Belkar's Alignment

[Malfarian]

Sorry this thread is basically empty, but it seemed timely to start discussing again.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

CE, trending north.

Grey Wolf

[PontificatusRex]

I think if it does "officially" change, we'll find out when Belkar activates his charm and it doesn't hurt.

He'll probably be more surprised than anyone.

[MartianInvader]

This most recent comic is the most explicit evidence yet that Belkar's on his way to an alignment change. I like the approach too - seeing evil as weakness lets him shift alignment while keeping a lot of his fun personality.

Now that I think about it, when was the last time he commited an explicitly evil act? I can't think of anything off the top of my head since he bullied and stole from prisoners in the gladitorial arena.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

when was the last time he commited an explicitly evil act?

Torture of the mind-dominated kobold came after that.

So did lying to a storekeeper to get a discounted magical item by letting her think it was defective.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Defrauding the gnome who sold him the talisman maybe:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0969.html

even if it simply consists of omission - failing to tell her that it's not malfunctioning and therefore does not need to be sold to him at half price.

His pretence that it is broken goes a bit beyond "lie of omission" though.

For a less ambiguous example, there's this:

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

which amounts to torture.

[Leirus]

Torture of the mind-dominated kobold came after that.

So did lying to a storekeeper to get a discounted magical item by letting her think it was defective.

Grey Wolf

But he felt bad about the storekeeper! Progress!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But he felt bad about the storekeeper! Progress!

He has been feeling bad about other sentient beings since he assisted the escape of the bounty hunters. But, yes, "trending north".

Grey Wolf

[Doug Lampert]

But he felt bad about the storekeeper! Progress!

Oh, Belkar is clearly moving progress northward on the alignment scale, it's just that he's got a long way to go, and "Halfling Baby Steps Are Very Small".

[Gift Jeraff]

Chaotic Evil with a heart of gold.

[Peelee]

Now that I think about it, when was the last time he commited an explicitly evil act?

When was the last time he committed an explicitly Good act? If Xykon just up and decided to go lay on the beach for a couple decades, I wouldn't start calling him Neutral just because it's been a while since he did anything wrong.

ETA: I'm hitching my wagon onto Gift Jeraff's train.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

When was the last time he committed an explicitly Good act?

I'd count feeling & expressing regret about a past Evil action to be an act of Good.

I do not think a drop in the number of Evil acts to "one every other day or so" and three moments of regret/compassion over the last couple of weeks to get him out of E, though.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I'd count feeling & expressing regret about a past Evil action to be an act of Good.
Fair point.

I do not think a drop in the number of Evil acts to "one every other day or so" and three moments of regret/compassion over the last couple of weeks to get him out of E, though.

Grey Wolf

Also agreed. Which is why I think GJ summarized it nicely.

[Fyraltari]

Confused Evil.

[masamune1]

Wondering now if his attempts to slay Vamp!-Durkon when the latter was pretending to be good count as Evil behaviour or not.

Obviously, WE knew he was in the right, because the comic quickly told us. It would have been a different story arc if it kept his true nature secret for a lot longer.

And it would have been different skill if he was exactly what he claimed to be- Durkon, but just a vampire now, rather than possessed by an evil spirit.

Belkar seemed to be going off of gut instinct more than anything like actually knowing how vampires worked...would it have been Evil of him to try and kill V!Durkon if V!Durkon was actually Good? And if so, would his actual slaying attempts not count as Evil anyway?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wondering now if his attempts to slay Vamp!-Durkon when the latter was pretending to be good count as Evil behaviour or not.

As I see it, it was Neutral. It was proportional revenge for having killed the Real Durkon. Revenge is eminently Neutral (verging on Evil, due to the old adage "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", but that requires foresight that Belkar doesn't posses).

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Revenge is eminently Neutral.
See, it's statements like that that make me dislike D&D's alignment system.

[Michaeler]

See, it's statements like that that make me dislike D&D's alignment system.

D&D's alignment system puts most real people into good alignments. Which is fine, good people are allowed to disagree.

As for Belkar, I've assumed for a long time that we won't see his alignment change. He'll wake up in an unexpected afterlife and that will be the first confirmation we'll have.

[gatemansgc]

i like to think of each alignment as having 8 subalignments. hence why you can have two chaotic evil characters be so different. xykon is more chaotic, more evil. belkar is also more chaotic but less evil. and becoming less evil as his "fake" character development becomes more real.

i'm pretty sure he's still evil enough to be hurt by his protection against evil clasp though. that probably won't change until almost the time when he tries to stab the snarl and gets erased.

[Rrmcklin]

This strip doesn't really give us anything new to talk about: he's Chaotic Evil, but slowly (emphasis on slowly) trending to something less so (Evil, that is, no effect on the Chaos).

Really, there's no argument to be made that he isn't Evil; I'd imagine that's the entire reason Rich made his charm hurt him in the first place, so people will stop going "maybe Belkar isn't Evil anymore" and also maybe giving us a clear sign that he's stopped being Evil (though I really wouldn't count on that).

[The Pilgrim]

Belkar is Evil until that charm on his cloak clasp stops itching.

But he is going in the right direction. He is even no longer reluctant to acknowledge in front of others that he is changing.

[Synesthesy]

Belkar is clearly a very different character since he started changing.
We can assume the old Belkar has ceased breathing since sometime......
No, he won't die, someone needed to write it here.
However, I think that he is a lot wiser, and that means he's less evil. Only that this time the wisdom gain is not fake, so his change of hearth isn't either.

[Fyraltari]

Only that this time the wisdom gain is not fake, so his change of hearth isn't either.

Then again last time Belkar prented to change hearth, it was for tax fraud purposes.

[Liquor Box]

Torture of the mind-dominated kobold came after that.

So did lying to a storekeeper to get a discounted magical item by letting her think it was defective.

Grey Wolf

Both those are much less egregious than his evils prior to dominating in the thieves guild, and both were some time ago. He has arguable committed several good acts since then.

Not disagreeing with you, or saying its enough that he is not evil yet, but the upward trend is strong.

[understatement]

He'll probably not live to see CN.

It's a pretty cool irony, though -- he's being clearly marked as Evil when he's alight from the clasp, even when he's telling "Durkon" how bad he felt over his death.

[RatElemental]

Chaotic Evil with a heart of gold.

Honestly, I wouldn't even go that far. Chaotic Evil with neutral tendencies.

[Celestia]

My guess for Belkar is that he is currently still CE and will remain as such for the rest of the story. He'll slowly but surely continue gaining a conscience, but it won't be enough to cause an alignment shift until the very end. In his last moments he'll end up willingly sacrificing himself to save the party, and that will be just enough to push him over the edge and send him to the CN afterlife.

[Fish]

Yes.

Belkar has an alignment.

/thread

[KorvinStarmast]

Belkar's Alignment
CE.
With a heart of brass.
Expecting a cat to evoke a positive change in Belkar, given the nature of cats, is a reach.

He may grow, but on the balance the analysis presented by the Deva (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) argues that he's headed to the CE afterlife. And he's probably good with that.


In my first year of law school, I had a ConLaw professor who opened his first lecture with a spiel - drawn in large part from Burke, now that I think about it - about how in modern states constitutions and laws are made largely by and for lawyers, that lawyers by virtue of this and of their overrepresentation in governments are a ruling class in some senses, and thus that lawyers thus had a responsibility to be attentive to the public ramifications of what they do, even in private transactions.

Anecdotal evidence is not dispositive of anything, but I highly doubt Celia never encountered some version of this idea. I arrived at a similar conclusion in the late 1980's after taking a few business law and a con law classes during part of a masters degree. ( I did not attend law school). Interesting to hear that at least one law prof fits into the "self aware" category.

(And you have reminded me that I am behind on my reading list, Burke still being in the pile "to be read ..." )

[Peelee]

Belkar's Alignment
CE.
With a heart of brass.
Expecting a cat to evoke a positive change in Belkar, given the nature of cats, is a reach.

Once he had a cat and it was a gas
Soon turned out he had a heart of brass
Seemed like the real thing only to find
Durkon's soul, friend's gone behind.

[KorvinStarmast]

Once he had a cat and it was a gas
Soon turned out he had a heart of brass
Seemed like the real thing only to find
Durkon's soul, friend's gone behind. Yep, that song was going through my head as I typed that. :smallbiggrin:
It's eleven fifty nine {one},
and so far Belkar's alive ...

[opus]

Defrauding the gnome who sold him the talisman maybe:

(f'in board won't let me post even quoted link. maternal fornicator.)

even if it simply consists of omission - failing to tell her that it's not malfunctioning and therefore does not need to be sold to him at half price.

His pretence that it is broken goes a bit beyond "lie of omission" though.

For a less ambiguous example, there's this:

(f'in board won't let me post even quoted link. maternal fornicator.)

which amounts to torture.

That kobold shot belkar's beloved cat earlier, some payback was justified for mr. scruffy.

Doing something awful to someone who deserves it is a step down on the evil chart. And roy was beheading sleeping goblins once, no one called him evil.

in the bit with the charm, at least he didn;t cheat the lady out of lunch too. He's makiing an effort, give him a break.

[KorvinStarmast]

He's makiing an effort, give him a break. As my boss once told me: "potential is interesting, I prefer results."
Belkar has a pretty steep hill to climb.

[Caerulea]

in the bit with the charm, at least he didn;t cheat the lady out of lunch too. He's makiing an effort, give him a break.
'Did not cheat friendly store clerk out of lunch on top of the already stolen thousands of gold pieces' is not a very high bar.

[Liquor Box]

As my boss once told me: "potential is interesting, I prefer results."
Belkar has a pretty steep hill to climb.

What would count as results for Belkar? Risking his life by contributing to a team saving the world? Playing an important role in expelling an evil spirit from the body of his friend who is a good character and instrumental to the saving of the world?

[opus]

As I see it, it was Neutral. It was proportional revenge for having killed the Real Durkon. Revenge is eminently Neutral (verging on Evil, due to the old adage "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", but that requires foresight that Belkar doesn't posses).

Grey Wolf

Ye know, I'm not a a follower of any Abrahamic faith, but i have to step up here to defend the truth.

"An eye for an eye" has been used for a long time to imply a brutal, hard and excessive form of retribution.

This is in fact very inaccurate.

Before the injunction of "An eye for an eye" it was common to exact excessive levels of retaliation over and wrong or slight, no matter how small. A trivial incident could be used to justify excessive retaliation, even killing.

"An eye for an eye" was meant to limit, not encourage, excessive retribution and punishment. It meant you can wrong a person as much as they wronged you but no further than that.

[Caerulea]

Ye know, I'm not a a follower of any Abrahamic faith, but i have to step up here to defend the truth.
What does religion have to do with it? It was from Hammurabi's code, if I remember correctly.

Ex. Law #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_(unit)). If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price."[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#cite_note-Code-24)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ye know, I'm not a a follower of any Abrahamic faith, but i have to step up here to defend the truth.

"An eye for an eye" has been used for a long time to imply a brutal, hard and excessive form of retribution.

This is in fact very inaccurate.

Before the injunction of "An eye for an eye" it was common to exact excessive levels of retaliation over and wrong or slight, no matter how small. A trivial incident could be used to justify excessive retaliation, even killing.

"An eye for an eye" was meant to limit, not encourage, excessive retribution and punishment. It meant you can wrong a person as much as they wronged you but no further than that.

1) No religion in this forum.

2) If you have a problem with the adage, tell that to the one who made it famous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi).

Grey Wolf

[Elanasaurus]

What does religion have to do with it? It was from Hammurabi's code, if I remember correctly.Similar laws to that one, with the same phrasing, are also found in the Torah. Just saying FYI, not discussing religion.

[PontificatusRex]

'Did not cheat friendly store clerk out of lunch on top of the already stolen thousands of gold pieces' is not a very high bar.

I feel like everyone judges this far more harshly than is warranted.

The main thing was that Belkar was getting zapped by the clasp. Just saying "Oh yeah, it's zapping me because I'm evil" really wasn't an option - way too many possible complications, many of which could have slowed down the party's goal of stopping Xykon before he took over a gate. So Belkar pretended it was just a small defect in the clasp, probably the least disruptive option he could have come up with, even while still getting zapped. He could have let her throw it away, and later fished it out of the trash or something but instead he at least covered the costs of making it - offering to still buy it at full price wouldn't have made sense. It's not like he was motivated by greed or the need to save money to buy other stuff, they all seemed to have enough gold for whatever they could find to buy.

[The Pilgrim]

I think the two relevant points from Belkar's scene with the gnomish tinker girl were:

1) When the clasp "malfunctioned", Belkar felt ashamed of admitting he was Evil.
2) Belkar feeling ashamed of having taken advantage of the girl's ingenuity (getting a half price discount) and rejecting the advances from her (dinner date), as he felt he didn't deserve it.

Both of them were shocking new developments for a Belkar that up to that point had been nothing but a self-serving egoistical proud to be an evil bastard sadist, who treated women as sex objects to satisfy his lust.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Wondering now if his attempts to slay Vamp!-Durkon when the latter was pretending to be good count as Evil behaviour or not.

Obviously, WE knew he was in the right, because the comic quickly told us. It would have been a different story arc if it kept his true nature secret for a lot longer.

And it would have been different skill if he was exactly what he claimed to be- Durkon, but just a vampire now, rather than possessed by an evil spirit.

Belkar seemed to be going off of gut instinct more than anything like actually knowing how vampires worked...would it have been Evil of him to try and kill V!Durkon if V!Durkon was actually Good? And if so, would his actual slaying attempts not count as Evil anyway?

Actually, it will count as a neutral act. An hypotetical good vampire is still an undead monstruosity. A dangerous abomination. Its destruction would not in itself be an evil act.

Anyway, we have to remember that the motivation of an act are as important as the act itself, and here the motivations are fairly neutral - the pain and the guilt for the death of someone he cared about, no matter how much he can consciously deny it.

So we have a Good act for neutral motivations, versus a neutral act for neutral motivations.


As I see it, it was Neutral. It was proportional revenge for having killed the Real Durkon. Revenge is eminently Neutral (verging on Evil, due to the old adage "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", but that requires foresight that Belkar doesn't posses).

Grey Wolf

Not all vengeance are created equals.
The H-Lady Was disproportionate,and more important, petty: it was born out of hurt pride, and a desire of settle the score. On the other hand, the Belkster desire for vengeance was born of his shame for hisnweakness, and the painful notion that someone had to gave his life for him: it was not self centered, not totally at least. So i see it differently from the first one.

[Fyraltari]

Actually, it will count as a neutral act. An hypotetical good vampire is still an undead monstruosity. A dangerous abomination. Its destruction would not in itself be an evil act.
Let me guess, 'cause he'd have grey skins and fangs and you don't?

[Jack Of Rivia]

Let me guess, 'cause he'd have grey skins and fangs and you don't?

Because they must dry life energy to survive. Because they can be dominated by an evil cleric.
Because their condition is infective: and the day, or rather the night they make a mistake, lose control or simply "break bad", they risk to spread an enormous misery in the world.

I m not saying that destroing them is a good act: i m just saying that the overzealous vampire hunter who choose to not take the risk is not automatically evil.

[Emanick]

Let me guess, 'cause he'd have grey skins and fangs and you don't?

Well, really, because the very existence of a vampire involves the subjugation and enslavement of a living soul, and because it’s literally predisposed to Evil in a way that has no real-world parallel.

We know the details are not very well-known in the OOTSverse, but I have trouble faulting “prejudices” on the rare occasion when they seem to be more or less 100% accurate.

[Fyraltari]

Because they must dry life energy to survive.
Yeah, that's called eating, and unlike most people all they need is one spell to make up for it.

Because they can be dominated by an evil cleric.
So can everybody else. I mean, we've seen Paladins get dominated.

Because their condition is infective:
Only if they kill while doing it. So not really.

and the day, or rather the night they make a mistake, lose control or simply "break bad", they risk to spread an enormous misery in the world.
That's true of everybody else too.


I m not saying that destroing them is a good act: i m just saying that the overzealous vampire hunter who choose to not take the risk is not automatically evil.

"I'm not saying destroying them is a good act: I'm just saying that the overzealous [goblin/black dragon] hunter who chooses to not take the risk is not automatically evil."

You'll forgive me if I don't follow you there.

EDIt:

Well, really, because the very existence of a vampire involves the subjugation and enslavement of a living soul, and because it’s literally predisposed to Evil in a way that has no real-world parallel.

We know the details are not very well-known in the OOTSverse, but I have trouble faulting “prejudices” on the rare occasion when they seem to be more or less 100% accurate.

He did say a "good vampire". Here is one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1131.html). Alternatively, after Ponchula explained her relationship with her host, there were several proposals of how a good vampire could cohabit with their host.

[RatElemental]

Let me guess, 'cause he'd have grey skins and fangs and you don't?

Spells that create undead have the evil tag, so it's usually seen as being inherently evil to create/be undead. The usual line of thinking as to why that is varies, but there are a few popular theories that DMs use to explain it (unless they actually class it as not being inherently evil).

1. It messes with the soul in some way, either trapping it in the corpse to act as an AI much like an elemental spirit in a golem, or it somehow delays or perverts the soul's journey into the afterlife. OotS vampires fall under this one.

2. It damages the world in some way. How it does this varies by the writer, but usually it's because of the undead creature acting as a conduit for negative energy to enter the material plane.

3. Undead are inherently dangerous. This has rules backing in the form of pretty much every undead creature except ghosts being evil, and mindless ones going on murderous rampages if they don't have specific orders not to, as well as being stated to have a hatred of all living things.

4. It's unnatural. Pretty self-explanatory, and fallacy aside is enough for some to class it as evil.

And probably many more I've never heard of too.

[Fyraltari]

Spells that create undead have the evil tag, so it's usually seen as being inherently evil to create/be undead. The usual line of thinking as to why that is varies, but there are a few popular theories that DMs use to explain it (unless they actually class it as not being inherently evil).

1. It messes with the soul in some way, either trapping it in the corpse to act as an AI much like an elemental spirit in a golem, or it somehow delays or perverts the soul's journey into the afterlife. OotS vampires fall under this one.
See my edit to my above post.


2. It damages the world in some way. How it does this varies by the writer, but usually it's because of the undead creature acting as a conduit for negative energy to enter the material plane.
That's a pretty terrible reason to kill a person, especially a good one. I mean the Order has been in contact with a vampire for a week and the Vector Legion with 1-4 for decades and no ill effect has been shown or dicussed.


3. Undead are inherently dangerous. This has rules backing in the form of pretty much every undead creature except ghosts being evil, and mindless ones going on murderous rampages if they don't have specific orders not to, as well as being stated to have a hatred of all living things.
So are black dragons yet both have free-will so you can't just assume they are evil on sight. We are discussing a Good vampire, remember?


4. It's unnatural. Pretty self-explanatory, and fallacy aside is enough for some to class it as evil.
They are wrong, then.

[RatElemental]

See my edit to my above post.


That's a pretty terrible reason to kill a person, especially a good one. I mean the Order has been in contact with a vampire for a week and the Vector Legion with 1-4 for decades and no ill effect has been shown or dicussed.

To further this whole devil's advocate thing...

The one example we have of a good vampire immediately committed suicide by vampire hunter. They even suggested it might not last. In the ootsverse, it may be impossible for a vampire to be good, whether it be from an inherent inability to be for long or choosing to die as soon as they do.

That said, I do find it kind of weird how Rich told people suicide would never be a solution in his comic (in the case of dwarves avoiding Hel via a massive battle royale), and then went on to have it be a solution.

[Fyraltari]

The one example we have of a good vampire immediately committed suicide by vampire hunter. They even suggested it might not last. In the ootsverse, it may be impossible for a vampire to be good, whether it be from an inherent inability to be for long
How could Durkon possibly know? All his knowledge of vampires come from Durkon* and guesswork. "There's no way to tell if this will last" is not the same as "there is no way this will last". Besides he still needed to help save the world and having the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells is more useful towards that end than vampire powers (Recloak mentions ohow hard it is to keep both undead and living party members standing at once here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html), which factors in too).

or choosing to die as soon as they do.
If it's a choice, then it is not impossible to choose not to.

That said, I do find it kind of weird how Rich told people suicide would never be a solution in his comic (in the case of dwarves avoiding Hel via a massive battle royale), and then went on to have it be a solution.
Durkon knew they'd bring him back, so that muddles things a bit. It was less a decision to end his life and more one to have it on hold for a while.

[The Pilgrim]

That said, I do find it kind of weird how Rich told people suicide would never be a solution in his comic (in the case of dwarves avoiding Hel via a massive battle royale), and then went on to have it be a solution.

Durkon was already dead. So, it was not a suicide.

[Emanick]

He did say a "good vampire". Here is one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1131.html). Alternatively, after Ponchula explained her relationship with her host, there were several proposals of how a good vampire could cohabit with their host.
I bought some of those explanations when they were penned, but the comic where Durkon seemed skeptical that he and the vampire spirit would be able to hold out against the negative energy in his soul made me much less confident that a permanently Good vampire is ultimately a realistic possibility. Do we know that it's hypothetically possible? Yes. Do we know that it's realistic to expect any vampire to both remain permanently Good and to be in a morally tolerable arrangement with the soul of the person whose body it inhabits? No, not really, and I'm skeptical that any such vampires exist, or that they could continue to exist indefinitely.


Durkon knew they'd bring him back, so that muddles things a bit. It was less a decision to end his life and more one to have it on hold for a while.

I agree, it's not really the same thing as suicide, and I definitely don't think it normalizes suicide or risks promoting it among readers in any way. That said, I also don't think the other instances where suicide was mentioned by someone as a possible solution - high priests killing themselves to nullify the results of the Godsmoot, or the dwarves committing mass suicide - worked to normalize it either. I'm no expert on suicidal ideation, but unfortunately I have a lot more experience with the subject than I would like, and in my experience people who attempt suicide are pretty level-headed in most ways - they're unlikely to be "triggered" by any of the above examples, because they're fantasy occurrences that take place in a fantasy context that just doesn't really have a real-world parallel. A bunch of dwarves charging at a dragon to avoid Hel taking their souls in a bet is not something people will relate to. And if the High Priest of Heimdall used a loophole to save the planet by killing himself and then had the High Priestess of Freya raise him immediately, that wouldn't exactly be raising the same issues that 13 Reasons Why did.

That said, I understand and respect why Rich didn't want to take the risk of depicting suicide any more than he absolutely had to. It's not the sort of thing you include lightly, that's for sure. And if you're wrong about how triggering a scene is, the consequences are far worse than usual.

[Fyraltari]

I bought some of those explanations when they were penned, but the comic where Durkon seemed skeptical that he and the vampire spirit would be able to hold out against the negative energy in his soul made me much less confident that a permanently Good vampire is ultimately a realistic possibility. Do we know that it's hypothetically possible? Yes. Do we know that it's realistic to expect any vampire to both remain permanently Good and to be in a morally tolerable arrangement with the soul of the person whose body it inhabits? No, not really, and I'm skeptical that any such vampires exist, or that they could continue to exist indefinitely.
«I am going to kill you because I think there is a chance that someday you might kill someone» is wrong. Besides the comic has spelled out a few times that killing people just because they are «evil» is wrong. I mean it’s basically Redcloak’s entire backstory.


unfortunately I have a lot more experience with the subject than I would like.

I am sorry to hear that.

[Sloanzilla]

Belkar is currently at "Lulz" level evil.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

[Synesthesy]

I would say to everyone that Dungeon and Dragons (and fantasy worlds with magic, undeads, literaly evillness/goodness incarnations, etc) moral and our world moral should be different.

For example, I see nobody pointing out the right (or not) for the vampire spirit to exist, as he surely didn't ask to be born, opposed to the right of the original soul to be free.
We can discuss for days or months or even years about philosofy and moral, if the rules of the forum allow it, and not coming to an answer.

But we can be sure about the fact that for the author of the Order of the Stick, the world "usually evil" should not mean "always evil, feel free to kill on sight". For him, free will of every single being is more important than whatever is written on their entry on the manuals.
This is why we see good goblins working togheter evil and neutral goblins, paladins paragon of virtue being in the same order of perfectly lawfull good ******* paladins, neutral wizard so powerfull to make genocides without even notice, girls not understanding why loving undeads more then living people is evil, and other things that make this comic that good.

[Mightymosy]

For the record: I second everything Fryaltari said above. Couldn't have said it better.

One thing, though: the suicide part. Now that it is mentioned, this seems to run against what Rich said before.
Durkon wouldn't know he would survive. In fact, the reformed Durkula probably DID NOT SURVIVE, and he was Good at that time! A good clone of Durkon!
After all, he was immediately murdered by Hylgia afterwards, showing that his survival was never a given fact.

Weird. No, really, that's weird.

[Pyrotechnical]

I'm curious if Belkar's alignment will see an official change in the form of him suddenly being able to cast a Ranger spell by virtue of unknowingly increasing his wisdom score. Certainly not to good, but maybe manage to the cusp of CN.

[hroþila]

I don't get why so many people go all "Ha! Gotcha!" at the suicide thing. The original quote had a context. The actual strips where suicide could be argued to be used have a completely different one - it referred to people who would stay dead, for starters. Also, the problem that Durkon had to solve was "How to destroy the vampire", and it's hard to do that without destroying the vampire. If it bothers you, think of it as the actual Durkon hacking into the mainframe and initiating the mothership's self-destruct protocol before being caught and kicked out.


For example, I see nobody pointing out the right (or not) for the vampire spirit to exist, as he surely didn't ask to be born, opposed to the right of the original soul to be free.
We can discuss for days or months or even years about philosofy and moral, if the rules of the forum allow it, and not coming to an answer.
Fyraltari was pretty much doing that in this thread, and he referenced an older (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808041&viewfull=1#post22808041), longer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808690&viewfull=1#post22808690) debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808762&viewfull=1#post22808762) on this very topic.

[Mightymosy]

@hr....
Except Durkon also might have stayed dead
Except for Durkon hacking into the mothership and turning it into a copy of himself.

Also, for me it's not a gotcha. But weird.

[Peelee]

@hr....
Except Durkon also might have stayed dead

And Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum may not have made it out of the mother ship in time. Calculated risks.

[Fyraltari]

Durkon was already dead. So, it was not a suicide.
Don't be obtruse. No, the dictionnary's definition of suicide does not take undeath into account, what a surprise. The only difference between life and undeath in D&D is the presence of a metabolism, which is irrelevant here. Everybody understood what was meant perfectly fine, so really why insist on "self-destrustion" or whatever when suicide already covers the inted meaning perfectly?

For the record: I second everything Fryaltari said above. Couldn't have said it better.
Fyraltari.
Thank you.

Fyraltari was pretty much doing that in this thread, and he referenced an older (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808041&viewfull=1#post22808041), longer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808690&viewfull=1#post22808690) debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808762&viewfull=1#post22808762) on this very topic.
For the record, that was a much more interesting debate than the one we're having on the reaction threads nowadays.

[Mightymosy]

@Pelee (man, writing on phone suXX0rs :-P):
Which I don't mind. Mind you, it wasn't me who said that I don't want to write a story where suicide is portrayed as a viable option. ;-)

[Fyraltari]

@Pelee
Peelee. Nothing personal, I'm sure you understand.

[The Pilgrim]

Don't be obtruse. No, the dictionnary's definition of suicide does not take undeath into account, what a surprise. The only difference between life and undeath in D&D is the presence of a metabolism, which is irrelevant here. Everybody understood what was meant perfectly fine, so really why insist on "self-destrustion" or whatever when suicide already covers the inted meaning perfectly?

I didn't "insist" on "self-destruction". I have written no such words.

I have just pointed that Durkon did not kill himself. He was dead already. He just destroyed a vampire, who happened to be hijacking his corpse and keeping his soul hostage.

[Mightymosy]

Je suis desole!
(sorry for the missing things on the letters. I wouldn't know where to put them, much less how to write them in the phone :-( )
I butchered BOTH your names! For some reason I misread them - ALL THE TIME. And I even remember checking some time ago, because some time ago I also answered without the quote function.

Anyway, for your name in particular, maybe it comes because my mind associates you with two words:
1. Friar (like, Friar Tuck from that Robin Hood Disney movie. Maybe that clicked because you have that monk avatar.
2. The Alkari (from Master of Orion 2. Cool oldschool game btw, if people are into that sort of stuff. )

[Fyraltari]

I didn't "insist" on "self-destruction". I have written no such words.

I have just pointed that Durkon did not kill himself. He was dead already. He just destroyed a vampire, who happened to be hijacking his corpse and keeping his soul hostage.
There clearly is a misunderstanding at play, here, my apologizes. Durkon (or rather Durkon#2) did commit suicide by Belkar, though.

EDIT:

Je suis desole!
(sorry for the missing things on the letters. I wouldn't know where to put them, much less how to write them in the phone :-( )
I butchered BOTH your names! For some reason I misread them - ALL THE TIME. And I even remember checking some time ago, because some time ago I also answered without the quote function.
No biggie, don't worry about it.


Anyway, for your name in particular, maybe it comes because my mind associates you with two words:
1. Friar (like, Friar Tuck from that Robin Hood Disney movie. Maybe that clicked because you have that monk avatar.
2. The Alkari (from Master of Orion 2. Cool oldschool game btw, if people are into that sort of stuff. )
Huh, that's funny, I had guess the friar thing since that particular misspelling comes up a lot but I didn't know about the Alkari (or the game for that matter).

"Fyraltari" doesn't mean anything in particular but I wanted something that I could reasonably sure wouldn't be already taken on any forum and sounded nice so I just took the name of my last character on Oblivion (an Altmer Mage) and tweaked it a little.

[Mightymosy]

One COULD say, of course, that Durkon expected Durkula the Redeemed to survive in the afterlife.

So let's go through the plan Durkon had real quick:
1. Turn Durkula into Durkon #2 by overwhelming his input filters.
2. Now Durkula IS Durkon for all intents ane purposes ethically, except Durkon #1 doesn't know if that will last.
And Durkon #1 probably can't leave his thought prison so long as Durkon #2 inhabits his body
3. So what's the plan and the motivations now?
Aim:
a) want my body back
b) prevent against Durkula reverting back to Evil again and contiuing the quest for Hel - probably unstoppable by Durkon on a second try.
In other words, try to be safe rather than sorry.
c) what happens to Durkon #2? Unknown, will have to be settled in the afterlife
So:
4. Durkon and Durkon #2 both agree that suicide by Belkar is the way to go.
Objectives a and b clearly achived, c is unknown at the moment (although the audience can suspect that he ceases to exists, similar to how Celia would because energy being or whatever it's called in D&D)

Makes sense?

[Fyraltari]

I'd say that since Durkon has the memories of the vampire seen from Durkon*'s point of view, there is no meaningful way in which Durkon#2 died, the two simply stopped being "discrete consciousness[es]" and merged (or rather Durkon absorbed Durkon*).

[KorvinStarmast]

What would count as results for Belkar? Risking his life by contributing to a team saving the world? Playing an important role in expelling an evil spirit from the body of his friend who is a good character and instrumental to the saving of the world? I think this is a great question.
I refer to V and Miko as examples of how Rich presents the issue of both redemption, and change in a character's character, and alignment. Taking the lead from V? Belkar first has to admit that his substantial body of work for wrongdoing is wrong. From the Miko and V example, he then has to show of regret / remorse. He then needs to pursue restitution/redemption in _some way_ as yet unspecified.

Details on a character by character basis, I think, based on how Rich presented the other two cases: one failed (Miko) and one "a work in progress" (V).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(or the game for that matter)

OK, you know how I'm trying to get Peelee to read Pratchett? You needing to try Masters of Orion 2 comes under the same general category of "these are classics of our age, you do yourself a disservice from not having had the experience".

Not saying you should go out and buy it (although I'm sure it's dirt-cheap, it's like 20 years old now), but if you have any preferred shops that occasionally give a way games free of sharply discounted and have wishlists, you definitely should add it there.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

OK, you know how I'm trying to get Peelee to read Pratchett? You needing to try Masters of Orion 2 comes under the same general category of "these are classics of our age, you do yourself a disservice from not having had the experience".

Not saying you should go out and buy it (although I'm sure it's dirt-cheap, it's like 20 years old now), but if you have any preferred shops that occasionally give a way games free of sharply discounted and have wishlists, you definitely should add it there.

Grey Wolf

I'l look into it.

[RatElemental]

Fyraltari was pretty much doing that in this thread, and he referenced an older (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808041&viewfull=1#post22808041), longer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808690&viewfull=1#post22808690) debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549369-OOTS-1111-The-Discussion-Thread&p=22808762&viewfull=1#post22808762) on this very topic.

Man am I sad I missed that one, because the way vampires work in OotS is an invention of Rich. Of course another source wouldn't mention the soul of the living host getting pulled back into the body when a vampire was brought back by revive undead. Setting aside the fact that once turned to ash a vampire can't be brought back that way, so you have to kill them in a way that doesn't do that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the way vampires work in OotS is an invention of Rich

I'd say it's 99% compliant with RAW. Hardly what I'd call a Rich invention.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Man am I sad I missed that one, because the way vampires work in OotS is an invention of Rich. Of course another source wouldn't mention the soul of the living host getting pulled back into the body when a vampire was brought back by revive undead. Setting aside the fact that once turned to ash a vampire can't be brought back that way, so you have to kill them in a way that doesn't do that.
The fact that it isn't an invention of Rich's is what started this debate, actually (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22799693&postcount=173).

[Paschendale]

I don't think Belkar's alignment is changing at all. He's just learning how to function with it in a less self-sabotaging way. He's transitioning from a reckless "chaotic stupid" into a functional chaotic evil person who can still live in the world he inhabits and maintain basic relationships while still holding his generally self-centered, violent, and anti-authority viewpoints. Belkar is learning that helping those close to him can be beneficial to himself, and that friends make you feel good. Even his empathy towards Ganji and Enor required seeing their plight as directly analogous to his own life.

Belkar's alignment isn't changing, he's just shifting from a caricatured portrayal of it to a more real, functional one.

[Kish]

OK, you know how I'm trying to get Peelee to read Pratchett? You needing to try Masters of Orion 2 comes under the same general category of "these are classics of our age, you do yourself a disservice from not having had the experience".

Not saying you should go out and buy it (although I'm sure it's dirt-cheap, it's like 20 years old now), but if you have any preferred shops that occasionally give a way games free of sharply discounted and have wishlists, you definitely should add it there.

Grey Wolf
It's six dollars on GOG (https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2).

[The Pilgrim]

There clearly is a misunderstanding at play, here, my apologizes. Durkon (or rather Durkon#2) did commit suicide by Belkar, though.

Well that's where our viewpoints differ. Durkon did not commit suicide as he was already dead and all he did was confuse his captor to destroy him and fee his soul. Greg did not commit suicide as he never did a conscious decission to kill himself, he was not in control at that moment. Durkon didn't even make him kill himself, just not offer resistance to Belkar.

So all in all, I would describe the scene as Durkon killed Greg, or confuse Greg to get him killed, rather than suicide.

[Fyraltari]

It's six dollars on GOG (https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2).
That's cheap, and there's the french version as well. Really tempting.

Well that's where our viewpoints differ. Durkon did not commit suicide as he was already dead and all he did was confuse his captor to destroy him and fee his soul. Greg did not commit suicide as he never did a conscious decission to kill himself, he was not in control at that moment. Durkon didn't even make him kill himself, just not offer resistance to Belkar.

So all in all, I would describe the scene as Durkon killed Greg, or confuse Greg to get him killed, rather than suicide.
Don't you see that "Greg" had become another iteration of Durkon at this point? And that iteration was the one to drop the shell?

[The Pilgrim]

Don't you see that "Greg" had become another iteration of Durkon at this point? And that iteration was the one to drop the shell?

Yes. but that is actually my point.

In my oppinion there are two ways to read that scene.

The first one is to understand it as Durkon overwhelming Greg with positive feelings to the point that Greg come to the realization he had no right to (un)live, and thus rushed to do what he believed was rigth, wich was to get rid of himself and free Durkon before getting overwhelmed again by dark energies. Under that interpretation it can be interferred that Greg did commit suicide to solve things.

The second one, wich is the one I adhere to, is to understand it as Durkon fooling Greg into making Greg think himself as Durkon. Then he took the logical action of getting himself rid of the Vampire before it could resume control of the corpse. Under that interpretation, Greg did not commit suicide as his actions were aimed to kill a third person he believed different from himself.

[Mightymosy]

Warnings for Master of Orion 2:
1. HIGHLY ADDICTIVE (if you are into that sort of stuff)
2. Part 2!!!!!!!! Not Part 1 or 3!
I think most people would agree to that 2 was best BY WIDE MARGINS, but of course: taste.

You might like it if
1. You like SciFi tropes (the game steals from a lot of sources, and it steals generously)
2. You don't mind playing round base strategy
3. You like design intent and love for detail more than technical advancement (what I mean: this game is an oooold game that does with very few resources, even back when I played it first more than a decade ago it was probably outdated. It is a game that does much with little. But if you are the kind of guy who always bought the newest graphic card, the game is probably not for you)
4. You can forgive a couple quirks. You'll see if you try. Of course, having the latest patch (also for balance) can't be the worst idea I guess :-)

[Fyraltari]

Yes. but that is actually my point.

In my oppinion there are two ways to read that scene.

The first one is to understand it as Durkon overwhelming Greg with positive feelings to the point that Greg come to the realization he had no right to (un)live, and thus rushed to do what he believed was rigth, wich was to get rid of himself and free Durkon before getting overwhelmed again by dark energies. Under that interpretation it can be interferred that Greg did commit suicide to solve things.

The second one, wich is the one I adhere to, is to understand it as Durkon fooling Greg into making Greg think himself as Durkon. Then he took the logical action of getting himself rid of the Vampire before it could resume control of the corpse. Under that interpretation, Greg did not commit suicide as his actions were aimed to kill a third person he believed different from himself.
Or there's the one the comic actually proposes: "You know what you are if you have my body and all of my joys and sorrows? You're me." That's not a trick. The Durkon* personnality was always just a subset of Durkon's, the part that coalesced around the worst moment of Durkon's life, his anger, his resentment, his hatred, his thirst for power all things that he had buried under his tolerance, his stoicism, his sense of duty, etc. Durkon* slowly changed during the book, as shown by him picking up on Durkon's accent, for example, but he could maintain a different personnality because he was absorbing memories at his own pace. When Durkon tricked him into taking them all in, he didn't fool Durkon* into believing he was Durkon he turned him into Durkon, by filling the gap into Durkon*'s personnality.

There was never a "Greg" that was a completely different individual from Durkon, there was just Durkon and an incomplete copy he completed.

Warnings for Master of Orion 2:
1. HIGHLY ADDICTIVE (if you are into that sort of stuff)
2. Part 2!!!!!!!! Not Part 1 or 3!
I think most people would agree to that 2 was best BY WIDE MARGINS, but of course: taste.

You might like it if
1. You like SciFi tropes (the game steals from a lot of sources, and it steals generously)
2. You don't mind playing round base strategy
3. You like design intent and love for detail more than technical advancement (what I mean: this game is an oooold game that does with very few resources, even back when I played it first more than a decade ago it was probably outdated. It is a game that does much with little. But if you are the kind of guy who always bought the newest graphic card, the game is probably not for you)
4. You can forgive a couple quirks. You'll see if you try. Of course, having the latest patch (also for balance) can't be the worst idea I guess :-)
Is there a campiagn mode or something with a storyline?

[Kish]

Only insofar as every game has the storyline "you're the ruler of one planet, and you'd like the be the ruler of the galaxy; a few other planetary rulers also would. At least one race out there, which lives is another dimension and has vastly more advanced technology than you, would like you and every other sapient aside from their own race to die horribly."

[Liquor Box]

I feel like everyone judges this far more harshly than is warranted.

The main thing was that Belkar was getting zapped by the clasp. Just saying "Oh yeah, it's zapping me because I'm evil" really wasn't an option - way too many possible complications, many of which could have slowed down the party's goal of stopping Xykon before he took over a gate. So Belkar pretended it was just a small defect in the clasp, probably the least disruptive option he could have come up with, even while still getting zapped. He could have let her throw it away, and later fished it out of the trash or something but instead he at least covered the costs of making it - offering to still buy it at full price wouldn't have made sense. It's not like he was motivated by greed or the need to save money to buy other stuff, they all seemed to have enough gold for whatever they could find to buy.

I agree. I find Belkar's actions with the gnome difficult to distinguish from Hayley's actions early in the strip when dividing the party loot in an alignment sense. Both allowed others to leap to the wrong conclusion for their own financial benefit. Certainly not good, but not so obvious it is evil either, in the context of this comic. Maybe Hayley's actions were worse because it was her friends she was arguably deceiving, so people who she might owe a duty of trust.

[Fyraltari]

Only insofar as every game has the storyline "you're the ruler of one planet, and you'd like the be the ruler of the galaxy; a few other planetary rulers also would. At least one race out there, which lives is another dimension and has vastly more advanced technology than you, would like you and every other sapient aside from their own race to die horribly."

That's too bad.

[Ruck]

CE, trending north.

Grey Wolf

Yes. I think one reason people ask this question is that they are confusing "where Belkar is" with "where Belkar is trending." (In calculus terms, Belkar's function is still negative, but its derivative is now positive.)


My guess for Belkar is that he is currently still CE and will remain as such for the rest of the story. He'll slowly but surely continue gaining a conscience, but it won't be enough to cause an alignment shift until the very end. In his last moments he'll end up willingly sacrificing himself to save the party, and that will be just enough to push him over the edge and send him to the CN afterlife.

That's what I've been saying too.


Once he had a cat and it was a gas
Soon turned out he had a heart of brass
Seemed like the real thing only to find
Durkon's soul, friend's gone behind.

In between
Abyss and Pandemonium and I'm feeling fine
Stabbing's the solution for my peace of mind
When I fear I'm losing you
And turning good
And feeling guilty too

[Rrmcklin]

On the whole vampire thing, I have to say I was honestly bewildered why so many people actually cared about what happened to it, after being destroyed in the first place.

[The Pilgrim]

There was never a "Greg" that was a completely different individual from Durkon, there was just Durkon and an incomplete copy he completed.

Hel herself said the negative energy spirit that was keeping Durkon's soul hostage was born in her Hall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html).

So, yes, there was a "Greg" that was a completely diferent being from Durkon.

[Fyraltari]

Hel herself said the negative energy spirit that was keeping Durkon's soul hostage was born in her Hall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html).

So, yes, there was a "Greg" that was a completely diferent being from Durkon.

If I print one text on a sheet of paper and half of it on another, even though the two sheets come from different trees, there was never two completely different texts. Durkon* was created within Hel's hall, but his personnality formed from durkon's memory, nothing else.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I’d have to go with Chaotic Evil. (Specifically Ruck’s phrasing, cause Math)
(And +1 to our lovely ‘Heart of Brass’ songwriters)

[lio45]

«I am going to kill you because I think there is a chance that someday you might kill someone» is wrong. Besides the comic has spelled out a few times that killing people just because they are «evil» is wrong. I mean it’s basically Redcloak’s entire backstory.

You are totally correct that death in the real world and in D&D aren't comparable, but using the same logic, Alignment is also one of those things that aren't comparable in D&D vs the real world.

In the real world, Hilgya's position (that murder is less grave than romantic rejection) would be completely wrong, and so would killing on sight a sentient creature that hasn't yet done anything bad.

[Prinygod]

You are totally correct that death in the real world and in D&D aren't comparable, but using the same logic, Alignment is also one of those things that aren't comparable in D&D vs the real world.

In the real world, Hilgya's position (that murder is less grave than romantic rejection) would be completely wrong, and so would killing on sight a sentient creature that hasn't yet done anything bad.

I am pretty sure it's wrong to do those things in the d&d world as well, access to raise doesn't change that in the slightest Keep in mind that raise is not explicitly (good), and fails to restitute the pain and xp loss that the killing inflicted, so it can't even be called a wash, even if we ignored the morals of the acts.

[Fincher]

I currently place him at .00036 kilonazis. Which is a whole lot of progress for him.

[Sloanzilla]

I'd imagine showing character growth in a venue like this is tough. You are trying to show that Belkar is still mostly evil, but less so than, say, 500 strips ago.

So if you show Belkar being evilish in a specific instance, a reader might think "OK, that growth is done and we're back to where we we started," but if you show Belkar being goodish, a reader might think "Look, see, he's done being evil and is totally 100% good now."
It's fairly hard to show gradual improvement, since each instance will be judged on its own merits, but the author has done a great job of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think Belkar's alignment is changing at all. He's just learning how to function with it in a less self-sabotaging way. He's transitioning from a reckless "chaotic stupid" into a functional chaotic evil person who can still live in the world he inhabits and maintain basic relationships while still holding his generally self-centered, violent, and anti-authority viewpoints. Belkar is learning that helping those close to him can be beneficial to himself, and that friends make you feel good. Even his empathy towards Ganji and Enor required seeing their plight as directly analogous to his own life.

Belkar's alignment isn't changing, he's just shifting from a caricatured portrayal of it to a more real, functional one. Valid analysis.

[Emanick]

«I am going to kill you because I think there is a chance that someday you might kill someone» is wrong. Besides the comic has spelled out a few times that killing people just because they are «evil» is wrong. I mean it’s basically Redcloak’s entire backstory.
That's not what I believe, and it's not what I intended to convey, either. "I am going to kill you because I don't think you are capable of resisting the urge to murder, or otherwise devastate, other sentient beings, and your continued existence likely requires the enslavement of others" would be a more accurate summary of how I feel vampires should be confronted in the OOTSverse. To be clear, if there was a confirmed Good vampire, then I would probably feel differently, because that would suggest that it had come to a morally acceptable accommodation with the person its soul was enslaving, and its existence would be evidence that Durkon's fears about the corrupting effect of the "negative energy squirmin' around" were overblown. I'm just skeptical that any such vampires exist, that's all.

I realize that's a bit confusing, since I was expressly responding to a quote about a Good vampire. I'm not really sure I realized that context at the time, since it was the middle of the night and I was posting during a bout of insomnia. So my apologies for any miscommunication.


I am sorry to hear that.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Ruck]

If I print one text on a sheet of paper and half of it on another, even though the two sheets come from different trees, there was never two completely different texts. Durkon* was created within Hel's hall, but his personnality formed from durkon's memory, nothing else.
They are different sheets, though. Same as Durkon and the vampire are different souls and beings. One writing their personality over the other doesn't change that.

[The Pilgrim]

If I print one text on a sheet of paper and half of it on another, even though the two sheets come from different trees, there was never two completely different texts. Durkon* was created within Hel's hall, but his personnality formed from durkon's memory, nothing else.


They are different sheets, though. Same as Durkon and the vampire are different souls and beings. One writing their personality over the other doesn't change that.

As Ruck said. But I am going to go the extra mile and say:

A =/= A

[Fyraltari]

That's not what I believe, and it's not what I intended to convey, either. "I am going to kill you because I don't think you are capable of resisting the urge to murder, or otherwise devastate, other sentient beings, and your continued existence likely requires the enslavement of others" would be a more accurate summary of how I feel vampires should be confronted in the OOTSverse.
What urge? We've seen inside Durkon*'s head a lot and there was no mention of any urge to murder or devastate. The closest I can think of is that vampires all seem to be thirsty upon raising, but as the comic has shown they can feed on beasts or on willing people without having to kill them so that's not really problematic.

To be clear, if there was a confirmed Good vampire, then I would probably feel differently, because that would suggest that it had come to a morally acceptable accommodation with the person its soul was enslaving, and its existence would be evidence that Durkon's fears about the corrupting effect of the "negative energy squirmin' around" were overblown. I'm just skeptical that any such vampires exist, that's all.
There is one in 1131. That's a vampire with a LG negative energy spirit. What more do you want?

I realize that's a bit confusing, since I was expressly responding to a quote about a Good vampire. I'm not really sure I realized that context at the time, since it was the middle of the night and I was posting during a bout of insomnia. So my apologies for any miscommunication.
I can relate.


Thanks for the kind words.
You are welcome.

They are different sheets, though. Same as Durkon and the vampire are different souls and beings. One writing their personality over the other doesn't change that.
Alright but since there were two souls with the exact same personnality inhabiting the exact same body, and later on one soul absorbed the memories of the other's prior to its completion, the difference is purely academic.


Aaaaand I've just realized this is just a more fantastical version of the swampman (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/270).

As Ruck said. But I am going to go the extra mile and say:

A =/= A
Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Apart from denying the law of identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).

[Jack Of Rivia]

«I am going to kill you because I think there is a chance that someday you might kill someone» is wrong. Besides the comic has spelled out a few times that killing people just because they are «evil» is wrong. I mean it’s basically Redcloak’s entire backstory.



That's not what I believe, and it's not what I intended to convey, either. "I am going to kill you because I don't think you are capable of resisting the urge to murder, or otherwise devastate, other sentient beings, and your continued existence likely requires the enslavement of others" would be a more accurate summary of how I feel vampires should be confronted in the OOTSverse.

THAT IS THE POINT.

The question is not "Is it Evil to kill someone because it has an evil nature?". That is a dumb question, and the answer is yes, obviously.

The much more Trickier question is "Is it Evil to destroy something because it's extremely dangerous?" And the answer is much more complex of a simple cut and dry yes or no.

The Vampire has been compared to Goblin and Black Dragons, but that 's a wrong set of examples. Yes, a goblin child is dangerous, when it grows up it may kill humans... but it can also be killed by humans: the threat it poses can be controlled, limited. You can fight an evil goblin, if it comes the time.
But a black dragon? Different stuff. An adult or ancient black Dragon is a weapon of mass destruction. Normal Humans cannot stop it; only superhuman adventurers, with their magic and their class abilities can hope to stop it. And they are rare. Would you call Evil the random peasant who stumbled upon a black dragon egg and choosed to destroy it, rather than let it grow into an unstoppable menace, one that in the future would be able to destroy his town on a whim? I do not think so

And the Vampire.. that is even worse. It is a biological weapon, which can exponentially exponentially reproduce in brief times. Even worse, it can create new vampire EVEN STRONGER than the original one: all that it takes is some luck or some clever tactics and BOOM, now you have a vampire spellcaster, an adventurer vampire, an enemy which turns humanity weapons, magic and class abilities, against itself, in addition to dangerous powers.
Greg alone, with only the help of some evil magick from Malack, destroyed the Creed of the Stone, the Thor Clerics of Firmament and defeated the order of the Stick. The potential danger of one single Vampire is enormous.
Can you onestly call EVIL someone who just choose not to take this risks? I think it wont be fair.

Of course, you could argue that it would be WRONG, and you know that? I agree with you.
I think it's for the better to sometime take a risks, even huge ones, in the hope of getting something good in return.

BUT, and that is central, BEING WRONG is DIFFERENT from BEING EVIL. You cannot call evil someone just because he is not up to some very High moral standards: it is not fair to request simple, frail humans to take enormous risk forthemselves and their loved ones, and then calling Evil when unwilling or uncapable to do so.


To be clear, if there was a confirmed Good vampire, then I would probably feel differently, because that would suggest that it had come to a morally acceptable accommodation with the person its soul was enslaving, and its existence would be evidence that Durkon's fears about the corrupting effect of the "negative energy squirmin' around" were overblown. I'm just skeptical that any such vampires exist, that's all.



Yeah, even that would be problematic. leaving aside all the problems of the trapped host soul, and even postulating a perfect morally vampire, there are still a lot of dangers.

"Muahah. I am the Evil High Priest of Nergal! By the will of my dark lord, i order You, GoodVampire, to sire my evil and powerful servants as Vampires!
What? You resisted my command? Maybe you researched some obscure spell protecting your free will? It doesn't matter, i have anticipated that! I have taken your loved ones hostage! You will sire my servants, or else!"

And there is still the problem that, individual morality aside, a vampire is still a foothold on Prime Material for the Negative plan.

"I AM ANNIHILATION, MASTER OF THE NEGATIVE PLAN! YOU, WHO SHARES THE DEAD BLOOD; YOU WOULD BE THE DOOR BY WHICH I ENTER THIS WORLD TO CONSUME IT"

[RatElemental]

Aaaaand I've just realized this is just a more fantastical version of the swampman (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/270).

Bit of a ship of theseus problem, isn't it? I tend to take the view that both existing simultaneously makes it pretty clear-cut, though. If the swamp man was created while the original was still alive, and then the original was killed, the copy does not become the original. Similarly, because there were two Durkon shaped souls at the same time, the fact that they were identical does not mean they are the same person.

For one, they aren't even identical, really. Even if you discount the difference in location because it's going on inside someone's head, one has control of the body and the other doesn't, and they're both literally made of opposite types of energy. Over time those would spiral into enough differences to differentiate them again.

[Fyraltari]

THAT IS THE POINT.

The question is not "Is it Evil to kill someone because it has an evil nature?". That is a dumb question, and the answer is yes, obviously.
Oh, hello there Miko, it's been a while. How is Windstriker doing?


The much more Trickier question is "Is it Evil to destroy something because it's extremely dangerous?" And the answer is much more complex of a simple cut and dry yes or no.
Something? No, it isn't. Someone? Yes it is.
I think that's, the core issue here. You have narrow definition of who somebody is (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html).

The Vampire has been compared to Goblin and Black Dragons, but that 's a wrong set of examples. Yes, a goblin child is dangerous, when it grows up it may kill humans... but it can also be killed by humans: the threat it poses can be controlled, limited. You can fight an evil goblin, if it comes the time.
But a black dragon? Different stuff. An adult or ancient black Dragon is a weapon of mass destruction. Normal Humans cannot stop it; only superhuman adventurers, with their magic and their class abilities can hope to stop it. And they are rare.
Okay first, a goblin child isn't anymore dangerous than a human child, in fact as the comic demonstrates they are less dangerous since the dice have been stacked against them. I mean, seriously, I'm pretty sure more goblins have been killed by humans than the reverse in OOTS-land, just look at the Sapphire Guard.
Second Xykon is more dangerous than the Ancient Black Dragon was. Yet I don't see you rationalizing killing human babies.

Would you call Evil the random peasant who stumbled upon a black dragon egg and choosed to destroy it, rather than let it grow into an unstoppable menace, one that in the future would be able to destroy his town on a whim? I do not think so
Yes I would. And dumb he could raise the dragon into one that would protect his town.
I'm not the only (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153403&postcount=28) one by the way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153483&postcount=31).


And the Vampire.. that is even worse. It is a biological weapon, which can exponentially exponentially reproduce in brief times. Even worse, it can create new vampire EVEN STRONGER than the original one: all that it takes is some luck or some clever tactics and BOOM, now you have a vampire spellcaster, an adventurer vampire, an enemy which turns humanity weapons, magic and class abilities, against itself, in addition to dangerous powers. Greg alone, with only the help of some evil magick from Malack, destroyed the Creed of the Stone, the Thor Clerics of Firmament and defeated the order of the Stick. The potential danger of one single Vampire is enormous.
"It"? Nice...
They don't have to and in the case of a good vampire won't. All those things Geurkon* did? Xykon or Tuskiko could have done them without a fancy staff (Okay they would have turned them into some other kind of undead probably but that's besides the point), so how come you are not arguing for the death of every human baby?


Can you onestly call EVIL someone who just choose not to take this risks? I think it wont be fair.
I take issue with the idea that you can label anyone "evil" or "good" but in the context of D&D, yes, I would call someone who chooses to kill a free-willed sapient being simply because there's a chance they'd kill innocent people. And self-contradictory as well, they've just decided to kill someone who is innocent, by their own logic their should kill themselves before acting.


Of course, you could argue that it would be WRONG, and you know that? I agree with you.
I think it's for the better to sometime take a risks, even huge ones, in the hope of getting something good in return.

BUT, and that is central, BEING WRONG is DIFFERENT from BEING EVIL. You cannot call evil someone just because he is not up to some very High moral standards: it is not fair to request simple, frail humans to take enormous risk forthemselves and their loved ones, and then calling Evil when unwilling or uncapable to do so.
You just said yourself you wouldn't call someone evil for killing a defensless hatchling. I'm sorry, that's not failing some high moral stendard, that's failing basic decency.



Yeah, even that would be problematic. leaving aside all the problems of the trapped host soul, and even postulating a perfect morally vampire, there are still a lot of dangers.

"Muahah. I am the Evil High Priest of Nergal! By the will of my dark lord, i order You, GoodVampire, to sire my evil and powerful servants as Vampires!
What? You resisted my command? Maybe you researched some obscure spell protecting your free will? It doesn't matter, i have anticipated that! I have taken your loved ones hostage! You will sire my servants, or else!"
Yeah, cause no mind control spell work on the non-undead. And the living don't have loved ones you coud kidnap to force to do your bidding. Seriously, now.


And there is still the problem that, individual morality aside, a vampire is still a foothold on Prime Material for the Negative plan.

"I AM ANNIHILATION, MASTER OF THE NEGATIVE PLAN! YOU, WHO SHARES THE DEAD BLOOD; YOU WOULD BE THE DOOR BY WHICH I ENTER THIS WORLD TO CONSUME IT"
Never heard of "Annihilation, master of the Negative plan", they certainly aren't in the comic.

Yeah, after reading all that, my take is that you've decided the vampire wasn't a person and apparently neither are dragons or goblins, so I feel my original assesment of "'cause he'd have grey skin and fangs and you don't" was correct.


Bit of a ship of theseus problem, isn't it? I tend to take the view that both existing simultaneously makes it pretty clear-cut, though. If the swamp man was created while the original was still alive, and then the original was killed, the copy does not become the original.
Yeah since it's the same as the original, what's the point in making a distinguo?

Similarly, because there were two Durkon shaped souls at the same time, the fact that they were identical does not mean they are the same person.
Well they are two iterations of the same person, so you they will behave the same and should be treated the same.


For one, they aren't even identical, really. Even if you discount the difference in location because it's going on inside someone's head, one has control of the body and the other doesn't,But if they want to do the same things at the same time, what does that matter?
and they're both literally made of opposite types of energy. Over time those would spiral into enough differences to differentiate them again.
How would the energy affect their personalities? Xykon's personnality didn't chage when he became an undead.

[LadyEowyn]

Anyone saying that it’s acceptable to kill someone because of their alignment, species, or perceived threat level - or because of anything other than their actions and decisions - is missing the point of everything Rich has ever written. The core theme of OOTS and especially of it’s supplementary works (SOD, GDGU) is that no, it isn’t acceptable, and that people who think it is are acting wrongly and causing increased conflict and suffering. They are not protecting anyone - they are making things worse and, in addition to murdering innocents themselves, are creating conflicts that cause the deaths of additional innocents.

The SOD-era Sapphire Guard, Vaarsuvius, and Gin-Jun are all examples.

[Rrmcklin]

Alright but since there were two souls with the exact same personnality inhabiting the exact same body, and later on one soul absorbed the memories of the other's prior to its completion, the difference is purely academic.


When did the vampire spirit become a soul? You saying the difference is purely academic doesn't make it so, the story certainly isn't treating it as such, with Durkon still making a clear difference between himself and the vampire spirit. A brief take over that very well might not have even lasted doesn't change that.



Anyone saying that it’s acceptable to kill someone because of their alignment, species, or perceived threat level - or because of anything other than their actions and decisions - is missing the point of everything Rich has ever written. The core theme of OOTS and especially of it’s supplementary works (SOD, GDGU) is that no, it isn’t acceptable, and that people who think it is are acting wrongly and causing increased conflict and suffering. They are not protecting anyone - they are making things worse and, in addition to murdering innocents themselves, are creating conflicts that cause the deaths of additional innocents.

The SOD-era Sapphire Guard, Vaarsuvius, and Gin-Jun are all examples.

Killing something just based on species or perceived danger without proof, yes, but if your take away from this story is that it's wrong to kill evil people who have proven themselves to be evil, I don't know what to tell you.

Different characters might be more or less pragmatic about it depending on the stakes and their situation, but this story has never tried to say that current, in the moment, action is the only thing that can justify killing something.

[Prinygod]

One thing to keep in mind in dnd is that things that are mindless, or whom have an intelligence less than 3 are almost always TN because they cannot make decisions along the 2 alignment axis. Undead are the exception, but why? Because they are created from pure negative energy.

Take, for example, there is no core rules that require undead to kill to survive, like an animal would. Even vampires have no penalties to abstaining from blood in 3.5 other than some optional rules in a splat book.

A black dragon technically does not need to eat sapient biengs, but the would gain nutrition from them. Like wise, a dragon could choose to abstain, only targeting animals but a zombie could not. For undead they gain nothing, and cannot starve, but hunt the living anyways.

It may be the case that Rich's vampires are an exception, but it is never stated. Roy assumes dukula has to feed and the vampire would have no incentive to correct Roy, because his evil nature compels him to feed.

You can't really lump the undead into the same category as the "always evil" living, even if it was possible to have good vampires. Remember that being "no more evil than belkar" was how he tricked the order in the first place.

[Fyraltari]

When did the vampire spirit become a soul? You saying the difference is purely academic doesn't make it so, the story certainly isn't treating it as such, with Durkon still making a clear difference between himself and the vampire spirit. A brief take over that very well might not have even lasted doesn't change that.
"Spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. Durkon is making a difference between Durkon* and himself until the ful memory absorption and then he stops. He even switch from calling Sigdi "my mother" to "our (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html) Ma" mid-speech.
This wasn't a takeover, and I can't see how it could not last, do you think Durkon#2 is going to forget Durkon's life somehow?





Different characters might be more or less pragmatic about it depending on the stakes and their situation, but this story has never tried to say that current, in the moment, action is the only thing that can justify killing something.
Are you seriously proposin that the story doesn't frame the Sapphire Guard's "crusades" and Familicide as wrong?

One thing to keep in mind in dnd is that things that are mindless, or whom have an intelligence less than 3 are almost always TN because they cannot make decisions along the 2 alignment axis. Undead are the exception, but why? Because they are created from pure negative energy. Well that's just being incoherent. Evil and Good are decisions and passing moral jugement on something that doesn't make decisions is idiotic and I don't see why the Giant should be bound by Wizard of the Coast's mistakes. Also, as was discussed in that other debate hroþila kindly linked to, Negative Energy is not eviler than Positive Energy, just easier to misuse.


Take, for example, there is no core rules that require undead to kill to survive, like an animal would. Even vampires have no penalties to abstaining from blood in 3.5 other than some optional rules in a splat book.

A black dragon technically does not need to eat sapient biengs, but the would gain nutrition from them. Like wise, a dragon could choose to abstain, only targeting animals but a zombie could not. For undead they gain nothing, and cannot starve, but hunt the living anyways.

It may be the case that Rich's vampires are an exception, but it is never stated. Roy assumes dukula has to feed and the vampire would have no incentive to correct Roy, because his evil nature compels him to feed.
Yes, Durkon* and his crew are evil, no-one ever disputed that. In fact, if vampires truly have no need to drink blood then that's one argument fewer in favor of the "kill-on-sight" policy. And if they do, we saw that they can feed on beasts and on humans without killing (and a simple healing spell takes care of any consequence) so, even in that case, that wouldn't be a problem.



You can't really lump the undead into the same category as the "always evil" living, even if it was possible to have good vampires.
'cause they grey skins and you don't?
I can't find Rich's quote about there existing no Orcs in the real world just humans writing about how cool it would be to be able to just slaughter entire groups of people without having to ponder their human rights but this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole/page4&p=12718550#post12718550) gets basically the same point across. And yes, not having a beating heart and being powered by one kind of fictional energy rather than another fictional kind of energy is cosmetic: they can think feel and make complicated choices nothing else matters.

Remember that being "no more evil than belkar" was how he tricked the order in the first place.
And that is relevant how? He lied about his identity and concealed having a plan but these are specific to the situation they were in. Of course a vampire could lie about being good, anyone can. Too bad there isn't a spell you could use to check... Oh wait.

[Prinygod]

It shows that undead have something intrinsic that goes beyond physiology and culture. Durkula intuitively knew for example not to absorb all of durkons memories, because he would become a clone of his host. He didn't grow up to be evil he was "born" evil, created to manipulate at emotions of Durkons friends to make them easier to prey on. The only reason Durkula didn't murder them the first chance he got, like his progenitor likely did, was because he had a greater evil to commit. Per rich this is how all vampires are created, and if Roy had more ranks in religion, he might have never fallen for deception.

[woweedd]

Less Evil then he used to be, but still Evil. That said, he hasn't done anything south of CN this entire book.

[Rrmcklin]

"Spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. Durkon is making a difference between Durkon* and himself until the ful memory absorption and then he stops. He even switch from calling Sigdi "my mother" to "our (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html) Ma" mid-speech.
This wasn't a takeover, and I can't see how it could not last, do you think Durkon#2 is going to forget Durkon's life somehow?

You're playing semantics with that "spirit" and "soul" thing, you have to know that. I imagine the vampire spirit doesn't even exist anymore so whether or not it would remember is moot, but even if it did remember and continued to exist we have reasons to believe it wouldn't matter. Neither "Durkon" was working under the impression that change was going to last for very long, in which case, vampire spirit Durkon would probably just go back to the way he was previously, with the exception of now knowing all of Durkon's life.


Are you seriously proposin that the story doesn't frame the Sapphire Guard's "crusades" and Familicide as wrong?

I have no idea how you could have possibly gotten that from what I said. The Sapphire Guard and V were acting under "It's a Goblin/Black Dragon so okay to kill" without knowing anything about the specific, individual targets that's different from killing something that you actually know has done a bunch of evil stuff/is actually evil.

You seem really obsessed with some hypothetical good vampires that have not actually appeared in the story and basing your arguments on that, instead of what actually happened in the story. Because your arguments just don't apply to Durkon's situation. At all.

[Ruck]

"Spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. Durkon is making a difference between Durkon* and himself until the ful memory absorption and then he stops. He even switch from calling Sigdi "my mother" to "our (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html) Ma" mid-speech.
This wasn't a takeover, and I can't see how it could not last, do you think Durkon#2 is going to forget Durkon's life somehow?

I could see quite easily how it could not last. In this case, imagine the vampire's "soul" as a sentient computer gradually writing its own software. Sure, if you install a lot of software over that, the computer will operate by it for a while, but it's not going to stop writing its own software and eventually that will be the dominant software once again. (Also, Durkon himself says "He can feel the negative energy squirming," which seems to indicate that the vampire's "soul" is continuing to struggle to free itself from having Durkon's personality written over it.)

[The Pilgrim]

Take, for example, there is no core rules that require undead to kill to survive, like an animal would. Even vampires have no penalties to abstaining from blood in 3.5 other than some optional rules in a splat book.

That's actually a good point. There is no rule in vanilla 3.5 that forces a vampire to suck the blood of the living in order to survive. When Roy asked about the specifics to Greg, he said "once a day, ideally". Now I realize that "ideally" might actually mean "I'd like to eat my favorite food once a day" rather than actual need for it.

[Fyraltari]

It shows that undead have something intrinsic that goes beyond physiology and culture. Durkula intuitively knew for example not to absorb all of durkons memories, because he would become a clone of his host.
Not intuitively, Hel gave him that knowledge when she made him, just like the coordinates of Zenith Peak:

So, is it a thing that could have happened to other vampires? Sure, maybe, once or twice, just as I am sure people have died from drinking 93 gallons of water. Is it common enough for Hel to mention it in her five-minute orientation of the vampire spirit before stuffing it in Durkon's corpse, when she has an entire scheme to explain as well? No. At best, she would have said something like, "Keep an eye on the host spirit, don't let it get control," and the vampire would have said OK. And then still walked into Durkon's trap because it was incapable of connecting the dots on its own beforehand.



He didn't grow up to be evil he was "born" evil, created to manipulate at emotions of Durkons friends to make them easier to prey on. The only reason Durkula didn't murder them the first chance he got, like his progenitor likely did, was because he had a greater evil to commit. Per rich this is how all vampires are created, and if Roy had more ranks in religion, he might have never fallen for deception.
First, I'm going to quote myself:


Well it makes an awful lot of sense. These are not just the first memory the vampire absorbs, these are the very first thing the vampire knew. The very first thing he ever knew, even before knowing that the sun hurts, was that the Dwarven high priest of Thor threw one of his flock to die in a ditch under the snow for no reason. Of course he hates Dwarves, that memory colored every other. Every time where he saw Durkon learning from his family and teachers of how much of a good guy Thor was, he could remember that Thor did nothing to stop Hurak and his cronies (no wonders he thinks he is a deceptive bastard), every time he heard of the importance of helping others, of the ideas of justice, of selflessness he would only have seen lies and rationalization. Of course he is selfish, cruel and controlling, it's easy when your oldest memory is one of betrayal and hate.
So, you are saying that it is not evil to kill a good vampire because they wer created evil even though they are not anymore? Really?

You're playing semantics with that "spirit" and "soul" thing, you have to know that.
No, I am not. You are saying that the comic portrays the two differently, and the only isntance I can see of that is Durkon*'s consciousness being called a spirit and Durkon's a soul, so I assumed that was what you meant. If that isn't then explain what it is.

I imagine the vampire spirit doesn't even exist anymore so whether or not it would remember is moot,
It is indeed moot (well strictly speaking since Durkon absorbed the vampire's own memories, it would be more accurate to say he stopped existing as a discrete consciousness, but that's just nitpicking), however we were not discussing Durkon in particular but a good vampire in general, Durkon#2's last moment just happen to be an example of one such.

but even if it did remember and continued to exist we have reasons to believe it wouldn't matter. Neither "Durkon" was working under the impression that change was going to last for very long,All he said is that he couldn't be sure. All I'm saying is that killing someone because you can't be sure about them is evil.

in which case, vampire spirit Durkon would probably just go back to the way he was previously, with the exception of now knowing all of Durkon's life.
I am impressed by how much you missed the point of Durkon's speech in #1130, Durkon* couldn't go back to the way he was without forgetting Durkon's memories because these are also his. As far as he was concerned this was his life story too that's why he turned into Durkon, because the only thing they do not have in common is one week against ~50 years of life experiences.


I have no idea how you could have possibly gotten that from what I said. The Sapphire Guard and V were acting under "It's a Goblin/Black Dragon so okay to kill" without knowing anything about the specific, individual targets that's different from killing something that you actually know has done a bunch of evil stuff/is actually evil.
Are we having two different conversations? We've been talking about wether it was evil to kill a good vampire.


You seem really obsessed with some hypothetical good vampires that have not actually appeared in the story and basing your arguments on that, instead of what actually happened in the story. Because your arguments just don't apply to Durkon's situation. At all.
Yep, we're having two different conversations: maybe re-read the discussion? It started with this:


Actually, it will count as a neutral act. An hypotetical good vampire is still an undead monstruosity. A dangerous abomination. Its destruction would not in itself be an evil act.
Now, if you want to talk about wether it was evil to kill Durkon, I don't think anyone ever said it was.

I could see quite easily how it could not last. In this case, imagine the vampire's "soul" as a sentient computer gradually writing its own software. Sure, if you install a lot of software over that, the computer will operate by it for a while, but it's not going to stop writing its own software and eventually that will be the dominant software once again.
Except that since what future software is written depends on the software already written (ie how you react to situations depends on your personnality) I don't see how that differs from Durkon, he also changed during his life, that's kind of the point of

(Also, Durkon himself says "He can feel the negative energy squirming," which seems to indicate that the vampire's "soul" is continuing to struggle to free itself from having Durkon's personality written over it.)
I do admit that I find this line weird, but it could just be that Durkon#2 is uneasy being made of negative energy rather than positive one because of the whole one week/fifty years business. In any case, Durkon does not know much about vampires and chose to be cautious, what with the world at stake and all, so I think the Giant wrote that to alleviate the whole "suicide" part by giving Durkon more reason not to chance it.

[D.One]

On destroying Greg/Durkon*/Durkula:

It wasn't an Evil act and was the right call, given what he had done and what everybody knew he intended to do.


On destroying an hypothetical Non-Evil (or even Good) vampire:

Without any indication about effective evil deeds, if he/she is not actually doing harm to other people, that could easily be an Evil act. Of course, circunstances always apply, but if, in theory, a permanently Good Vampire was possible (We made one vampire in our game become Good once, using a Miracle), destroying him/her just because it's a vampire, without a fair trial, without being to prevent an Evil deed, would be murder, thus Evil.

Let's remember the the vampire's need for blood/energy drain doesn't need to be from sentient beings.


Edit: In fact, come to think about it, even an Evil Vampire that managed to feed from animals and refrained from doing atrocities shouldn't be destroyed on basis of "He's a vampire and thus should DIE!!!" We might question why an evil vampire would do that, but that's another discussion.

[Rrmcklin]

Fyraltari, instead of responding to individual points you make, I'm just going to give a summary of my general opinion of the situation to make it easy for both of us.

In the event of a vampire in the world of OOTS actually being seen doing some good, or people hearing that a vampire has been doing good, I do think summarily killing that vampire without finding anything else about them would be, if not evil, at least not good. However, this still leaves the question of the trapped soul - and, since I'm assuming you're going to go "Well, what if the soul and the Vampire came to an agreement?" to which my reply would be "how could anyone on the outside be sure of that." You seem to be taking it for granted that people will obviously just believe the vampire saying "hey, I've made peace with my host" or that people should actually believe that.

The thing is, that is not Durkon's situation, and we have no reason to think such a situation would be anything other than absolutely extraordinary. Durkon's situation was not a vampire that chose to be good and was yet still persecuted, it was a vampire that Durkon tricked into temporarily becoming a clone of him for an undefined but implied very short amount of time.

You seem to be equating Vampires with Goblins and Dragons, actual biological creatures, when a more apt description would be Demons and Devils, creatures that are actually made of evil, and something they seem to take great pride in.

And that's not even to say that good Demons or Devils aren't possible in this world (to my understanding, that's not even true in actual D&D) but it's just facetious to act as if the two things are equivalent, because they aren't.

The same goes for you saying that Durkon's soul and the Vampire Spirit are the same thing, they blatantly aren't. One was forged out of negative energy to pilot hijacking a corpse and the other, well, the other is a soul.

Edit: Actually, I am going to reply to two thinks that stuck out to me.


All he said is that he couldn't be sure. All I'm saying is that killing someone because you can't be sure about them is evil.

Being dismissive of the implications because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't there. I trust Durkon's unease over your personal interpretation. That being said, yes, killing someone just because you aren't totally sure of them would (normally) be evil. But that's not the situation posed in the comic, and I doubt it's ever going to come up, so it's moot.


I am impressed by how much you missed the point of Durkon's speech in #1130, Durkon* couldn't go back to the way he was without forgetting Durkon's memories because these are also his. As far as he was concerned this was his life story too that's why he turned into Durkon, because the only thing they do not have in common is one week against ~50 years of life experiences.

I'm impressed by your deliberate unwillingness to acknowledge that the story is acting like that has a very real chance of happening. It doesn't matter if you personally think that the vampire wouldn't go back to being the way it was because the story is saying that very much has a chance to happen. That why they had to hurry up and let Belkar destroy him, because if the memory download wore off or whatever, everything would be ruined.

[Spoomeister]

Based on how Belkar interpreted it, Durkon is just presenting Belkar with a slightly different path to getting to the way to be a functional CE character.

Belkar's already heard variants on "play by the rules enough to be left alone" than what That Old Guy told Belkar long ago in his fever dream. Belkar is still learning how to play by the rules enough to still be CE without getting ganked by his own party. Previously the guidance was given from a devious self-interested point of view; now it's still from a self-interested point of view, but more from "what's my fig leaf to excuse uncharacteristic feelings but still be whatever I want day-to-day".

Belkar is still, and will still be, Chaotic Evil. As someone put it very well earlier, he's just becoming a more realistic version of the sort of CE person who could be in any given party. Belkar is still gonna be stung by the amulet if he takes it out, he's just concluding his wear-your-opponent's-skull-as-a-hat days of being really obvious about it.

It's not coming from a place of good intention, it's becoming more aware how to blend in.


I'm completely open to this theory being thoroughly shot down by future insights from Belkar of course. But as of right now, this is a semantics game for him.

[Ruck]

Except that since what future software is written depends on the software already written (ie how you react to situations depends on your personnality) I don't see how that differs from Durkon, he also changed during his life, that's kind of the point of

Think of it as nature vs. nurture. The negative energy spirit that is undeniably evil is the vampire's Nature. Durkon's personality being laid on top of it is Nurture. I would expect eventually that the vampire's true nature would once again return to the surface, or at least, there's a strong enough chance of that for Durkon to feel the necessity to handle the situation as he did. (And as Rrmcklin has explained, I do believe the negative energy spirit and Durkon's soul are two entirely separate things.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Less Evil then he used to be, but still Evil. That said, he hasn't done anything south of CN this entire book. As balanced against the first five books ... :smallwink: he's got an uphill climb, still CE. Spoomeister's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23630155&postcount=114) does a nice job of spelling that out so I won't repeat it.

[Prinygod]

Rich's quote seems to indicate that hel gave an edict to not let the host soul take control. But that she didn't tell him how to avoid it. Which means that hel didn't say "you will lose control if you absorb too fast". Logicly the vampire didn't know how he could lose control this way and why he was tricked to go against his nature and absorb all memories at once. This comment from Rich has no relation to whether undead have an inherint nature. I am not saying a hypothetical good vampires should be destroyed, but that we can't assume they can exist just because there are good goblins.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am not saying a hypothetical good vampires should be destroyed, Yes they should.
As a supporting argument I offer up the Twilight series. *insert vomit smiley here*
Prosecution rests, Your Honor. :smallbiggrin:
Or make a movie where Blade meets the Twilight teens ...

[Fyraltari]

Fyraltari, instead of responding to individual points you make, I'm just going to give a summary of my general opinion of the situation to make it easy for both of us.

In the event of a vampire in the world of OOTS actually being seen doing some good, or people hearing that a vampire has been doing good, I do think summarily killing that vampire without finding anything else about them would be, if not evil, at least not good. However, this still leaves the question of the trapped soul - and, since I'm assuming you're going to go "Well, what if the soul and the Vampire came to an agreement?" to which my reply would be "how could anyone on the outside be sure of that." You seem to be taking it for granted that people will obviously just believe the vampire saying "hey, I've made peace with my host" or that people should actually believe that.
That's a good point, but seeing as mind reading spells are a thing, there could be a way around that particular problem. I don't know, I admit.
Ayway, since we seem to agree that a good vampire would need to have worked an arrangement with the soul somehow, wouldn't a negative reading on a simple detect evil spell tell you that they have?


The thing is, that is not Durkon's situation, and we have no reason to think such a situation would be anything other than absolutely extraordinary.
Extraordinary is not unique. Durkon is not fundamentally different from any other mortal. what happened once can happen again. Hell, all it would take would be for the vampire to be kind of an idiot and absorb all of his host's memory at once on day one.

Durkon's situation was not a vampire that chose to be good and was yet still persecuted, it was a vampire that Durkon tricked into temporarily becoming a clone of him for an undefined but implied very short amount of time.
You see an implication where I don't, so short of a statement by the Giant, we won't convince each other on wether or not that was temporary.


You seem to be equating Vampires with Goblins and Dragons, actual biological creatures,
But they're not. There is no such thing as goblins or dragons any more than vampires they are equally unreal. Look the reason I care about this is not because I care about the non-existent rights of fictionnal creatures, since I don't but because I don't like any kind of fiction re-inforcing the idea that you should judge someone not on what they do, but what they are, in what group they were born into. This message is despicable and every time someone states "it's okay to kill any member of such fictionnal race because it's in their nature to be evil" that is the message that is being sent regardless of the speaker's intent.


when a more apt description would be Demons and Devils, creatures that are actually made of evil, and something they seem to take great pride in.
Evil and Negative Energy are two different things in D&D. Also if having a spirit made of negative Energy means you are automatically Evil, I'd like to know why having a spirit made of Positive Energy, like the mortals do, don't make them all automatically good.



And that's not even to say that good Demons or Devils aren't possible in this world (to my understanding, that's not even true in actual D&D) but it's just facetious to act as if the two things are equivalent, because they aren't.
Well... (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)
Oh, and I assure you, I am dead serious.


The same goes for you saying that Durkon's soul and the Vampire Spirit are the same thing, they blatantly aren't. One was forged out of negative energy to pilot hijacking a corpse and the other, well, the other is a soul.
A consciuosness made of mystical energy to pilot a body doesn't sound like a soul to you?


Edit: Actually, I am going to reply to two thinks that stuck out to me.


Being dismissive of the implications because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't there. I trust Durkon's unease over your personal interpretation. That being said, yes, killing someone just because you aren't totally sure of them would (normally) be evil. But that's not the situation posed in the comic, and I doubt it's ever going to come up, so it's moot.
I'm impressed by your deliberate unwillingness to acknowledge that the story is acting like that has a very real chance of happening. It doesn't matter if you personally think that the vampire wouldn't go back to being the way it was because the story is saying that very much has a chance to happen. That why they had to hurry up and let Belkar destroy him, because if the memory download wore off or whatever, everything would be ruined.
I'm impressed by your unwilligness to acknowledge that
1) A charcter saying a thing could happen is not the same thing as the story saying it would happen. Especially not when it clashes against what the author states are the intended message of his story AND render the very emotional, climatic moment just before essentially meaningless. "No, Durkon isn't saying that the anger and resentment personified in front of him are part of himsel but that's okay because all the good in his life helps him deal with it, Durkon just learned how to lie, and I guess divined that being flooded with memories would turn the vampire into a copy of himself without it having anything to do with personal growth"? That can't be what you are saying?
2) That I never said killing Durkon right there and there wasn't the right choice.

[The Pilgrim]

On destroying an hypothetical Non-Evil (or even Good) vampire:

Without any indication about effective evil deeds, if he/she is not actually doing harm to other people, that could easily be an Evil act.

Problem is, a Good Vampire is still a vampire that is keeping a soul hostage, according to how Vampirism works in the OOTS world. So killing the Vampire with the intent of freeing the soul is always a good act in my view even if the Vampire is not doing any harm. Unless that soul is okay with the ride (but how can you ask it?), or you can free the soul without destroying the Vampire, maybe with a Wish or Miracle.

[Rrmcklin]

Problem is, a Good Vampire is still a vampire that is keeping a soul hostage, according to how Vampirism works in the OOTS world. So killing the Vampire with the intent of freeing the soul is always a good act in my view even if the Vampire is not doing any harm. Unless that soul is okay with the ride (but how can you ask it?), or you can free the soul without destroying the Vampire, maybe with a Wish or Miracle.

Basically this. Like, do hypothetical situations exist in which there is a good vampire, and it and its host are totally fine with it continuing to exist, while people on the outside also know this for a fact? Sure. Do we have a reason to think that's ever actually happened? No.

And it's not relevant to the actual story at all. The Giant flat out said he doesn't care about those hypotheticals because it has nothing to do with the story he's writing.

[Fyraltari]

Think of it as nature vs. nurture. The negative energy spirit that is undeniably evil is the vampire's Nature. Durkon's personality being laid on top of it is Nurture. I would expect eventually that the vampire's true nature would once again return to the surface, or at least, there's a strong enough chance of that for Durkon to feel the necessity to handle the situation as he did. (And as Rrmcklin has explained, I do believe the negative energy spirit and Durkon's soul are two entirely separate things.)
Durkon felt there was that chance, true. But that doesn't tell us wether there was that chance. Again, I don't know D&D much but several forumite have stated that Negative Energy isn't any more evil than Positive Energy (indeed Xykon and Tarquin have souls made of Positive Energy haven't they?), so I see no reason to assume that absent nurture, Durkon*'s nature is worse than Durkon.



Problem is, a Good Vampire is still a vampire that is keeping a soul hostage, according to how Vampirism works in the OOTS world. So killing the Vampire with the intent of freeing the soul is always a good act in my view even if the Vampire is not doing any harm. Unless that soul is okay with the ride (but how can you ask it?), or you can free the soul without destroying the Vampire, maybe with a Wish or Miracle.
See my post above.

[Rrmcklin]

Durkon felt there was that chance, true. But that doesn't tell us wether there was that chance. Again, I don't know D&D much but several forumite have stated that Negative Energy isn't any more evil than Positive Energy (indeed Xykon and Tarquin have souls made of Positive Energy haven't they?), so I see no reason to assume that absent nurture, Durkon*'s nature is worse than Durkon.



See my post above.

As far as I'm aware, no, souls in D&D aren't made of pure Positive Energy. I find it very strange that you're actually arguing that your personal interpretation trumps the thought process of the actual character in the work who was experiencing it.

What point do you see in arguing "Yeah, Durkon thought the negative energy could override his gambit, but he was probably wrong, and Rich wrote it just because"?

[Jasdoif]

Problem is, a Good Vampire is still a vampire that is keeping a soul hostage, according to how Vampirism works in the OOTS world. So killing the Vampire with the intent of freeing the soul is always a good act in my view even if the Vampire is not doing any harm. Unless that soul is okay with the ride (but how can you ask it?), or you can free the soul without destroying the Vampire, maybe with a Wish or Miracle.The discussion thread for #1111 had a rather interesting side-conversation in this regard....Basically, Libris Mortis' revive undead spell could be interpreted as returning a vampire's animating spirit to unlife after the original soul in its body had been raised from the dead, allowing the two to exist at the same time.

[Fyraltari]

As far as I'm aware, no, souls in D&D aren't made of pure Positive Energy. I find it very strange that you're actually arguing that your personal interpretation trumps the thought process of the actual character in the work who was experiencing it.

What do you gain from that? What do you gain from going "Yeah, Durkon thought the negative energy could override his gambit, but he was probably wrong, and Rich wrote it just because"?

"The story's themes are consistent and the previous very emotional, climactic strip makes sense is what I am getting", what do you gain from going "Rich thinks it's totally kay to kill a person because of their race rather than their actions".

Also I said that I think Rich wrote that line to further justify the vampire comitting suicide-by-Belkar.

[Rrmcklin]

"The story's themes are consistent and the previous very emotional, climactic strip makes sense is what I am getting", what do you gain from going "Rich thinks it's totally kay to kill a person because of their race rather than their actions".

Also I said that I think Rich wrote that line to further justify the vampire comitting suicide-by-Belkar.

Well, I gain understanding the difference between persecuting people who are demonstrably not a danger to anyone simply based on their appearance, and creature literally made of negative energy/evil that has been actively trying to end the world. There's only a contradiction here if you insist on making one, which for some reason you are.

Really, your point about justification falls flat when you realized that destroying the vampire was always the plan, even when they thought it actually was Durkon. Rich clearly never thought that needed any greater justification than "We want Durkon back to normal, and for that we need to destroy then rez him."

[Fincher]

Durkula wasn't just some random evil character. He was someone who (as Belkar saw it, and as was actually the case) was lying about his identity, who had insinuated himself into their traveling party as they were trying to save the world, who had been working with enemies of them, who could easily be planning to sabotage them (and effectively was, since his motives ran at cross-purposes), and who was taking up residence in Durkon's body (after Durkon died saving Belkar) and would need to die for him to be raised. I put Belkar's actions there firmly in chaotic neutral territory.

[Fyraltari]

Well, I gain understanding the difference between persecuting people who are demonstrably not a danger to anyone simply based on their appearance, and creature literally made of negative energy/evil that has been actively trying to end the world.
You don't see a contradiction between "saying that fictionnal race Y is always evil is wrong" and "fictionnal race Z is always evil in my book"?
Again, the points I am arguing against here are:
1) Vampires cannot be good.
2) It's not evil to kill a vampire simply for being a vampire.

Not, as you seem to believe despite my stating it several times:
3) Destroying vampire Durkon was evil?


There's only a contradiction here if you insist on making one, which for some reason you are. Really, your point about justification falls flat when you realized that destroying the vampire was always the plan, even when they thought it actually was Durkon.
They didn't know there was two people within Durkon's body at that point, they didn't think they'd be destroying anyone, just making Durkon's life easier. Literally.

[Rrmcklin]

You don't see a contradiction between "saying that fictionnal race Y is always evil is wrong" and "fictionnal race Z is always evil in my book"?
Again, the points I am arguing against here are:
1) Vampires cannot be good.
2) It's not evil to kill a vampire simply for being a vampire.

Not, as you seem to believe despite my stating it several times:
3) Destroying vampire Durkon was evil?

Well, I'm able to understand context and the concepts of the story to understand why one thing being treated different than another is not inherently a contradiction so... but to your three points:

1) I never argued that it's impossible for a vampire to be good.
2) I understand that, vampires, unlike goblins, actually do seem to be created evil. This acknowledgement says nothing about whether or not they have the potential to become good.
3) No, destroying vampire Durkon was not evil. Let me ask you this, who do you think committed an evil act - Belkar for destroying it even though he had no way of knowing about the internal struggle going on, Durkon for putting his plan into action, or the Spirit itself for letting dismissing the anti-life shell and letting it happen?

Again, I can imagine some hypothetical scenarios in which a vampire is good and destroying it would be evil, but what happened in the story is not that scenario, and you have no leg to stand on in claiming that it was.


They didn't know there was two people within Durkon's body at that point, they didn't think they'd be destroying anyone, just making Durkon's life easier. Literally.

Seeing as you're the one bringing up "suicide" and justifications for it, that hardly matters. The facts remains that Durkon would be willingly let himself be destroyed so they could bring him back. That is, for most intends and purposes, what ended up happening anyway.

[Fyraltari]

3) No, destroying vampire Durkon was not evil. Let me ask you this, who do you think committed an evil act - Belkar for destroying it even though he had no way of knowing about the internal struggle going on, Durkon for putting his plan into action, or the Spirit itself for letting dismissing the anti-life shell and letting it happen?

Again, I can imagine some hypothetical scenarios in which a vampire is good and destroying it would be evil, but what happened in the story is not that scenario, and you have no leg to stand on in claiming that it was.

I just said that I never claimed it was evil.

EDIT: Seriously, if you want to contradict something, contradict something, someone has actually said.

[Rrmcklin]

I just said that I never claimed it was evil.

EDIT: Seriously, if you want to contradict something, contradict something, someone has actually said.

I must have gotten mixed up because you put tha as a point. Sorry about that.

That being said, I still think you are being strangely obstinate about this in a way that doesn't make much sense. You've taken my posts out of context and ignored what I have actually said too. But I'll just repeat:

1) I never argued that it's impossible for a vampire to be good.
2) I understand that, vampires, unlike goblins, actually do seem to be created evil. This acknowledgement says nothing about whether or not they have the potential to become good.

[Fyraltari]

1) I never argued that it's impossible for a vampire to be good.
2) I understand that, vampires, unlike goblins, actually do seem to be created evil. This acknowledgement says nothing about whether or not they have the potential to become good.

Then we agree. Okay.

[Kish]

I'm not sure how close Fyraltari's position is to mine, but mine is that the story suggests that it is, indeed, always morally correct to destroy a vampire, and this undermines Rich's earlier impassioned words on how opposed he is to the idea of it being okay to kill an orc or a black dragon, in a way I don't think he understands.

Refuting this with anything along the lines of "but orcs and black dragons don't exist by possessing other people" would fall as flat for me as the previous arguments some people have made along the lines of "but look, hatchling black dragons aren't actually babies in any meaningful moral sense, it sez so in the book":

There are no evil possessing spirits. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)

[Rrmcklin]

I'm not sure how close Fyraltari's position is to mine, but mine is that the story suggests that it is, indeed, always morally correct to destroy a vampire, and this undermines Rich's earlier impassioned words on how opposed he is to the idea of it being okay to kill an orc or a black dragon, in a way I don't think he understands.

Refuting this with anything along the lines of "but orcs and black dragons don't exist by possessing other people" would fall as flat for me as the previous arguments some people have made along the lines of "but look, hatchling black dragons aren't actually babies in any meaningful moral sense, it sez so in the book":

There are no evil possessing spirits. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)

Fair enough. I'd just make a distinction between biological entities and creatures empowered/literally made of evil or whatever, but I can accept that some of his words might be in contradiction of that, despite the universe still obviously having those kind of creatures exist.

[Fyraltari]

There are no evil possessing spirits. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)
Dammit, I was looking for that quote!


I must have gotten mixed up because you put tha as a point. Sorry about that.

Going back it seems I did in fact confuse your position with that of some other posters. My apologies, I should have paid closer attention.

[Mightymosy]

For the record, I'm against any "It's always ok to kill X because they ARE Y", because it reduces beings to something they can't change.
It should always be "It's ok to kill X because they DID Z".

But then again, I find the idea of "negative energy plane" as origin of "always evil beings" a little....how shall I say? Clumsy. Like if someone tried to use mathematics (1s and 0s, or + and -, if you so will) to make up a philosophical contruct for human behavior.....positive energy plane can heal people, but it can make them explode when they get "too many HP" or something, right?
I don't know, I don't want to be overly critical on a system that I i didn't even read first hand, so maybe I stop here.

@Kish:
But how does the comic suggest that killing a vampire is always good? I thought Rich said there might be good vampires?

[LadyEowyn]

I have no idea how you could have possibly gotten that from what I said. The Sapphire Guard and V were acting under "It's a Goblin/Black Dragon so okay to kill" without knowing anything about the specific, individual targets that's different from killing something that you actually know has done a bunch of evil stuff/is actually evil.
That / elides a very large difference. Yes, it is okay, in the world of OOTS, to kill people based on them committing evil actions.

It is not okay to kill people simply because they are Evil-aligned, without knowing anything about their actions. Detect Evil + Smite Evil in the absence of other information is wrong. Someone can be Evil-aligned (in the sense of bettering their own condition at the expense of others) without posing any kind of material threat that justifies straight-up murdering them.

[Kish]

Fair enough. I'd just make a distinction between biological entities and creatures empowered/literally made of evil or whatever, but I can accept that some of his words might be in contradiction of that, despite the universe still obviously having those kind of creatures exist.
I'm sure he makes exactly that distinction. That's the problem.

Again: There are no entities literally made of evil. There are no entities literally made of negative energy. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

He used that to (correctly, in my view) wave off the suggestion that someone could make rules about orcs or dragons that make it okay to treat orcs or dragons as animated target dummies. If you say "in this universe, an orc is always a moral monster, and humans who were so foolish as to raise baby orcs as if they could be taught to be people would be inevitably murdered by the monsters they'd invited into their home" the logical followup is, "Why did you the writer/DM choose to make orcs that way?"

And similarly, yes, it's very clear that vampires are inherently monstrous and trusting them is foolish in this story.

Why did Rich choose to make them that way?

His words have always included the "natural" qualifier when he talks about no race deserving to be obliterated, and it's always made me wince a little because that word is meaningless. Anything that exists is natural. If you exercise your rights as an author to say "in my universe, that's not true, and vampires can be destroyed without compunction"...attempting to get me to agree that that's meaningfully different from exercising your rights as an author to say "in my universe, all goblins are evil and can be destroyed without compunction" is likely to be a pointless exercise for anyone who attempted it.

[Rrmcklin]

That / elides a very large difference. Yes, it is okay, in the world of OOTS, to kill people based on them committing evil actions.

It is not okay to kill people simply because they are Evil-aligned, without knowing anything about their actions. Detect Evil + Smite Evil in the absence of other information is wrong. Someone can be Evil-aligned (in the sense of bettering their own condition at the expense of others) without posing any kind of material threat that justifies straight-up murdering them.

Okay? I said nothing to the contrary.


I'm sure he makes exactly that distinction. That's the problem.

Again: There are no entities literally made of evil. There are no entities literally made of negative energy. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

He used that to (correctly, in my view) wave off the suggestion that someone could make rules about orcs or dragons that make it okay to treat orcs or dragons as animated target dummies. If you say "in this universe, an orc is always a moral monster, and humans who were so foolish as to raise baby orcs as if they could be taught to be people would be inevitably murdered by the monsters they'd invited into their home" the logical followup is, "Why did you the writer/DM choose to make orcs that way?"

And similarly, yes, it's very clear that vampires are inherently monstrous and trusting them is foolish in this story.

Why did Rich choose to make them that way?

His words have always included the "natural" qualifier when he talks about no race deserving to be obliterated, and it's always made me wince a little because that word is meaningless. Anything that exists is natural. If you exercise your rights as an author to say "in my universe, that's not true, and vampires can be destroyed without compunction"...attempting to get me to agree that that's meaningfully different from exercising your rights as an author to say "in my universe, all goblins are evil and can be destroyed without compunction" is likely to be a pointless exercise for anyone who attempted it.

Eh, I don't really have an issue with distinguishing between supernatural and non-supernatural compulsions like that. I can appreciate the contrast there with Goblins and Vampires, and any other examples. That being said, I get calling it out if he's talked specifically about that being wrong, and yet it appearing in the story.

But with situations like that I'm the type of person who just sort of accepts that the contradiction is there, instead of just trying to read the story in a way that says it's not, even the dialogue doesn't lend itself to that interpretation like going "the story wasn't actually implying the Vampire could turn evil again, even though it did."

[KorvinStarmast]

hatchling black dragons aren't actually babies in any meaningful moral sense, it sez so in the book": The black dragon in No Cure For The Paladin Blues was, per the commentary of the author, a young adult.
Not a hatchling.
No further comment as this horse was pounded into glue so long ago that it hardened.
This post is intended to correct what I think was being alluded to; if I misread your point then never mind.

[LadyEowyn]

Okay? I said nothing to the contrary.
Several other posters were claiming that it was acceptable to kill people based on species or alignment, and my initial post was directed at rebutting them. I reacted to your response to my post by continuing to argue in the same vein, and I may have misunderstood you in doing that.

If you agree that killing based on species or alignment is unacceptable, then we are on the same side of the debate.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The black dragon in No Cure For The Paladin Blues was, per the commentary of the author, a young adult.

You don't even need the commentary. He is of an age where he kept porn and lotion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0188.html) in his room. I.e. he was a horny teenager.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

You don't even need the commentary. He is of an age where he kept porn and lotion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0188.html) in his room. I.e. he was a horny teenager. While I do not believe that to be only a teen or young adult habit, fair point.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm sure he makes exactly that distinction. That's the problem.

Again: There are no entities literally made of evil. There are no entities literally made of negative energy. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

He used that to (correctly, in my view) wave off the suggestion that someone could make rules about orcs or dragons that make it okay to treat orcs or dragons as animated target dummies. If you say "in this universe, an orc is always a moral monster, and humans who were so foolish as to raise baby orcs as if they could be taught to be people would be inevitably murdered by the monsters they'd invited into their home" the logical followup is, "Why did you the writer/DM choose to make orcs that way?"

And similarly, yes, it's very clear that vampires are inherently monstrous and trusting them is foolish in this story.

Why did Rich choose to make them that way?

His words have always included the "natural" qualifier when he talks about no race deserving to be obliterated, and it's always made me wince a little because that word is meaningless. Anything that exists is natural. If you exercise your rights as an author to say "in my universe, that's not true, and vampires can be destroyed without compunction"...attempting to get me to agree that that's meaningfully different from exercising your rights as an author to say "in my universe, all goblins are evil and can be destroyed without compunction" is likely to be a pointless exercise for anyone who attempted it.

Well, I do not know if Rich Burlew really makes that distintion or not.

But I do think there is a difference between:
"We want to kill a bunch of people because they look different and that scares us, and in order to justify it we are going to vilify the whole race to mark them as legitimate targets".
and
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".

Sure, the difference may look slim. But it is the same reason why in the movie industry you can't feature anymore heroic pioneers slaughtering natives alongside the 7th Cavalry, or heroic cops slaughtering dark-skinned gangsters, but you can still feature heroic commandos killing Nazis, or heroic whatever killing mooks who look like nazi ripoffs. We have, to a point, overcomed the thought that it its okay to kill people of a different culture, that being different equals being Evil. But Heroes still need to triumph over Evil, and one of the best things we have got in our common imaginery as equivalent of pure embodiment of Evil are the Nazis. And at some point, someone said "hey, but Nazis are people, too". And that was when the Zombie Genre took over everything.

In a fantasy setting, a band of Orcs is just a group competing for resources with the group that has hired you to kill them. Or a nation at war with the one you belong to. Or people who happen to inhabit the grave you are robbing. So in order to rationalize their slaugher better, we give them different physical features like longer fangs, oddly-colored skin and pointy hears, and it's a free ticket to the slaugher buffette. Except at some point people realized fantasy authors were doing exactly the same than early 20th century pulp authors. Equalling being different to being Evil, and with that, legitimating the murder and ransacking of human groups not belonging to yours. But because fantasy authors could no longer use real world ethnicities, they were inventing fantasy ones.

Then we have the Undead, who are just unnatural constructs of pure negative energy, pure embodiments of Evil. They have no society, no history, no culture, and not really free-will. They are just pure evil energy focused on exterminating all Life. They are the perfect obstacle we need for our Heroes to display their heroicity.

...

You may arge that it all boils down to the same concept anyway. And you may be right. Boiled water is, after all, still water. But it's water without all the germs. Or most of them, at least.

[Mightymosy]

Well, I do not know if Rich Burlew really makes that distintion or not.

But I do think there is a difference between:
"We want to kill a bunch of people because they look different and that scares us, and in order to justify it we are going to vilify the whole race to mark them as legitimate targets".
and
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".

Sure, the difference may look slim. But it is the same reason why in the movie industry you can't feature anymore heroic pioneers slaughtering natives alongside the 7th Cavalry, or heroic cops slaughtering dark-skinned gangsters, but you can still feature heroic commandos killing Nazis, or heroic whatever killing mooks who look like nazi ripoffs. We have, to a point, overcomed the thought that it its okay to kill people of a different culture, that being different equals being Evil. But Heroes still need to triumph over Evil, and one of the best things we have got in our common imaginery as equivalent of pure embodiment of Evil are the Nazis. And at some point, someone said "hey, but Nazis are people, too". And that was when the Zombie Genre took over everything.

In a fantasy setting, a band of Orcs is just a group competing for resources with the group that has hired you to kill them. Or a nation at war with the one you belong to. Or people who happen to inhabit the grave you are robbing. So in order to rationalize their slaugher better, we give them different physical features like longer fangs, oddly-colored skin and pointy hears, and it's a free ticket to the slaugher buffette. Except at some point people realized fantasy authors were doing exactly the same than early 20th century pulp authors. Equalling being different to being Evil, and with that, legitimating the murder and ransacking of human groups not belonging to yours. But because fantasy authors could no longer use real world ethnicities, they were inventing fantasy ones.

Then we have the Undead, who are just unnatural constructs of pure negative energy, pure embodiments of Evil. They have no society, no history, no culture, and not really free-will. They are just pure evil energy focused on exterminating all Life. They are the perfect obstacle we need for our Heroes to display their heroicity.

...

You may arge that it all boils down to the same concept anyway. And you may be right. Boiled water is, after all, still water. But it's water without all the germs. Or most of them, at least.

Some germs survive cooking.....but whatever.


See, this sentence:
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".
is really just advertising. It sounds nice, but it's just words.
What IS an embodiment of Evil????
Evil is a term to describe an ACTION, or, if you want, an INTENT.
It's not some black gooey mass that is also a plane.

I'm firmly in the camp of
"Determine Evil by deeds&intents ONLY. Other characteristics just don't apply."
Otherwise, it's exactly like you describe: Re-flavouring old concepts to make people think you have abandoned old concepts, but really it's the same old concepts, just not with yellow black green grey skin.

[The Pilgrim]

See, this sentence:
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".
is really just advertising. It sounds nice, but it's just words.
What IS an embodiment of Evil????
Evil is a term to describe an ACTION, or, if you want, an INTENT.
It's not some black gooey mass that is also a plane.

I'm firmly in the camp of
"Determine Evil by deeds&intents ONLY. Other characteristics just don't apply."
Otherwise, it's exactly like you describe: Re-flavouring old concepts to make people think you have abandoned old concepts, but really it's the same old concepts, just not with yellow black green grey skin.

Not "grey skin", but "constructs of pure evil energy who are the antithesis of life". There is a small difference there. They happen to have pale skin because that is a characteristic associated to things that are dead and decaying.

Yes, Evil is defined by intent, not apparence. But a work of art is still a work of art and an author doesn't always have the time to fully characterize the antagonists. Specially when they are just mooks. And when the artist does have the time to fully characterize an antagonist, assigning to it characteristics that are unpleasant to the audience enhances the effect. For example, when The Giant characterized Tarquin, he resorted to black and red spiked armor, male chauvinism, classism, and other unpleasant traits. All that enhanced the effect, even though what definitely marked him as evil were things like burning slaves on the stake to make ten-foot flaming letters.

The fact that the "unpleasant traits" the artist resorts to are not "cultural differences", "skill color", or "different physical features", but "constructs of pure negative energy who are the antithesis of life", is actually a huge improvment. The author is not playing to the audience's fear of what is different, but to the audience's fear of Death. And that is actually a full valid device, in my view.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Okai,
There are a few thing, I ll like to clarify.
I m not advocating for killing of innocents being; and i agree with the general Theme, that Killing Evil beings just for being Evil is wrong.
But, like every Hard rule, it has some exception, or grey areas. And i can think of two of them.

The first one is when there is ABSOLUTE POWER IMBALANCE.
Suppose there are two side, a side can obliterate the other, with little or no risk to itself. Suppose that the stronger side is known to have, in the past, done exactly that. Now suppose that the weaker side gets, by random chance a fleeting strategic opportunity that if used, could halt or cripple, or even destroy the stronger side. To do so they should attack first, unprovoked. Would that be always evil to do so?
I have made the example of the peasants and the dragon Egg, but i can think of several others.
A goblin village lives peacefully, in a concealed location inside a human kingdom. They reasonable assume that, should they ever be discovered, they will be exterminated. One day a human child stumbles upon them. They try to keep it prisoner, but it proves difficoult, the child constantly tries to escape, and almost do so. When it becomes clear that they cannot keep it imprisoned forever, they reluctantly decide to kill him. Would you call them Evil?
Anothet Example: a goblin priest, whose village has being destroyed by humans, discover that his race is destined to be forever oppressed by humans, by divine decree. He could try to settle down a life a peacefuk life but he must accept that at every m oment this life could be destroyed. So, when he gets the opportunity to change this situation, to fix this unbalance ofbpower, hebtakes it, even knowing that it will need the savrifice of many innocents, and the risk of world d estruction, He takes it. Is he evil?

The second exception is Necromancy.
The dnd universe is balanced. You have good wizard and you have evil wizard, you have paladins and you have blackguards, eccetera eccetera. But there is an inbalance to the rule, and it's Necromancy.
Not only does Necromancy generates vreature who are by default hostile to living beings,that does not have a definite life cicle and that cannot be insered in any natural life cycle: it also generate creatures who are way more powerful than their original template, and in certain situation, even of the starting Necromancer. Case in point human Xykon and RedCloak: they were fairly powerful, but far from invincible, and they were defeated by Lirian. But when RedCloack used the ritualnof Lichdo on the Sorcerer, it created an almost unstoppable abomination, who crushed two epic characters.
Fittingly, the only time it was defeated it was by using a sort of unconventional "good" necromancy, by an army of ghost Martyrs. Necromancy perverts not just the natural order, but also the games mechanic.
Its a disruptive power, who cannot be allowed to freely roam.
And a Vampire is not only an undead, but also a natural necromancer. A super-necromancer actually: one that can, given the right circumstances, create an Undead way more powerful than himself.

Given this rational consideration, can you call someone who advocate for the destruction of Necromancers - and, to be clear, that is not my personal position - Evil? For sure, that is not Good: but Evil?

If your answer is still yes, please reflect on this: a few vampire has escaped. Some of them where Thralls of Greg, which now has been destroyed. The order has no way to know if they are still committed to Hel's plan, or even Evil. If they hunt and destroy them, are they committing an evil act?

[Mightymosy]

Not "grey skin", but "constructs of pure evil energy who are the antithesis of life". There is a small difference there. They happen to have pale skin because that is a characteristic associated to things that are dead and decaying.

Yes, Evil is defined by intent, not apparence. But a work of art is still a work of art and an author doesn't always have the time to fully characterize the antagonists. Specially when they are just mooks. And when the artist does have the time to fully characterize an antagonist, assigning to it characteristics that are unpleasant to the audience enhances the effect. For example, when The Giant characterized Tarquin, he resorted to black and red spiked armor, male chauvinism, classism, and other unpleasant traits. All that enhanced the effect, even though what definitely marked him as evil were things like burning slaves on the stake to make ten-foot flaming letters.

The fact that the "unpleasant traits" the artist resorts to are not "cultural differences", "skill color", or "different physical features", but "constructs of pure negative energy who are the antithesis of life", is actually a huge improvment. The author is not playing to the audience's fear of what is different, but to the audience's fear of Death. And that is actually a full valid device, in my view.

Fear of death? Please. At this point we are SO used to undead of all kind that they aren't really fearful anymore. At least not fearful because of the reason that they are undead.
Consider vampires. They are teenage romantic fantasy now.
Because no one is buying the "living after being dead is evil because it is unnatural" anymore. In fact, when modern audience meet the various kind of undead, it is often "Hey, that's another way to become functionally immortal. What is the price this time? Grey skin? I guess I would do that!"

The Giant actually does a decent job painting vampirism in a bad way (what with acutal Durkon being trapped inside the vampire, tortured for all eternity if he isn't freed).
Most examples don't go so far.
Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

No, "undead" these days is just another word for "living, but with extra powers", for various intents on purposes. I would say that today, it is the burden of an author to explain why being an undead is automatically evil in their works.

[woweedd]

Fear of death? Please. At this point we are SO used to undead of all kind that they aren't really fearful anymore. At least not fearful because of the reason that they are undead.
Consider vampires. They are teenage romantic fantasy now.
Because no one is buying the "living after being dead is evil because it is unnatural" anymore. In fact, when modern audience meet the various kind of undead, it is often "Hey, that's another way to become functionally immortal. What is the price this time? Grey skin? I guess I would do that!"

The Giant actually does a decent job painting vampirism in a bad way (what with acutal Durkon being trapped inside the vampire, tortured for all eternity if he isn't freed).
Most examples don't go so far.
Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

No, "undead" these days is just another word for "living, but with extra powers", for various intents on purposes. I would say that today, it is the burden of an author to explain why being an undead is automatically evil in their works.
Firstly, being undead usually involves flooding your body with Negative Energy, the pure unmitigated energy of death, which does a number on your morals. And 2, becoming a Lich specifically usually invloeden some pretty dubious **** a part of the ritual. Think Voldemort, who is pretty much as close to a Lich as one can be, but got there by murdering dozens of innocents. Also, stop acting like you speak for everyone.

[Mightymosy]

Firstly, being undead usually involves flooding your body with Negative Energy, the pure unmitigated energy of death, which does a number on your morals. And 2, becoming a Lich specifically usually invloeden some pretty dubious **** a part of the ritual. Think Voldemort, who is pretty much as close to a Lich as one can be, but got there by murdering dozens of innocents. Also, stop acting like you speak for everyone.

See, "negative energy", what does that even mean?

Rowling actually did a pretty good job: The Horcrux business was evil because the recipe required MURDER. Not some nonsense like negative energy.
All your electric devices run on negative energy. It's called electrons, which run through the cables. Now is that all automatically evil?

Fine, I don't speak for everyone. But I still don't think many people think "oh, living after dying is EVIL because now I have grey skin". If they do, they use some weird reasoning I can't comprehend, or are backward traditionalists for whom "messing with nature" is inherently evil because it's "unnatural". Which, as Kish pointed out, is utter nonsense as well.

[Prinygod]

Fear of death? Please. At this point we are SO used to undead of all kind that they aren't really fearful anymore. At least not fearful because of the reason that they are undead.
Consider vampires. They are teenage romantic fantasy now.
Because no one is buying the "living after being dead is evil because it is unnatural" anymore. In fact, when modern audience meet the various kind of undead, it is often "Hey, that's another way to become functionally immortal. What is the price this time? Grey skin? I guess I would do that!"

The Giant actually does a decent job painting vampirism in a bad way (what with acutal Durkon being trapped inside the vampire, tortured for all eternity if he isn't freed).
Most examples don't go so far.
Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

No, "undead" these days is just another word for "living, but with extra powers", for various intents on purposes. I would say that today, it is the burden of an author to explain why being an undead is automatically evil in their works.

Yeah if only the comic was based on a prior work with a set of rules and explanations, that we could look at, wouldn't that be nice? Maybe something that said that the ritual to create lich's is so evil that only the truly evil and mad would carry it out. Or that the undead are an antithesis to life, that the act of creating them is so evil that good gods won't even let their clerics do it. I petition rich to dedicate the next hundred comics, to iron out any details not covered in the previous 1000.

[The Pilgrim]

Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die.

Indeed. The only real way in which being a lich made him more cruel was by denying him some of the last remaining pleasures of the flesh he was still partaking: he hadn't been able to have sex for some time due to advancing age, but he still enjoyed coffee to the end. But as a lich, he can't have coffee. Or sex.

In many ways, it reminds me of the evolution towards greater evil of Otha in Elenium: we are told of how he started as a moderately cruel and petty individual, and with infinite power, he used it as one imagines a petty, cruel teenager might. But centuries of boredom removed all other pleasures from his life other than inflicting pain on others. For Xykon it wasn't time, but lichdom. But the negative energy wasn't responsible (vampires, after all, still seem quite capable of enjoying other avenues).

Oh, and we can't forget that negative energy is as bad for life as positive energy. It is not evil because it is anathema to living beings, unless we want to label positive energy the same, since they both kill you if you are exposed to them.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.
I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic. For instance, were I a lich, I could still be on this forum, play violin, play games, do really anything that doesn't require flesh. The tradeoff is, wearing gloves to avoid harming people accidently, and not eating or drinking. Also, not needing to sleep would be amazing and totally make up for it.

[Peelee]

I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic.
It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis.

No. I can't. I might have done some evil things in my life, but I cannot give up on my humanity so easily. Such a path would lead to a irredeemable state of utter depravity, and that is a step farther than I am willing to go.

Pffft! No! I'm just screwing with you. C'mon, let's get undead.

[Kish]

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.

[Peelee]

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.

True. It's always easier to embrace being wrong when the overall point remains, of course.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, I don't really have an issue with distinguishing between supernatural and non-supernatural compulsions like that.
But that's completely arbitrary. Goblins are just as supernatural as vampires, and saying that vampires are compelled to do evil because of how their souls are made is just the same as saying goblins are compelled to do evil because it's in their blood. Same argument, fresh coat of paint.


But with situations like that I'm the type of person who just sort of accepts that the contradiction is there, instead of just trying to read the story in a way that says it's not, even the dialogue doesn't lend itself to that interpretation like going "the story wasn't actually implying the Vampire could turn evil again, even though it did."
I never said that the story wasn't saying the vampire could turn evil again, of course he could, he has the same chance of that happening that of Durkon turning evil, since he is a copy of Durkon. What I am saying is that the story is not saying the vampire will turn evil again.

Well, I do not know if Rich Burlew really makes that distintion or not.

But I do think there is a difference between:
"We want to kill a bunch of people because they look different and that scares us, and in order to justify it we are going to vilify the whole race to mark them as legitimate targets".
and
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".
"Pure embodiments of all that is evil"? Could such pure embodiment have friendships* or be heartbroken over the deaths of their children, like Malack?


Sure, the difference may look slim. But it is the same reason why in the movie industry you can't feature anymore heroic pioneers slaughtering natives alongside the 7th Cavalry, or heroic cops slaughtering dark-skinned gangsters, but you can still feature heroic commandos killing Nazis, or heroic whatever killing mooks who look like nazi ripoffs.
First claiming that Nazi (ripoffs) are embodiment of evil is ridiculous. Second you do realize that the NSDAP or whatever evil organisation the bad guy are in, is not something you are born into? Like you have to actually make a choice to join. Do you not see the difference that makes?


We have, to a point, overcomed the thought that it its okay to kill people of a different culture, that being different equals being Evil. But Heroes still need to triumph over Evil, and one of the best things we have got in our common imaginery as equivalent of pure embodiment of Evil are the Nazis. And at some point, someone said "hey, but Nazis are people, too". And that was when the Zombie Genre took over everything.
This is an extremly simplistic view of pop-culture.


In a fantasy setting, a band of Orcs is just a group competing for resources with the group that has hired you to kill them. Or a nation at war with the one you belong to. Or people who happen to inhabit the grave you are robbing. So in order to rationalize their slaugher better, we give them different physical features like longer fangs, oddly-colored skin and pointy hears, and it's a free ticket to the slaugher buffette. Except at some point people realized fantasy authors were doing exactly the same than early 20th century pulp authors. Equalling being different to being Evil, and with that, legitimating the murder and ransacking of human groups not belonging to yours. But because fantasy authors could no longer use real world ethnicities, they were inventing fantasy ones.

Then we have the Undead, who are just unnatural constructs of pure negative energy, pure embodiments of Evil. They have no society, no history, no culture, and not really free-will. They are just pure evil energy focused on exterminating all Life. They are the perfect obstacle we need for our Heroes to display their heroicity.
Except that second paragraph is how "always evil monsters" have always been characterized. That the name of the monster changed from Orc to vampire is making anything better. Like seriously, the idea to present orcs as just another griou in competition for resources or another nation at war, is a recent development, one generally born of the author's will to point out the problems with stating that an entire group is always evil.


You may arge that it all boils down to the same concept anyway. And you may be right. Boiled water is, after all, still water. But it's water without all the germs. Or most of them, at least.
Oh sure because, it wasn't the core of the concept that was the problem it was all the little details. You haven't boiled anything away you've just change the dressing.

Okai,
There are a few thing, I ll like to clarify.
I m not advocating for killing of innocents being; and i agree with the general Theme, that Killing Evil beings just for being Evil is wrong.
But, like every Hard rule, it has some exception, or grey areas. And i can think of two of them.

The first one is when there is ABSOLUTE POWER IMBALANCE.
Suppose there are two side, a side can obliterate the other, with little or no risk to itself. Suppose that the stronger side is known to have, in the past, done exactly that. Now suppose that the weaker side gets, by random chance a fleeting strategic opportunity that if used, could halt or cripple, or even destroy the stronger side. To do so they should attack first, unprovoked. Would that be always evil to do so?
Well yes. All they'd be doing would be to perpetuate the conflict.

I have made the example of the peasants and the dragon Egg, but i can think of several others.
A goblin village lives peacefully, in a concealed location inside a human kingdom. They reasonable assume that, should they ever be discovered, they will be exterminated. One day a human child stumbles upon them. They try to keep it prisoner, but it proves difficoult, the child constantly tries to escape, and almost do so. When it becomes clear that they cannot keep it imprisoned forever, they reluctantly decide to kill him. Would you call them Evil?
Why yes, I would call the child-killers evil. And dumb they could have proven their good will by bringing the child back to their parents. That kind of actions tend to make people have a higher opinion of you, after all.

Anothet Example: a goblin priest, whose village has being destroyed by humans, discover that his race is destined to be forever oppressed by humans, by divine decree. He could try to settle down a life a peacefuk life but he must accept that at every m oment this life could be destroyed. So, when he gets the opportunity to change this situation, to fix this unbalance ofbpower, hebtakes it, even knowing that it will need the savrifice of many innocents, and the risk of world d estruction, He takes it. Is he evil?
Why, yes, Redcloak is Evil. How is that a question?


The second exception is Necromancy.
The dnd universe is balanced. You have good wizard and you have evil wizard, you have paladins and you have blackguards, eccetera eccetera. But there is an inbalance to the rule, and it's Necromancy.
Not only does Necromancy generates vreature who are by default hostile to living beings,that does not have a definite life cicle and that cannot be insered in any natural life cycle: it also generate creatures who are way more powerful than their original template, and in certain situation, even of the starting Necromancer. Case in point human Xykon and RedCloak: they were fairly powerful, but far from invincible, and they were defeated by Lirian. But when RedCloack used the ritualnof Lichdo on the Sorcerer, it created an almost unstoppable abomination, who crushed two epic characters.
Fittingly, the only time it was defeated it was by using a sort of unconventional "good" necromancy, by an army of ghost Martyrs. Necromancy perverts not just the natural order, but also the games mechanic.
Its a disruptive power, who cannot be allowed to freely roam.
And a Vampire is not only an undead, but also a natural necromancer. A super-necromancer actually: one that can, given the right circumstances, create an Undead way more powerful than himself.

Given this rational consideration, can you call someone who advocate for the destruction of Necromancers - and, to be clear, that is not my personal position - Evil? For sure, that is not Good: but Evil?
We know that it is entirely possible for a child of what? five-six year of age to spontaneously cast necromantic spells
Would you call evil, killing everyone who fits into that category.

But again, doing Necromancy is a choice, someone with Necromantic powers can very well abstain from using them. So yes I would call hunting and killing anyone with necromantic powers evil. Simply outlaw the use of Necromancy and punish those who practice it voluntarily. Yes a vampire who goes around making more vampires deserves to be stopped for killing people and trapping their souls, but their spawns are not responsible for their progenitor's action and should not be judged based on them.

If your answer is still yes, please reflect on this: a few vampire has escaped. Some of them where Thralls of Greg, which now has been destroyed. The order has no way to know if they are still committed to Hel's plan, or even Evil. If they hunt and destroy them, are they committing an evil act?
Here's an easy to know if they are committed to Hel's plan: are they carrying it out?
Killing the vampires trying to rig the Elder's vote? Not Evil.
Killing any hypothetical vampire just fleeing the scene? Evil. And a waste of time when they have a world to save.

Also of the three wampires we know are still undead, I doubt any were thralls since they were much more articulate than Thrall!Durkon* was and one fled the fight before Durkon#2 dropped the anti-life shell.

See, "negative energy", what does that even mean?

Rowling actually did a pretty good job: The Horcrux business was evil because the recipe required MURDER. Not some nonsense like negative energy.
All your electric devices run on negative energy. It's called electrons, which run through the cables. Now is that all automatically evil?

Fine, I don't speak for everyone. But I still don't think many people think "oh, living after dying is EVIL because now I have grey skin". If they do, they use some weird reasoning I can't comprehend, or are backward traditionalists for whom "messing with nature" is inherently evil because it's "unnatural". Which, as Kish pointed out, is utter nonsense as well.
Exactly. Vampires in El Goonish Shive being all evil is not a problem because it's stated a few times that the only way to become a vampire is by choice. They chose to become an abomination who would need to regularly kill people and would be physiologically incapable of empathy and they knew that.

Seriously though, either your charcater has free will and can make meaningful choices, and therefore has the capacity to not be evil or they aren't and therefore is not sapient and calling them evil makes no sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too.




Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.
Do you consider Janus Hassildor (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Janus_Hassildor) from Oblivion or Serana (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Serana) from Skyrim or the Millenial King (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Millennial_King) to be products of bad storytelling?
EDIT/ Or like 60% of Discworld's vampires for that matter.
You are entitled to your own tastes, but I, for onz, like it better when characters are allowed to be individuals with their own motives and contradictions rahter than reduced to a member of a group that the "hero" has a license to kill-on-sight.

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.
I agree. I'd take Xykon claim of having ripped his own flesh rather than admit weakness as more authoritative. It is true that someone willing to go to such lengths rather than die probably has a few issues.
*He did promise to erect a statue of Tarquin after his passing and Laurin was furious over his death, contrast that with, say, Jubota's treatment of Therkla. Contrast also how Malack feels over the deaths of his spawns against of Durkon* felt over those of his: one cared, one didn't.

[Rrmcklin]

But that's completely arbitrary. Goblins are just as supernatural as vampires, and saying that vampires are compelled to do evil because of how their souls are made is just the same as saying goblins are compelled to do evil because it's in their blood. Same argument, fresh coat of paint.

Okay, first thing Fyraltari, is have to point out is that a lot of things you're "quoting" me on, were actually said by an entirely different person. In fact, everything besides that first sentence was said by someone else, please fix it.

That aside, no, Goblins and Vampires are not both supernatural in this world. They're both fictional creatures in our world, but that is not the same thing.

I'm not really sure what to tell you. You keep acting as if Goblins are a proper analogy to Vampires here, when as I said before the likes of the Fiends would probably be a better one. If you don't like the implications that mortal creatures like Goblins and Dragons genuinely are different non-mortal creatures like Vampires and Fiends, okay, but at this point that's an issue you have with the writer, not me.

[Fyraltari]

Okay, first thing Fyraltari, is have to point out is that a lot of things you're "quoting" me on, were actually said by an entirely different person. In fact, everything besides that first sentence was said by someone else, please fix it.
My apology, I messed up my Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.


That aside, no, Goblins and Vampires are both not supernatural in this world. They're both fictional creatures in our world, but that is not the same thing.
There is no difference between "natural" fictional and "supernatural" fictional. Goblins are supernatural, they are a creature of legends, just like vampires are. Making one supernatural and the other not in their fictional world is an arbitrary decision from the author and does not justify having the story treat one like persons and the others not.



I'm not really sure what to tell you. You keep acting as if Goblins are a proper analogy to Vampires here, when as I said before the likes of the Fiends would probably be a better one.
What would it change? Besides using another coat of paint? I'm using goblins as a example because the comic chose to focus on goblins, put the point applies equally to every free-willed "always evil" creature.


In which case, I don't know if you'd have something to say about the being made of evil either, but there you go. If you dislike the implication that Vampires and Fiends are legitimately are different from mortal creatures like Goblins and Dragons, okay, but at this point that's an issue you have with the writer, not me.
seeing as I have used quotes from the author on how it is wrong to label entire species as evil, and the comic shows a LG vampire as well as both a vampire (Malack) and a fiend (Sabine) expressing genuine love for someone (Malck's spawn/Nale), I don't think so, no.

[Mightymosy]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.

There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Imagine Elan becoming a Lich: Would he become Evil? He could use the newfound powers for a lot more shenanigans, but would that make him Evil?

So someone can't taste coffee. So what?
I could imagine, given the immortality and powers of a Lich, to travel the world an help people, you know, to fight the boredom of eternal life ;-)
Unless the spell "Make a Lich" automatically makes you want to be evil......is that so?

[Rrmcklin]

My apology, I messed up my Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

Thank you.



There is no difference between "natural" fictional and "supernatural" fictional. Goblins are supernatural, they are a creature of legends, just like vampires are. Making one supernatural and the other not in their fictional world is an arbitrary decision from the author and does not justify having the story treat one like persons and the others not.

If you want to call it arbitrary fine, but just acknowledge that is what happened.




What would it change? Besides using another coat of paint? I'm using goblins as a example because the comic chose to focus on goblins, put the point applies equally to every free-willed "always evil" creature.

As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D. Vampires are, though.



seeing as I have used quotes from the author on how it is wrong to label entire species as evil, and the comic shows a LG vampire as well as both a vampire (Malack) and a fiend (Sabine) expressing genuine love for someone (Malck's spawn/Nale), I don't think so, no.

1) The comic has shown us a "LG vampire" that was created under incredibly specific circumstances, and also according the author might very well be the first time something like that has happened. Also, the character in question wasn't sure if it would even stick.
2) Why are you acting as if characters being capable of genuine love and friendship as mark against them being entirely evil? The author has also spoken out against acting as if genuinely evil creatures can't actually have good or positive traits.

Let me put it to you this way, do you remember what the Deva that handled Roy's case said about trying? That it was easy for her, as a being of both pure Good and Law to be, well, good and lawful all the time, but that Roy is mortal and that can't be expected of him?

Well replace "Deva" with "Fiend" and "good" with "evil" and that's what we're working with. Goblins, like Humans, are mortal creatures, they can't be expected to be entirely good/evil/lawful/chaotic all the time, and it's wrong for the world to act like they are. But Vampires and Fiends do not work that way.

Again, if you think the existence of creatures like Fiends and Vampires hurts the Giant's own point that he uses Goblins to illustrate, that's perfectly fine. But if you think it's a contradiction accept it's a contradiction, instead of just acting as if I'm not describing things that are actually present in the story.

[The Pilgrim]

For Xykon it wasn't time, but lichdom. But the negative energy wasn't responsible (vampires, after all, still seem quite capable of enjoying other avenues)

Do they, though? Because the sole mature vampire we have been presented in this Comic was Malack, and behind his pretense of civility, his whole plan was to transform the entire Western Continent into a food factory. He was happy to play the ascet who was above mundane desires, but at the end of the day he was just indulging in the sole pleasure he enjoyed: Drinking the life out of living beings.

All other vampires we have meet are confused newborns who haven't yet processed the souls of their hosts.

I admit that my view on vampires is basically influenced by White Wolf's portrayal, which can basically be resumed as: You can fool yourself all you can, but deep down you are just a Beast who just wants to suck blood. And it is only a matter of time until your mask of humanity falls down and the Beast takes control.

So far, Rich Burlew's take on vampirism seems to belong to the same school of thought: Vampires are just social predators who only want to suck the lifeforce of people, and everything else is just a hidding mask.

[Peelee]

Oh, and we can't forget that negative energy is as bad for life as positive energy. It is not evil because it is anathema to living beings, unless we want to label positive energy the same, since they both kill you if you are exposed to them.

Grey Wolf


There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Yeah, but with the positive energy it's really a "too much of a good thing," isn't it? Like, water and alcohol are neither inherently good or bad, but water is necessary for life, and both will kill you in too great amounts. Positive Energy plane is just as deadly as Negative Energy Plane, but they do feed different things on the Material Plane.

[Rrmcklin]

Could someone please provide the quote in which the giant described the campaign he ran in which the villains were two super evil villains who also happened to be best friends, and his party failed because they assumed something like that wasn't possible?

I don't know where to get those quotes, and it would help illustrate a point.

[Fyraltari]

Thank you.
No need.


If you want to call it arbitrary fine, but just acknowledge that is what happened.
Vampires are described as free-willed by the comic and again, we were shown a good one.




As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D. Vampires are, though.
Black Dragons are (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Black_Dragon).
Didn't stop V from pointing out that some of their victims could be non-evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html).




1) The comic has shown us a "LG vampire" that was created under incredibly specific circumstances, and also according the author might very well be the first time something like that has happened.So, The possibility exists which means it can't be discarded.


Also, the character in question wasn't sure if it would even stick. And the character in question has no way to know one ay or the other.

2) Why are you equating being able to have genuine friendship and love with not being evil. The author has also spoken out against acting as if genuinely evil creatures can't actually have good or positive traits.
I am not. Did I say that Malack or Sabine were not Evil? However these proves an ability to care for others and therefore a potential to be good.


Let me put it to you this way, do you remember what the Deva that handled Roy's case said about trying? That it was easy for her, as a being of both pure Good and Law to be, well, good and lawful all the time, but that Roy is mortal and that can't be expected of him?

Well replace "Deva" with "Fiend" and "good" with "evil" and that's what we're working with. Goblins, like Humans, are mortal creatures, they can't be expected to be entirely good/evil/lawful/chaotic all the time, and it's wrong for the world to act like they are. But Vampires and Fiends do not work that way.
Then that would make Fiends and Devas not free-willed, which granted the comic never said they were. Unlike vampires (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1005.html).



Again, if you think the existence of creatures like Fiends and Vampires hurts the Giant's point about not Goblins, that's perfectly fine. But if you think it's a contradiction accept it's a contradiction, instead of just acting as if I'm not describing things that are actually present in the story.
I am not, because, as I tire of repeating, the comic does not show vampires as being incapable of not being evil despite how much evidence you want to ignore. If Devas and fiends cannot help than follow their alignment, then that is a contradiction, but seeing as the Giant describd the Directors as being "a less chaotic than usual demon, a less lawful than usual devil and a less neutral* than usual daemon" and as I have linked to upthread D&D has at least one example of a Good fiend, I'm not sure there is a contradiction there either.

*Whatever that means.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Do they, though?

Ponchula.


Yeah, but with the positive energy it's really a "too much of a good thing," isn't it? Like, water and alcohol are neither inherently good or bad, but water is necessary for life, and both will kill you in too great amounts. Positive Energy plane is just as deadly as Negative Energy Plane, but they do feed different things on the Material Plane.

I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D.
Black dragons are.

"Good-dominant" and "Evil-dominant" are existent planar traits. Elysium has one; Hades has one. The positive and negative material planes have neither of them.

[Rrmcklin]

Black dragons are.

"Good-dominant" and "Evil-dominant" are existent planar traits. Elysium has one; Hades has one. The positive and negative material planes have neither of them.

Good to know.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

[Fyraltari]

Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

Nothing brief about it. Also, I think we've thoroughly sold him on Hogfather. We don't want to overdo it.


Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

Water is just alcoholic hydrogen.
I like to make chemists cry
Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

One last thing regarding Vampires, while I have no actual issues with good Vampires being a thing, I find the way people go back to what Durkon did as "proof" as sort of missing the point.

Durkula had no idea what was going on there, and he basically stopped being his own person. He didn't choose to be good, basically brainwashed him.

When I think of an actual point about "good vampires" I'd imagine something like is what happening with Belkar - a creature that for whatever reason becoming more open to empathy, developing a conscience however slowly, and over time improving, with the benefit of being functionally eternal.

That would strike me as a meaningful case on the undead. While what Durkon did certainly was meaningful and touching, if I'm supposed to have taken some lesson about not judging vampires from it, it failed spectacularly (though I don't think that actually was what we were supposed).

[Peelee]

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

Look, I'm getting to it, ok! Right after the misdemeanor book.

Water is just hydrogen alcohol.

Grey Wolf

Look, man, Hydrogen is mischeivous. Ask any chemist. When they're done crying, hopefully.

[Fyraltari]

Nothing brief about it. Also, I think we've thoroughly sold him on Hogfather. We don't want to overdo it.
Yeah, you're right.
Well the Good Mood fairy vanished at the end, and I don't recall anything implying he hasn't so I wouldn't be so sure.



Water is just alcoholic hydrogen.
I like to make chemists cry
Grey Wolf
Some people just want to see the world undergo an exothermic water-producing chemical reaction.

One last thing regarding Vampires, while I have no actual issues with good Vampires being a thing, I find the way people go back to what Durkon did as "proof" as sort of missing the point.

Durkula had no idea what was going on there, and he basically stopped being his own person. He didn't choose to be good, basically brainwashed him.
If you call being given a life story in the right order rather than piece by piece in complete chaos, as he was going to do anyway brainwashing sure. I don't really see any ethical problems in someone who's identity was already based on being Durkon getting a more accurate copy, myself. In any case, he chose to let Belkar kill him for the sake of the world, that's Good.

When I think of an actual point about "good vampires" I'd imagine something like is what happening with Belkar - a creature that for whatever reason becoming more open to empathy, developing a conscience however slowly, and over time improving, with the benefit of being functionally eternal.
And there are no reason to assume that's impossible. As I said Malack had shown a potential to care for other people so he could have gone there in time just like any other evil character.


That would strike me as a meaningful case on the undead. While what Durkon did certainly was meaningful and touching, if I'm supposed to have taken some lesson about not judging vampires from it, it failed spectacularly (though I don't think that actually was what we were supposed).
Nobody said that was supposed to be a lesson about judging vampires, what are you talking about? What I am saying is that the comic doesn't contradict itself.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yeah, you're right.
Well the Good Mood fairy vanished at the end, and I don't recall anything implying he hasn't so I wouldn't be so sure.

It is implied that Violet's belief in him might be enough to keep him around.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

I'm not sure how close Fyraltari's position is to mine, but mine is that the story suggests that it is, indeed, always morally correct to destroy a vampire, and this undermines Rich's earlier impassioned words on how opposed he is to the idea of it being okay to kill an orc or a black dragon, in a way I don't think he understands.

Refuting this with anything along the lines of "but orcs and black dragons don't exist by possessing other people" would fall as flat for me as the previous arguments some people have made along the lines of "but look, hatchling black dragons aren't actually babies in any meaningful moral sense, it sez so in the book":

There are no evil possessing spirits. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)

I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going to have good real-world parallels, which can happen when you write a fantasy story.

Perhaps more toward a point you'd be interested in-- didn't Rich say something like there could hypothetically be a Good vampire, but there wasn't in this story because that's not what this story needed? All the vampires we've seen in the comic have been openly engaged in evil, so they're evil.

[Rrmcklin]

Fyraltari, as you are clearly set on ignoring and or misinterpreting any points you dislike instead of engaging with them fairly, I'm done engaging with you. It's clearly pointless.


I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going

Perhaps more toward a point you'd be interested in-- didn't Rich say something like there could hypothetically be a Good vampire, but there wasn't in this story because that's not what this story needed? All the vampires we've seen in the comic have been openly engaged in evil, so they're evil.

Yes, it was something like "maybe there are hypothetical vampires doing good out there. Don't care, that's not this story" or something.

[Fyraltari]

Fyraltari, as you are clearly set on ignoring and or misinterpreting any points you dislike, I'm done engaging with you. It's clearly pointless.

When have I misinterpreted you? What point have I ignored?

[Pablo360]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?

[Fyraltari]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?
So? Deciding that someone needs killing just based on which group they were born into is wrong even if that group isn't a species.

[woweedd]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?
Yeah, despite what Fy is saying, while goblins and undead are both magic TO US, in the OOTS world, they aren't. Vampires are magic, but goblins aren't: They just exist in this world, and always have. That said, Kish does have a point, vis-a-vis why write them that way? Now, I think Rich has gone a ways to justify vampires being always Evil, vis-a-vis "becoming a vampire is not a personal transformation, but, rather, a soulless elemental hunger puppeteering your corpse and memories". Vampires in OOTS are created from you worst memories, made of pure hunger, with no such thing as a conscience. They don't have empathy. Now, granted, Kish has argued in response that such a creature could not be called truly sapient, but I fail to see why vampires can't be just that, elemental savage predators who, though they can fake human-like behavior, remain creatures of hunger, dead flesh infused with unholy energy, no more sapient then a lion. And, technically, yes, also no more Evil then a lion, But, if a lion's eating people, it should be put down, no?

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, despite what Fy is saying, while goblins and undead are both amiga TO US, in the OOTS world, they aren't.
"amiga"?

Vampires are magic, but goblins aren't: They just exist in this world, and always have. That said, Kish does have a point, vis-a-vis why write them that way? Now, I think Rich has gone a ways to justify vampires being always Evil, vis-a-vis "becoming a vampire is not a personal transformation, but, rather, a soulless elemental hunger puppeteering your corpse and memories". Vampires in OOTS are created from you worst memories, made of pure hunger, with no such thing as a conscience. They don't have empathy.
Pure hunger? I'm sorry but Durkon* has shown emotions other than hunger, a loooot of time, and if vampires don't have empathy why did Malack have for his spawns? I agree that Rich has done a wonderful job explaining why such a creature who be born evil and why it would be so extremely rare for one not to be evil, but he hasn't made a case for them never being anything else. On the contrary, as I grow tired of repeating, he has shown a vampire wth a LG soul! For one page yes, but it is there!

Now, granted, Kish has argued in response that such a creature could not be called truly sapient, btu I fail to see why that would have to be untrue.
If you can't make choices then you are not sapient.

[woweedd]

"amiga"?

Pure hunger? I'm sorry but Durkon* has shown emotions other than hunger, a loooot of time, and if vampires don't have empathy why did Malack have for his spawns? I agree that Rich has done a wonderful job explaining why such a creature who be born evil and why it would be so extremely rare for one not to be evil, but he hasn't made a case for them never being anything else. On the contrary, as I grow tired of repeating, he has shown a vampire wth a LG soul! For one page yes, but it is there!

If you can't make choices then you are not sapient.
1. Typo.
2. Poor phrasing. Basically, he does not possess true counciness.
3. It's plausible he views his spawn as extensions of himself, same way Tarquin views his offspring, in fact.
4. When?
5. And what is the problem with vampires being non-sapient?

[Fyraltari]

1. Typo.
I had guessed so, but I couldn't read through it, thank you.

2. Poor phrasing. Basically, he does not possess true counciness.
Says who?

3. It's plausible he views his spawn as extensions of himself, same way Tarquin views his offspring, in fact.
Then why did he refuse to sire more during two years?

4. When?
Last panel of #1130 to #1131.

5. And what is the problem with vampires being non-sapient?
Besides the fact that the comic and the author call them free-willed a few time? They are portrayed as rational bengs capable of decision making not mindless automatons.

[Kish]

I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going to have good real-world parallels, which can happen when you write a fantasy story.

Sure. And Rich could have said "yeah, I'm going with that, Vaarsuvius did nothing wrong" any of the times someone proposed that--just for one example which did get seriously argued--black dragon eggs start with multiple black dragon embryos in them and the one that actually hatches is the one that is instinctively vicious and aggressive enough to kill and eat the others...but he didn't. And we're still left with, "There are no vampires. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that."

[woweedd]

Sure. And Rich could have said "yeah, I'm going with that, Vaarsuvius did nothing wrong" any of the times someone proposed that--just for one example which did get seriously argued--black dragon eggs start with multiple black dragon embryos in them and the one that actually hatches is the one that is instinctively vicious and aggressive enough to kill and eat the others...but he didn't. And we're still left with, "There are no vampires. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that."
I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.

[Fyraltari]

I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

Also:

There are no evil non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)

[woweedd]

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

Also:

There are no evil non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)
Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped.

[The Pilgrim]

I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic. For instance, were I a lich, I could still be on this forum, play violin, play games, do really anything that doesn't require flesh. The tradeoff is, wearing gloves to avoid harming people accidently, and not eating or drinking. Also, not needing to sleep would be amazing and totally make up for it.


There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Imagine Elan becoming a Lich: Would he become Evil? He could use the newfound powers for a lot more shenanigans, but would that make him Evil?

So someone can't taste coffee. So what?
I could imagine, given the immortality and powers of a Lich, to travel the world an help people, you know, to fight the boredom of eternal life ;-)
Unless the spell "Make a Lich" automatically makes you want to be evil......is that so?

Elan is the most emotional character of the comic. So I bet he would be the one whose alignment would be most quickly affected if he stopped feeling any emotion but pleasure when something living gets killed around him.

The coffe thing was the way the Giant exemplified to the audience that Xykon had stopped feeling any emotion. Except the pleasure of things getting hurt or dying around him. Xykon could already kill people before being a Lich. But he only started to kill his own mooks as amusement after becoming a Lich. That was stated by Right-Eye in SoD, and several bonus strips in DCF feature Xykon killing mooks or arranging them to be killed, for his leisure. In his time in Azure City, his source of entertainment was looking at O-Chul while the paladin suffered. I can't imagine the Giant could make the point that Xykon only experiences pleasure on watching things die, except openly stating it. Wait, he actually did.

So, yeah, I think that becoming an undead abobination whose only pleasure resides in the suffering of those around you, actually makes you Evil.

[Fyraltari]

Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped.

Except this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1131.html).

So, how exactly aren't they folk? What's your basis to declare that?

EDIT:

Elan is the most emotional character of the comic. So I bet he would be the one whose alignment would be most quickly affected if he stopped feeling any emotion but pleasure when something living gets killed around him.

The coffe thing was the way the Giant exemplified to the audience that Xykon had stopped feeling any emotion. Except the pleasure of things getting hurt or dying around him. Xykon could already kill people before being a Lich. But he only started to kill his own mooks as amusement after becoming a Lich. That was stated by Right-Eye in SoD, and several bonus strips in DCF feature Xykon killing mooks or arranging them to be killed, for his leisure. In his time in Azure City, his source of entertainment was looking at O-Chul while the paladin suffered. I can't imagine the Giant could make the point that Xykon only experiences pleasure on watching things die, except openly stating it. Wait, he actually did.

So, yeah, I think that becoming an undead abobination whose only pleasure resides in the suffering of those around you, actually makes you Evil.

Xykon lost his ability to enjoy coffee because he lost his taste buds. That's it. If your only sources of pleasure in life are coffee and the pain of others then you can't point to not being able to taste coffe as the reason for your evilness.

Elan wouldn't lose his ability to enjoy good stories, or music, or people.

Xykon, despite being the co-protagonist of a prequel book titled Start of Darkness, is never given any explanation for his evilness, intentionnally as explained by the author's introduction. We are, apparently, supposed to accept that he was always evil, or at least already was at age five-six, for no reason. The idea that any other character would end up like he did should they become lich is kind of weird to me to be honest.

[woweedd]

Except this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1131.html).

So, how exactly aren't they folk? What's your basis to declare that?

EDIT:


Xykon lost his ability to enjoy coffee because he lost his taste buds. That's it. If your only sources of pleasure in life are coffee and the pain of others then you can't point to not being able to taste coffe as the reason for your evilness.

Elan wouldn't lose his ability to enjoy good stories, or music, or people.

Xykon, despite being the co-protagonist of a prequel book titled Start of Darkness, is never given any explanation for his evilness, intentionnally as explained by the author's introduction. We are, apparently, supposed to accept that he was always evil, or at least already was at age five-six, for no reason. The idea that any other character would end up like he did should they become lich is kind of weird to me to be honest.
That wa sa temporary circumstance, caused by an anomalous set of circumstances.

[Kish]

I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.
Aside from the fact that "they're non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence" has been used as a real-world excuse for genocide multiple times I could name were this conversation taking place somewhere without a no-politics rule...

...I don't really think an unAwakened dire lion would have worked as the villain of this book.

[Fyraltari]

That wa sa temporary circumstance, caused by an anomalous set of circumstances.

Again no proof that it was temporary, and what does it matter that it was an extraordinary occurence? One example is enough to negate a statement starting with "all" like, for example "all vampires are evil".

[woweedd]

Aside from the fact that "they're non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence" has been used as a real-world excuse for genocide multiple times I could name were this conversation taking place somewhere without a no-politics rule...

...I don't really think an unAwakened dire lion would have worked as the villain of this book.
1. That is a fair point. Grante
2. I don't see why we can't conceive of a creature who is both able to speak, have emotions, think thoughts, etc and incapable of conmcciving of altruism.

Again no proof that it was temporary, and what does it matter that it was an extraordinary occurence? One example is enough to negate a statement starting with "all" like, for example "all vampires are evil".
1. He mentioned the negative energy re-asseritng itslelf.
2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.

There are two mental representations that look like Durkon in that scene. One of them is composed entirely of negative energy. That one is the vampire spirit we usually call Greg. And he was just as much of a vampire spirit as he was before he absorbed so many of DUrkon's memories at once that he effectively became identical to Durkon, because we are the current end point of our accumulated experiences.

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will.

It's not they can't choose to do good things, it's that they don't want to, and thus are much less likely to. I don't think the indication that the possibility for change (in more ways than one) is absent in any of them though.

Wasn't that a big thing with V and the Black Dragons - sure, most of them probably were evil, but some of them might not have been or had the potential to not have been, and V had no right to snuff them out just based on statistics without knowing anything about any of them (except Mama Black Dragon) as individuals.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will

Vampires in OotS are not embodiments of a morality plane.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

1. That is a fair point. Grante
2. I don't see why we can't conceive of a creature who is both able to speak, have emotions, think thoughts, etc and incapable of conmcciving of altruism.
We can, however that is not what vampires are in this comic.


1. He mentioned the negative energy re-asseritng itslelf.
No, he mentionned the negative energy "squirming around" and that "there is no way of knowing if this will last" which is ambiguous at most. He doesn't want to take any risk (understandable considering the stakes), but that is hardly evidence of anything. His reasonning was that Durkon* would turn into his alter ego if flooded with memories because he'd have all of his life-experience and his body, and as Grey Wolf pointed out we are the sum of our experience. I don't see how the Negative energy could change that, especially since Durkon* slipping into Durkon's accent a few time and parrotting something Thirden said show that Durkon* was already being changed by the memories before the "big fight scene".

Also Durkon#1 tells Durkon#2 to "hurry" before the other mentions the squirming, so the decision to let Belkar kill him was taken before the flood.

2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.
The spirit was always Durkon (or rather a copy), he just went from being a copy of a part of Durkon to a copy of the whole, that's it.

[Rrmcklin]

Vampires in OotS are not embodiments of a morality plane.

Grey Wolf

I wasn't trying to say they were, just that in this analogy putting the two together worked for other reasons.

[Kish]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will.
Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.

[Rrmcklin]

Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.

Eh, I'd only say that if they didn't have the capacity to change, or only way to perform their "evil" or "good" or anything. As the fiends themselves said, Evil isn't one big happy family, and neither is Good.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wasn't trying to say they were, just that in this analogy putting the two together worked for other reasons.

This analogy only works for creatures that are embodiments of morality planes. So, devas and devils, yes. Vampires, no.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Eh, I'd only say that if they didn't have the capacity to change, or only way to perform their "evil" or "good" or anything. As the fiends themselves said, Evil isn't one big happy family, and neither is Good.
So wait, are you saying devas, fiends, and (of most immediate relevance) vampires have the capacity to change and stop being respectively good, evil, and evil?

[Rrmcklin]

So wait, are you saying devas, fiends, and (of most immediate relevance) vampires have the capacity to change and stop being respectively good, evil, and evil?

Don't they? I was told it was like 1,000,000 change thing but was possible. And has been mentioned before Rich didn't discount good vampires maybe existing, just that they weren't necessary for the story.

Though I guess that hasn't really come up for any fiends or devas in the story, but it does strike me as something that would be possible in this story.

Was I mistaken on some point?

[Pablo360]

Also, the reason it's okay to kill vampires is that they imprison the souls of the original owners of their bodies while pretending to be that person and/or are actively plotting to commit mass torture and murder, and any discussion of the ethics of vampire killing without acknowledging this is shifting the goalposts. We don't know what stance the party would take toward vampires who aren't part of a conspiracy to subjugate and brutalize millions, because such a vampire has not appeared.

And before someone comments about how that's just as problematic, remember that vampires are created, and with the exception of Malack and sort of Greg, all the ones we see were created to serve Hel's plan. They're not vampires because they're evil, and they're not evil because they're vampires; rather, they are in the story because they're evil. If the story could be served by showing a good vampire, that would happen. It wouldn't, though; the story isn't even really about vampires.

Because you're right. Vampires aren't real. What are real are our darkest desires, the parts of ourself that we keep in check so that we can participate in polite society or because it would be wrong to unleash on the world. That is what Greg represents —*explicitly, it's stated in the comic —*and that is why the vampires shown in this arc are valid targets. Not because they are vampires, but because they choose to do evil —*because they are fictional representations of what happens when the evil within ourselves is no longer tempered by our social conscience.

[Prinygod]

Ponchula.



I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

Yet beings created from negative energy is almost always evil as a rule. And good clerics are prevented from channelling it, unlike the other elements. So while they might not be dis facto good and evil in their respective planes, their effects on the mortal plan are not equal and opposite. After all beings created from the other elemental planes are usually TN, unlike undead.

Also If a goat feeds my cat fire, I'll cut its nipples off, too.

[Fyraltari]

Also, the reason it's okay to kill vampires is that they imprison the souls of the original owners of their bodies while pretending to be that person and/or are actively plotting to commit mass torture and murder, and any discussion of the ethics of vampire killing without acknowledging this is shifting the goalposts.
1) By 1131, the distinction between Durkon being imprisonned and Durkon being in control is purely academic.
2) Hroþila proposed that by using the spell Revive Undead, you could free the soul without destroying the vampire. No you might say that it wouldn't work but then that's just one headcanon vs another.
3) As "Ponchula" shows it is possible for host and vampire to reach a modus vivendi. Granted, this is a case of an evil vampire simply taking suggestions, but I see no reason why a good vampire couldn't agree to work as a gestalt entity only taking actions the two souls agree on.

We don't know what stance the party would take toward vampires who aren't part of a conspiracy to subjugate and brutalize millions, because such a vampire has not appeared.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion on wether it is never evil to kill a vampire. No-one has claimed the party has done anything wrong when killing Malack and his descendants.


And before someone comments about how that's just as problematic, remember that vampires are created, and with the exception of Malack and sort of Greg, all the ones we see were created to serve Hel's plan.
So? They are free-willed, Hel has no power to force them to anything, they are in on this plan because they chose to, as stated by Roy, Durkon* and the Giant.

They're not vampires because they're evil, and they're not evil because they're vampires; rather, they are in the story because they're evil. If the story could be served by showing a good vampire, that would happen. It wouldn't, though; the story isn't even really about vampires.
Again we are not discussing the story. Only the world it is taking place in.


Because you're right. Vampires aren't real. What are real are our darkest desires, the parts of ourself that we keep in check so that we can participate in polite society or because it would be wrong to unleash on the world. That is what Greg represents —*explicitly, it's stated in the comic —*and that is why the vampires shown in this arc are valid targets. Not because they are vampires, but because they choose to do evil —*because they are fictional representations of what happens when the evil within ourselves is no longer tempered by our social conscience.
And then he wasn't. So, you agree that a vampire that went through the same thing wouldn't be a valid target anymore?

[woweedd]

Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.
Yes. What's your issue?

[Kish]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.

[Rrmcklin]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.

[Fyraltari]

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.

Pretty sure Hel's plan is just there so the Order (especially Durkon) could confront the vampires.

[woweedd]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.
A being can still be dangerous without possessing true intelligence, no?

[Kish]

The book has a villain either way, what with all of this ultimately being Hel's plan, and the vampires just a vehicle to get it moving.
In light of the way the people of the previous world apparently addled Odin's brain, I am pretty sure that Hel has no choice but to remain evil as long as the Northerners associate death, destruction, and disease with evil. So, not an improvement.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped. There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

[Fyraltari]

There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

Appeal to tradition. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

[Caerulea]

We know that it is entirely possible for a child of what? five-six year of age to spontaneously cast necromantic spells
Would you call evil, killing everyone who fits into that category.

But again, doing Necromancy is a choice, someone with Necromantic powers can very well abstain from using them. So yes I would call hunting and killing anyone with necromantic powers evil. Simply outlaw the use of Necromancy and punish those who practice it voluntarily. Yes a vampire who goes around making more vampires deserves to be stopped for killing people and trapping their souls, but their spawns are not responsible for their progenitor's action and should not be judged based on them.

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ for power?


Exactly. Vampires in El Goonish Shive being all evil is not a problem because it's stated a few times that the only way to become a vampire is by choice. They chose to become an abomination who would need to regularly kill people and would be physiologically incapable of empathy and they knew that.

Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ for power?

No.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

No.

Grey Wolf
Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

[Fyraltari]

Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ for power?
In most cases it is bad: trapping somebody's soul or using their corpse without their consent is evil. It can be used for good though. Click on the link I put over "Millenial King" a few posts above for some examples.


Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death
There would be no point in calling such creature evil. And yes they then should be destroyed since they are a clear danger to everybody around them, containing them would just kill them in a crueler way and there wouldn't be a way to redeem them. Their lives simpl;y wouldn't be worth other people's. Of course the question then becomes why the author chose to have such creatures in their world and wether one should continue reading.

[Prinygod]

Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

Only some necromatic spells create undead. Spells with the (evil) tag are the ones that are evil to cast regardless of what you do with it. These are the necromantic spell that draw from negative plane more often than not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ah. That clears it up. Very concise explanation.

I repeat myself enough as it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23632359&postcount=167)

Grey Wolf

[woweedd]

In most cases it is bad: trapping somebody's soul or using their corpse without their consent is evil. It can be used for good though. Click on the link I put over "Millenial King" a few posts above for some examples.


There would be no point in calling such creature evil. And yes they then should be destroyed since they are a clear danger to everybody around them, containing them would just kill them in a crueler way and there wouldn't be a way to redeem them. Their lives simpl;y wouldn't be worth other people's. Of course the question then becomes why the author chose to have such creatures in their world and wether one should continue reading.
For what it's worth, when i'm doing undead, I always make sure they do something EVil, so you can't accuse me of using "born Evil" as a way to avoid having a real antagonist.

[Prinygod]

So let's see where we are at. Person gets turned into a vampire. Vampire spirit absorbs souls memories and realize it's an abomination because the memories were too spicy. Instead of destroying itself like we see in the comic, it hunts down a necromancer and a clerics to have them destroy, raise and revive itself and it's host.

An unrelated adventurer later runs into the vampire, the vampire tell them it's story and detects as good. Adventurer believes the vampires story, but kills them anyways because it has grey skin and pointy fangs. Do I have the hypothetical senario correct?

[Caerulea]

I repeat myself enough as it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23632359&postcount=167)

Grey Wolf
I meant about why necromancy is bad, not why The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ is no such thing. Fyraltari answered that though.

Edit:

Only some necromatic spells create undead. Spells with the (evil) tag are the ones that are evil to cast regardless of what you do with it. These are the necromantic spell that draw from negative plane more often than not.
This makes me more confused.
Making somebody sick or creating skeletons (contagion, animate dead) is evil, but possessing somebody's body (magic jar) is fine. Hurting people (Symbol of Pain) is evil, but murdering them (Symbol of death) is fine. Creating stronger undead, or causing people to go into a coma (Eyebite, create [greater] undead) are evil. Straight up killing someone with Finger of Death, and then permanently trapping their soul in a gem (Soul bind) are not necessarily bad. (This is ignoring the myriad of spells from other schools which exist only to kill somebody, and have no Evil tag).

[woweedd]

So let's see where we are at. Person gets turned into a vampire. Vampire spirit absorbs souls memories and realize it's an abomination because the memories were too spicy. Instead of destroying itself like we see in the comic, it hunts down a necromancer and a clerics to have them destroy, raise and revive itself and it's host.

An unrelated adventurer later runs into the vampire, the vampire tell them it's story and detects as good. Adventurer believes the vampires story, but kills them anyways because it has grey skin and pointy fangs. Do I have the hypothetical senario correct?
That would be wrong. But, in my interpretation of D&D vampires, that would also never happen.

[Aka-chan]

The issue with OOTSverse vampires is that, in the vast majority of cases, they're imprisoning someone's soul and usurping that person's control over their body without their consent. Which is really Evil for reasons that should hopefully be obvious.

As Fyraltari pointed out, we do see one example of a vampire who has negotiated a more symbiotic relationship with their host, Ponchula. Presumably, a divination spell like Detect Thoughts would be capable of determining whether this is the case. So one could make an argument that someone who has access to such a spell should use it before killing a vampire (assuming that said vampire hasn't been engaging in Evil actions). But not everyone has access to divination spells. If, say, a barbarian comes across a vampire, I don't think it would be Evil for the barbarian to err on the side of freeing a slave and swing his greataxe at the vamp.

:thog: Vampire may take Friend of Talky-Man's life, but he will never take Friend of Talky-Man's freedom!

[Caerulea]

The issue with OOTSverse vampires is that, in the vast majority of cases, they're imprisoning someone's soul and usurping that person's control over their body without their consent. Which is really Evil for reasons that should hopefully be obvious.

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.



:thog: Vampire may take Friend of Talky-Man's life, but he will never take Friend of Talky-Man's freedom!
Can I put this in my extended sig?

[Rrmcklin]

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.


It doesn't really matter who is to blame, the fact remains that with the way things work creating a vampire is an inherently evil act.

Going "the vampire didn't choose to be created" doesn't matter.

I could make an (obviously not 1-to-1) analogy to a certain something in real life, but that would probably be going too far.

[Caerulea]

It doesn't really matter who is to blame, the fact remains that with the way things work creating a vampire is an inherently evil act.

Going "the vampire didn't choose to be created" doesn't matter.

I could make an (obviously totally not accurate) analogy to a certain something in real life, but that would probably be going too far.
Creating a vampire is an evil act. Being the vampire that is created is not necessarily. The fact that by existing they entrap another soul is not an argument to the contrary.

[Rrmcklin]

Creating a vampire is an evil act. Being the vampire that is created is not necessarily. The fact that by existing they entrap another soul is not an argument to the contrary.

Necessarily? No. In practice? It overwhelmingly seems to be the case, probably because of those same channels that lead to its creation in the first place.

And the whole "trapping an unwilling soul" thing can't just be forgotten in factoring in the good/evil/neutral value in destroying a vampire.

[Pablo360]

Pretty sure Hel's plan is just there so the Order (especially Durkon) could confront the vampires.

Uh, no. The vampires are there to enact Hel's plan. Unless you suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective. Because you can certainly do both, but you can't switch back and forth based on what's convenient for your current point.

[Mightymosy]

I meant about why necromancy is bad, not why The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ is no such thing. Fyraltari answered that though.

Edit:

This makes me more confused.
Making somebody sick or creating skeletons (contagion, animate dead) is evil, but possessing somebody's body (magic jar) is fine. Hurting people (Symbol of Pain) is evil, but murdering them (Symbol of death) is fine. Creating stronger undead, or causing people to go into a coma (Eyebite, create [greater] undead) are evil. Straight up killing someone with Finger of Death, and then permanently trapping their soul in a gem (Soul bind) are not necessarily bad. (This is ignoring the myriad of spells from other schools which exist only to kill somebody, and have no Evil tag).

See, this is exactly what weirds me out.
Why is Symbol of Pain Evil and Symbol of Death not?!
Why is creating a walking skeleton from someone's body (they already feast and dine in Valhalla, and probably don't care) Evil, but casting Disintegrate (PROBABLY on someone else, it's a combat spell) not?

[The Pilgrim]

The thing is, it is not actually the fault of the created vampire that this is the case. They are in that situation because a god of death formed them from the negative energy plane and stuffed them in the corpse. They weren't asked permission, just found themselves there. The person more to blame is the creating vampire. It is not unreasonable for the vampire to want to live, and not commit suicide to free the host.

A rabid dog is not guilty of it's condition, but if you see one you kill it all the same.


There appear to be a variety of people who do not understand the vampire in Western literature, as a trope, and as a figure of evil. You appear to understand them, as did (in fiction) Van Helsing.

It is interesting how many people fail to see the problem with a monster whose nature is the result of combining a cannibal, a serial killer, and a junkie.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Okai,
There are a few thing, I ll like to clarify.
I m not advocating for killing of innocents being; and i agree with the general Theme, that Killing Evil beings just for being Evil is wrong.
But, like every Hard rule, it has some exception, or grey areas. And i can think of two of them.

[....]
The second exception is Necromancy.
The dnd universe is balanced. You have good wizard and you have evil wizard, you have paladins and you have blackguards, eccetera eccetera. But there is an inbalance to the rule, and it's Necromancy.
Not only does Necromancy generates vreature who are by default hostile to living beings,that does not have a definite life cicle and that cannot be insered in any natural life cycle: it also generate creatures who are way more powerful than their original template, and in certain situation, even of the starting Necromancer. Case in point human Xykon and RedCloak: they were fairly powerful, but far from invincible, and they were defeated by Lirian. But when RedCloack used the ritualnof Lichdo on the Sorcerer, it created an almost unstoppable abomination, who crushed two epic characters.
Fittingly, the only time it was defeated it was by using a sort of unconventional "good" necromancy, by an army of ghost Martyrs. Necromancy perverts not just the natural order, but also the games mechanic.
Its a disruptive power, who cannot be allowed to freely roam.
And a Vampire is not only an undead, but also a natural necromancer. A super-necromancer actually: one that can, given the right circumstances, create an Undead way more powerful than himself.

Given this rational consideration, can you call someone who advocate for the destruction of Necromancers - and, to be clear, that is not my personal position - Evil? For sure, that is not Good: but Evil?




Remind me why necromancy is bad? Is it because it draws directly from The Plane Of Indisputable Evil and Bad Thingstm​ for power?

Would something created from the start to be like those aberrations be evil, and would they be worthy of death

I.made a case on why, in my opinion, necromancy is bad news.

I want to add another consideration.
Yes, there is the possibility of good necromancy, of good aligned undead. We see it with the ghost-martyrs. But they are extremely rare, and for a reason: that s because Necromancy is associated with UNTIMELY DEATH. And only very specific
Circustances may make an untimely death good aligned. A noble soul sacrificing itself for the good of others, for example.
But an evil untimely death? Freakishly more common.

[Fyraltari]

A rabid dog is not guilty of it's condition, but if you see one you kill it all the same.
A dog isn't a person.

It is interesting how many people fail to see the problem with a monster whose nature is the result of combining a cannibal, a serial killer, and a junkie.
It's interesting how many people fail to see that there is only a person if the author wants there to be one. It's disturbing how many people want there to be a problem.

I.made a case on why, in my opinion, necromancy is bad news.

I want to add another consideration.
Yes, there is the possibility of good necromancy, of good aligned undead. We see it with the ghost-martyrs. But they are extremely rare, and for a reason: that s because Necromancy is associated with UNTIMELY DEATH. And only very specific
Circustances may make an untimely death good aligned. A noble soul sacrificing itself for the good of others, for example.
But an evil untimely death? Freakishly more common.
So? We should treat everything according to the majority of cases? Why not treat the different uses differently?

[RatElemental]

I don't necessarily buy the idea that it's possible to use revive undead to free someone's soul and then have the vampire come back without retrapping it, for logistical problems if nothing else.

First of all, revive undead won't work on a pile of ashes, nor will it work on the living body of the creature walking around after getting resurrected. So you'd have to somehow kill the vampire in a way that doesn't turn it into ashes (which is something we haven't seen happen) and I guess cut off a finger to resurrect while you revive the whole corpse left over?

The only issue then is, you can't resurrect someone if there's currently an undead creature walking around using its corpse, so could you revive an undead creature whose 'corpse' is currently walking around being alive even if it was just part of the corpse you still have on hand?

[The Pilgrim]

A dog isn't a person.

Neither is an Undead.

Though, to be honest, I do not know what difference makes if we give a dog the category of "person" or not. The problem is not the dog, it's the condition.

Neither the problem with an Undead is their species. Because they are not an species, they are a condition. An Undead made from the corpse of an orc or a goblin is the same problem than an undead made from the corpse of an elf, human or dwarf.

[hroþila]

I don't necessarily buy the idea that it's possible to use revive undead to free someone's soul and then have the vampire come back without retrapping it, for logistical problems if nothing else.

First of all, revive undead won't work on a pile of ashes, nor will it work on the living body of the creature walking around after getting resurrected. So you'd have to somehow kill the vampire in a way that doesn't turn it into ashes (which is something we haven't seen happen) and I guess cut off a finger to resurrect while you revive the whole corpse left over?

The only issue then is, you can't resurrect someone if there's currently an undead creature walking around using its corpse, so could you revive an undead creature whose 'corpse' is currently walking around being alive even if it was just part of the corpse you still have on hand?
That's true, Revide Undead won't work because you need a whole or at least functional body for the spirit to return to. But it was more about the theoretical implications of that spell existing - namely, that it is possible for an undead spirit to be brought back, independently from their body's original living soul. In other words, that even undead that trap souls can potentially operate without those souls. Since that possibility exists, restoring the body of a vampire might be a matter of using a different spell beforehand, or maybe just one custom spell, since we know restoring bodies is possible too and that may or may not restore whatever link to the undead spirit is necessary for Revide Undead-like magic to work.

The original idea was not about also resurrecting the living soul, although with sufficiently powerful magic it might be possible to have both versions walking around, each with their own copy of the body.

[Fyraltari]

Neither is an Undead.
Why? because they have grey skin and you don't?


Though, to be honest, I do not know what difference makes if we give a dog the category of "person" or not.
Wow. You may want to dwell on that.


The problem is not the dog, it's the condition.
By this logic, we should kill humans infected with rabbies, you realize that? Since "the problem is not the [human], it's the condition" and all.

Neither the problem with an Undead is their species. Because they are not an species, they are a condition.
A condition with a spirit that can think chose and feel, isn't a condition anymore.

An Undead made from the corpse of an orc or a goblin is the same problem than an undead made from the corpse of an elf, human or dwarf.
Nobody said undead should be treated differently based on that. Why bring it up?

Edited because I forgot:

Uh, no. The vampires are there to enact Hel's plan. Unless you suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective. Because you can certainly do both, but you can't switch back and forth based on what's convenient for your current point.
I don't "suddenly want to talk about this from a story perspective rather than an in-universe perspective". woweed asked what the issue was with having sapient-seeming non-sapient antagonist. The problem with that are story based. And the in-unvierse evidence points to that not being the case in OOTS anyway. So yes Kish's assesment of the vampires being this books vilains is both correct and relevant to the discussion, as is my pointing out that Hel's role in the story is to enable them.

Also I must admit I'm really curious to see how durkon plans to deal with the Exarch, especially in light of both vampires discussing theirr relationship with their hosts here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).

[Jack Of Rivia]

It is interesting how many people fail to see the problem with a monster whose nature is the result of combining a cannibal, a serial killer, and a junkie.

Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.


A dog isn't a person.

It's interesting how many people fail to see that there is only a person if the author wants there to be one. It's disturbing how many people want there to be a problem.

So? We should treat everything according to the majority of cases? Why not treat the different uses differently?

I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.

Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.

[The Pilgrim]

Why? because they have grey skin and you don't?

It is irrelevant if the skin color of an undead is grey, green, or bright pinky. The problem is that they are animated corpses whose sole urge is to drain out the life of the living.


By this logic, we should kill humans infected with rabbies, you realize that? Since "the problem is not the [human], it's the condition" and all.

Yes. And your point is?


A condition with a spirit that can think chose and feel, isn't a condition anymore.

Except that what you describe isn't the situation. Xykon? A monster whole sole source of pleasure is to inflict harm. Malack? A monster with a plan to turn an entire continet into his food factory. Greg? Durkon managed to override his programming, but it was only temporal, the dark energies were flowing back, as Greg-turned-Durkon pointed out.

If you think that Undead can feel love and other normal emotions, you are going to end up like Tsukiko.


Nobody said undead should be treated differently based on that. Why bring it up?

To hammer the point that an Undead isn't an species. Orcs, goblins, humans, elfs, dwarves, kobolds, dragons... are. Undead are not.

[Fyraltari]

Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.
I'm guessing the missing verb here is "consider less important"?

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?




I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.
That goes both way. You cannot justify taking the risk of killing an innocent by stating that not doing so would risk the life of innocents, that's self-contradictory.


Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.
According to D&D rules, and I would wager OOTS rules, it is.


By this logic, we should kill humans infected with rabbies, you realize that? Since "the problem is not the [human], it's the condition" and all.
Yes. And your point is?

I commmend you on your intellectual honesty. I cannot do so for your moral fiber.
This discussion is over.

[Caerulea]

I.made a case on why, in my opinion, necromancy is bad news.

I want to add another consideration.
Yes, there is the possibility of good necromancy, of good aligned undead. We see it with the ghost-martyrs. But they are extremely rare, and for a reason: that s because Necromancy is associated with UNTIMELY DEATH. And only very specific
Circustances may make an untimely death good aligned. A noble soul sacrificing itself for the good of others, for example.
But an evil untimely death? Freakishly more common.
Your argument seems to be that it disrupts nature, and the natural life cycle. I don't by that that makes it bad, just that it makes it dangerous and has to be used carefully.


Because people tend to the individual rights of the misanderstood monster, than to the collective right of the many to not risk to killed and tortured.

The cobsequences of a culture centered on individualism, i guess.



I'm merely stating a fact. That any eventual mistake in evaluation will be paid in innocent blood.

Look, for the milionth time, i'm not advocating the extermination of Necromancer: the question if the safety or prosperity of the many overcomes the rights of the few is one of the oldest question humanity has asked itself.
Your answer is "No, is better that a great number of innocent risks pain and death, than the certainity of the destruction of a single one". And is a reasonable one.
What is not reasonable is to call Evil everyone who comes with a different one.
Because treating a species as absolutely always worthy of death, if there are some innocents, means unprovoked slaughter of innocents. Which is not a good outcome.

Except that what you describe isn't the situation. Xykon? A monster whole sole source of pleasure is to inflict harm. Malack? A monster with a plan to turn an entire continet into his food factory. Greg? Durkon managed to override his programming, but it was only temporal, the dark energies were flowing back, as Greg-turned-Durkon pointed out.

If you think that Undead can feel love and other normal emotions, you are going to end up like Tsukiko.

I'm just going to respond with what The Giant said.
Maybe there are other vampires out there doing other things, being Good and living in harmony with the world. Don't care. Don't need them for this story.



To hammer the point that an Undead isn't an species. Orcs, goblins, humans, elfs, dwarves, kobolds, dragons... are. Undead are not.
Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

[Pablo360]

Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

Okay, I really don't want to get into why this kind of statement is problematic, because I don't want to break forum rules, but can we please stop ignoring that the undead only need to be killed because of their actions and not because of their “properties”?

[Fyraltari]

Okay, I really don't want to get into why this kind of statement is problematic, because I don't want to break forum rules, but can we please stop ignoring that the undead only need to be killed because of their actions and not because of their “properties”?

That's what we've been arguing for! Killing someone just because their undead is wrong. your character needs to have an actual reason to, just like with any other antagonist.

[Jack Of Rivia]

According to D&D rules, and I would wager OOTS rules, it is.


According to D&D, you are wrong. Neutral Characthers have compuntions against the killing of innocents, but lack the resolve to make personal sacrifice to protect their lives. Which means, a neutral Character will rather have a Vampire destroyed, rather than make the personal sacrifice of having a vampire in the comunity, free to kill them every time he wants. (Of course, i know that the Neutral Vaarsavious did not want the vampire destroyed: but remember, He/she belived himself and the order, uncorrectly, to be powerful enough to destroy the vampire in the future, should the need arise. A neutral character less confident in his powers may have taken a different approach.)


Your argument seems to be that it disrupts nature, and the natural life cycle. I don't by that that makes it bad, just that it makes it dangerous and has to be used carefully.

Not quite, my argument is a different one. My argument is that there are some instruments, in D&D but also in RL, which, while they can certanly been used for good end, for their nature tends to be used more for evil ends, and that maybe it will be better if we got rid of the instrument entirely, or at least put it under heavy state control. Such a debate is a very hot topic in certain part of Real World.


Because treating a species as absolutely always worthy of death, if there are some innocents, means unprovoked slaughter of innocents. Which is not a good outcome.
I agree. But not everything which is not Good, is necessary Evil. At least, not in the D&D universe.

[Fyraltari]

According to D&D, you are wrong. Neutral Characthers have compuntions against the killing of innocents, but lack the resolve to make personal sacrifice to protect their lives. Which means, a neutral Character will rather have a Vampire destroyed, rather than make the personal sacrifice of having a vampire in the comunity, free to kill them every time he wants. (Of course, i know that the Neutral Vaarsavious did not want the vampire destroyed: but remember, He/she belived himself and the order, uncorrectly, to be powerful enough to destroy the vampire in the future, should the need arise. A neutral character less confident in his powers may have taken a different approach.)
Yes a Neutral or Good character may do so. But it would be an Evil action. So while that is insufficent to to call that character evil (who judges a person based on a single action anyway?), it is not a neutral act as you have claimed.


Actually, it will count as a neutral act. An hypotetical good vampire is still an undead monstruosity. A dangerous abomination. Its destruction would not in itself be an evil act.



Not quite, my argument is a different one. My argument is that there are some instruments, in D&D but also in RL, which, while they can certanly been used for good end, for their nature tends to be used more for evil ends, and that maybe it will be better if we got rid of the instrument entirely, or at least put it under heavy state control. Such a debate is a very hot topic in certain part of Real World.
This is a reasonnable position, as long as it only pertains to the destruction of tools, not people.



I agree. But not everything which is not Good, is necessary Evil. At least, not in the D&D universe.
But in that case, it is.

[The Pilgrim]

I commmend you on your intellectual honesty. I cannot do so for your moral fiber.
This discussion is over.

Good to know. I was fearing you could turn it into a wall-of-quotes debate about the morality of Euthanasia. Which would derrail this thread too far away it's topic.


I'm just going to respond with what The Giant said.

I fail to see how The Giant saying "maybe, I don't care" actually serves as a refutation to my affirmation.


Whether it has the "species" tag isn't particularly important. The important part is you have a class of creatures have the same properties.

The important part is that an Undead it's not a base creature. It's a template you apply over another creature. Which is why all the people here repeating this quote from The Giant...
There are no fantasy worlds. There are no orcs. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13676520&postcount=37)
... are failing to understand why The Giant isn't applying it to Undead. Which are not "some folks that look different". but "some foul magic you apply to someone's corpse in order to desecrate it into an aberrant tool for inflicting pain and death".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

some foul magic you apply to someone's corpse in order to desecrate it into an aberrant tool for inflicting pain and death".

I fail to see why you feel that forcing a sentient being into a corpse means that you automatically label said sentient being evil, rather than the person that did it.

Grey Wolf