Terulai

[Angelalex242]

Or, the ethics of actually taking it.

Terulai, as you may or may not know from the dungeon of the Mad Mage, is a magic intelligent sword stuck into a green dragon's skull that makes the dragon neutral good while embedded.

The problem, then, is claiming the sword.

Because whether you kill the green dragon outright or just remove the sword and run, you've removed a noble protector of the Wyllowwood from existence.

Does this mean it's straight up murderhobo to claim the sword, as there's no reason to ethically remove it, as both dragon (while possessed) and sword itself do not wish to be removed?

Does it also mean Paladins can't touch it without becoming Oathbreakers (assuming Devotion or Ancients)

Discuss.

[Yora]

I don't see much to discuss there. Unleashing an evil on the world and destroying a good creature only because you want a shiny sword is evil.

[Unoriginal]

Could you please put a "Dungeon of the Mad Mage spoiler" indicator in your thread title, please?

A lot of people haven't gone to this point of the module yet.

[thereaper]

Whoever put the sword in the dragon probably already committed an evil act by brainwashing the dragon in the first place.

Given this amount of time, however, the dragon with the sword could be argued to be a different person who would be killed were the sword to be removed.

The question then, is whether the right of the original dragon (evil or not) to not have this atrocity continued is greater than the right of the new dragon to continue existing.

[hymer]

Whoever put the sword in the dragon probably already committed an evil act by brainwashing the dragon in the first place.

Given this amount of time, however, the dragon with the sword could be argued to be a different person who would be killed were the sword to be removed.

The question then, is whether the right of the original dragon (evil or not) to not have this atrocity continued is greater than the right of the new dragon to continue existing.
Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. Especially when you consider how wrongly wrong this wrong would be wrong. And then add a selfish, material motive.

[Millstone85]

It might be worth noting that:
* Not only is Valdemar turned neutral good, it also refers to itself as Tearulai instead of Valdemar.
* Once removed, the sword tries to "take control of its wielder" if their "goals run counter to its own".

My feeling is that Tearulai is staight-up possessing Valdemar. No real alignment change or new composite creature, just a dragon puppeteered by a sword in its skull.

Yes, that would put the sword's alignment into question. Maybe it thought it best to keep the dragon its prisoner, and doesn't trust the adventurers with the slaying of said dragon.

As a side note, I find the name Valdemar hilarious. It reminds me of a French parody of Harry Potter, where the villain is called Val-de-Marne instead of Voldemort. It is a district. I only read the back of the book, so I can't say if the rest is any good.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't Valdemar the name of the villain in the "A Knight's Tale" movie?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Whoever put the sword in the dragon probably already committed an evil act by brainwashing the dragon in the first place.

Given this amount of time, however, the dragon with the sword could be argued to be a different person who would be killed were the sword to be removed.

The question then, is whether the right of the original dragon (evil or not) to not have this atrocity continued is greater than the right of the new dragon to continue existing.

We don't know exactly how the sword entered the dragon's skull but it was more than likely meant to kill Valdemar, not brainwash. Wyllow was recruiting adventurer's who came by to slay Valdemar before its alignment shift. The wording in the adventure also suggests that the Sword and Dragon have reached a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one that would imply that the weapon is the only being in control. If it were the case that the Dragon and Sword didn't have some sort of positive relationship, Tearulai would already have attempted to use Valdemar to leave Undermountain and return to Myth Drannor.

It's definitely greedy to try and take the blade out of the dragon, who seems content for it to stay (to the point of objecting to its removal) and definitely not Lawful as it is opposing Wyllow who governs this floor of Undermountain. Not a good-aligned move to remove it.

[Arcangel4774]

Id put this into dm discretion territory, as relative morallity of things is up to those that decide what morallity is in the setting.
Different people will have different views on 3 main points a far as i can see it. The third point is an importnst distinction

1) how "good" is freewill
2) do the ends justify the means
3) do the means justify the ends

The means in this case would be mind control while the ends are the net good on the world. If the ends justify the means we only need to compare what good the dragon would do in his life vs how much good you would be able to do with, and becuase of, the sword. If means justify the ends we only need to pay attention to the morallity of freeing a mind controlled being. If neither necessarily justify eachother we need to weigh how important free will is vs the net good its loss imposes.

[Angelalex242]

Well, expand the idea. Suppose you tell a gold dragon on the surface that 'did you know an intelligent sword in a chromatic's skull can make the dragon good?'

And then the metallic dragons start commissioning swords of forced good alignment and telling adventurers to drive them into the skulls of every evil dragon they can find.

Did they come up with a good idea? Cause if it's okay once, mass production is the next step.

[Naanomi]

Take it, and if your Alignment shifts to Evil just drive the blade into your own head to reverse the problem

[Angelalex242]

Heh.

No need to stab yourself in the head, the Sword can possess somebody if it can't beat the DC 15 Charisma save without any silliness from you :P

Of course, a Paladin with maxed out Charisma yawns at DC 15 charisma saves...

[Naanomi]

Heh.

No need to stab yourself in the head, the Sword can possess somebody if it can't beat the DC 15 Charisma save without any silliness from you :P

Of course, a Paladin with maxed out Charisma yawns at DC 15 charisma saves...
Preferably a conquest Paladin, ready to show that sword who is boss!

[Angelalex242]

And then there's Wyllow herself.

Suppose the PCs do have a healthy helping of **** it, the +3 sword of sharpness with plenty of extra special powers is MINE, and then take the sword from the dragon, and...

A: Kill it
B: Leave the now evil dragon to ravage the land

Does Wyllow then attack the PCs and attempt a TPK? An Archdruid, with 9th level spells, hers being Foresight, can and probably will wipe the party if she tries hard enough. Particularly since it's a T4 enemy against a T2 party.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And then there's Wyllow herself.

Suppose the PCs do have a healthy helping of **** it, the +3 sword of sharpness with plenty of extra special powers is MINE, and then take the sword from the dragon, and...

A: Kill it
B: Leave the now evil dragon to ravage the land

Does Wyllow then attack the PCs and attempt a TPK? An Archdruid, with 9th level spells, hers being Foresight, can and probably will wipe the party if she tries hard enough. Particularly since it's a T4 enemy against a T2 party.

She's not a violent person, so if they didn't immediately go to kill her also she would probably banish them from the Wyllowwood. It is possible to avoid the floor and just continue down the river, she has creatures that could try to enforce that command.

I'd wager only a particularly nasty party would incite enough anger to have her react violently.


Scratch all that, if you harm the peace of the forest she raises an army of critters, werebats and awakened trees to kill you.

It's worth noting that to even remove the sword from the dragon's skull it needs to be incapacitated. You could do it if you sneak past the dragons passive perception of 22 and then make the dc 13 strength check to remove it.

[Angelalex242]

The people who want that sword aren't sneaky at all. The rogue and monk have no need to piss off a soon to be murderous archdruid. It's the heavy warriors who want that sword.

Sure, the Paladin can just misty step on to the dragon's back and give the old yank...

Or just smite the everloving F*** out of the dragon and kill it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The people who want that sword aren't sneaky at all. The rogue and monk have no need to piss off a soon to be murderous archdruid. It's the heavy warriors who want that sword.

Sure, the Paladin can just misty step on to the dragon's back and give the old yank...

Or just smite the everloving F*** out of the dragon and kill it.

You'd better hope you surprise it otherwise it will wake up before you make that check and call for Wyllow right away. It's still a young green dragon (17 passive perception, I mistakenly used stats for an Adult).

Kill it before it's had a turn in combat or you're in for a bad time with Wyllow, it automatically roars out for her attention.

[Angelalex242]

You'd better hope you surprise it otherwise it will wake up before you make that check and call for Wyllow right away. It's still a young green dragon (17 passive perception, I mistakenly used stats for an Adult).

Kill it before it's had a turn in combat or you're in for a bad time with Wyllow, it automatically roars out for her attention.

It can be done. A portent wizard backing up a level 10 Paladin novaing spell smites stacked with normal smites (blinding smite in this case) can eat through a dragon's HP and just leave the thing dead in a ruthlessly display of radiant brutality.

[labguy23]

Our DM played Wyllow as very evasive when it came to our questions. We felt like she was hiding something... or lots of somethings.

We also knew she was associated with Halaster in some way (again, she was very evasive about how that relationship developed). We knew she was allied with a chromatic dragon, which we knew were generally evil.

Then, we met with the wisp at the grave site (we didn't know what a wisp was) that wanted her dead (Wyllow didn't explain the gravesite at all). We also found piles of dead humanoid bodies that again Wyllow wouldn't explain (she just hand waved it with "they got what they deserved). We also got the impression that she was trying to "rush us out the door," which also increased our suspicion.

So, we debated it as a party and decided the dragon was very likely evil and Wyllow was likely as well. We had blown every single insight check we tried to make badly in our interactions with both her and the dragon. We decided to attack the dragon while Wyllow was present and see how Wyllow reacted. She freaked and attacked us. We downed dragon quickly and banished her. When she returned from the banish, we had hoped she would be released from the dragon's control, but apparently, that wasn't the case. We ended up killing her too and 90% of all the creatures in the forest that attacked us too.

Our DM played Terulai as not being able to remember it's time in the dragon. It was like some sort of dream it could only remember bits and pieces of. Terulai was grateful for us rescuing it. In talking to the sword, we began to regret that we killed Wyllow, so we are planning to raise dead on her.

We haven't done it yet.... so that should be interesting to say the least. At least we saved her displacer beast.

Given how a particular DM plays the level, you can take the sword without necessarily being evil. It's possible to be mistrustful and make a bad decision about what the right thing to do is.

Our party is my wife and I plus our 3 daughters (around age 10). We left the final decision to the kids about what to do. So, we weren't evil; we were just misguided. We have negotiated with a lot of the denizens of the Undermountain, so I wouldn't say we are murderhobos. We've used a lot of zone of truth (with permission) and insight checks, etc to make sure that groups are being honest with us, even if their goals aren't always pure. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP

First, thread necromancy is evil :smallwink:

Second, your DM seems to be playing pretty fast and loose (not a problem) because banishment doesn't normally work in Undermountain as planar travel, however unwilling, is restricted by Halaster.