wumpus
2014-02-22, 04:06 PM
It looks like Rich threw more logs on the fire for the arguments about the familicide and just how evil it was. We now know that it is quite likely that at least some monsters are simply "always evil". It is still unknown if it is always non-evil to kill them (my guess is that slaying a vampire is an act of mercy and that simply killing unknown masses of vampires is still non-evil and likely good).
Some other thoughts on V's need for redeememnt:
V (and most pro-familicide posters by now, I hope) understands the vast evil of slaying part-dragons via the familicide. This is as clear as it gets.
V's stance on the death of pure dragons via familicide is in doubt (although I suspect V has doubts on this as well). Rich has been strongly implying that even if the spell was limited to pure dragons*, it still would be an act of extreme Evil. It should also be known that many, many "good" characters in the OOTS-verse have similar attitudes to pre-enlightenment V (killing dragons isn't evil under any circmumstance). Take the paladins who slaughtered goblins: this involved quite a bit of evil, and paladins fell (implied by Rich. He claimed that all paladins falling wouldn't be as obvious as Miko and that much of the slaughter required evil acts, so presumably paladins were falling). I would claim that the fallen paladins were at least as surprised as Miko. An even more extreme example would be the gods themselves: they created the greenskins (and, I assume, the other "evil" monsters) as xp fodder for player races. It must have been a surprise for them to find out that this was likely an evil act, and that killing them as "little bundles of xp" was certainly an evil act.
My take is that V is likely to attempt to atone for killing the part-dragons and try to take credit for the dragoncide. This should still count as "redeement" in the sense that as [listed] true neutral, V has a lot more room for evil while staying neutral. Should V be striving for goodness (which might be possible since 'e was consulting with Roy instead of the more [originally] neutral Haley), this will require understanding the great evil of the dragoncide and atoning for that as well (and no, preventing the metallic dragoncide doesn't sound like the means to do it, but might be a start (and might do wonders for the easier part-dragon atonement)).
Note that the difficulty in even understanding the requriements for redeement (that evil creatures may have an inalienable right to life unless proven/required otherwise) may be one of the reasons redeement is so rare and special in the OOTS-verse. V is in no way in a position to call foul over this (at least no more than Miko).
* note that this can be highly setting specific. Dragons appear to be exemplars of alighnment in standard D&D, and are based on legends that often had specifics that could put them in the "always evil" camp. There are reasons to believe that the dragon Beowulf fought to the [mutual] death was some sort of death spirit, and the one that Sigmund slew was certainly a spirit of pure greed (and/or possibly vengence).
Some other thoughts on V's need for redeememnt:
V (and most pro-familicide posters by now, I hope) understands the vast evil of slaying part-dragons via the familicide. This is as clear as it gets.
V's stance on the death of pure dragons via familicide is in doubt (although I suspect V has doubts on this as well). Rich has been strongly implying that even if the spell was limited to pure dragons*, it still would be an act of extreme Evil. It should also be known that many, many "good" characters in the OOTS-verse have similar attitudes to pre-enlightenment V (killing dragons isn't evil under any circmumstance). Take the paladins who slaughtered goblins: this involved quite a bit of evil, and paladins fell (implied by Rich. He claimed that all paladins falling wouldn't be as obvious as Miko and that much of the slaughter required evil acts, so presumably paladins were falling). I would claim that the fallen paladins were at least as surprised as Miko. An even more extreme example would be the gods themselves: they created the greenskins (and, I assume, the other "evil" monsters) as xp fodder for player races. It must have been a surprise for them to find out that this was likely an evil act, and that killing them as "little bundles of xp" was certainly an evil act.
My take is that V is likely to attempt to atone for killing the part-dragons and try to take credit for the dragoncide. This should still count as "redeement" in the sense that as [listed] true neutral, V has a lot more room for evil while staying neutral. Should V be striving for goodness (which might be possible since 'e was consulting with Roy instead of the more [originally] neutral Haley), this will require understanding the great evil of the dragoncide and atoning for that as well (and no, preventing the metallic dragoncide doesn't sound like the means to do it, but might be a start (and might do wonders for the easier part-dragon atonement)).
Note that the difficulty in even understanding the requriements for redeement (that evil creatures may have an inalienable right to life unless proven/required otherwise) may be one of the reasons redeement is so rare and special in the OOTS-verse. V is in no way in a position to call foul over this (at least no more than Miko).
* note that this can be highly setting specific. Dragons appear to be exemplars of alighnment in standard D&D, and are based on legends that often had specifics that could put them in the "always evil" camp. There are reasons to believe that the dragon Beowulf fought to the [mutual] death was some sort of death spirit, and the one that Sigmund slew was certainly a spirit of pure greed (and/or possibly vengence).