earlier defeat). The fact that it was a dragon did not matter terribly at the time.

Now, V was racist against the dragons, and later used that as a justification (which is why V didn't freak out sooner). But I don't think it was a major determining factor for casting the spell in the first place.

That it was done for the pettiest of reasons (a display of arcane power) actually makes it worse, in my mind.

[NerdyKris]

Even so, most of the adults are probably murderous bastards who have killed before and plan to kill again. If it were shown to be otherwise, I would reconsider my stance.

Congratulations, you've missed the entire point of this work, which is that labeling an entire race as evil because the monster manual says so is wrong. Rich has gone on record many times stating that such descriptions are bad. The spell targeted children and babies that have not had a chance to have an alignment yet.

[jere7my]

Congratulations, you've missed the entire point of this work, which is that labeling an entire race as evil because the monster manual says so is wrong. Rich has gone on record many times stating that such descriptions are bad. The spell targeted children and babies that have not had a chance to have an alignment yet.

You might want to look at the word "adults" in the post you quoted.

[NerdyKris]

You might want to look at the word "adults" in the post you quoted.

Okay. So I'm going to wipe out an entire race because in my opinion, most of them are evil, so the adults who aren't evil are okay to kill, because they're the same race as the ones I don't like.

Oh look, isn't V's entire story arc about the fact that a non insignificant portion of those adults killed WERE NOT EVIL, and this was a bad thing?

[Rodin]

You might want to look at the word "adults" in the post you quoted.

I do not believe that makes it any better - it's the same "They're always Chaotic Evil, so it's okay to kill them no matter what" with an added disclaimer "Oh, but not the kids".

[jere7my]

Okay. So I'm going to wipe out an entire race because in my opinion, most of them are evil, so the adults who aren't evil are okay to kill, because they're the same race as the ones I don't like.

Oh look, isn't V's entire story arc about the fact that a non insignificant portion of those adults killed WERE NOT EVIL, and this was a bad thing?

Uh...could you quote where I said familicide was okay? I'll wait.

[theNater]

And if I let Hannibal Lecter loose in the nursery, and he happens to eat a lot of babies, well—not my fault! He has free will!
Are you the guard who has been made responsible for his actions as part of his criminal status? Are you a nursery worker who is responsible for the safety of the babies? If either of these is the case, then it is your fault.

If, on the other hand, you're just a stranger walking by who sees some guy you don't know tied up near the nursery and you untie him, then no, it is not.

In D&D terms, it sounds like you're telling me you see nothing wrong with summoning an ancient red dragon in downtown Cliffport, then teleporting away. Yes?
That's obviously not okay; it's kidnapping.

Please identify where racism had anything to do with either the specific spell chosen or the decision to go after her family at all. Im pretty tired of hearing you say that without backing it up at all.
From strip #866 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html):

:vaarsuvius:: Until this moment, my mind had never considered that any of the dragons I slew were anything but ravenous killers.

[jere7my]

Are you the guard who has been made responsible for his actions as part of his criminal status? Are you a nursery worker who is responsible for the safety of the babies? If either of these is the case, then it is your fault.

If, on the other hand, you're just a stranger walking by who sees some guy you don't know tied up near the nursery and you untie him, then no, it is not.

Say I know who he is and what his deal is, but he's not my responsibility. I just sneak him out of prison and into the nursery, then skedaddle. I think that's closest to resurrecting a known unrepentant murderous black dragon.

[Jasdoif]

Say I know who he is and what his deal is, but he's not my responsibility. I just sneak him out of prison and into the nursery, then skedaddle. I think that's closest to resurrecting a known unrepentant murderous black dragon.I'm curious, now: How are we determining whether or not a particular black dragon is unrepentantly murderous?

[jere7my]

I'm curious, now: How are we determining whether or not a particular black dragon is unrepentantly murderous?

Eh, I dunno. Speak with dead + detect lie? Assume it's possible. If Vaarsuvius determined that a particular dragon wanted to be raised so it could go back to eating delicious villagers, should Vaarsuvius raise it? Going a step further, if she knew that might be a possibility and she raised it without bothering to find out, would that be a good or bad thing to do?

[Rodin]

Uh...could you quote where I said familicide was okay? I'll wait.

Re-read the thread, and fair point. That the raising of all the Black Dragons killed would be morally complicated is certainly true, although the broader issue that we do not know what alignment all those dragons are in the Stick-verse is a pretty big sticking point.

[oppyu]

Vaarsuvius Thread Debate Games!

Drinking Game!
- Take a shot of soft drink everytime someone says 'redemption'.
- If you don't want to contract diabetes, replace soft drink with juice.

Bingo!
- Fill a bunch of squares with things like 'Someone mentions the Always Evil monster manual entry', 'Someone treads uncomfortably close to real life history' and 'Someone accuses someone else of being pro-genocide'.
- Make the centre square 'The thread gets locked'. This isn't a rule, just advice for if you want to win.

[jere7my]

Re-read the thread, and fair point. That the raising of all the Black Dragons killed would be morally complicated is certainly true, although the broader issue that we do not know what alignment all those dragons are in the Stick-verse is a pretty big sticking point.

Absolutely. If it turns out that Rich's black dragons are basically like big scaly people—there are a few bad apples, but by and large they're good neighbors—then that changes the calculus a lot.

I don't think that's what he's doing; I think he's saying that all sapient creatures have free will, which means 1) some of them will not choose to be evil and 2) young 'uns haven't had a chance to make a choice yet, but 3) on average most black dragons are still cruel, murderous bastards. (It could be more complicated than that—they might be evil because adventurers keep invading their lairs, e.g. That would change the calculus too.) We have support for that in the comic—I'm not sure why Tiamat would be both the goddess of evil dragons and the goddess of black dragons if black dragons weren't mostly evil, for instance. Vaarsuvius seemed to think it was an outside possibility, not a likelihood, that a black dragon would be innocent. But I could be wrong.

Killing them indiscriminately is bad in either case, but raising them indiscriminately is really morally complicated in the second case. Vaarsuvius smashed a big egg with a big hammer; piecing it back together isn't the job for a different hammer. I think there would be ways to do it—raise everyone and send the unrepentant murderers to Monster Island, for instance—but returning everyone to life in media res is a good way to get a lot more innocents killed, imho. Whether that would be worth it, morally speaking, is unclear to me.

(Thanks for going back and checking.)

[Porthos]

- Take a shot of soft drink everytime someone says 'redemption'.

Considering the word 'redemption' is in literally every single post on this thread, I request a suspension of this one for this thread. :smalltongue:

[theNater]

Say I know who he is and what his deal is, but he's not my responsibility. I just sneak him out of prison and into the nursery, then skedaddle. I think that's closest to resurrecting a known unrepentant murderous black dragon.
In your attempt to make an uncomfortable analogy, you have wandered far afield from the actual topic. One of the big ones, that you almost fooled me with, is that Hannibal Lecter was imprisoned for the crimes he actually committed. This is not the case with any creature killed by Familicide.

If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, even Hannibal Lecter, a Good person is obligated to see that person released.

Edit: Also, the nursery came out of nowhere. The places where people live have defenses; resurrecting the dragons doesn't just make those disappear. At worst you're putting him outside the nursery, and there are individuals who have a positive responsibility to keep him out.

[Math_Mage]

In your attempt to make an uncomfortable analogy, you have wandered far afield from the actual topic. One of the big ones, that you almost fooled me with, is that Hannibal Lecter was imprisoned for the crimes he actually committed. This is not the case with any creature killed by Familicide.

If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, even Hannibal Lecter, a Good person is obligated to see that person released.
Debatable. Consider, for example, what happened to the Linear Guild after round 2. A CG character might hold active antipathy towards the notion that a Hannibal Lecter might go free due to vagaries of the legal process--or at least not hold the same definition of 'wrongful' imprisonment that the legal system does. (On the other hand, a CG character might not trust the authorities to hold Lecter, and might even appoint himself Lecter's judge, jury, and executioner if in possession of all the facts, without ever bothering to imprison anyone. And I am of course omitting many possibilities here.)

[jere7my]

In your attempt to make an uncomfortable analogy, you have wandered far afield from the actual topic. One of the big ones, that you almost fooled me with, is that Hannibal Lecter was imprisoned for the crimes he actually committed. This is not the case with any creature killed by Familicide.

If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, even Hannibal Lecter, a Good person is obligated to see that person released.

I think "trapped in the afterlife" and "trapped in prison" are close enough for an analogy, given the way the afterlife is presented in OotS. YMMV. And it's all but assured that some of the dead black dragons were killers of innocents—I wouldn't call their death/imprisonment "wrongful," even if they weren't specifically executed for their crimes.

But if you don't like the analogy, the plain question is still pretty uncomfortable: if Vaarsuvius knew that a black dragon victim would go right back to killing innocents, should she raise it as part of her atonement for familicide? If she suspects that a large percentage of them will probably go back to killing innocents, should she raise all the victims en masse without trying to figure out which?

Anyway, I was taking issue with the idea that people have no moral responsibility for the actions of the sapient beings they bring to their plane of existence, which strikes me as untenable in a world where people can summon demons.


Edit: Also, the nursery came out of nowhere. The places where people live have defenses; resurrecting the dragons doesn't just make those disappear. At worst you're putting him outside the nursery, and there are individuals who have a positive responsibility to keep him out.

Well, not all the places where people live have defenses against dragons; if they did, dragons wouldn't be a threat. Dragons are really powerful; dragons are to humans as serial killers are to babies. Your average village won't do too well against most dragons. Plus, if their lairs have been empty for any length of time, they're going to be filled with happy families of goblins and derro and whatnot.

[oppyu]

Considering the word 'redemption' is in literally every single post on this thread, I request a suspension of this one for this thread. :smalltongue:
Out of respect for your desire to not die of excessive liquid consumption, the rules will be temporarily modified to 'every time someone uses the word 'redemption' at least once per paragraph. Failing that, per sentence.

[Porthos]

Out of respect for your desire to not die of excessive liquid consumption, the rules will be temporarily modified to 'every time someone uses the word 'redemption' at least once per paragraph. Failing that, per sentence.

Danke. :smallsmile:

[theNater]

Debatable. Consider, for example, what happened to the Linear Guild after round 2. A CG character might hold active antipathy towards the notion that a Hannibal Lecter might go free due to vagaries of the legal process--or at least not hold the same definition of 'wrongful' imprisonment that the legal system does. (On the other hand, a CG character might not trust the authorities to hold Lecter, and might even appoint himself Lecter's judge, jury, and executioner if in possession of all the facts, without ever bothering to imprison anyone. And I am of course omitting many possibilities here.)
I distinguish between wrongful and illegal imprisonment. The LG were imprisoned for specific, known crimes they had actually committed. The imprisonment was illegal, but entirely right.

I think "trapped in the afterlife" and "trapped in prison" are close enough for an analogy, given the way the afterlife is presented in OotS.
No part of my objection brought that up, so I don't know why you are.

And it's all but assured that some of the dead black dragons were killers of innocents—I wouldn't call their death/imprisonment "wrongful," even if they weren't specifically executed for their crimes.
Belkar stabs a randomly selected kobold to death. That kobold happens to be a mass murderer. Is Belkar a rightful executioner in the service of Good, or a random murderer?

But if you don't like the analogy, the plain question is still pretty uncomfortable: if Vaarsuvius knew that a black dragon victim would go right back to killing innocents, should she raise it as part of her atonement for familicide? If she suspects that a large percentage of them will probably go back to killing innocents, should she raise all the victims en masse without trying to figure out which?
Evil doesn't mean "will immediately kill the first innocent person they see". Even if 100% of the victims were Evil, there is no evidence that the killing of innocents will immediately commence as a result.

Anyway, I was taking issue with the idea that people have no moral responsibility for the actions of the sapient beings they bring to their plane of existence, which strikes me as untenable in a world where people can summon demons.
The summoning of demons can be done accidentally. Intent matters.

[jere7my]

If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, even Hannibal Lecter, a Good person is obligated to see that person released.

And, y'know, if I came across a red dragon in a zoo, and I asked it, "Hey, buddy, what will you do if I set you free?" and it replied, "Roast and devour everyone in this city, starting with the babies," I am not sure any degree of wrongfulness in its imprisonment would make me obligated to release it.

[jere7my]

Belkar stabs a randomly selected kobold to death. That kobold happens to be a mass murderer. Is Belkar a rightful executioner in the service of Good, or a random murderer?

I wasn't saying anything about whether Vaarsuvius (or Belkar, in your analogy) had done anything wrong. I think they both did. The question is, should your kobold be resurrected?


Evil doesn't mean "will immediately kill the first innocent person they see". Even if 100% of the victims were Evil, there is no evidence that the killing of innocents will immediately commence as a result.

Ah, but assume there is. Assume we have interrogated a dead dragon, using detect lie and so forth, and determined that that is exactly what it intends to do. Should we raise it?

Now assume that we have good reason to believe some non-zero number of dead dragons will go right back to killing innocents, because we know a thing or two about black dragons, and choose to raise them without making any effort to find out what they're planning to do with their newfound lifedom. Is that a good idea? Will we bear any responsibility for the people they kill, if they do indeed kill any? I say yea.


The summoning of demons can be done accidentally. Intent matters.

If someone summons a demon accidentally, and that demon eats some babies, I daresay the summoner still bears some responsibility.

[SavageWombat]

If someone summons a demon accidentally, and that demon eats some babies, I daresay the summoner still bears some responsibility.

If I'm walking down the street and sneeze, and the demon "Kerchzz" hears me and appears, I think I can claim this was not my fault.

If I'm in the middle of a dangerous planar ritual and sneeze and "Kerchzz" shows up, my responsibility for the same situation increases dramatically.

[Loreweaver15]

If I'm walking down the street and sneeze, and the demon "Kerchzz" hears me and appears, I think I can claim this was not my fault.

If I'm in the middle of a dangerous planar ritual and sneeze and "Kerchzz" shows up, my responsibility for the same situation increases dramatically.

Man, she must get dragged out of stuff because of that all the time.

[theNater]

And, y'know, if I came across a red dragon in a zoo, and I asked it, "Hey, buddy, what will you do if I set you free?" and it replied, "Roast and devour everyone in this city, starting with the babies," I am not sure any degree of wrongfulness in its imprisonment would make me obligated to release it.
So you're not a Good character. No skin off my nose.

I wasn't saying anything about whether Vaarsuvius (or Belkar, in your analogy) had done anything wrong. I think they both did. The question is, should your kobold be resurrected?
Yes. And apologized to. And then, if appropriate, executed for his crimes.

Ah, but assume there is. Assume we have interrogated a dead dragon, using detect lie and so forth, and determined that that is exactly what it intends to do. Should we raise it?
Yes. And then alert it that we are prepared to kill it again if it should prove necessary.

Now assume that we have good reason to believe some non-zero number of dead dragons will go right back to killing innocents, because we know a thing or two about black dragons, and choose to raise them without making any effort to find out what they're planning to do with their newfound lifedom. Is that a good idea? Will we bear any responsibility for the people they kill, if they do indeed kill any? I say yea.
These black dragons you claim to know things about aren't D&D black dragons, so I don't know why you're discussing them.

If someone summons a demon accidentally, and that demon eats some babies, I daresay the summoner still bears some responsibility.
A construction worker is working atop a high scaffold. Despite doing everything correct to secure his hammer, he loses it after a forceful blow. It flies across the street and hits a baby, who dies. Is he responsible?

Same construction worker, but his hammer instead hits a mystical vessel containing a trapped demon, who is then released. The demon eats a baby. Is the construction worker responsible?

[jere7my]

So you're not a Good character. No skin off my nose.

I think you mean "So you're not Rorschach." If anything, you're describing a parody of extreme Lawful Neutral. Remind me never to go to the zoo with you.

Anyway, I think our moral positions on these matters are too divergent for further discussion to be worthwhile.

[Jasdoif]

Eh, I dunno. Speak with dead + detect lie? Assume it's possible. If Vaarsuvius determined that a particular dragon wanted to be raised so it could go back to eating delicious villagers, should Vaarsuvius raise it? Going a step further, if she knew that might be a possibility and she raised it without bothering to find out, would that be a good or bad thing to do?Raising a dragon that specifically indicated its desire was to eat villagers would be a bad idea, yes.

As for if it were a possibility that Vaarsuvius didn't follow up on....I'd really have to ask what constitutes "knew that might be a possibility". A default assumption? If Vaarsuvius is expected to use a battery of spells to interrogate every single Familicide victim, we're going to be at this for quite a while.

The main problem I have with the systematic "operate locally in the vicinity of every Familicide victim" approach is the inordinate amount of time that's going to take, to travel and recover spells and all that. There's plenty of time for one of the victims to decide after being raised that killing Vaarsuvius is warranted, or that stopping the return of his/her rival black dragons justifies it...or for an outside group opposed to raising chromatic dragons to mount an attack. Meanwhile, the "raise en masse" spell was complete the instant it was cast, without an interim period for things to be messed up in.


- If you don't want to contract diabetes, replace soft drink with juice.Most juices (fruit juices, anyway) aren't much different from most soft drinks in that regard, actually; they have close to the same amount of carbs in the same amount of fluid. I'd recommend diet soft drinks instead.


Now assume that we have good reason to believe some non-zero number of dead dragons will go right back to killing innocents, because we know a thing or two about black dragons, and choose to raise them without making any effort to find out what they're planning to do with their newfound lifedom. Is that a good idea? Will we bear any responsibility for the people they kill, if they do indeed kill any? I say yea.If we were responsible for their deaths in the first place, and we chose to leave all the innocent victims of Familicide dead because we were worried about this "non-zero" number of violent dragons, when we had the ability to give life back to all of them...I'd say we're responsible for actively deciding not to undo our original error. (As well as needing to account for how we could so grossly trivialize the lives of the innocent that leaving them dead was worth it to keep a few dragons away.)

Frankly, I don't think there's a universally ideal option here. And I think we have different ideas on what would make a particular imperfect option better than the others.

[jere7my]

Raising a dragon that specifically indicated its desire was to eat villagers would be a bad idea, yes.

As for if it were a possibility that Vaarsuvius didn't follow up on....I'd really have to ask what constitutes "knew that might be a possibility". A default assumption? If Vaarsuvius is expected to use a battery of spells to interrogate every single Familicide victim, we're going to be at this for quite a while.

Well, surely she can develop Familinterrogation.


If we were responsible for their deaths in the first place, and we chose to leave all the innocent victims of Familicide dead because we were worried about this "non-zero" number of violent dragons, when we had the ability to give life back to all of them...I'd say we're responsible for actively deciding not to undo our original error. (As well as needing to account for how we could so grossly trivialize the lives of the innocent that leaving them dead was worth it to keep a few dragons away.)

Frankly, I don't think there's a universally ideal option here. And I think we have different ideas on what would make a particular imperfect option better than the others.

Well, what do I mean by "non-zero"? What if you can expect that 90% of the raised adult dragons have killed innocents, are unrepentant, and are likely to kill innocents in the future? I think we're on the hook either way, whether we choose to mass raise or not. If we don't, we're leaving innocents dead because of what might happen; if we do, we're probably dooming further innocents to die because of what we did. I think the specifics of which is the better option depend on the specifics what the victims are actually like, and what OotS black dragons are actually like—which is why information-gathering would be important, imho. And remember that some of the human victims have already refused a raise dead—that raises issues of consent.

What I don't think is that pressing command-Z is automatically the best option. It's simple, and it gives the illusion of removing moral calculus from the equation, but it carries its own moral weight that needs to be factored in.

Better, all in all, to not cast familicide in the first place.

[Rodin]

Also, the idea of raising something from the dead specifically for the purpose of killing it is pretty darn horrifying. Heck, we've seen it done - V did it for the purpose of casting Familicide. And it wasn't pretty.

There's the additional problem of getting the innocents to accept the resurrection. Unless they're actively scrying, the res request will come as a surprise for most of them, or perhaps they are opposed to getting pulled back based on alignment (see: Draketooths) or too young to comprehend (see: Eric) Is the act of offering a resurrection sufficient atonement?

It's an incredibly tricky question with no good answer.

[theNater]

I think you mean "So you're not Rorschach." If anything, you're describing a parody of extreme Lawful Neutral.
A lot of people forget that Good requires respecting the dignity of sentient beings. Part of that is letting them make their own choices(and live with the consequences of those choices), even when those choices are wrong.

Belkar is an unrepentant murderer, and will probably kill innocents in the future. But that doesn't mean Roy should slit his throat in the night to protect those probable innocents.

Remind me never to go to the zoo with you.
By D&D rules, most creatures in the zoo are not sentient. Vastly different rules apply to them than to dragons.

[oppyu]

Frankly, I'd be on board with slitting Belkar's throat in the night. No matter how much he loves his kitty, dude is an unrepentant murderer who has committed murder against innocents on-panel in the main comic (Azure City Prison Guard whose guts he used to paint 'Come and get me Miko' on a nearby wall, and the gnome with the donkey). If Belkar isn't stopped, it's reasonably certain he's going to kill again. Ipso facto throat slit in the nighto.

Yes, a trial and lawful punishment would be cleaner, but he's pretty high-level and by Roy's own admission too smart to keep locked up.

[Jasdoif]

What if you can expect that 90% of the raised adult dragons have killed innocents, are unrepentant, and are likely to kill innocents in the future?Well...assuming the 90% figure has been verified, I'd next ask what percentage of Familicide victims were in fact adult dragons; and what percentage of the victims that aren't adult dragons have killed innocents, are unrepentant and are likely to kill innocents in the future. Like you said, getting information would be vital if we're doing an analysis of the whole thing, and accidentally overlooking the non-draconic victims would be...misleading (also bad). But if I had to rush a decision...my personal view is that sparing the innocent victims would be better than punishing the not-so-innocent ones.


And remember that some of the human victims have already refused a raise dead—that raises issues of consent.There's a system advantage there: requiring consent is the default rule for all magic that brings back the dead; wouldn't need to do anything special to preserve it, assuming the hypothetical Familiraise is being developed instead of found.


What I don't think is that pressing command-Z is automatically the best option. It's simple, and it gives the illusion of removing moral calculus from the equation, but it carries its own moral weight that needs to be factored in.Hitting "undo" has its advantages, though. It has the strongest ability to mitigate the effects of the original error, directly relates to that error, and as you said is simple to grasp.

It's not a "true" undo, of course; even if it could fix everything, people are going to remember Familicide and the world is going to be different as a result. But the "everything stays the way it was" possibilities went out the window to moment Familicide will cast, and we/Vaarsuvius are going to have to accept that even an optimum reversal won't make everything the same as it used to be.


There's the additional problem of getting the innocents to accept the resurrection. Unless they're actively scrying, the res request will come as a surprise for most of them, or perhaps they are opposed to getting pulled back based on alignment (see: Draketooths) or too young to comprehend (see: Eric) Is the act of offering a resurrection sufficient atonement?

It's an incredibly tricky question with no good answer.If Vaarsuvius puts in all the effort to get them resurrected, and they refuse at the last moment through no fault of Vaarsuvius', then...Vaarsuvius had still put in all the effort to get them resurrected. There's no difference in how far Vaarsuvius had to go, so I don't see how it's reasonable to fault Vaarsuvius for a decision he/she didn't make, especially one that didn't save her/him anything.

If an accepted resurrection is sufficient, then a refused resurrection should be sufficient too.

[Math_Mage]

I distinguish between wrongful and illegal imprisonment. The LG were imprisoned for specific, known crimes they had actually committed. The imprisonment was illegal, but entirely right.
Fair enough, on the example.


So you're not a Good character. No skin off my nose.
First--would this answer change if the dragon was known to have killed in the past? Does that make this 'right but illegal' imprisonment? If not, as a thought exercise, if the zookeepers walked him out of his zoo exhibit and into a custom-built open-air prison cell where he served time for said murder, would this resolve the issue? Or would they need to release him and wait for him to start eating babies to qualify as Good? It's not clear to me that respecting the dignity of the dragon takes precedence over respecting the physical integrity of the babies, especially if intent is declared.

[Loreweaver15]

So you're not a Good character. No skin off my nose.

So here's how this went down:

"Ah, hello! I see you are a great and powerful dragon who has been imprisoned in this cage for people to come and gawk at. I don't like that you've been imprisoned and want to release you. What will you do once I set you free?"

"I will immediately travel to the nearest town and roast and devour every human I come across."

"Oh. Cool! Have fun. I'm letting you go!"

If you think that's 'respecting the dignity of sentient life', when you yourself know that the consequences of letting the dragon loose are slaughter, pain, and terror, then you're Lawful Neutral at best, ignoring the Good thing to do (not let loose the dragon that's just promised to murder a ton of innocent people) for the Lawful thing to do (letting loose the dragon because he was wrongfully imprisoned).

[theNater]

First--would this answer change if the dragon was known to have killed in the past? Does that make this 'right but illegal' imprisonment?
Right, absolutely. Possibly even legal, depending on how this zoo got hold of the dragon.

It's not clear to me that respecting the dignity of the dragon takes precedence over respecting the physical integrity of the babies, especially if intent is declared.
Declaration of intent is not sufficient to hold someone, otherwise one has to arrest everybody who's ever yelled "I'll kill you" in the heat of passion. Proof of intent-for example, an actual attempt to kill somebody-is required, at a minimum.

So here's how this went down:

"Ah, hello! I see you are a great and powerful dragon who has been imprisoned in this cage for people to come and gawk at. I don't like that you've been imprisoned and want to release you. What will you do once I set you free?"

"I will immediately travel to the nearest town and roast and devour every human I come across."
"Be warned, they have soldiers there who will try to stop you. And there are heroes about who will kill or recapture you as vengeance, if you do get past the soldiers."

There may also be a message sent to the nearest town to let them know a dragon has made threats against them.

...you yourself know that the consequences of letting the dragon loose are slaughter, pain, and terror...
I know nothing of the sort. Dragons can lie, can change their minds, and can be slain. The assumption that a dragon with no history of violently rampaging is going to engage in an unstoppable violent rampage is not supported.

[oppyu]

Alright, the dragon responds to your threat with "Puny humans hitting me with sharpened metal? Ha! I'm an adult dragon son! Most who face me will flee on sight, and the rest will die horribly as their swords bend against my scales. I will murder every man, woman and child in this pathetic village, and any heroes who face me in retaliation will be an entertaining challenge. Maybe I'll flay them alive and make a rug out of their skin."

Do you still raise the dragon in the hopes that the village, once warned, will be able to defeat a red dragon?

[theNater]

Frankly, I'd be on board with slitting Belkar's throat in the night.
A deva had the opportunity to endorse this plan, but refrained from doing so.

Alright, the dragon responds to your threat with "Puny humans hitting me with sharpened metal? Ha! I'm an adult dragon son! Most who face me will flee on sight, and the rest will die horribly as their swords bend against my scales. I will murder every man, woman and child in this pathetic village, and any heroes who face me in retaliation will be an entertaining challenge. Maybe I'll flay them alive and make a rug out of their skin."

Do you still raise the dragon in the hopes that the village, once warned, will be able to defeat a red dragon?
Nope. I do still release the dragon, though. Dragons can lie, change their minds, and be slain; it doesn't have to be outfought by the townsfolk to refrain from killing people.

I also find it strange that I'm apparently able to bypass security that can keep an adult red dragon in check. And that the town seems to have downgraded into a village just during our conversation.

[Kish]

Frankly, I'd be on board with slitting Belkar's throat in the night.
I don't find this a morally appalling statement. I wonder why that is. After all, all you know about Belkar is that he's a halfling.

Oh wait. No, Belkar's race is not in any way related to what you're saying.

[Loreweaver15]

A deva had the opportunity to endorse this plan, but refrained from doing so.

Nope. I do still release the dragon, though. Dragons can lie, change their minds, and be slain; it doesn't have to be outfought by the townsfolk to refrain from killing people.

I also find it strange that I'm apparently able to bypass security that can keep an adult red dragon in check. And that the town seems to have downgraded into a village just during our conversation.

Why are you assuming the dragon is lying? He is promising, to your face, to kill as many people as he can find.

[Kish]

I think that situation is a little more ambiguous than theNater does; I'm pretty sure you would get locked up for announcing to an on-duty cop, "Hi, I'm on my way to murder someone."

But it's also blatantly contrived. Vaarsuvius did not cast Mass Holy Smite. All s/he knew or thought s/he needed to know was that all the targets would be black dragons. Adding in "the dragon tells you of plans for bloody destruction" changes the situation beyond the analogy having a point; if you want a proper analogy you need to have the dragon's mouth sealed.

[oppyu]

A deva had the opportunity to endorse this plan, but refrained from doing so.

Nope. I do still release the dragon, though. Dragons can lie, change their minds, and be slain; it doesn't have to be outfought by the townsfolk to refrain from killing people.

I also find it strange that I'm apparently able to bypass security that can keep an adult red dragon in check. And that the town seems to have downgraded into a village just during our conversation.
Lawful Good deva. There's a big debate here about which alignment is the best alignment, or whether or not there is a best alignment, or is the alignment system a simplistic roleplaying aid that falls apart when given more than a cursory glance. In any case, I'm guessing I'm not D&D Lawful Good and if you believe D&D Lawful Good to be the pinnacle of D&D morality, then I'm probably not indicative of that.

Sorry, town. Most of it's just flavour text for "There is a wrongfully murdered being with the physical capacity to cause great damage. You have no knowledge of their behaviour prior to their wrongful murder, but have evidence that suggests they intend to use their capacity to cause great damage and wrongfully murder other beings. Do you resurrect them?", probably best not to get too bogged down in the specifics. I say no, you say yes, we take a moment to reflect on the wackiness of people who have beliefs different from our own and then move on.

[Loreweaver15]

I think that situation is a little more ambiguous than theNater does; I'm pretty sure you would get locked up for announcing to an on-duty cop, "Hi, I'm on my way to murder someone."

But it's also blatantly contrived. Vaarsuvius did not cast Mass Holy Smite. All s/he knew or thought s/he needed to know was that all the targets would be black dragons. Adding in "the dragon tells you of plans for bloody destruction" changes the situation beyond the analogy having a point; if you want a proper analogy you need to have the dragon's mouth sealed.

Yeah, I know, I'm just confronting him about the ridiculous position he's taking. I presented him with a situation where you were specifically releasing the worst possible outcome and he still maintains that keeping that dragon locked away would be wrong.

Hell, if the dragon outright told me it wanted to do that, I'd seriously consider finding a way to kill it then and there.

EDIT: But then, I'm Chaotic; I think that you should take the best route to helping people, and when the rules get in the way of that I get really ticked off, but my best friend is Lawful as hell and I'm definitely sure he would agree with me here. There is no one 'best' good alignment; the manuals say 'it's the best alignment you can be' for all nine because they want to outline the reasons a player might play them.

[Kish]

Sorry, town. Most of it's just flavour text for "There is a wrongfully murdered being with the physical capacity to cause great damage. You have no knowledge of their behaviour prior to their wrongful murder and no non-race-based evidence of anything about them, but know that that being's race suggests they intend to use their capacity to cause great damage and wrongfully murder other beings. Do you resurrect them?", probably best not to get too bogged down in the specifics.
There, now it's an accurate analogy.

[Rakoa]

It seems to me that theNater is confusing Good with Lawful Neutral. And not even smart Lawful Neutral.

[oppyu]

There, now it's an accurate analogy.
The analogy swung further towards 'the murdered being presents a clear and present threat to other beings' to test Nater's adherence to always resurrecting though yes, your version is closer to the original question of whether or not Vaarsuvius should run around resurrecting the sentient creatures ve murdered.

[Loreweaver15]

The analogy swung further towards 'the murdered being presents a clear and present threat to other beings' to test Nater's adherence to always resurrecting though yes, your version is closer to the original question of whether or not Vaarsuvius should run around resurrecting the sentient creatures ve murdered.

Well, yeah.

Even someone as Chaotic as me understands the rules are there for the worst-case scenario, not the best :P

[Eulalios]

Something to consider: any suitably Epic spell that could revive all the dragons at once might work like resurrection and allow them a choice whether to come back or not. Any that choose to come back to do evil, that choice is on their heads, not V's. Giving someone the option to choose to do evil or good is not necessarily evil itself.

Ummm .... jumping wildly for just a moment, did you watch the Sons of Anarchy season 6 opener?

Will you argue it was *not* an objectively evil act to give an emotionally disturbed child the option to choose what to do with SoA product?

I agree with "not necessarily evil" but indeed if one walks up to a prison and opens the gates (the real-world equivalent of willy-nilly resurrecting every single victim of F*******), that would be an objectively reckless and evil act from the p.o.v. of every future victim.

ETA: It's also a good bet that those who do choose to come back, have not been visiting Eric to play with blocks.

[Kish]

I agree with "not necessarily evil" but indeed if one walks up to a prison and opens the gates (the real-world equivalent of willy-nilly resurrecting every single victim of F*******), that would be an objectively reckless and evil act from the p.o.v. of every future victim.

ETA: It's also a good bet that those who do choose to come back, have not been visiting Eric to play with blocks.
Both of those paragraphs are purely based on the race of the victims. I gather that that seems valid to you. If it seems valid to Vaarsuvius, than s/he hasn't really changed from when s/he cast Familicide, doesn't want to really change, and "redemption" isn't even a question.

[Keltest]

Both of those paragraphs are purely based on the race of the victims. I gather that that seems valid to you. If it seems valid to Vaarsuvius, than s/he hasn't really changed from when s/he cast Familicide, doesn't want to really change, and "redemption" isn't even a question.

While Rich does write "Always evil isn't always" even better than R. A. Salvatore does, that does not mean "Always evil races will actually have an equal distribution of alignments." And heck, even if it did, mathematically V did in fact kill several evil black dragons simply because he killed so many of them.

[Loreweaver15]

While Rich does write "Always evil isn't always" even better than R. A. Salvatore does, that does not mean "Always evil races will actually have an equal distribution of alignments." And heck, even if it did, mathematically V did in fact kill several evil black dragons simply because he killed so many of them.

Which...isn't the point?

The point is that pragmatic sum-total good accomplished doesn't justify the actions V took at all. It was a heinous crime; the only reason people like me argue that V can eventually be redeemed is that she has acknowledged that she committed a heinous crime and is seeking to change herself because of it.

In fact, I think Rich's point explicitly includes 'Utilitarian morality is a load of crap'.

[Keltest]

Which...isn't the point?

The point is that pragmatic sum-total good accomplished doesn't justify the actions V took at all. It was a heinous crime; the only reason people like me argue that V can eventually be redeemed is that she has acknowledged that she committed a heinous crime and is seeking to change herself because of it.

In fact, I think Rich's point explicitly includes 'Utilitarian morality is a load of crap'.

Im fairly certain were having 2 different arguments.

[Rodin]

Of course, given the Giant's general dislike of Resurrection, the whole thing is pretty academic. If True Resurrection is a narrative wrecker, then Mass-True-Ressurection...icide... is exponentially moreso.

Dollars to doughnuts those dragons and everybody else it killed are staying dead. The interesting question that makes is...what now?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Of course, given the Giant's general dislike of Resurrection, the whole thing is pretty academic. If True Resurrection is a narrative wrecker, then Mass-True-Ressurection...icide... is exponentially moreso.

Dollars to doughnuts those dragons and everybody else it killed are staying dead. The interesting question that makes is...what now?

I definitely agree with this statement. I think that if Vaarsuvius just goes "there, all better now", and resurrects all the victims, it will make it seem as though killing things is fine, as long as you can resurrect them. In other words, the impact of Familicide is lessened if it turns out it can be undone with a wave of a hand.

If Vaarsuvius wants redemption, it will have to come from a different approach.

[Lettuce]

I think one of problems here is being Judge Jury and Executioner in the first place. It wasn't V's place to judge them all worthy of death so it wouldn't be his place to pick and choose who gets to return.

Is it necessary for V to be the one to make the judgement? In the afterlife, people are already judged by their actions, and been separated accordingly by them.

Of course, this leads to the question "do evil people deserve to live as much as anyone else?" which I expect everyone to have different opinions on. :smallwink:

My own take on it is "yes, they do--provided that their life isn't actively harming others." One person's rights end where another person's begin, and all that.

And of course, I'm sure some evil people will be quite repentant. Perhaps not for the "right reasons" (i.e. not for a real sense of altruism or compassion and respect for your fellows, but for the selfish reason of never ever wanting to go back to Baator or the Abyss again and spend the rest of eternity in pain), but some might choose to become active agents of good in the world, after their harrowing experiences in the afterlife.

But this may be a good starting point, or a good way to determine at least some of the identity of the affected dragons and dragon-blooded in question. In conclusion, I think if V wants to pursue the idea of resurrecting the black dragons, he should work heavily with the celestial bookkeepers to see it through.

However...


Of course, given the Giant's general dislike of Resurrection, the whole thing is pretty academic. If True Resurrection is a narrative wrecker, then Mass-True-Ressurection...icide... is exponentially moreso.

Dollars to doughnuts those dragons and everybody else it killed are staying dead. The interesting question that makes is...what now?

I think Rodin is spot-on, here, and would be surprised if V actually ended up pursuing the dragon-resurrection thing in comic, even if it's mostly for meta reasons.

I think it's more likely that V will spend the rest of her years as an advocate for species equality, and as a crier against the evils and perils of similar acts of racism and judgement. I think that it's very possible he'll have an important role in attempting to end the war between Goblins and the other races.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think it's more likely that V will spend the rest of her years as an advocate for species equality, and as a crier against the evils and perils of similar acts of racism and judgement. I think that it's very possible he'll have an important role in attempting to end the war between Goblins and the other races.
I think that out of all the proposed ideas so far, I like this one the best. It would show that Vaarsuvius has grown and developed from their previous characterization. It is also something that they would have to work on for the rest of their life, going with the idea of "constantly trying". Also, I would like to see Vaarsuvius solve the goblins problems better than Redcloak's plan.

[theNater]

Why are you assuming the dragon is lying? He is promising, to your face, to kill as many people as he can find.
A)The dragon is wrongfully imprisoned; it has neither murdered nor made an unambiguous attempt to murder anyone yet.
B)The dragon has been captured and/or held by humans; it knows that humans are a real threat to it.

If it actually intends to attack the nearest large concentration of humans, then it is suicidally aggressive. Yet, despite being suicidally aggressive, it has made it to the age of 101 years without either murdering anyone or dying itself. Probability: very low.

If it is lying, that means it has some reason to lie. Like, perhaps, that it has been captured by creatures it thinks are below it, and wants to make its captors uncomfortable by the means available to it. Or that the people holding it demand that it put on a show of nastiness, and torture it when it fails to do so. Probability: much higher.

[Loreweaver15]

A)The dragon is wrongfully imprisoned; it has neither murdered nor made an unambiguous attempt to murder anyone yet.
B)The dragon has been captured and/or held by humans; it knows that humans are a real threat to it.

If it actually intends to attack the nearest large concentration of humans, then it is suicidally aggressive. Yet, despite being suicidally aggressive, it has made it to the age of 101 years without either murdering anyone or dying itself. Probability: very low.

If it is lying, that means it has some reason to lie. Like, perhaps, that it has been captured by creatures it thinks are below it, and wants to make its captors uncomfortable by the means available to it. Or that the people holding it demand that it put on a show of nastiness, and torture it when it fails to do so. Probability: much higher.

...It's a freakin' dragon, dude. Nothing suicidal about laying waste to a nearby town.

[jere7my]

A)The dragon is wrongfully imprisoned; it has neither murdered nor made an unambiguous attempt to murder anyone yet.

As far as you know.


B)The dragon has been captured and/or held by humans; it knows that humans are a real threat to it.

Nope. The dragon was wished into the cage by a rogue elf who had been given superpowers by fiends. Said elf is unambiguously no longer in the picture. Nobody in the town, or indeed the country, including you, could so much as dent the dragon's hide. You just have a ring of invisibility that let you sneak into the zoo. (These poor townsfolk have no magic of their own, you see, apart from this one cage.)


If it actually intends to attack the nearest large concentration of humans, then it is suicidally aggressive. Yet, despite being suicidally aggressive, it has made it to the age of 101 years without either murdering anyone or dying itself. Probability: very low.

See above.


If it is lying, that means it has some reason to lie. Like, perhaps, that it has been captured by creatures it thinks are below it, and wants to make its captors uncomfortable by the means available to it. Or that the people holding it demand that it put on a show of nastiness, and torture it when it fails to do so. Probability: much higher.

Nope. Its captors are lovely to it, and give it a cow every day. In fact, they'd set it free if it didn't keep threatening to eat them, and if the last 99 red dragons seen in the country hadn't murdered innocents. (100 dragons ago, there was one that only ate broccoli.) Also, you've cast detect lie on the dragon, and it's wearing Wonder Woman's lasso.

You added a lot of things that weren't in the spirit of the thought experiment, to make it easier to think about. Those logistical details just muddy the moral issue, so I'm clarifying. But I'm guessing you're still going to let it go.

Me, I say that taking that risk with the villagers' lives is by no means a good act, and promoting yourself to judge on the spot is an extreme LN one.

[orrion]

...It's a freakin' dragon, dude. Nothing suicidal about laying waste to a nearby town.

The dragon would obviously hit the tavern first, and angry adventurers would storm out and fight. The dragon's last words would be "Why didn't I leave the tavern ALONE????"

[jere7my]

Which...isn't the point?

The point is that pragmatic sum-total good accomplished doesn't justify the actions V took at all. It was a heinous crime; the only reason people like me argue that V can eventually be redeemed is that she has acknowledged that she committed a heinous crime and is seeking to change herself because of it.

Yes! And this is exactly why blindly resurrecting them all and putting innocents at risk would not be a good thing to do. Doing so would be a new instance of accomplishing pragmatic sum-total good (maybe), but that still doesn't justify the new horrible things that would happen. If familicide was horrible in part because it killed innocents (which I agree with), undoing it would be a new horrible act for the same reason. They are separate acts; they don't cancel out, they add.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So... would you say your point can be summed as: "If Familicide is wrong because of all the innocents killed along with evil dragons, then resurrecting them would be wrong because of all the evil dragons resurrected with the innocents"?

[jere7my]

So... would you say your point can be summed as: "If Familicide is wrong because of all the innocents killed along with evil dragons, then resurrecting them would be wrong because of all the evil dragons resurrected with the innocents"?

Close, but I'd say resurrecting them wholesale is wrong because it will cause the death of a whole new set of innocents, because some of those resurrected are almost certainly evil person-killing dragons. If we start weighing how many innocents die in each situation, we get into issues of "pragmatic good." If we could resurrect the killer dragons and quarantine them on Monster Island, I think that would work. (Note I said "killer," not "evil.")

Here's a question I haven't seen brought up: if someone else had the power to undo familicide, with the same knowledge of its effects that Vaarsuvius has, should they do it, despite the innocents that would die as a result?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Close, but I'd say resurrecting them wholesale is wrong because it will cause the death of a whole new set of innocents, because some of those resurrected are almost certainly evil person-killing dragons. If we start weighing how many innocents die in each situation, we get into issues of "pragmatic good." If we could resurrect the killer dragons and quarantine them on Monster Island, I think that would work. (Note I said "killer," not "evil.")
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I was trying to get a handle on what this discussion was about, since the red Dragon metaphor kind of pulled away from this argument.

[theNater]

...It's a freakin' dragon, dude. Nothing suicidal about laying waste to a nearby town.
It's a freakin' adult dragon, dude. DR 5 doesn't even protect from crossbow bolts.

As far as you know.
And we should assume it has, just because it's a red dragon?

Nope. Its captors are lovely to it, and give it a cow every day.
Meaning it has no incentive to attack anyone, or even leave, if I let it go.

You added a lot of things that weren't in the spirit of the thought experiment, to make it easier to think about. Those logistical details just muddy the moral issue, so I'm clarifying.
As long as the dragon acts like a real creature, and not a mindless human-killing automaton, then the risk is minimal. Trying to paint it as not only likely but certain, just to make the question hard, is disingenuous.

[Keltest]

It's a freakin' adult dragon, dude. DR 5 doesn't even protect from crossbow bolts.

And we should assume it has, just because it's a red dragon?

Meaning it has no incentive to attack anyone, or even leave, if I let it go.

As long as the dragon acts like a real creature, and not a mindless human-killing automaton, then the risk is minimal. Trying to paint it as not only likely but certain, just to make the question hard, is disingenuous.

The dragon is openly stating hostile intent, unambiguously and without any sort of attempt to disguise it. The risk is in no way minimal. Even if it were eventually brought down, it would have done terrible damage.

[oppyu]

It's a freakin' adult dragon, dude. DR 5 doesn't even protect from crossbow bolts.

And we should assume it has, just because it's a red dragon?

Meaning it has no incentive to attack anyone, or even leave, if I let it go.

As long as the dragon acts like a real creature, and not a mindless human-killing automaton, then the risk is minimal. Trying to paint it as not only likely but certain, just to make the question hard, is disingenuous.
Ok, whittling it back to the basics.

There is a red dragon. There is a town. She is more than powerful enough to burn the town to the ground, no matter what piddly resistance the puny humans offer. If she attacks the town, it is certain that at the very least there would be massive casualties if not the extermination of every man, woman and child in the town. But she was murdered. Through your divination, you determine she was wrongfully murdered, and that she intends to attack said town and destroy everything in her path. It may be arrogance or an accurate estimation of her skills, but she is also prepared for any retribution adventurers may offer.

Knowing that she absolutely intends to attack this town, she will certainly murder a lot of innocents when she attacks this town, and disregarding any clever escapes like 'I convince her to not attack the town and become a vegetarian' because this is a thought experiment and not a roleplaying challenge you can solve with lateral thinking, do you raise this dragon?

[jere7my]

It's a freakin' adult dragon, dude. DR 5 doesn't even protect from crossbow bolts.

I don't believe I ever stated the dragon's age category. Assume this is a great wyrm red dragon, with some Tarrasque in its ancestry because why not.


And we should assume it has, just because it's a red dragon?

I'm saying you have no way of knowing, either way. But 99% of the other red dragons that have visited this country have eaten one or more innocent humans before moving on.


Meaning it has no incentive to attack anyone, or even leave, if I let it go.

Apparently, it does. It intends to devour intelligent, innocent beings that are no threat to it, and you've determined unambiguously that it intends to go through with that threat. Even if most red dragons aren't violent psychopaths (which is a questionable assertion), you've determined that this one is definitely going to start chowing down on babies and little kids if you release it. Its incentives may not be known to you; maybe it's hungry, maybe it's angry, maybe it just doesn't view humans as anything with moral value. Maybe it's performance art. Who knows?


As long as the dragon acts like a real creature, and not a mindless human-killing automaton, then the risk is minimal. Trying to paint it as not only likely but certain, just to make the question hard, is disingenuous.

There are real creatures, and real humans, who go out of their way to hurt, kill, and even eat other people. Sapient beings can act in ways that are incomprehensible, arbitrary, or horrific from our point of view. Given that, I don't see why this is such a reach. This particular dragon, whatever other dragons are like, intends to eat people as soon as it's released.

Do you free the dragon?

(My point here, which has been addressed lots of times in, e.g., superhero comics, is that basic human rights and massive power disparity don't always play well together. If you have a prisoner who's done nothing wrong, but who has the ability to destroy a city by blinking if you set them free, what's the right thing to do? If you continue to hold them, you're perpetuating a crime against them; if you set them free, you're rolling the dice with millions of lives. Do you have the right to gamble with all those innocent lives? Do you have the right to imprison an innocent person indefinitely? If there's no good third option, like draining their powers or moving them to another planet, I don't think the answer is at all cut and dried.)

[jere7my]

I'm going to expand on a point I made in passing, which is to wonder what someone else, who knows nothing of Vaarsuvius and familicide, should do if given the chance to press the undo button.

Imagine a demon came up to a nominally Good character and said, "You have the opportunity to release some thousands of evil black dragons from the Abyss and scatter them across the countryside. You'll have no control over what they do from then on; some of them, and maybe most of them, will certainly end up killing innocents, and some of them, maybe most of them, have killed before. But, on the plus side, you'll return a whole bunch of murdered innocent people and dragons to life, along with an assortment of other innocent creatures (and a pyramid full of cranks)." What should that Good character, with no debt of familicide to atone for, do? Do they have a right to roll those dice? Do they have an obligation to roll those dice? What responsibility do they bear, in either case?

I don't think these questions have easy answers—which is why I don't think Vaarsuvius's hypothetical big red undo button has an easy answer either. Atonement is something personal to her; it doesn't change the moral weight of undo, it just changes her attitude toward it.

Anyway, I've spent too much time in this thread, and a new comic has been posted, so that's all. :smallredface:

[Jasdoif]

Imagine a demon came up to a nominally Good character and said, "You have the opportunity to release some thousands of evil black dragons from the Abyss and scatter them across the countryside. You'll have no control over what they do from then on; some of them, and maybe most of them, will certainly end up killing innocents, and some of them, maybe most of them, have killed before. But, on the plus side, you'll return a whole bunch of murdered innocent people and dragons to life, along with an assortment of other innocent creatures (and a pyramid full of cranks)."What if it, instead, were....

"You have the opportunity to release a whole bunch of evil black dragons from the Abyss and scatter them across the countryside. You'll have no control over what they do from then on; some of them, and maybe most of them, will certainly end up killing innocents, and some of them, maybe most of them, have killed before. But, on the plus side, you'll return some thousands of murdered innocent people and dragons to life, along with an assortment of other innocent creatures (and a pyramid full of cranks)."

Would that change how you feel about the scenario? And if so....Could you actually provide figures of how many of Familicide's victims, black dragon or not, are violent killers; and how many are not? 'cause it looks to me like you've been assuming the vast majority of Familicide's victims are black dragons, that the vast majority of black dragons are evil, and the vast majority of evil black dragons are killers. That's quite a chain of nested assumptions from where I'm sitting.


Furthermore....I'm specifically uncomfortable with the general idea that undoing a mass murder is bad. Because that legitimizes mass murder, since it means as long as murderers get killed somehow, they deserve to stay dead; and if a whole ton of innocents get killed at the same time...it sucks to be them, I guess is all that can be said? No, trivializing the lives of the innocent is not something I can condone.

[Keltest]

What if it, instead, were....

"You have the opportunity to release a whole bunch of evil black dragons from the Abyss and scatter them across the countryside. You'll have no control over what they do from then on; some of them, and maybe most of them, will certainly end up killing innocents, and some of them, maybe most of them, have killed before. But, on the plus side, you'll return some thousands of murdered innocent people and dragons to life, along with an assortment of other innocent creatures (and a pyramid full of cranks)."

Would that change how you feel about the scenario? And if so....Could you actually provide figures of how many of Familicide's victims, black dragon or not, are violent killers; and how many are not? 'cause it looks to me like you've been assuming the vast majority of Familicide's victims are black dragons, that the vast majority of black dragons are evil, and the vast majority of evil black dragons are killers. That's quite a chain of nested assumptions from where I'm sitting.


Furthermore....I'm specifically uncomfortable with the general idea that undoing a mass murder is bad. Because that legitimizes mass murder, since it means as long as murderers get killed somehow, they deserve to stay dead; and if a whole ton of innocents get killed at the same time...it sucks to be them, I guess is all that can be said? No, trivializing the lives of the innocent is not something I can condone.

The opposite of an Evil deed is not necessarily going to be a good deed. Imagine, for a moment, that instead of mass murder, we have a single individual dead. He was a psychopath, killed an arbitrarily large number of people... and gets killed by a random mugger after his wallet, one who didn't have a clue who he is. His killing was an evil act because the mugger had no idea who he was and from that had no reason to kill him. That does not mean that he should be brought back.

[jere7my]

What if it, instead, were....

"You have the opportunity to release a whole bunch of evil black dragons from the Abyss and scatter them across the countryside. You'll have no control over what they do from then on; some of them, and maybe most of them, will certainly end up killing innocents, and some of them, maybe most of them, have killed before. But, on the plus side, you'll return some thousands of murdered innocent people and dragons to life, along with an assortment of other innocent creatures (and a pyramid full of cranks)."

Would that change how you feel about the scenario? And if so....Could you actually provide figures of how many of Familicide's victims, black dragon or not, are violent killers; and how many are not? 'cause it looks to me like you've been assuming the vast majority of Familicide's victims are black dragons, that the vast majority of black dragons are evil, and the vast majority of evil black dragons are killers. That's quite a chain of nested assumptions from where I'm sitting.

It's possible that I would feel differently if we juggled the numbers in different ways, sure. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that line of attack, though, because it starts to feel a lot like moral arithmetic—number saved minus number killed, carry the two.... Couldn't we then find a set of numbers that would make familicide okay?

Is it ever okay to kill some number of innocents (or release independent agents you're pretty sure will kill innocents) to save some other number of innocents? Do we just need the former group to be smaller than the latter, or ten times smaller, or a hundred? Or is playing with life like that innately wrong? It seems very...pragmatic, and it seems like it could be used to justify a whole lot of atrocities.

What if our hypothetical undo undoes Vaarsuvius's whole encounter with the mama black dragon, so not only is familicide undone but mama is resurrected and Vaarsuvius's kids are soul-bound and tortured for eternity? That's only two guaranteed deaths, but that still wouldn't be an easy call for me. What right do I have?

Anyway, my theoreticals are not meant to be definitive—they're meant to be possible outcomes of familicide and its hypothetical reversal. Right now, we don't know what the ratios are; I'm proposing some of the worst, to see if that changes the opinions of any of the pro-undo crowd. I'm also asking whether it's okay for Vaarsuvius to hit undo without making an effort to find out those specifics, because they could well be on the pessimistic end of the spectrum I propose.

[Rodin]

Basically, easy Resurrection is a moral morass. It leads to such bizarre questions as "is it okay to kill an impossible to hold prisoner, if you intend to resurrect him some months later when he's at a proper holding facility where he can get a proper trial?"

Note: This is an actual question that crossed my mind when everyone was discussing what to do about Tarquin. It still makes me feel dirty just thinking about it.

[Jasdoif]

The opposite of an Evil deed is not necessarily going to be a good deed. Imagine, for a moment, that instead of mass murder, we have a single individual dead. He was a psychopath, killed an arbitrarily large number of people... and gets killed by a random mugger after his wallet, one who didn't have a clue who he is. His killing was an evil act because the mugger had no idea who he was and from that had no reason to kill him. That does not mean that he should be brought back.Fair enough. Of course, in the single-victim scenario there aren't additional victims involved that could be innocent, so it's missing the key complicating factor.


It's possible that I would feel differently if we juggled the numbers in different ways, sure. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that line of attack, though, because it starts to feel a lot like moral arithmetic—number saved minus number killed, carry the two.... Couldn't we then find a set of numbers that would make familicide okay?Honestly? To think that the numbers don't matter at all, yet think raising all the victims is a bad idea because of the murderous ones, equates to declaring all the innocent victims meaningless. And I don't think either of us are saying that tossing aside the innocent victims is a good idea.


Is it ever okay to kill some number of innocents (or release independent agents you're pretty sure will kill innocents) to save some other number of innocents? Do we just need the former group to be smaller than the latter, or ten times smaller, or a hundred? Or is playing with life like that innately wrong? It seems very...pragmatic, and it seems like it could be used to justify a whole lot of atrocities.

What if our hypothetical undo undoes Vaarsuvius's whole encounter with the mama black dragon, so not only is familicide undone but mama is resurrected and Vaarsuvius's kids are soul-bound and tortured for eternity? That's only two guaranteed deaths, but that still wouldn't be an easy call for me. What right do I have?

Anyway, my theoreticals are not meant to be definitive—they're meant to be possible outcomes of familicide and its hypothetical reversal. Right now, we don't know what the ratios are; I'm proposing some of the worst, to see if that changes the opinions of any of the pro-undo crowd. I'm also asking whether it's okay for Vaarsuvius to hit undo without making an effort to find out those specifics, because they could well be on the pessimistic end of the spectrum I propose.Here's the real problem: what specifics?

Would any of the Familicide victims continue terrorizing a village? Harass a violent group over territory, a group that now has access to the victim's home and resources (particularly the valuables in a dragon hoard)? Continue their feud with an order of holy knights? Continue their feud with an order of unholy knights? Restore a cautious stability with another (non-Familicide) dragon, wherein neither are willing to attack nearby towns because that would stretch their influence and make them weak to attacks from the other, which led to the still-living dragon razing the surrounding countryside?

And that's just the dragons. There are an entire legion of possible changes of every kind, from the death of every Familicide victim. And that's without considering what learning about Familicide itself might do to their view of their place in the world. The enduring effects of Familicide are could be good and bad, in different places at the same time. To really think it's possible for Vaarsuvius to attain sufficient understanding of such a widespread phenomenon to be able to make accurate future predictions and condense them into a single "net good" or "net evil" decision...is ludicrous, and would require an extreme amount of hubris on Vaarsuvius' part, probably the same kind that led Vaarsuvius to think casting Familicide could be acceptable in the first place.

No, I think Vaarsuvius can only be expected to act on what Vaarsuvius truly knows: that Familicide was a terrible thing, and being related to the dragon that tried to destroy his/her family is no reason to leave the victims dead. The world will adapt to the victims' return, just like it will with the victims' departure, just it had throughout time up to the point where Familicide was cast.


Vaarsuvius doesn't have the right to decide either way; that's why undoing the original change (which Vaarsuvius didn't have the right to make either) and letting things run their course, in as close to original fashion as possible, is ethically the best among a series of a not-very-good options.

[orrion]

Basically, easy Resurrection is a moral morass. It leads to such bizarre questions as "is it okay to kill an impossible to hold prisoner, if you intend to resurrect him some months later when he's at a proper holding facility where he can get a proper trial?"

Note: This is an actual question that crossed my mind when everyone was discussing what to do about Tarquin. It still makes me feel dirty just thinking about it.

I would say no because you have no guarantee that said prisoner would consent to be resurrected.

Also, don't you mean Nale? The party never had Tarquin in such a position.

[Rodin]

I would say no because you have no guarantee that said prisoner would consent to be resurrected.

Also, don't you mean Nale? The party never had Tarquin in such a position.

The question at the time was "Was Elan chunking Tarquin off the airship an Evil act, or should he have tried to save him and take him prisoner?"

Since Tarquin would be extremely difficult to keep as a prisoner, that lead to thoughts about how you would manage to bring an Epic level character to trial at a proper authority. For a fighter like Tarquin, you could maybe manage it non-lethally. For someone like Laurin, who can teleport and dispel magic psychically? Good luck.

I had forgotten about the "must agree to it" Resurrection clause. Even if there was a way to force a resurrection though, I think I still wouldn't do it. The implications are just too disturbing.

[Jasdoif]

The question at the time was "Was Elan chunking Tarquin off the airship an Evil act, or should he have tried to save him and take him prisoner?"

Since Tarquin would be extremely difficult to keep as a prisoner, that lead to thoughts about how you would manage to bring an Epic level character to trial at a proper authority. For a fighter like Tarquin, you could maybe manage it non-lethally. For someone like Laurin, who can teleport and dispel magic psychically? Good luck.

I had forgotten about the "must agree to it" Resurrection clause. Even if there was a way to force a resurrection though, I think I still wouldn't do it. The implications are just too disturbing.Hmm. If you genuinely can't hold them for trial, and they're an ongoing danger to those around them (which I imagine is why they can't be held)...you'd be forced to kill them if you can't risk their escape, right?

At that point, raising them for a trial later is a bonus, compared to leaving them dead (as would be mandatory in the absence of the existence of resurrection effects).

[lio45]

A construction worker is working atop a high scaffold. Despite doing everything correct to secure his hammer, he loses it after a forceful blow. It flies across the street and hits a baby, who dies. Is he responsible?

FWIW, the answer to that question is a clear "Yes, absolutely".

(I'm saying this as someone who has years of experience both working construction and running a construction business / planning jobsites in urban environments.)

And FYI, if that hammer kills someone, then the holder of it most definitely did NOT "do everything correct to secure it".

It's like saying "if, despite doing everything correctly and safely while I'm deer hunting with buddies, I end up shooting and killing one of my friends, is it my fault?" The statement is a contradiction...




Declaration of intent is not sufficient to hold someone, otherwise one has to arrest everybody who's ever yelled "I'll kill you" in the heat of passion.

... do you often yell "I'll kill you" at people? Seriously?

I absolutely never have, and never will, even in the most intense heat of passion imaginable.

Death threats are a pretty serious business, actually.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It seems to me that theNater is confusing Good with Lawful Neutral. And not even smart Lawful Neutral.

More like "Good" with "Chaotic Evil". Yikes.

[The Grim Author]

I'm still wondering why people are discounting the possibility that resurrection of any of the victims is impossible. As I said earlier in the thread, Haerta doesn't seem like the kind of person to have let a little thing like a 9th-level spell (a little gem known as "Miracle") mess up her perfectly-laid-out plans to get rid of everyone who was ever related to someone. It's a contingency she would have planned for and accounted for with the spell.

[Keltest]

I'm still wondering why people are discounting the possibility that resurrection of any of the victims is impossible. As I said earlier in the thread, Haerta doesn't seem like the kind of person to have let a little thing like a 9th-level spell (a little gem known as "Miracle") mess up her perfectly-laid-out plans to get rid of everyone who was ever related to someone. It's a contingency she would have planned for and accounted for with the spell.

Well if its impossible, than any and all discussion about "what would happen if they got resurrected" is moot. It is of course a possibility, but not one really relevant to our hypothetical situation.

[orrion]

I'm still wondering why people are discounting the possibility that resurrection of any of the victims is impossible. As I said earlier in the thread, Haerta doesn't seem like the kind of person to have let a little thing like a 9th-level spell (a little gem known as "Miracle") mess up her perfectly-laid-out plans to get rid of everyone who was ever related to someone. It's a contingency she would have planned for and accounted for with the spell.

The spell itself accounts for it in this way - who the heck is going to cast the Miracle? The person she killed can't, nor anyone related to them. Even if someone is left (like Tarquin was) who is close to someone who died, they're probably going to try and swing a Raise Dead or Resurrection. Miracle wouldn't even be on their list.

[theNater]

Knowing that she absolutely intends to attack this town, she will certainly murder a lot of innocents when she attacks this town, and disregarding any clever escapes like 'I convince her to not attack the town and become a vegetarian' because this is a thought experiment and not a roleplaying challenge you can solve with lateral thinking, do you raise this dragon?
And here's the fundamental problem: the assumption that the attack on the town is inevitable once the dragon is released. In that thought experiment, we're dealing with a creature who cannot change its mind. The destruction of the town is the only thing it will attempt. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with; it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear; and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the town is ashes.

This thought experiment doesn't have a dragon in a cage. It has a T-800 terminator robot in a cage, and is calling it a dragon.

[Keltest]

And here's the fundamental problem: the assumption that the attack on the town is inevitable once the dragon is released. In that thought experiment, we're dealing with a creature who cannot change its mind. The destruction of the town is the only thing it will attempt. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with; it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear; and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the town is ashes.

This thought experiment doesn't have a dragon in a cage. It has a T-800 terminator robot in a cage, and is calling it a dragon.

Perhaps you are not familiar with dragons...

[theNater]

I'm saying you have no way of knowing, either way.
Not even with all those truth effects its under? I can't, y'know, ask it?

But 99% of the other red dragons that have visited this country have eaten one or more innocent humans before moving on.
Is that a yes? It sounds like a yes.

And FYI, if that hammer kills someone, then the holder of it most definitely did NOT "do everything correct to secure it".
Nothing is 100%. Assume the worker fell prey to a previously undetectable medical problem that causes muscle spasms. Assume equipment failure not predictable by the worker, despite proper testing of the equipment. Assume a freak gust of wind, if you must. Assume whatever it takes, even if its not realistically plausible.

In real life, when a hammer falls, the first assumption should be that the worker erred, absolutely. Workers have a positive responsibility to keep their tools secure. But for purposes of this discussion, we are omniscient; we can know exactly what happened.

... do you often yell "I'll kill you" at people? Seriously?

I absolutely never have, and never will, even in the most intense heat of passion imaginable.
I don't, and am pleased to hear that you don't, either. But not everybody on Earth is you or me, and forcing them to act like us, under threat of incarceration, would be wrong.

[lio45]

Nothing is 100%. Assume the worker fell prey to a previously undetectable medical problem that causes muscle spasms. Assume equipment failure not predictable by the worker, despite proper testing of the equipment. Assume a freak gust of wind, if you must. Assume whatever it takes, even if its not realistically plausible.

In real life, when a hammer falls, the first assumption should be that the worker erred, absolutely. Workers have a positive responsibility to keep their tools secure. But for purposes of this discussion, we are omniscient; we can know exactly what happened.

OK, then yes, I'll grant you that point. It's indeed possible to conceive a situation (not very realistically plausible, as you say) in which the worker's hammer kills someone through no fault of the worker (and that fact would probably be clear only to us omniscient observers; the fallible humans would likely be angry at the killed baby and point the finger at the worker; the worker himself would probably feel very guilty and absolutely awful).



I don't, and am pleased to hear that you don't, either. But not everybody on Earth is you or me, and forcing them to act like us, under threat of incarceration, would be wrong.

Wow, that statement is... really a slippery slope.

There are people on Earth who, unlike you or me, desire to rape and kill. "Wrong" as it is to force them to act like us, under threat of incarceration, I'm still glad we're doing it.

[martianmister]

If V resurrect them, (human or dragon) many of them would gang up on V, her/his relatives and allies, for revenge.

[jere7my]

And here's the fundamental problem: the assumption that the attack on the town is inevitable once the dragon is released. In that thought experiment, we're dealing with a creature who cannot change its mind. The destruction of the town is the only thing it will attempt. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with; it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear; and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the town is ashes.

Of course it could change its mind. Who said it couldn't? It's a sapient being. We haven't scried the future. It could get out of the cage and see a little girl with flowers and feel pity for the first time, or it could see a sexy dragon of the appropriate sex and go flying off after that instead. All you know is, right now, it 100% intends to devour everyone in the town, starting with the babies.


Not even with all those truth effects its under? I can't, y'know, ask it?

Nope. It's under a high-level spell effect called the Veil of Hypothesis.


Is that a yes? It sounds like a yes.

It is exactly what it purports to be: data. You can draw whatever assumptions you want from the data.

Anyway, I suspect you intend to keep throwing out pragmatic considerations that allow you to avoid answering the fundamental question, so I'm again not sure how useful this thread of inquiry is.

[Nilehus]

This thread was interesting to read before it became nothing but people arguing about unbelievably specific, incredibly unlikely hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with the situation at hand. Oh well.

[The Giant]

Perhaps you are not familiar with dragons...

Neither are you, because dragons don't exist.

But regardless, this thread has veered way into Morally Justified territory, plus a whole bunch of theoretical tangents that don't even have anything to do with V's specific situation. So, thread locked.