Vaarsuvius' alignment [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Warren Dew

2008-09-22, 11:10 PM

I figure a thread will start on this at some point, so I might as well get the apostrophe in the right place. Also, it's a convenient place to continue a previous discussion that now seems to deserve a thread of its own.

I mean, I have no doubt that V was good when Comic 11 was written. Since then, however, there is a plethora of evidence that it has changed.

I do agree the case for "Vaarsuvius was good but has switched to neutral" is less weak than "Vaarsuvius has been neutral all along." I don't think you can prove that merely by listing lots of neutral acts, though; both good and evil people still do morally neutral things all the time. You need to show that either Vaarsuvius has quit doing good acts, or has started doing evil acts.

I don't think you can show the former - sticking around to fight the big devil and save everyone else's lives rather than simply flying away to safety is a pretty major good act - and I don't really see any evidence for the latter.

And the strip after I post that, Vaarsuvius disproves me! I now think you are correct on this, FujinAkari.

Charles Phipps

2008-09-22, 11:28 PM

I think it depends on how you define Good/Neutral/Evil and Law/Neutral/Chaos. The problem that comes up at every table is the fact that the words mean different things at different people's tables because people's values vary.

The Death Penalty? Good/Neutral/Evil? You'll get different answers.

In the case of V, I'll argue that V was always neutral.

Why?

1. V isn't on the quest to stop Xykon. S/he is on the quest to level up. (See the Origin of PCs)

2. V shows little concern about the rule of law (blasting Kubota to ashes and then blowing away the evidence)

3. V lacks all of Belkar's psychotic murderous rampaging behavior.

4. V shows a significant loyalty to Haley and other friends but none for complete strangers.

5. V ignores the Farmers in need of aid.

6. V is an insufferable know it all and extraordinarily prideful.

If your definition of Neutral is people who look after friends, family, and themselves with everyone else being able to go Ork themselves then V is a classic example.

Some might argue that's the definition of Chaotic GOOD.

Heroic

2008-09-23, 12:01 AM

Some might argue that's the definition of Chaotic GOOD.

I donn't think so. Chaotic good is sort of more like Robin Hood to me. Cares for the weak but does not abide law. Help the poor. And that is not V's way of acting (examlpe: denying to help the farmers)

Rogue 7

2008-09-23, 12:26 AM

V has always been neutral to me, and will continue to be. This comic only reinforces it.

Trazoi

2008-09-23, 12:29 AM

snoopy13a

2008-09-23, 12:35 AM

If your definition of Neutral is people who look after friends, family, and themselves with everyone else being able to go Ork themselves then V is a classic example.

Some might argue that's the definition of Chaotic GOOD.

Of course, even some evil people look after friends and family. The difference between evil and neutral is that neutral people do not exploit others.

Chaotic good people are just as altrustic as lawful and neutral good people, they just are more of free spirit types.

For example, suppose our good characters lived in a town with high poverty:

A lawful good character would likely either donate to or volunteer at a soup kitchen. They believe doing good is best done through orderly means. They might hesitate to give directly to a beggar because they might think the beggar is a scammer or an addict

A chaotic good character is more likely to give directly to poor individuals. They might distrust organized efforts such as soup kitchens (probably suspect that the people running it are skimming off the top) so they prefer donating or helping at the individual level.

A neutral good character could do either approach or both.

Still, all good characters are going to help out the poor in some way. Characters who do not hurt the poor but do not help them are neutral. Characters who exploit the poor due to their weakness are evil.

LurkerInPlayground

2008-09-23, 01:46 AM

I always saw V as being neutral. V's far too busy to worry about this good/evil and law/chaos stuff. V seems too driven to be chaotic but doesn't give truck to laws. V also seems motivated by power, but to me it seems more as a method to understand the universe rather than the "I will rule the world! Bwahahaha!" way.

I could see V flipping to evil or good with that personality; more towards evil with the current direction; but overall V strikes me as fairly balanced at neutral.
I never personally liked the idea that liking power necessarily made one evil.

Everybody wants power, it's just that people opt for very specific forms of power, made entirely out of personal preference. A paladin seeking to become "morally stronger" and better able to defend against evil is no less interested in power than V is for seeking knowledge.

It's not entirely unheard of to simply desire power merely for conquest, but one should keep in mind that a good majority of people deliberately put restrictions on the kinds of power they'll accept. And most people would simply agree that the power for such crass domination rarely shows good foresight.

The archetypal "lone ronin" for example, might have no real interest in political power or serving a master, viewing such things as an inconvenience and a distraction from the quest of becoming a better fighter.

V's highest good is obviously the magical arts and resolving situations with insight and knowledge. In V's opinion, simply standing in a position of knowledge makes V morally superior. Knowledge makes right. Vaarsuvius has a strictly meritocratic world-view, and as such, tends to shoulder problems himself and tries to keep outside involvement to a minimum.

For the most part, this annoys the people around V to no end. V can do no wrong in any situation that he possesses any applicable insight on. Nor is it anybody else's right to impinge upon his powers when he has made up his mind.

Insofar as the law goes, V is for the law mostly because the law rarely has any conflict of interest with V. It's a convenient set of tacitly understood rules to get people to leave each other alone. V is for being left alone. Crassly breaking the ground rules that protects V's interests is understood to be a declaration of war.

At which point, V feels perfectly justified upon acting on his judgment of the situation. Sometimes the law is the most expedient method of resolving a problem, at which point V is perfectly content to let others handle his problem. At all other times, V takes the law into his hands but will usually avoid endangering others in his vendetta.

According to V's meritocratic worldview, the law of Azure City has consistently failed to protect his interests. And insofar as V is concerned, Azure City has no capacity for handling its problems, and hence, no legitimacy. Kubota has more than proven his willingness to break the rules to assault V and has openly declared himself a target for violence.

factotum

2008-09-23, 02:29 AM

I never personally liked the idea that liking power necessarily made one evil.

Maybe not, but killing an unarmed prisoner and then destroying the evidence you did so isn't exactly Good...

Ancalagon

2008-09-23, 03:27 AM

Maybe not, but killing an unarmed prisoner and then destroying the evidence you did so isn't exactly Good...

... it's actually quite evil. ;)

dehro

2008-09-23, 04:23 AM

somehow, the name Raistlin popped up in my mind when I read the last comic..

Tirian

2008-09-23, 04:31 AM

Maybe not, but killing an unarmed prisoner and then destroying the evidence you did so isn't exactly Good...

It all depends on your point of view. A politically-connected evil man confesses to a capital crime and then details his (rational and somewhat conceivable) plan to circumvent the legal system. It is arguably Chaotic to determine that society is ill-equipped to further the ends of Justice (in the abstract sense) in this particular instance and that vigilantism is both effective and far more efficient. But Evil? Meh, no more than it is evil to perform a coup de grace on a monster.

I certainly won't argue that Vaarsuvius is incapable of Evil acts. Instituting a series of Explosive Runes against Belkar to test a theory of his mental facility is, to be blunt, sadistic torture. But in total, V has been an archetype of Chaotic Neutral since leaving the Dungeon of Durokan, with his dedication to furthering her own agenda and ignoring convention and authority when it is an inconvenience.

derfenrirwolv

2008-09-23, 04:40 AM

V is a Lawfull neutral elf (the last part will come up)

Lets start with the easier part...Neutral. V does want power, but V's not willing to do anything evil to get it. V respects their friends and the coworkers that EARN that respect, and would LIKE to help the poor and down trodden, but isn't willing to go TOO far out of her way to do it. (see the dirt farmers)

Now as to the lawfull aspects. V itemizes bills, systematically investigates belkars protobrain, got off against roys commands to avoid blowing up party members by the technicality of casting explosive runes "on a series of inanimate objects", and gets upset when the laws of probability are upstaged by the whims of that copper peice whore: drama. V likes things to be orderly and follow the rules.

Now, why disintigrate lord kabuto? In short it needed to be done. As an elf, V is NOT a member of AC or subject to its jurisdiction outside of its borders, and whereever the ships have wound up is certainly no longer within the city limits. In short, he doesn't recognize any law he has a legal obligation to follow where he happens to be.

Mc. Lovin'

2008-09-23, 04:54 AM

I think that a ship full of paladins will be able to help prove to us what her alighnment is

Kojerico

2008-09-23, 04:59 AM

V is obviously not evil, however, though this last act might very well have shifted it. I'm surprised nobody brought the point that when Miko cast Detect Evil on everyone, including V, V came up...*Drumroll* Not Evil.

Oslecamo

2008-09-23, 05:13 AM

V normally tries to do the right thing, but isn't really willing to do much self sacrifice. If doing the right thing isn't working, then V has no trouble resorting to more drastic measures. In this case, if Kubota almost killed them and still shows he's willing to do it again after Elan showing mercy, then V simply kills him and hides the evidence.

Some other examples:

1-In the potion shop that sells all potions insanely cheap, V tries to show the merchants they're losing money. When he fails to do so, he simply takes advanatage of the low low prices.

2-V protects Belkar, showing great neutral comradship. Belkar may be a psychopath, but he's V's psycopath.

3-In the siege to Azure city, V fights bravely to his last spell, and then retreats leaving the soldiers to their doom. He did what he could, but he wasn't willing to lay down his life like Roy.

4-V threatens to kill the party when they constantly ignore his hexed problem.

5-Explosive runes pranks, nuff said. Painfull, but not lethal. Haley is chaotic good, and thus doesn't go around hurting his teammates just for the fun of it.

Red XIV

2008-09-23, 05:29 AM

I think that a ship full of paladins will be able to help prove to us what her alighnment is
Detect Evil only shows whether a character is, as the spell name implies, Evil. It does nothing to show whether the character is Good or Netural, and certainly gives no hints about the Law-Chaos side of their alignment.

Also, on the nitpicky side of things, we only know of two paladins on the ship. There could be more, but we've not seen them.

Sir_Norbert

2008-09-23, 05:39 AM

It all depends on your point of view. A politically-connected evil man confesses to a capital crime and then details his (rational and somewhat conceivable) plan to circumvent the legal system. It is arguably Chaotic to determine that society is ill-equipped to further the ends of Justice (in the abstract sense) in this particular instance and that vigilantism is both effective and far more efficient. But Evil? Meh, no more than it is evil to perform a coup de grace on a monster.

I certainly won't argue that Vaarsuvius is incapable of Evil acts. Instituting a series of Explosive Runes against Belkar to test a theory of his mental facility is, to be blunt, sadistic torture. But in total, V has been an archetype of Chaotic Neutral since leaving the Dungeon of Durokan, with his dedication to furthering her own agenda and ignoring convention and authority when it is an inconvenience.
Quoted because too many people in this thread seem to be wearing king-size moral blinkers and not listening to this person's good sense.

In what possible universe is it an evil act to destroy someone who is (1) a danger to society who cannot be rendered harmless in any other way, and (2) an obstacle to saving the world?

Apparently, just because he's human. But if you think it's Evil to destroy a human and Not Evil to destroy a goblin in the same circumstances (did anyone think the events of 105-119 rendered the whole party Evil?) then you're not any different from Redcloak.....

Evil DM Mark3

2008-09-23, 05:42 AM

The true neutralest!

Although if not then Chaotic neutral. V is not good, he is too self absorbed and self serving for that. Nor is he evil. Lawful is right out.

Lord_Drayakir

2008-09-23, 06:17 AM

People seem to be hung up on the fact that killed someone in cold blood. If I am not mistaken, D&D rules say that killing something/someone evil is if not a good act, then a neutral act. From this, we can make a logical assumption that has just committed a good or neutral act- and probably leaning towards good, because Kubota was a Lawful Evil villain who could've done great harm had he risen to power.

TVis a wizard. Most wizards are neutral, and V did not show up as evil when Miko scanned him. Therefore, s/he can be NG, LN, TN, or CN. Considering that s/he just killed somebody who was a prisoner, instead of letting him go to trial, speaks strongly against him/her being LN, and the sheer fact that V did this without feelings of obvious remorse, AND has not been willing to work with the others to help a person in need rules out him being NG. So, s/he's either TN or CN, and by his/hers behavior in the past, it seems more likely that is :vaarsuvius: TN.

And it is perfectly fine for TN characters to kill somebody, if they are obstructing the greater good. On one hand, V had the fate of the world, on the other, legal procedure. It's fairly obvious that the correct choice would be the former, not latter.

Saph

2008-09-23, 06:27 AM

V has always seemed pretty much the epitome of a Neutral character to me. Note that Neutral characters can and do commit both good acts and evil ones. He's certainly never been Good.

- Saph

Nerdanel

2008-09-23, 06:53 AM

I think this strip supports my theory that Vaarsuvius is now Neutral Evil because...

he used to be True Neutral and becoming Evil is a side effect of becoming a lich, something that he did in the interim after his latest plan to contact Haley failed to work. Several months have passed based on how Kazumi's belly has grown so V should have had enough time shut in his room for rituals of unspeakable evil.

Vaarsuvius also now has damage reduction 15 and a hitdie of 12, which is why he was hurt so little by the pit fiend. The pit fiend's damage output was high enough to get past V's damage reduction, but V only got small scratches when he would have been in a much worse situation with his unspectacular CON and wizard hitpoints, bear's endurance or no bear's endurance.

Anyway, I think Kubota would eventually have lost the trial due to having left too many witnesses (and speak with the dead spell for the rest) and it wouldn't even have delayed the fleet as trials can be held on moving ships. What V's act really accomplished was no more Kubota strips delaying the main plot. Thank you, V! :smallsmile:

Lissou

2008-09-23, 06:54 AM

I figure a thread will start on this at some point, so I might as well get the apostrophe in the right place.

As you started with it, I might as well play the part of the grammar nazi.

Singular word > add 's. INcludes singular words ending with an s (the octopus's tentacle, Vaarsuvius's health). You also pronounce it ("Ross's brush" sounds like "Rosses brush")
plural word > if it doesn't end with an s, like singular word (people's ability to forget grammar rules). If it does end with an s, dropp the added s and just add the apostrophe (My parents' place, two weeks' notice)

This being said, I've always thought of V as being True Neutral and nothing I've seen leads me to believe I'm wrong on the subject.

pendell

2008-09-23, 06:56 AM

IMO, V is true neutral.

V does a number of good acts over the course of the script.

1) He smiled and approved when Haley intervened and stopped Elan from asking pointed questions about why Roy hadn't rescued him from the bandits earlier.

2) He fought the Titanium elementals when he didn't have to. A Xykon would have sat back and watched the fun. Instead, he took great personal risk to save the day, then continued to hold the breech against the hobgoblins pretty much alone until he was down to his last spell, then was nearly killed by a death knight.

An evil wizard who had no real stake in the outcome would have cast invisibility and sat out the battle.

3) He engaged the Fiend in the last few chapters when he didn't have to. As he said, it was primarily for the sake of the people of Azure City that he was willing to risk this combat.

V routinely takes great personal risks for the lives of others. He is not evil.

BUT ...

---------
1) V also commanded a black dragon to eat any of his fellow party members who tried to wriggle out of dispelling the polymorph magic on him.

2) V suggested soul binding Nale , which is an act of intensely evil magic. You'll notice both of the good characters -- Haley and Elan -- were horrified by the suggestion.

3) And of course V disintegrated a prisoner in cold blood. The act may be rationalized somewhat and there is also the fact that he's not fully in his right mind.

All of these suggest V has a darkness in his/her character, and is willing to act on it when necessary.

Therefore , V is not a good character. Since good and evil roughly balance, in D&D terms he/she is "neutral".

As towards the ethics axis, I'd peg her as neutral as well. While V seems to have a respect for tradition and for doing things in the appropriate manner (see his/her indignance when Elan wanted to become a wizard without going through everything V had), V also isn't one to let things like laws stand in the way.

Up to this strip, I'd have pegged V as LN. Now I see him/her as TN.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

factotum

2008-09-23, 07:13 AM

Quoted because too many people in this thread seem to be wearing king-size moral blinkers and not listening to this person's good sense.

In what possible universe is it an evil act to destroy someone who is (1) a danger to society who cannot be rendered harmless in any other way, and (2) an obstacle to saving the world?

(1) Kubota was a prisoner, tied up and helpless. In what way was he NOT harmless at the time V killed him? Sure, Kubota was saying he'd be able to worm his way out of it somehow, but considering he was on his way back to his own ship to destroy evidence, he obviously can't be sure that will work.

2) How is Kubota an obstacle to saving the world? He wasn't impeding the Order in the slightest--V could have refused to help capture Therkla, after all.

Underground

2008-09-23, 07:29 AM

Yay ! An Alignment discussion !

Or ... ok not yay.

I vote neutral for V.

1. Her motive for killing is that the victim is a distraction of the main task.

2. She does so because she knows she can easily get away with the killing.

So, clearly, she commits an evil act without remorse because she knows it helps good overall.

Lamech

2008-09-23, 07:59 AM

I think that V was CG and still is, unless the killing of Kubota represents a more general change in V's actions. First off V fought at azure city, V was probably the most powerful person on team goods side (minus Soon), and the enemy was a epic-level lich who could have trapped his soul forever if he had tried. That speaks a willingness to sacrifice for the side of good. And the months after word V was putting his all into hunting down and finding Haley in order to save the world.

Now on killing Kubota, I don't see how this can be a good act. First off Quar had mind control ablities, Kubota could have been under magical influence like all those monsters that Quar controlled. V didn't find out; he didn't know if KUbota was evil or being controlled. Two, he didn't know it would make things better, it is highly likely to get the OotS exiled, and leave the fleet to deal with Quar on it own, it won't it stop a clone spell, and Kubota's heir might be able to carry on regardless. Three, he ignored better options he had at his disposal, he could have used magic, such as attonement or a helm of oppisite aligment, and switched Kubota to good.

Dark Matter

2008-09-23, 08:04 AM

Cold blooded murder of a helpless prisoner is *never* a good act, and it is normally an *evil* one. V appears to use whatever *works*, he's pragmatic.

As for V being Lawful; V has *never* shown any respect for the law if it was even slightly inconvenient. But he also doesn't act is random ways.

I.e. IMHO he's TN.

2) How is Kubota an obstacle to saving the world? He wasn't impeding the Order in the slightest--...It's been mentioned several times that the ships are being constantly attacked by "wandering monsters", and we also know that Kubota was behind most or all of them. So yes, he's been a serious obstacle. He's been getting civilians killed and wasting everyone's time. He's also been personally responsible for all the ninja attacks on various people, including and especially their current leader, i.e. that Paladin.

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 08:07 AM

Atonement is divine magic only. I don't think V carries around a Helm just randomly.

While V has some abstractly-good intentions, his emphasis on breaking more eggs than necessary to make an omelette just because it makes things easier (instead of making them better) would make him N, not G.

Evil DM Mark3

2008-09-23, 08:15 AM

he used to be True Neutral and becoming Evil is a side effect of becoming a lich, something that he did in the interim after his latest plan to contact Haley failed to work. Several months have passed based on how Kazumi's belly has grown so V should have had enough time shut in his room for rituals of unspeakable evil.

Vaarsuvius also now has damage reduction 15 and a hitdie of 12, which is why he was hurt so little by the pit fiend. The pit fiend's damage output was high enough to get past V's damage reduction, but V only got small scratches when he would have been in a much worse situation with his unspectacular CON and wizard hitpoints, bear's endurance or no bear's endurance.
And some of the boats are epileptic.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 08:59 AM

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 09:19 AM

Disclaimer first off, I think that D&D's alignment system is utter rubbish. Now that's over moving on.

Lawful good. Let me explain this, my favorite D&D character that i have ever made is a paladin. This paladin has tortured people, executed enemies mercilessly and would do it again. He has found a goblin lair near a village by capturing a goblin and torturing it to near death with a dagger, then finishing him off with a coup de grace. But he did this to protect the village, the safety of innocents has in each time came first, and legally he was able to kill them. It should be of no surprise that I am a massive 40K fan...(And an Inquisitor of the Ordo Malleus).

EvilDMM love your theory, but have you considered Baelnorn?

While I agree that the D&D alignment system is rubbish, I'd have to classify you as either Chaotic on the Ethical Axis or non-Good on the Moral Axis. There's arguments for both of those, but doing that is almost the anti-definition of a Paladin.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 09:28 AM

The alignment can be heavily argued. He had lawful obligation to (the goblin didn't have rights) and good (the goblins were a direct threat to the village). Completely, ruthless, completely cold, but the results speak for themselves.

To be honest i made this character as a general (insert rude hand gesture here) to the alignment system of D&D. because i do believe in conflicted heroes. A paladin is a devoted holy warrior of a good god, and he does what he does for the greater good(for the greater good!) mine does this rather than for the CRPG traditional immediate good (oh i'll let this goblin skip off then.. oops he killed a small child)

You can make perfectly valid arguments of my paladin being any alignment in D&D with the possible exception of CE.

Again i'll bring up 40k's inquisitors, with the phrase "some may question our right to destroy an entire world and condem a billion souls to oblivion, those in the know realise we have no right not to". V is logical, and when following logic purely often it is easy to skip established ethics, so he in good intention, the end justifying the means made the call to zap Kabuto.
Exitus Acta Probat strikes again.

pjackson

2008-09-23, 09:35 AM

In what possible universe is it an evil act to destroy someone who is (1) a danger to society who cannot be rendered harmless in any other way, and (2) an obstacle to saving the world?

I don't know, but since Kubota could have been stopped in many other ways and had already been rendered harmless (even if nly temporarily) what V did was an evil act (though not enough to change alignment).

Krenn

2008-09-23, 09:36 AM

Cold blooded murder of a helpless prisoner is *never* a good act, and it is normally an *evil* one. V appears to use whatever *works*, he's pragmatic.

If executing a helpless prisoner is evil, then all executioners in a LG society are evil. that's ridicilous.

Assuming V heard most of the confession, V is morally certain kubota is a horrible evil person, who is guilty of all sorts of capital crimes.

killing him at once would be chaotic. waiting for a long, drawn out trial would be lawful. good-evil doesn't really enter into it.

HIDING the execution of Kabuta is arguably not good- a Chaotic good character would not normally feel a need to hide actions he believes were morally right. I'd peg Varsuvius as True Neutral or Chaotic neutral.

Dairuka

2008-09-23, 09:37 AM

People are acting as if there are unwritten rules stating that alignments can't change back.

Worse, people are acting as if each character is defined solely by their alignment. Why get bent out of shape over this?

pjackson

2008-09-23, 09:40 AM

You can make perfectly valid arguments of my paladin being any alignment in D&D with the possible exception of CE.

You can not make a valid argument for him being any form of good.

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 09:47 AM

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 09:48 AM

(1) Kubota was a prisoner, tied up and helpless. In what way was he NOT harmless at the time V killed him? Sure, Kubota was saying he'd be able to worm his way out of it somehow, but considering he was on his way back to his own ship to destroy evidence, he obviously can't be sure that will work.

Remeber the Kutoba also said that the very process of bringing him to trial would cause harm by undermining Hinjo. It's not as black and white as 'he's tied up and can't hurt anyone'. Plus, he has a known ally that can teleport around.

I think this strip supports my theory that Vaarsuvius is now Neutral Evil because...

he used to be True Neutral and becoming Evil is a side effect of becoming a lich, something that he did in the interim after his latest plan to contact Haley failed to work.

Doesn't work. If V had become evil of the past several months on the boat all the Paladins still working with him would have fallen. There's that whole association clause.

kirn

2008-09-23, 09:49 AM

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 09:51 AM

Chaotic Good would allow you to do exactly what V did. Its not terribly different than say, Judge Dredd. Kubota was obviously evil and in a land of Paladins, its entirely likely he would get away with it. So, V did the Good thing, in a Chaotic way. Problem solved.

Also, just because you're Good doesn't mean you're going to be randomly benevolent. If you're Chaotic, you can just as easily decide that your efforts to 'save the world' are more beneficial to the population at large and skip other trivially good acts as not worth the time. Chaotic allows you a lot of latitude in gameplay.

Oh, CG would allow you to do what V did, yes, though not for the same reasons as he apparently did it.

You would be very hard pressed to argue that it allows for systematic torture, though. Possible, but hard, with good reasoning for why it was your only or clearly the best option by a large margin.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 09:53 AM

You can not make a valid argument for him being any form of good.

The end justifies the means is the only argument i need.
Failing that, the proverb "the greatest evil is when good men do nothing".As a DM you might argue this and that would be your perogative, but i've seen far far worse cases of alignment abuse. Clearly you are in the Batman is Lawful Evil camp(or chaotic neutral?). I think Neutral good / True Neutral. Batman can be argued to any alignment other than CE.

Seriously, i won't go into this too much further but arguing alignment is usually pointless, it's far too open to interpretation. Hence... I really hate the D&D alignment system, so very very much.

Evil DM Mark3

2008-09-23, 09:53 AM

Its not terribly different than say, Judge Dredd.

Whilst I agree with the general point (that an act can fit into many if not most alignments) the example is erroneous. Any Judge that kills or indeed even deliberately harms a prisoner is looking at a 20 year stretch on Titan.

Dark Matter

2008-09-23, 10:02 AM

If executing a helpless prisoner is evil, then all executioners in a LG society are evil. that's ridicilous.I didn't say it was always evil, I said it's never good.

An execution in a LG society is presumably a LN act. But without a trial? That's *at* *best* TN (an evil act in service of good) or CN.

IMHO it's pretty obvious that V broke the law here. But if that's *all* this involved then Elan would have killed Mr. Evil since he's CG.

Would the Paladins have done this? No? Why not, they don't fall if they commit the occasional Chaotic act.

This wasn't an execution after a fair trial, this was simple murder, that's an evil act. That's why it's easy to think of Belkar doing this and difficult or impossible to think of Roy or Elan or the other "good" characters doing it.

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 10:04 AM

The end justifies the means is the only argument i need.
Failing that, the proverb "the greatest evil is when good men do nothing".As a DM you might argue this and that would be your perogative, but i've seen far far worse cases of alignment abuse.

Can't say I have.

Clearly you are in the Batman is Lawful Evil camp(or chaotic neutral?). I think Neutral good / True Neutral.

I'd argue a lot of alignments for Batman, but not Evil. You'll notice, his interrogation tends to be extremely brief with no lasting harm and he avoids so much as crippling people if he can help it.

Ends do not justify the means in D&D alignment. They may soften the effects, or tilt something borderline over the edge, but they do not solely justify them.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:04 AM

kirn

2008-09-23, 10:07 AM

Any Judge that kills or indeed even deliberately harms a prisoner is looking at a 20 year stretch on Titan.

Lawfully, yes. Although it probably wasn't a good idea to reference a comic I've never read. :smallwink:

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 10:09 AM

I'd say dredd was Lawful neutral. He did it cause that was his job, he enjoyed it, he was good at it, but ultimately he never relented no matter the perps end goals. I'll admit NG would be my paladins easiest alignment, but in the games circumstances, he could easily be justified as LG. The character IS very black and white, and it does reflect my cynicism with alignment heavily. What can I say, I love my antiheroic paladin.

NG is very far indeed.

Your problems with D&D alignment sound to be as much your own misreadings as they are the system's actual flaws. There are no examples in WotC or TSR sanctioned stuff where someone who follows traditionally evil-only means to pursue good is labeled 'good.' The closest you get is the Grey Guard, and even they would frown on the extent to which your paladin went. Generally the mixture gets you slapped with a 'non-good'/neutral and often just flatout evil. Good assassins are required to go for painless kills, even.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 10:11 AM

I didn't say it was always evil, I said it's never good.

I think it's worth considering just what 'helpless' means in this context. Physically helpless is not the same as powerless. Kubota could probably still have caused quite a bit of harm during the trial through proxies. He even says that the trial itself will help undermine the current government.

IMHO it's pretty obvious that V broke the law here. But if that's *all* this involved then Elan would have killed Mr. Evil since he's CG.

Would the Paladins have done this? No? Why not, they don't fall if they commit the occasional Chaotic act.

Just because a character can take a an act that fits with their alignmentdoesn't mean that they will or must for them to be acting in character. Elan did still punch Kubota after he surrendered. The paladin's probably wouldn't have done even that, being lawful. Elan is, frankly, not as practical or ruthless in pursuing an end as V but still more chaotic than people like Hinjo. Alignment isn't all that's involved. Personality is involved too.

This wasn't an execution after a fair trial, this was simple murder, that's an evil act.

Killing someone defensless does not equal murder in the D&D or Burlew setting and it is not automatically evil.

In SoD a bunch of paladins kill a goodly number of helpless goblins. None of them fall for it. If it had been evil, the paladins would have had to fall.

That's why it's easy to think of Belkar doing this and difficult or impossible to think of Roy or Elan or the other "good" characters doing it.

Really? I could see Haley doing it. Or even Roy doing it if he got frustrated enough. It's easy to see Belkar doing it because he'll kill anyone or anything for no good reason. It's harder to see people like Hinjo doing it because he's too lawful. It's harder to see Elan doing because he's too Good, and frankly, something of a pushover and slave to genre.

truemane

2008-09-23, 10:14 AM

I find all arguments along these lines to be tedious and without practical purpose. Since it is somewhere between fairly and blatantly obvious that morals are subjective, attempting to codify them becomes an exercise in futility. Like trying to measure quicksand with a liquid ruler. D&D alignments only work on the presupposition of absolute morality. You have to have GOOD and EVIL (in the, more or less, Judeo-Christian senses of the words) or else anything can mean anything, since you not only lack stable criteria by which to judge the matter, you lack even stable TERMS by which to define your criteria.

So. Everyone stop it. Now. I'm only posting to say that THIS is the funniest thing I've read in weeks:

I figure a thread will start on this at some point, so I might as well get the apostrophe in the right place.

LOL.

That is all.

:smallsmile:

kunou126

2008-09-23, 10:21 AM

Cold blooded murder of a helpless prisoner is *never* a good act

Not true.

Scenario: Boat full of people. Boat is sinking due to overweight. For the good of all, someone has to be thrown overboard.

Now... a true (superhero/fairy tale/non-existing) good would sacrifice themselves for the good of the boat, but the typical (realistic) good would have a sense of self preservation. The typical good would enact on behalf of the majority and accept that people have to die in order for many to live. The most pragmatic approach for realistic good would be:

1) Look for volunteers (people willing to die for others).
2) Protect innocents and children from being tossed off.
3) Start chucking the worst of society off the boat, particularly including unarmed chained/helpless prisoners.
4) When you run out of those, start drawing straws and let chance decide the fate of the worthy beings.

So in the circumstances, for the good of the whole of society is motivation for the killing of a unarmed prisoner.

No act is inherrantly categorized in an alignment. You must consider:

Intent: Intentional/Not Intentional
Motivation: Self Benefit/Benefits all/Benefits others
Beliefs: Their philosophical approach to life.
Circumstance: What external factors are at play?

Now... where V is concerned, s/he is very like a magical version of a barbarian. No particular respect for rules or authority, refuses to limit him/herself with artificial rules (Philosophically: there is only what I can and cannot do (with magic)), only respects (arcane) strength.

V has serious deep seated character flaws. Overvaluing his/her super high intelligence makes him/her arrogant and presumptive. Overvaluing the arcane arts makes him/her condescending to a fault.

Despite this, V does not have any evil motivations. V's motivations are based on the principle of self-enrichment through arcane arts. Beyond that, the pragmatic and logical approach to the world is the main driver in V's moral compas.

If I had to put a finger on V's alignment it would be True Neutral with a bit of a lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:24 AM

@Astralfire

Not really, I just prioritize Motives>Actions>words when looking at alignment, afterall the alignment is in a way the base of who your character is. You can look at it as LG paladins take their time to escort little old ladies across busy roads, or you can look at it as the LG paladins don't waste their time on such trivial matters when they have evil to fight. ultimately, alignment and how to deal with is up to the DM's disgression. Many DM's would prioritze Actions>motives>words, and htat's fair enough. I can see the argument. Personally, if i choose to use the alignment system at al (i often don't) I go with motives over actions. Now admittedly I understand the flaw in my prioritisation is that it can easily have chaotics confused with lawfuls in certain ways, however in this case, the goblin was clearly a hostile monster, and Alaric was the only paladin around.

Effectively Alaric(my paladin) was the law in those parts, and he was judge, jury and executioner. Legally justified and lawful. You might argue then that this was evil, Alaric knew if he hlet it go it could kill someone truly innocent, so the ends justifies the means as good. Ultimately, again i must stress that as I see it this really is at the disgression of the gaming group/DM. My group looks at it this way, others i dare say won't.

To argue between the different interpretations of alignment is to argue your preference of abrahamic religion, you can do so till you are blue in the face but ultimately, you'll never get any headway. With alignment it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Another example, and this is DM evilness on my part here, is one of the players had a CG drow... I let my friends LG paladin end him without penalty, afterall, all drow are evil. Motives>Action>words. The Drow did attempt parley, but everything Metis knew was that Drow were evil, and this one was planning something horrid. He did what he did because he thought the Drow posed too much of a threat.

Last example.
Arthas was a paladin, i am sure i don't need to give spoilers.

Edit: Dammit, my religion reference was ninja'd!

Ronnoc

2008-09-23, 10:26 AM

I've got to vote chaotic good.
As the angel said to Roy your intentions are what count most as far as your alignment is concerned. When V didn't want to help the dirt farmers it was because he honestly believed that helping them would delay their quest and thus the world in jeopardy. As far as his execution of Kubota is concerned from his point of view executing a dangerous criminal who is beyond the restraints of the law is the right thing to do.

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 10:30 AM

Another example, and this is DM evilness on my part here, is one of the players had a CG drow... I let my friends LG paladin end him without penalty, afterall, all drow are evil. Motives>Action>words. The Drow did attempt parley, but everything Metis knew was that Drow were evil, and this one was planning something horrid. He did what he did because he thought the Drow posed too much of a threat.

Paladins have detect evil. And if he attacked during parley, that's definitely dishonorable, which breaks the Code of Conduct. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) It is reasonable in-character, but it is also wrong within the bounds of D&D.

Alignment has issues, but you're not really presenting any of them except for the fact that people misconceive it. As I said before, you have a very black-and-white view of things and you haven't really shown much of the system's issues with grey. Law and Chaos tends to be where it has a lot more problems, since they're a bit firmer on what is Good in a world with objective alignment. Note that St. Cuthbert in his harsher depictions is LN, while the ones that are less so are LG.

Last example.
Arthas was a paladin, i am sure i don't need to give spoilers.

Arthas was a paladin in a system with different rules than D&D.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:36 AM

@Astralfire
Drow are known to be sneaky, and dishonourable. I ruled that yes, thre was enoughf a liklihood that it could have been a trap that a pre-emptive attack was allowable.

What I am about to say I apologise wholeheartedly for.

Would you have shot down the planes in 9/11 if you could?

Sorry but that's the ultimate real life alignment debater of End justifies the means morality. kill a couple hundred to save 3000. Vars killed one to potentially save many many more.

I again apologise for that reference.

Arthas was a paladin in a different system, BUT my point is hewas a paladin, with the same oaths etc, and he did a great end jutifies the means on a city.

Azazel

2008-09-23, 10:37 AM

One action gravitating toward this or that doesn't make you this or that unless we're talking about the epitome of virtue suddenly butchering an orphanage to appease a lover. Paladins falling is the most jarring example of utter failure when it comes to alignment but even then they don't have to "fall" from being LG. One bad deed or one good deed in this or that direction doesn't change your alignment. You take a hit, sure but that's just a few points. Effectively, alignment is a matter of habitual behaviour and the total sum of your actions over a certain timespan.

Anything that isn't purely black and white somehow sparks a discussion of epic proportions, pitting people against one another wether or not the favoured/loathed character truly is this or that alignment. This has been going on for so long to such an extent that the rediculousness of it all has come to spawn countless joke topics on the subject.
Parody would be a strong hint that some people are taking some things too seriously. The only quick solution I see to this would be if the Giant would put his foot down and in a vein similar to the Belkar CE argument, post an account of the alignments all the characters, living or dead, possess at this moment in time.

Of course, people *would* disagree and continue to debate it but after the initial firestorm these malcontents would be dismissed since we'd all have a final answer to lean on. But then of course the story would continue and some new event would transpire, urging half the forum to once again fetch their steel rods and beat the by now mummified, dessicated horse to dust...

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 10:38 AM

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 10:43 AM

@Astralfire
Drow are known to be sneaky, and dishonourable. I ruled that yes, thre was enoughf a liklihood that it could have been a trap that a pre-emptive attack was allowable.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him."

CG act.

I'm not going to respond to your 9/11 bit because invoking that specifically will cause things to heat up a few notches. More generally, I point to my earlier statement that the ends can influence the character of the means, but cannot wholly shift them in the D&D alignment system.

Arthas was a paladin in a different system, BUT my point is hewas a paladin, with the same oaths etc, and he did a great end jutifies the means on a city.

They are not remotely the same oaths, and Warcraft lore in particular promotes Good over Law by a very long shot, while a D&D Paladin is supposed to respect both equally. Warcraft Paladins also do not lose their powers for being evil in any regard, be they Scarlet Crusade, Blood Knight, or some of the more independent paladins who have been turned (willfully or otherwise) by the Scourge. It's a very bad example.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:43 AM

Evil DM Mark3

2008-09-23, 10:43 AM

I'd say dredd was Lawful neutral. He did it cause that was his job, he enjoyed it, he was good at it, but ultimately he never relented no matter the perps end goals.

I agree with this, save for around the Democracy arc when he flirted with LE. But even then (and yes this is relevant to the discussion at hand) Judge Dredd has done things that one might call needlessly cruel, he has done things that where abuses of his position in an attempt to help people. He has deliberately sentenced people to sentences they would enjoy because he could empathise with their motives. He has worked to undermine the legitimate authority of his city at times. All in all he is LN, but even the cast iron dedication of Senior Judge Joe Dredd, Judge for over 50 years at this point, can keep a man on the perfect point of their alignment. Even recently he has tried to alter the laws of Mega City One for the benefit of his extended family. Take one action and use it as the basis of a persons alignment and you have about a 1 in 9 chance of getting it right. Alignment is the one of nine boxes that a person best fits in.

Judge Joe Dredd is LN, but not everything he has done is LN, and LN is most definitely NOT Judge Joe Dredd.

Likewise V is True Neutral, but not everything he does is True Neutral and True Neutral is definitely NOT V.

Dark Matter

2008-09-23, 10:44 AM

Chaotic Good would allow you to do exactly what V did. Its not terribly different than say, Judge Dredd. Kubota was obviously evil and in a land of Paladins, its entirely likely he would get away with it. So, V did the Good thing, in a Chaotic way. Problem solved.Judge Dredd isn't GC.

Dredd's entire existence revolves around the law. So he's Lawful.

Dredd has the legal authority to kill people on the spot, so him using that authority (i.e. obeying the law) isn't a Chaotic act. Although using deadly force to enforce bad laws isn't very "Good" either.

He values the law above everything else, his wiki entry states he's not willing to have personal relationships because Judges aren't supposed to. Ergo he's very likely LN.

LurkerInPlayground

2008-09-23, 10:51 AM

Doesn't work. If V had become evil of the past several months on the boat all the Paladins still working with him would have fallen. There's that whole association clause.
Technically, that rule only applies if they knowingly associate with an evil person. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet scanned V.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 10:52 AM

The ability to conceal ones alignment via magic negates detect evil altogether. This eventuality was also discussed on the day... as it happens Detect magic was cast by the groups mage, and it was reasoned that the magic effect o nthe drow was concealing alignment.

So, basically, you allowed prejudice without evidence to negate the evil act of murdering a good character under a flag of truce? As a DM in 3.5, and under those rules (the 40k rules are unknown to me), I cannot disagree with that decision more strongly.

Also, couldn't they just have asked him to take off the magical items?

Truth of the matter is, i gave said ring to said drow to aid in escaping the underdark. Man. I am such a pr**k...

No comment.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:55 AM

@Astralfire
The attack was not based on conscience, but rather on logical reasoning givne intelligence on the encounters race and scans. If that's not lawful, then i'm not knowing what is. It was a setup for just this moral conflict on the DM's (my) part, but regardless what the Paladin did was lawful. Prejudiced, but lawful.

Ok, leaving the 9/11 reference behind, as i agree with your point. if you were sent back in time, would you kill a baby hitler, or baby stalin?

Crowley was right, ordinary morailty is for ordinary people.

Another example of this is Alfred Bester (the B5 character, not the Sci fi author) he did what he did largely for his organisations greater good, Psicorps TP's practically worshipped him as a paragon, however the show shows him as a villian. you can argue cases for Bester being L.E. L.N. or L.G. Or even N.E. T.N. or N.G at a stretch.

My point with Arthas is still that he did what he did because it was necessary(with the city). Shouldn't fall for that.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 10:59 AM

Yes AKA that's essentially what happened. It was a debatable, yet lawful good act. Simply because of the *motive*. Why do you do what you do? because it was a good idea at the time.

40K Dark Heresy throws alignments to the wind pretty much.. just FYI.

Heck, 40K mocks alignments simply in existing.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 11:02 AM

Technically, that rule only applies if they knowingly associate with an evil person. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet scanned V.

Good point. The bit with a Paladin no longer adventuring with someone who offends their moral code is interesting too. Even if V is not evil (which I'm pretty darn sure e's not and even more sure e's not a lich (when did v have a chance to perform a really evil ritual that creates the phylactery?)) that might be enough to get the OotS tossed out of the fleet on it's own, regardless of the laws involved.

regardless what the Paladin did was lawful. Prejudiced, but lawful.

It may or may not have been lawful. I fail to see how it could possibly have been good.

If you were sent back in time, would you kill a baby hitler, or baby stalin?

Not if I was a paladin (which I'm not). I'd try to change the circumstances of his upbrining if I were. There are almost always other options than killing.

Crowley was right, ordinary morailty is for ordinary people.

Please leave real world religions out of this. Before you object, remember that the OTO had temples in several places around the US, making them a real world religion.

My point with Arthas is still that he did what he did because it was necessary(with the city). Shouldn't fall for that.

Killing an unarmed good drow under a flag of truce was necessary? I don't understand. He might have thought it was necessary and made a mistake he should still have fallen for it. That's what atonement spells are for.

Yes AKA that's essentially what happened. It was a debatable, yet lawful good act. Simply because of the *motive*. Why do you do what you do? because it was a good idea at the time.

It's not debatable and not good. Taking the action, in ignorance, ahead of time might have been a subject of debate. The act itself, seen from the God's eye perspective, was evil. Motives only go so far. Paladins DO fall for taking evil actions they were mistaken about. Just because something seemed like a good idea at the time doesn't mean it was a good act.

Hell, Paladins can fall for taking actions that they were magically compelled into taking let alone just hasty and prejudiced.

40K Dark Heresy throws alignments to the wind pretty much.. just FYI.

Heck, 40K mocks alignments simply in existing.

Then perhaps it's not a good example for a discussion about D&D 3.5 alignments?

Dark Matter

2008-09-23, 11:04 AM

Not true.

Scenario: Boat full of people. Boat is sinking due to overweight. For the good of all, someone has to be thrown overboard.All you're saying is one can be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I agree with this... but I doubt the screaming woman you're forcing to drown, very much against her will, would call what you're doing a "good" act.

So in the circumstances, for the good of the whole of society is motivation for the killing of a unarmed prisoner.First of all, it's tough to argue that someone who is already in jail needs to be put to death for the good of society.

Second of all, the "greater good" argument can be used to justify pretty much any evil, up to an including genocide.

Your tribe might be better off in the long run if the other tribe were dead. Ergo Darfur could be claimed by Sudan to be a "good" thing, and whether or not they're wrong depends not on the evil that they do, but the good that they serve.

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 11:06 AM

@Astralfire
The attack was not based on conscience, but rather on logical reasoning givne intelligence on the encounters race and scans. If that's not lawful, then i'm not knowing what is.

No comment.

Ok, leaving the 9/11 reference behind, as i agree with your point. if you were sent back in time, would you kill a baby hitler, or baby stalin?

This is largely an irrelevant point, since I am not a paladin and I do not live in a world with objective morality and one act does not determine your alignment (it does, however, screw over a Paladin). I consider myself to be best represented as Chaotic Good, and no, I wouldn't - because I would have other opportunities to hinder the both of them (perhaps guiding their growth, helping someone get into an art college or even merely disfiguring them to lower their charismatic appeal), and because in both cases, it's highly likely someone else would have turned up due to the nature of post-WWI Germany and communist Russia.

If, however, I was presented with the option of shooting the men who ordered the My Lai Massacre mere seconds before the order was carried out, I would take it. Note that here, there is no other option with which to reasonably stop evil from occurring.

My point with Arthas is still that he did what he did because it was necessary(with the city). Shouldn't fall for that.

And that doesn't make him Lawful Good. I don't have a general issue with people doing things for the greater good. But he wouldn't be LG.

Being Good in general (and especially being a Paladin/Lawful Good) is about helping as many people as possible while harming as few as possible in the process. The Paladin exists because they go beyond where an ordinary man would say "I've done all I can." Neutral seeks to accomplish its goals first and foremost, Evil does so while taking pleasure in harming others while getting to accomplish its methods.

Example: The Warlock party member in NWN2. Look him up. Neutral Evil. His only motivation? To save the world, not rule it or anything else. But he not only had no bones about hurting others to do it, he actually enjoyed it as long as it didn't hinder the mission.

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 11:52 AM

That's fine, you guys can DM paladins falling for things heck, magically being compelled, or the NWN2 character being NE... myself, i will DM differently and be happy for it. See my comment regarding abrahamic religions, then look up the crusades.

Mind over body, motives over actions. Not the other way around.

As has been said, morality is entirely subjective, it always has been and gods willing it always will be. Now i;ve brought up a decent amount of scenarios and examples, as have others where morality can be easily questioned and recategorised. When it comes down to it, i believe that at times when there is more at stake, then leway in alignment is allowed, ignorance or magical compulsion should not even factor in alignment/shifting, so that's how i'll personally DM it. Like i said before, you guys put actions before motives, i don't, the whole thing is down to opinion. You might even say it's down to the opinion of the god the Paladin worships.

Incidentally
"Example: The Warlock party member in NWN2. Look him up. Neutral Evil. His only motivation? To save the world, not rule it or anything else. But he not only had no bones about hurting others to do it, he actually enjoyed it as long as it didn't hinder the mission."

Spot why he might be neutral evil...

AstralFire

2008-09-23, 11:55 AM

Except that this isn't just due to what we like, which is what you're not getting. Our responses are based on the number-less side of the rules of D&D. Alignment is a number-less rule, but it is a rule nonetheless, and there are plenty of examples within D&D of "ends justify the means" getting slapped with a less-than-good moniker. Grey Guards certainly don't qualify as Exalted Good and they pull out less stops than your Paladins did.

Incidentally
"Example: The Warlock party member in NWN2. Look him up. Neutral Evil. His only motivation? To save the world, not rule it or anything else. But he not only had no bones about hurting others to do it, he actually enjoyed it as long as it didn't hinder the mission."

That was my point, thank you. Ends didn't justify the means there, either. If I had my books at the moment I could point at more specific examples of "ends justify the means as neutral".

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 12:20 PM

As has been said, morality is entirely subjective, it always has been and gods willing it always will be.

We are talking about D&D alignments. In D&D morality objective. The real world might be different, but in D&D there is an actual objective Good and Evil.

In D&D there is an interplay between actions and motives. Failing to see yourself as a villian, or even having an idea of doing evil for the greater good, doesn't make the means you have used any less evil. simply thinking what you are doing is good doesn't make your alignment good.

Consider the following examples from the Book of Vile Darkness:

A dictator might order the elimination of an entire race
of good creatures because she believes them to be evil. She
might seek to dominate the world and bring its people
under her unyielding fist. But such a despot could also
believe that she is a good person and that the world will be
better off with her guidance. This attitude makes her no less a villain.

*snip*

what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up
there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

The case of your Paladin is pretty clearly similar to these cases. The Paladin has a belief about Drow. Beleives it is for the better good to kill the drow rather than take any of the myriad other options available short of killing them. He is so sure of his prejudice that murdering the Drow seemed like the best option (rather than say, taking him prisoner, stripping him of his items and detecting evil again or *gasp* asking him to remove the items himself). That's hubris and it resulted in the death of a good sentient creature. That he believes he is justified in doing so, based on his prejudice against all drow, doesn't change the fact that the killing of a good creature just happened without sufficent justification and when other options were available to the character.

You might even say it's down to the opinion of the god the Paladin worships.

You might say that, but by RAW you would be wrong. Even Gods have alignments and they don't get to pick them any more than mortals do.

dps

2008-09-23, 12:20 PM

Quoted because too many people in this thread seem to be wearing king-size moral blinkers and not listening to this person's good sense.

In what possible universe is it an evil act to destroy someone who is (1) a danger to society who cannot be rendered harmless in any other way, and (2) an obstacle to saving the world?

The main problem with this is that it's very unclear that Kubota cannot be rendered harmless in any other way. He claims that he will be acquitted, but he may be trying to bluff Elan to try to get Elan to cut a deal with him, or (more likely IMO) he may simply be overconfident about how a trial would proceed.

Warren Dew

2008-09-23, 12:26 PM

I'm inclined to think that Vaarsuvius started out as neutral good, based on the evidence in strip 11 where everyone except Belkar was sickened by the unholy blight spell; sickening only affects targets of good alignment.

Since then, Vaarsuvius has done a few good things, a lot of neutral things, but only talked about actual evil things, not done them. While one could see this as a gradual slow slide into true neutral, one could also see it as a lack of evidence that Vaarsuvius had any real change from the original good alignment.

I see what Vaarsuvius did in 595 as most likely a significant evil act, however, and likely proof that Vaarsuvius is no longer good aligned, despite continuing to do good acts as well.

It all depends on your point of view. A politically-connected evil man confesses to a capital crime and then details his (rational and somewhat conceivable) plan to circumvent the legal system. It is arguably Chaotic to determine that society is ill-equipped to further the ends of Justice (in the abstract sense) in this particular instance and that vigilantism is both effective and far more efficient. But Evil? Meh, no more than it is evil to perform a coup de grace on a monster.

Therkla was also guilty of at least one capital crime: murdering the valedictorian at ninja school. If it is always good to kill such a criminal, Kubota did a good act by poisoning Therkla. But then where does that put Vaarsuvius' killing of Kubota? Absent additional circumstances, all three killings seem to me to be murder, and evil.

As you point out, there are additional circumstances in the case from 595. Kubota talks about circumventing the courts to escape blame, and how that will damage Hinjo's reputation.

However, I doubt that attempting to circumvent the courts in this way is a capital crime. Damaging Hinjo's reputation in that way is likely not a crime at all. Furthermore, Kubota is just talking about it, not actually doing it, and given his mixed track record thus far, it seems likely he'll fail.

On this basis, Vaarsuvius' disintegration of Kubota seems unjustified, and at a minimum is a gross overreaction. That would make it evil.

Now, there are a couple other bases on which the disintegration may be justified. The demon is no longer a threat, so it can't be justified on the basis of self defense, but Vaarsuvius could conceivably argue just retribution for an attack on himself and others. I don't see retribution as good, but it might possibly be neutral rather than evil; I'm not sure how I feel about that.

The other possibility is that Vaarsuvius has seen things between leaving the demon island and arriving at the boat that would make the killing of Kubota more justified than it presently appears.

I certainly won't argue that Vaarsuvius is incapable of Evil acts. Instituting a series of Explosive Runes against Belkar to test a theory of his mental facility is, to be blunt, sadistic torture.

I can't see how these can be taken as evil if killing Kubota is not. Belkar is and was at least as evil as Kubota, had not surrendered, and indeed was completely free to continue evil actions at the time of the explosive runes. Further, Belkar actively took opportunities to hurt Vaarsuvius as well. To me, the explosive runes are not evil at all; they were a way of preventing Belkar from getting out of hand as part of an uneasy relationship with someone who probably shouldn't have been recruited for the group in the first place.

But in total, V has been an archetype of Chaotic Neutral since leaving the Dungeon of Durokan, with his dedication to furthering her own agenda and ignoring convention and authority when it is an inconvenience.

I don't think Vaarsuvius is random enough to be chaotic, but chaotic is more likely than lawful. I do agree with your overall summary of ignoring covention and authority when they are inconveniences, but I think that's consistent with being neutral on the law chaos axis. I'd guess Vaarsuvius is in the true neutral category right now.

Weiser_Cain

2008-09-23, 12:28 PM

V is Neutral-Tired of the Damn Run-Around.

Lissou

2008-09-23, 12:39 PM

Not true.

Scenario: Boat full of people. Boat is sinking due to overweight. For the good of all, someone has to be thrown overboard.

Now... a true (superhero/fairy tale/non-existing) good would sacrifice themselves for the good of the boat, but the typical (realistic) good would have a sense of self preservation. The typical good would enact on behalf of the majority and accept that people have to die in order for many to live. The most pragmatic approach for realistic good would be:

1) Look for volunteers (people willing to die for others).
2) Protect innocents and children from being tossed off.
3) Start chucking the worst of society off the boat, particularly including unarmed chained/helpless prisoners.
4) When you run out of those, start drawing straws and let chance decide the fate of the worthy beings.

OR
find people who are willing to lose a limb (volunteers)
when there is no more volunteers, if still sinking, make a pact that everybody's going to lose one or they'll all die. No choice to make, no selection.
Losing a limb is better than dying and they can even decide which one(s) they want to drop. No need to kill anyone.

You just need to think about it. I mean, okay, one single person is a certain amount of weight. But everybody gives just a bit of their weight, it can reach the same amount with no one dying. Those who prefer dying to losing one limb can just jump off the boat.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 12:54 PM

Losing a limb is better than dying and they can even decide which one(s) they want to drop. No need to kill anyone.

Well, except for the fact that cutting off someone's limb is a pretty good way to get someone to bleed to death without proper and pretty immediate medical attention. You might well kill more than one person on the boat due to bloodloss and infection by attempting this method rather than just chucking someone overboard.

Warren Dew

2008-09-23, 12:54 PM

Those who prefer dying to losing one limb can just jump off the boat.

What about those who prefer a fractional chance of dying to a certainty of losing a fractional amount of their body weight in the form of a limb?

That said, this is in the realm of choosing between evils, not finding a good aligned solution. The least evil action is not always good.

LuisDantas

2008-09-23, 12:58 PM

Early V was clearly Good, as best shown by his pure-hearted cheering for Haley and Elan's relationship, as well as his remorse for leaving the Azure City battle under invisibility.

He's changed since. Until #595 I didn't realize how much so. It seems to have happened pretty much since he began to travel with Hinjo. Coincidentally or otherwise, Qarr is still unaccounted for and was first seen at about that same time...

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 01:00 PM

Coincidentally or otherwise, Qarr is still unaccounted for and was first seen at about that same time...

Yeah, I've been wondering about that too.

brilliantlight

2008-09-23, 01:02 PM

If executing a helpless prisoner is evil, then all executioners in a LG society are evil. that's ridicilous.

Assuming V heard most of the confession, V is morally certain kubota is a horrible evil person, who is guilty of all sorts of capital crimes.

killing him at once would be chaotic. waiting for a long, drawn out trial would be lawful. good-evil doesn't really enter into it.

HIDING the execution of Kabuta is arguably not good- a Chaotic good character would not normally feel a need to hide actions he believes were morally right. I'd peg Varsuvius as True Neutral or Chaotic neutral.

I think he used gust of wind to make sure Kabota couldn't be raised by less then True Ressection or Wish not to cover it up. After all, who can stop V from doing whatever the Hell he wanted to do?

Nerdanel

2008-09-23, 01:03 PM

I think it's plausible that no one has noticed Vaarsuviu's shift from True Neutral to Neutral Evil... lich! I have a reputation for wacky theories on at least one board, but I think this particular theory isn't really that wacky. The more strips I see, the more I believe he has already lichified himself. He has had plenty of time to do that. The state of Kazumi Kato's pregnancy suggests that several months have passed since the events on the orc island.

Sure there are a lot of paladins around, but they aren't of the detect-and-slay type like Miko, and in any case Vaarsuvius is a known non-evil quantity to them. And then we have V staying out of sight in his room all the time. That kind of situation in other circumstances could make a paladin rue not being more detect-happy. It's a good thing V is on the side of the good guys.

I think V's actions in this strip have a whiff of Xykon-like directness in them. The main difference is that Xykon would have enjoyed killing more and might not have thought to cast Gust of Wind (if he knew the spell) or scatter the ashes by hand.

Lissou

2008-09-23, 01:04 PM

Obviously, I wasn't saying it was always the right thing to do, just saying "there are other options, even in a case like that". It's obvious that you'd need to be able to heal the people's wounds and stop the bleeding.

It's just, so often you see questions like that. Or people tell you "someone gives you a loaded gun and you have to shoot your mother or your father. If you don't within the next few minutes, they will personally take the gun and shoot them both". Okay, well, I shoot the guy who's asking me to kill my parents, then. In a non-lethal way if I can. Why always act as though there are only 2 options?

Lissou

2008-09-23, 01:05 PM

DariusAPB

2008-09-23, 01:06 PM

@AKA and Astralfire
That's fine, i'm not saying play any other way than you do. I just prefer to have a different take on morality in D&D (because again, i believe that the alignment system is retarded, for more or less the reason that we had this argument in the first place).To me, RAW is something that happens to other people so like I said, i'll run my ganes in a more real world morality style. It's worked so far.. Heck, i remember when i have gone by the stricter D&D rules, it usually serves to only incite arguments..

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 01:06 PM

I think it's plausible that no one has noticed Vaarsuviu's shift from True Neutral to Neutral Evil... lich! I have a reputation for wacky theories on at least one board, but I think this particular theory isn't really that wacky. The more strips I see, the more I believe he has already lichified himself. He has had plenty of time to do that. The state of Kazumi Kato's pregnancy suggests that several months have passed since the events on the orc island.

It's just as wacky I'm afraid. V's not a lich. There are lots of reasons but this one seems most compelling to me: When Xykon became a lich in SOD he immediatley lost all his flesh. V still has his flesh. Therefore, not a lich.

@AKA and Astralfire
That's fine, i'm not saying play any other way than you do.

Sure thing. I don't have any issue with how you run your game either (but I probably wouldn't want to play in it). My reason for insisting on the RAW here is that this thread is about V's alignment which uses the D&D 3.5 rules. Thus, examples from systems or games where the RAW is something that happens to other people simply have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

brilliantlight

2008-09-23, 01:11 PM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him."

CG act.

I'm not going to respond to your 9/11 bit because invoking that specifically will cause things to heat up a few notches. More generally, I point to my earlier statement that the ends can influence the character of the means, but cannot wholly shift them in the D&D alignment system.

They are not remotely the same oaths, and Warcraft lore in particular promotes Good over Law by a very long shot, while a D&D Paladin is supposed to respect both equally. Warcraft Paladins also do not lose their powers for being evil in any regard, be they Scarlet Crusade, Blood Knight, or some of the more independent paladins who have been turned (willfully or otherwise) by the Scourge. It's a very bad example.

Not true, paladins favor good over chaos. If they knowingly do an evil thing they lose their paladinship period but if they knowingly do something chaotic they "only" have to attone to get remain a paladin.

Nerdanel

2008-09-23, 01:20 PM

Except, we know a lich looks like a skeleton, and V obviously doesn't.

They don't have to look like skeletons. SRD uses the description "withered flesh stretched tight across horribly visible bones" to describe the average lich.

SOD:
Xykon ripped off his own flesh right after he became a lich. If the flesh would have dropped by itself (in the short term, at least), he wouldn't have needed to do that. Presumably, Xykon could have kept his flesh and looked like a really unhealthy version of his former self, with cracks in his skin.

Now, does that description remind you of anyone?

Vaarsuvius may be casting Gentle Repose every day to keep himself vaguely lifelike, like a freshly dead corpse, or an elf who hasn't tranced in months. Most liches probably just don't bother, but V has a lot of living non-evil people and paladins around him that need to be kept in the dark.

Note that V suddenly has a lot of spells, even though he looks worse than before. He can't regain his spells without trancing (if he's alive) but trancing would freshen his looks.

Ridureyu

2008-09-23, 01:20 PM

V's alignment is Lawful Good.

V Operates according to the Law of Awesome.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-23, 01:29 PM

They don't have to look like skeletons. SRD uses the description "withered flesh stretched tight across horribly visible bones" to describe the average lich.

SOD:
Xykon ripped off his own flesh right after he became a lich. If the flesh would have dropped by itself (in the short term, at least), he wouldn't have needed to do that. Presumably, Xykon could have kept his flesh and looked like a really unhealthy version of his former self, with cracks in his skin.

Now, does that description remind you of anyone?

Vaarsuvius may be casting Gentle Repose every day to keep himself vaguely lifelike, like a freshly dead corpse, or an elf who hasn't tranced in months. Most liches probably just don't bother, but V has a lot of living non-evil people and paladins around him that need to be kept in the dark.

Note that V suddenly has a lot of spells, even though he looks worse than before. He can't regain his spells without trancing (if he's alive) but trancing would freshen his looks.

V hasn't used up any more spells that we have seen from when he stopped trancing until now than he would have at 14th level, which best estimates are he is. Check out the Class levels and geekery thread for the proof.

Liches also have a Fear Aura, which they don't have the option of supressing. Don't you think needing to make a will save every day for coming within 60 ft. of V would have tipped someone off?

Sethis

2008-09-23, 01:35 PM

I donn't think so. Chaotic good is sort of more like Robin Hood to me. Cares for the weak but does not abide law. Help the poor. And that is not V's way of acting (examlpe: denying to help the farmers)

Malcom Reynolds from Firefly is Chaotic Good, and that pretty much describes him in a nutshell.

mikeejimbo

2008-09-23, 02:12 PM

I've always felt V was Neutral. Unholy Blight has an effect, albeit a lesser one, on Neutral people, I believe.

Jorrath_Zek

2008-09-23, 02:20 PM

Except, we know a lich looks like a skeleton, and V obviously doesn't.

V is Lawful Neutral (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn)

itsmeyouidiot

2008-09-23, 02:22 PM

Do we really have to argue about another ambiguous aspect of V's character?

ArlEammon

2008-09-23, 02:30 PM

I think Vaarsuvius is going a very subtle way to a higher alignment rather than a lower one.

Vaarsuvius, might decide after acheiving "ultimate arcane power" that she must take drastic action to have a different personal policy than she has all along.

dehro

2008-09-23, 02:54 PM

V's alignment is LAwful GMood.

I've edited if for you :biggrin:

Sergeantbrother

2008-09-23, 03:14 PM

silversaraph

2008-09-23, 03:19 PM

I have thought chaotic good, and probably always will. much of what V does is what s/he feels is the best possible solution to save the world.

On a boat, that V most likely has rarely been off of, s/he has spent months never trancing, all to conjure up spells that would lead him/her to Haley, and most likely a giant step in saving the world.

I don't feel V is lawful, only technically though, because s/he killed kubota. I do feel though that s/he is good because in doing so s/he saved an incredibly evil person, that without interference would have continued to kill hundreds of people. in a sense, because s/he ignored the law, s/he has done a good alignment act.

I think that if two people killed a little girl and one killed a serial killer, who would kill again, you wouldn't really badger the one who was on the side of justice. :)

Also, s/he is probably insane right now, and isn't as responsible for his/her actions.

If you did something illegal while under involuntary intoxication, would you get as much punishment, if any at all?

Holammer

2008-09-23, 03:28 PM

Lots of off-topic replies here...

Judge Dredd is Lawful Neutral. I can't imagine anything else.

This thread is about Vaarsuvius' alignment. Not the finer points of how the alignment system works and how it can be abused to play an edgy Paladin.

V is True Neutral or possibly Chaotic Neutral. Unholy Blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm) affects Neutral targets too and it becomes clear what alignment V is when he/she makes a fuss about helping the dirt farmers. All the good aligned characters agreed to help, even the chaotic evil guy. Although he did it for all the wrong reasons.

*thump*

Pip

2008-09-23, 03:34 PM

brilliantlight

2008-09-23, 04:40 PM

I have always thought that V was True Neutral. Then I read this. Well argued.

V is Lawful Neutral.

Agreed, I always saw V as LN.

Warren Dew

2008-09-23, 05:20 PM

V is True Neutral or possibly Chaotic Neutral. Unholy Blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm) affects Neutral targets too and it becomes clear what alignment V is when he/she makes a fuss about helping the dirt farmers. All the good aligned characters agreed to help, even the chaotic evil guy. Although he did it for all the wrong reasons.

Well, the chaotic evil guy originally wanted to attack the dirt farmers rather than help them; that's probably the best example of an evil position in that circumstance. While refraining from attacking or helping the dirt farmers is a neutral position, I think characters can take neutral positions fairly frequently while still being nonneutral in alignment. It's to be noted that Vaarsuvius does eventually help with the dirt farmers, and in fact arguably does the bulk of the work.

Unholy blight only does damage to neutral characters; only good characters are sickened, as it seems Vaarsuvius, and everyone else except Belkar, was. That was a lot of strips ago, though.

Regarding others' posts on the itemized expense list: I'm pretty sure Vaarsuvius only presented that list as an excuse to try to get Miko to read the second, "explosive runes" list.

T.Titan

2008-09-23, 05:20 PM

You know, being neutral doesn't preclude him from having lawful traits along side chaotic ones... (but yeah, his speech about his mate also smacks of a Lawful outlook)...

David Argall

2008-09-23, 07:09 PM

Callista

2008-09-23, 07:25 PM

I don't think V would go for lichdom.

Benefits:
Indefinite lifespan... But V is already a long-lived elf
Harder to kill... But V has never seemed to be a true coward; and could just cast an Invisibility anyway
Some extra powers... But V can duplicate most of them with spells.

Drawbacks:
Level adjustment--which slows down spell progression. NOT something V wants.
Shunned by civilization--especially elves--probably including his/her spouse.
Unspeakably evil acts--not V's style, even for ultimate power.

I think that a ship full of paladins will be able to help prove to us what her alighnment isAll a paladin can do automatically is to detect evil; so that means Hinjo and his group can rule out three of possible nine alignments. Anyway, at this point, V isn't evil; it's the law/chaos axis where the real debate lies. (IMO s/he is true neutral.)

If you want to determine someone's alignment, though, there are cleric spells, one to detect each aspect of each alignment. Cast all four and you can determine somebody's exact alignment (true neutral will trigger none of them).

ericgrau

2008-09-23, 07:37 PM

1. Rich isn't too big on alignments, so it's not a big deal.
2. That said, if I were to guess I would guess LN. High discipline, slight bend towards good but more focused on wizardry.
3. I'm still sticking with "Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world?" (G), based on months of tireless efforts to reunite the party for that purpose (L), as being an LG act. Not all good&orderly things needs to come from a cartoony hero or paladin. Sometimes multidimensional characters do good and/or orderly things too.

selgnij

2008-09-23, 09:39 PM

Just to toss my thoughts into the mix, while V may not be evil, he just took a nice big step in that direction. He just killed a defensless opponent (perfectly fine to kill a defenseless opponent in and of itself) who had surrendered and posed no threat to anyone.(Thats the tricky part).

There are a couple of parallels to be found in-comic. The first was one character killing another character who had surrendered peaceably literally 2 panels previous, the other involved one character killing another who was defenseless and pretty-much at the mercy of the courts.

I wont say what exact situations I'm referring to, but lets just say one of the killers is a confirmed evil character (by Rich), and the other got a one-way ticket to fallsville.

Pip

2008-09-24, 12:06 AM

Varnithis

2008-09-24, 12:23 AM

The only real way to make any sense of an alignment system in a GAME like DnD is how they did it in the cpu games based off of it, such as NWN.

0-100 for Evil-Good
0-100 for Chaos-Law

You get evil points for doing things defined by the rules as evil (casting evil spells, punching babies, distintigrating noblemen)

You get god points for doing good acts defined by the rules (dontating to charity, granting mercy to a villian who promises to reform, Resolving volitile conflicts without violence with a good outcome)

Same for Law and Chaos.

Without a system like that that's hard coded it all becomes Personal opinion and DM vs PC.

Which is why I think the alignment system is dumb, and should just be removed and simply respond to character actions as the DM feels is proper.

Having said all of this, I'd place V as clearly True Neutral.

Kaytara

2008-09-24, 12:29 AM

I would have to say that the disintegration was a Chaotic Good act. The complaint that most people have was that Kubota was tied up and didn't receive a trial - these are appeals to law, not good. Having a trial is neither good nor evil, it is lawful. If killing Kubota is good under the circumstances of him being on the loose or him having a fair trial, then it is also a good act (depending on the motivation) to kill him while he is vulnerable and before he has had a trial.

Quoted for truth. Besides, Kubota was anything but defenseless. He had surrendered in name only, he had no intention of letting go of his schemes and was gloating about how he would take advantage of Elan's honour in order to discredit and possibly kill the Order. And does no one else remember entire ships of civilians that were lost because of the sea monster attacks?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0508.html
Kubota was evil, showed that he posed a threat to the Order, and promised to endanger them in the future. As Sergeantbrother correctly said, executing him after a trial isn't any more Good than without said trial.
Whether the act WAS Good or Evil depends on Vaarsuvius' motivations were, which I suspect we'll see in the next comic.

Also, I, for one, am convinced there is no way the trial would have turned out in Hinjo's favour. Kubota has way more support than Hinjo has, who, among the nobles, pretty much only has the Katos. If the courts aren't interested in convicting Kubota, they would've turned and twisted the evidence and testimonies for as long as they needed to make Kubota seem like the martyred victim and the Order like barbaric villains.

EDIT: As for Vaarsuvius' alignment, I believe he's too complex a character to be summed up by something as simple as that. There are countless ways to interpret V's actions and traits as being representative of one alignment or another. Vaarsuvius is shown to be very systematic and logical, but one could argue that those traits are necessary for a wizard and one can still be Chaotic despite them. V is very independent and doesn't think much of authority, but it's just as easy to assume he simply has very high standards of who to obey, and most people don't measure up. Concerning V's recent action, on the surface it's very Chaotic as it defies the laws and general principles of AC, but it can also be seen as simply being very dedicated to overcoming their obstacles and saving the world, and therefore Lawful by Virtue of being consistent with what V has been trying to do all along, as opposed to just saying 'The hells with it!' as a purely Chaotic character might do. As for Good and Evil, Vaarsuvius has been shown willing to pursue good acts for as long as it is reasonable, and similarly, do evil if it is necessary.
So yeah, I vote True Neutral, probably a bit towards Neutral Good, since V is generally still good-natured and enjoys a happy ending - when he gets enough rest, at least. XD

dps

2008-09-24, 12:39 AM

V has seen how the Paladins of Azure City have caused tremendous amounts of trouble and have even seriously put the world in peril by their adherence to law above good. Who knows how much more success the Order of the Stick would have had if the Paladins hadn't hassled them so much. I think that V's choice to kill Kubota was making a choice between doing what is good and doing what is lawful, and V chose good.

I don't see that any of the paladins "hassled" the Order except Miko. And if the Azurites hadn't gotten involved, the Order might not have ever found out about the Gates, or become aware the Xykon's still alive (well, not alive exactly, but you know what I mean.).

Kaytara

2008-09-24, 12:42 AM

I don't see that any of the paladins "hassled" the Order except Miko. And if the Azurites hadn't gotten involved, the Order might not have ever found out about the Gates, or become aware the Xykon's still alive (well, not alive exactly, but you know what I mean.).

It's not about Miko, it's about the 'ill-advised Soon oath' that V is shown to be unimpressed with. The behaviour of the paladins basically equals to "Let the world be destroyed, at least we'll still have kept our word." Not very reasonable, and a perfect example of adhering to law at the expense of good.

Varnithis

2008-09-24, 12:47 AM

It's not about Miko, it's about the 'ill-advised Soon oath' that V is shown to be unimpressed with. The behaviour of the paladins basically equals to "Let the world be destroyed, at least we'll still have kept our word." Not very reasonable, and a perfect example of adhering to law at the expense of good.

I don't like the rules for Paladins for this very reason.

You can't have anything remotely interesting happen that a Paladin won't fall from.

They should just remove the alignment restriction and make a DEITY and code of conduct restriction, allowing for some wiggle room on account of NOTHING INTERESTING IS BLACK AND WHITE.

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 04:33 AM

You need divine magic to make a lich under most rules. And you need necromatic magic, which is a banned school for V.

Not according to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) Money, time, XP, Create Wondrous Item feat, caster level 11 or better - that's it, V can do it. (I'm assuming the feat isn't a problem since we don't know all of his feats.)

There may be some optional supplemental material somewhere (I heard the Dragon magazine), but V doesn't have to be using that.

I'm spoilering the next one since I really think this discussion of a possible future revelation is among the things that count as speculation.

I don't think V would go for lichdom.

Benefits:
Indefinite lifespan... But V is already a long-lived elf
Harder to kill... But V has never seemed to be a true coward; and could just cast an Invisibility anyway
Some extra powers... But V can duplicate most of them with spells.

Drawbacks:
Level adjustment--which slows down spell progression. NOT something V wants.
Shunned by civilization--especially elves--probably including his/her spouse.
Unspeakably evil acts--not V's style, even for ultimate power.

I think the true benefits for V are the two you haven't mentioned:

- +2 to all mental stats (not only a more powerful wizard, a smarter wizard)
- Awake 24/7 (get rid of no-trance fatigue)

As a (former) True Neutral V has never been as horrified about unspeakably evil acts as the Good members of the party if said acts are pragmatic. He was the one who was perfectly fine with the idea of soul-binding Nale to keep him from coming back.

But anyway, I think the idea of a Neutral Evil lich (whose banned school is necromancy) questing to save the world along with Good adventurers is just delicious from a storytelling perspective. With death looming over Belkar's head, the slot for the Evil OOTS member looks like it might be open soon.

Andorxor

2008-09-24, 06:26 AM

V hasn't used up any more spells that we have seen from when he stopped trancing until now than he would have at 14th level, which best estimates are he is. Check out the Class levels and geekery thread for the proof.

Liches also have a Fear Aura, which they don't have the option of supressing. Don't you think needing to make a will save every day for coming within 60 ft. of V would have tipped someone off?

Fear doesn't works on Paladins they are immune to it,and raises the checks against it for the people that around him.

Oslecamo

2008-09-24, 06:42 AM

It's not about Miko, it's about the 'ill-advised Soon oath' that V is shown to be unimpressed with. The behaviour of the paladins basically equals to "Let the world be destroyed, at least we'll still have kept our word." Not very reasonable, and a perfect example of adhering to law at the expense of good.

Heerr, where did you get that from? The paladins did their best to stop Xykon. They protected the gate for centuries, created a peacefull developed society around it. They almost won the battle where the order of the Stick itself was defeated, if not for that single traitor who, just like you, tought the other paladins were being unreasonable.

The only paladin who screwed things was Miko, who lost her paladinhood anyway.

Tholok Razescar

2008-09-24, 06:44 AM

V's allignment?
Totally Awesome.

factotum

2008-09-24, 06:52 AM

Which is why I think the alignment system is dumb, and should just be removed and simply respond to character actions as the DM feels is proper.

The only problem with that can be seen in threads like this--namely, that no-one can agree on whether particular actions are good or evil or whatever! You'd have half the players insisting that killing the king's advisor with a poisoned soup spoon was evil and should cause problems while the other half would be genuinely astonished that the palace guards were escorting them to prison...

Tholok Razescar

2008-09-24, 06:55 AM

The only problem with that can be seen in threads like this--namely, that no-one can agree on whether particular actions are good or evil or whatever! You'd have half the players insisting that killing the king's advisor with a poisoned soup spoon was evil and should cause problems while the other half would be genuinely astonished that the palace guards were escorting them to prison...

THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL, ONLY...
*mental debate*
ZUUL! Dangit.

brilliantlight

2008-09-24, 06:57 AM

Fear doesn't works on Paladins they are immune to it,and raises the checks against it for the people that around him.

AC was not entireably made up of paladins. I also don't see V doing something so stupid.

Kaytara

2008-09-24, 07:28 AM

Heerr, where did you get that from? The paladins did their best to stop Xykon. They protected the gate for centuries, created a peacefull developed society around it. They almost won the battle where the order of the Stick itself was defeated, if not for that single traitor who, just like you, tought the other paladins were being unreasonable.

The only paladin who screwed things was Miko, who lost her paladinhood anyway.

You seem to have misunderstood me. The paladins DID protect their OWN gate as best as they could, and if it hadn't been for Miko, it likely would've been the end of Xykon and Redcloak that day. But, as Redcloak put it, they chose to completely ignore the status of the other four locations that posed the same threat as their own gate. As the result, they didn't find out that Dorukan's gate had fallen into Xykon's hands until the gate itself was destroyed several years later, setting off an alarm bell somewhere in Azure City.

hamishspence

2008-09-24, 07:56 AM

D&D does distinguish between execution and murder. and in Vile Darkness, Exalted Deeds, and Fiendish Codex 2, Murder is Evil, Yes, even the murder of evil people, is still evil.

And I'd say that rule overrides the suggestion in Vile Darknes that allowing fiends to live is evil: so no fiend-murdering sprees in cities that accept fiends as citizens, like Sigil.

Concerning Vaarsuvius' alignment, i'd say Neutral at best, but close to Evil: ruthlessness has increased somewhat.

Underground

2008-09-24, 08:06 AM

V's allignment?
Totally Awesome.

Couldnt disagree more.

Its a very practical course of action V comes up with, but not at all fair or right.

Its like the murdering of Rosa Luxenburg. The murderers said it was necessary, but really it wasnt right.

DariusAPB

2008-09-24, 08:19 AM

Ethics and logic are completely seperate entities, which ultimately often violently disagree, thus i believe that Lawful Good is a fallacy... but lets not go there. Instead lets play with a few character examples to get a baseline a second.

Anakin Skywalker = Chaotic good, then later Lawful Evil as Darth Vader.(Wow, looking at that that's an actual total face heel turn).

Judge Dredd: Lawful Neutral.

Robin Hood: Chaotic Good.

These are 3 fairly staple black and white characters, to the point that while they were amazing at inception, they are now when duplicated instantly cliche. Now, V is a little more complicated than this, he has shown both lawful and chaotic actions, which logically would mean that he is neutral. He rarely does any evil actiions (is killing an evil guy set to get away from it an evil act?) however, other than total loyalty to Haley he rarely shows much in the way of good action. Neutral again?

By this deduction True Neutral, But the entire spectrum - the evils(unholy blight argument) can be argued for favourably.

Logic aside, Alignment ambiguity(sp, i know it's wrong) fits well with a age ambiguous, gender ambiguous, sexuality ambiguous character.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 08:37 AM

Fear doesn't works on Paladins they are immune to it,and raises the checks against it for the people that around him.

Not everyone on the ship is a paladin. For example, the Katos. A natural 1 always fails regardless of bonuses. Someone would have failed it by now, just going by the odds.

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 08:55 AM

Not everyone on the ship is a paladin. For example, the Katos. A natural 1 always fails regardless of bonuses. Someone would have failed it by now, just going by the odds.

The fear aura only affects characters of level 4 or lower. The Katos wouldn't even have had to roll, and neither would have Elan or Durkon. Considering that V has spent most of the time secluded in his room (the fear aura only affects people who look at him), it would have been easy for him to avoid random deckhands and such.

However, V would have been in real trouble as a lich witness in Kubota's trial. A lot of people would have been involved by necessity and some of them would have been low level. Even if such people make the will save to avoid panicked fleeing or cowering in terror if cornered, they are still shaken, which is kind of noticeable. Then V would have had to face his own trial for acts of unspeakable evil or run away if he could. It's better for him to prevent the whole trial from taking place.

hamishspence

2008-09-24, 09:05 AM

"acts of unspeakable evil" might vary depending on the campaign. Dragon Mag's Birth of the Dead article requires just Create Undead, permanancy, magic jar, and some research (and for evil spells, by the rules, casting an evil spell is only a very minor evil act. It stilll adds 1 corruption point, but thats not very much).

MM doesn't even require those sort of spells, but it does say "irredeemably evil acts" However there is the Archlich from Libris Mortis, which does not have to be evil. However, players could not become one without DM fiat, since stats for whats needed aren't provided.

Kaytara

2008-09-24, 10:27 AM

factotum

2008-09-24, 10:59 AM

I don't see any way V could have become a lich...something to do with the fact he still has flesh on his bones, I suppose. I also wonder why people often assume that "ultimate arcane power" will come to him automatically if he becomes a lich...clearly not even Xykon has that!

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 11:12 AM

Ummm.... Putting aside that V being a lich at this point is, as proven, theoretically possible, are there any actual ARGUMENTS in favour of that idea? O.o Aside from his condition, which I really think is sufficiently explained by trance deprivation.

Well, I'm not on their side, but the arguments I'd use (other than, it would be really awesome) if I were are:

1. V looks really weird. Even the formerly red bags around v's eyes have turned that gray color and that skin color and cracking looks closer to zombified flesh (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html) than V's old self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html).
2. V refuses healing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html) from Durkon (which would hurt him) and Durkon can't tell if he's hurt.
3. V seems to not take very much, or any, damage from this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0585.html). As a Wizard with d4 HP and probably a lousy con, this should have hurt more. As an undead with d12 hd...

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 11:18 AM

:frown: "Just leave me alone." (The pit fiend swats V. V's expression and body language is that of one hit.)

:durkon: "Vaarsuvius! Come down 'ere an' let me heal ye! Ye look so crappy I cannae even tell how hurt ye are!"

:vaarsuvius: "I do not require your succor at this time."

Now the standard claw attack of the standard pit fiend does 2d8 +13 damage (with -2 from Crushing Despair on top of that, making the roll 2d8 +11). However, take a close look at Vaarsuvius and see that he doesn't appear to be harmed at all from the previous picture even though V was clearly hit, and not only according to me but according to Durkon too. And yet neither Durkon or us in the audience is able to see any damage.

We in the audience have a better position as we are able to look one panel as long as we wish and flip to the "past". It's almost as if V got himself some significant damage reduction somehow...

A lich has damage reduction 15/bludgeoning and magic. The magic part is not a problem for a pit fiend, but its claws deal piercing and slashing damage, meaning that it cannot ignore a lich's damage reduction. If the pit fiend then rolls badly it's possible that even an undespairing pit fiend deals exactly 15 damage, all of which gets eaten up by the damage resistance. Crushing Despair makes rolling under or just at the cap somewhat more likely.

With V being a lich the scene suddenly becomes a whole lot less inexplicable.

EDIT - Ninjaed.

AstralFire

2008-09-24, 11:29 AM

It is possible V has a spell that grants DR.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 12:18 PM

It is possible V has a spell that grants DR.

Indeed. Such a spell could also explain V's new skin coloration or look. I'm not sure if there is a spell with a long enough duration that grants DR to encompass the entire time we have seen V looking odd though.

Dark Matter

2008-09-24, 12:26 PM

Anakin Skywalker = Chaotic good, then later Lawful Evil as Darth Vader.(Wow, looking at that that's an actual total face heel turn).Vader wasn't Lawful. He broke his word several times during the movies... actually I think that was "every" time. Nor did he ever give us any reason to feel that he felt bound to follow any sort of law what so ever. The Empire has lots of laws and rules, none of them apply to Vader himself. He's very much the *pure* evil type who uses or discards the law depending on when it's useful.

Anakin was similar, he was bound to follow the laws of the Jedi, but he also tended to disregard them when it suited him. He had relationships (including Marriage) that were expressly forbidden to the Jedi, but if he'd been openly defiant of the entire order of the Jedi on every point of law he'd never have made it as far as he did. For the most part he didn't have a problem with the idea of giving orders, or even taking them, he just felt (correctly) that he was much stronger than his so called superiors.

I'd put Anakin as NG and Vader as NE.

AstralFire

2008-09-24, 12:41 PM

Indeed. Such a spell could also explain V's new skin coloration or look. I'm not sure if there is a spell with a long enough duration that grants DR to encompass the entire time we have seen V looking odd though.

I didn't mean to make him look odd. Just to explain him not being all that damaged. The oddity I'm sure is just from the fact that he's tampering with his biological cycles by avoiding rest.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 12:49 PM

I didn't mean to make him look odd. Just to explain him not being all that damaged. The oddity I'm sure is just from the fact that he's tampering with his biological cycles by avoiding rest.

I know you didn't mean it for that reason. I was just mentioning that something like, say stoneskin, could also have made V's skin color change. It's pretty clear to me that the reason e looks like that is from not trancing for literally months.

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 01:02 PM

Stoneskin is not powerful enough (DR 10/adamantine) to avoid damage from a pit fiend entirely unless it was a really weak pit fiend (like it was a really low wis pit fiend). Iron Body has DR 15/adamantine which is more like it, but I don't think V is high enough level to cast it ye as it's a level 8 spell. I also think we would have noticed if V had turned himself into living iron, especially as the spell only lasts 1 min/caster level.

Are there any other spells that grant sizeable damage reduction?

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 01:16 PM

Stoneskin is not powerful enough (DR 10/adamantine) to avoid damage from a pit fiend entirely unless it was a really weak pit fiend (like it was a really low wis pit fiend).

I think we can pretty well assume it was a low wis pit fiend.

PF: I thought you were bluffing!
Qar: I had three kings showing.
PF: I thought you were bluffing REALLY well.

Sense motive is a Wis based skill.

Are there any other spells that grant sizeable damage reduction?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any that would also change V's appearance or not have an in comic visual representation. V has invented new spells before though.

pendell

2008-09-24, 02:13 PM

Hmm .. it occurs to me that becoming a lich would be a major change to the character. I doubt it would happen off camera.

More likely the reason for the unchanged appearance is because V's appearance is already so terrible.

Another thought WRT lawful behavior:

V is an elf. And we all know how elves feel about humans, right?

So it may be that he views the laws of humans the way a modern anthropologist would view the customs of a gorilla clan. Interesting, yes. Worth study, yes. Worth observing to some extent so the clan doesn't rip you into bits, yes. But ultimately, the anthropologist is not bound by their laws. He is above them.

If V is a supremacist -- if he believes elves > humans as humans > gorillas or chimpanzees -- then his actions really say nothing about his lawfulness one way or the other. Because they aren't his laws. He isn't bound by them in any way.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Oslecamo

2008-09-24, 03:23 PM

But, as Redcloak put it, they chose to completely ignore the status of the other four locations that posed the same threat as their own gate. As the result, they didn't find out that Dorukan's gate had fallen into Xykon's hands until the gate itself was destroyed several years later, setting off an alarm bell somewhere in Azure City.

That wasn't the fault of they being paladins. That was because everybody on the old order decided that they wouldn't contact each other to avoid further disputes. And well, if they did have information on the other gates, then RedCloack would be in a much better position.

brilliantlight

2008-09-24, 03:24 PM

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 03:27 PM

And well, if they did have information on the other gates, then RedCloack would be in a much better position.

That's more debatable I think. I'm not so sure that if the gates had been in communication with eachother that when Redcloak and Xykon attacked Lirian's gate the very first time they wouldn't have been swarmed from multiple sides by Azurite Paladins and Durokan and simply been killed outright.

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 03:42 PM

Whatever devil it was it wasn't a pit fiend. He is far too stupid to be that.

I think the devil in the strip looks very much like a pit fiend (the one on the left) (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG57.jpg) drawn in OOTS style. No other devil looks remotely like that at least in the SRD.

Perhaps in the OOTS world devils don't have those ridiculously high mental stats, or maybe Mr. Horrible Poker Player had just rolled badly at character creation. Or maybe devils interpret those numbers differently from humans so that a devil with a subpar wis could have a good (compared to humans) saving throw modifier but still be dumb as a stump.

Or maybe the pit fiend just rolled a natural 1 in sense motive that one time.

SandroTheMaster

2008-09-24, 03:46 PM

Two cents here, take it or leave it:

1) Why do people seem to think someone lawful is someone who follows the law? Someone lawful is someone who likes order in their lives. The mercenary assassin who takes illegal contracts to kill people, but has an oath to himself to always keep his word, to always fulfill contract and always lets his victim a chance of live (say, killing him in a fair fight instead of using poison) is WAAAAAY lawful, although possibly evil. Kubota himself didn't followed the law, he manipulated the law because his vision of a world thats ordeal is a world that works withing the legal systems he knows how to use for his gain. And he's Lawful evil in a completely different way than the mercenary just mentioned. That said, V's actions and mindset puts him way more in the lawful spectre than the chaotic one. He will let the law do what it has to, but if the law works in a idiotic way that goes against a) Common sense and logic thinking for the good of tradition and b) The notion that law should be protecting its denizens because of a technicality, he chooses to use of a technicality himself to make the world more ordeal (in his vision).

2) Killing an unarmed prisoner isn't an act of evil, it is a neutral act. Especially because the prisoner was acknowledged evil and was prone on continuing that way and probably endangering many more. It is up to someone GOOD to always accept surrender. It is up to someone EVIL to negate surrender in any way. It is up to someone NEUTRAL to evaluate if the subject deserves a surrender. Especially because they were getting NOWHERE in MONTHS because they were stuck with the intrigue of AC court, MONTHS where EVIL has made significant progress when it was already AHEAD of the good guys. And it was going to drag even further because the GOOD thing to do was to deal with Kubota doing the right thing and LET THE WORLD CEASE TO EXIST.

Nuff' said. You can bite my face off now.

AKA_Bait

2008-09-24, 03:47 PM

I think the devil in the strip looks very much like a pit fiend (the one on the left) (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG57.jpg) drawn in OOTS style. No other devil looks remotely like that at least in the SRD.

Perhaps in the OOTS world devils don't have those ridiculously high mental stats, or maybe Mr. Horrible Poker Player had just rolled badly at character creation. Or maybe devils interpret those numbers differently from humans so that a devil with a subpar wis could have a good (compared to humans) saving throw modifier but still be dumb as a stump.

Or maybe the pit fiend just rolled a natural 1 in sense motive that one time.

I think this particular one just was dumb as a stump and a disgrace to his family. Remember, the stats in the MM and SRD are averages for the race. There will always be statistical outliers. In this case, we have a retarted Pit Fiend.

hamishspence

2008-09-24, 04:05 PM

yes, its up to DM if, once in a while, he wants a creature with 3d6 rolled stats, instead of 10s across the board. And, in this case, triple 1s maybe in Intelligence or Wisdom, depending on which you think is appropiate.

derfenrirwolv

2008-09-24, 04:15 PM

hamishspence

2008-09-24, 04:18 PM

Interestingly Arilyn Moonblade in Elaine Cunningham Harper books comes close to that uber-lawful assassin term: she figured that since she is paid to fight and to kill, that makes her effectively an "Honorable assassin." However, she always challenges her opponents and makes sure they are armed.

Actually, that also sounds a lot like Miko.

Forealms

2008-09-24, 04:38 PM

yet neither Durkon or us in the audience is able to see any damage.

Am I the only one that sees V's damage? :smallconfused:

He's got a scuff mark (or something) near the bottom of his robes, as well as one cut or scratch or something on each of his sleeves.

Eric

2008-09-24, 05:01 PM

David Argall

2008-09-24, 05:35 PM

1) Why do people seem to think someone lawful is someone who follows the law?
Because that is the way to bet. This nonsense about personal codes and such is based on convenience to the player, not on logic. If you are not paying attention to the law, you are not lawful. It is that simple.
Even when we allow the personal code to be lawful, we find that this routinely means the lawful pays a lot of deference to the law. One simply doesn't have the time to develop a complete moral code and has to use society's to a very large extent.

2) Killing an unarmed prisoner isn't an act of evil, it is a neutral act.
Almost never.
It's either murder, and evil, or it is a proper execution of a criminal who deserves it, in which case it is good by D&D rules. The number of actual neutral cases is trivial.

Eric

2008-09-24, 05:39 PM

Because that is the way to bet. This nonsense about personal codes and such is based on convenience to the player, not on logic. If you are not paying attention to the law, you are not lawful. It is that simple.

Ah, which law? The law of the land you're in? Even if it is Hell? Or the land you came from? Or the law you agreed to when you joined the order? Or the agreements you've made, whether they are valid, reasonable, or not?

Mostly, the answers are based on the gaming groups' decision.

Or, in the case of GitP/OOtS, Rich's decision.

dps

2008-09-24, 06:21 PM

It's not about Miko, it's about the 'ill-advised Soon oath' that V is shown to be unimpressed with. The behaviour of the paladins basically equals to "Let the world be destroyed, at least we'll still have kept our word." Not very reasonable, and a perfect example of adhering to law at the expense of good.

That wasn't the part of Sergeantbrother's post that I addressed. I was responding to the statement that the paladins "hassled" the Order and the implication that they paladins also somehow otherwise hindered the OotS.

Oslecamo

2008-09-24, 06:23 PM

That's more debatable I think. I'm not so sure that if the gates had been in communication with eachother that when Redcloak and Xykon attacked Lirian's gate the very first time they wouldn't have been swarmed from multiple sides by Azurite Paladins and Durokan and simply been killed outright.

Look, we're talking about druids who not only let uber evil beings live, they also can't see dangerous magic items in front of their eyes(red cloack), and seem to also be unable to notice someone making a lich ritual even tough it's being made right in front of them. And then we have epic wizards who get themselves killed in melee. By sorcerers.

So, I would say it was lucky that there was any kind of defense to begin with. Something as a comunication system for calling help would very probably make the order of the scribble's brains melt.

Thus, complaining about the paladin being unable to put some good sense in their teammates crippled brains isn't really fair.

kpenguin

2008-09-24, 09:20 PM

So, esteemed fellow posters, what does this new strip highlighting V's motivations behind disintegrating Kubota do to our ideas of V's alignment.

Porthos

2008-09-24, 09:51 PM

He's been sliding for a while now. Pretty much ever since #399. I can't say for sure that he's completely slid into NE, but....

Well, let's just say that if I were DMing, and if he keeps acting like this, it would be hard for me not to grab the character sheet from the player and write NE on it.

As well as giving a massive XP bonus for playing a "alignment slide" so well. :smallwink:

JaxGaret

2008-09-24, 10:00 PM

So, esteemed fellow posters, what does this new strip highlighting V's motivations behind disintegrating Kubota do to our ideas of V's alignment.

Absolutely nothing. As I am arguing currently in the discussion thread, actions are the sole determinants of alignment. Thus the motivations behind the action matter not at all to the alignment of the action.

Nerdanel

2008-09-24, 11:00 PM

Now V is sounding more and more like Xykon. That's Chaotic Evil territory...

Silverlocke980

2008-09-24, 11:29 PM

V is most definitely True Neutral. He's got a job, and all these people keep getting in her way.

LurkerInPlayground

2008-09-25, 01:11 AM

I actually think I have good justification for thinking of Vaarsuvius as being 'True Neutral.'

This is simply because you can't judge the ethical/moral worth of Vaarsuvius killing Kabuto.

The reason I say this is because I think a character of ANY alignment, with the right personality, could easily have done the same thing. And in fact, Vaarsuvius's motivations for the act are nearly universal.

A lawful good character might not particularly pay special fealty to Azure City's laws or any mortal law. At this point though, Azure City has no jurisdiction here and is ill-equipped to act as any authority to uphold the general metaphysical moral law. Kabuto presenting that much evidence for his motivations and guilt might be viewed as enough of a justification in this character's eyes.

A chaotic good character might have justified it simply out of distaste for dogma and would have justified his actions in the cost-analysis scheme. However, Elan is an example of how the personality may influence decisions of this nature.

A lawful evil character would have likely decided to escape from a loophole like Kabuto did anyway. Or barring that, he would have pragmatically defended himself formally. He might think that coming under legal scrutiny is a price he's willing to pay to destroy a hated enemy.

A chaotic evil character would have just killed Kabuto out of principle, because the character thinks he shouldn't be crossed. It is an insult to the dignity or pride of the self-interested individual. (The Belkar-rish bloodlust is only optional.)

A neutral evil character or neutral good character could justify it any number of ways. Most of these reasons are already outlined above. (The character isn't beholden to Azure City's laws. The villain was clearly guilty. Self-defense. Avenging personal insult. Most logical course of action, etc.)

The simple fact of the matter is that this action alone isn't enough to judge whether Vaarsuvius is sliding on the morality scale or not, as the content of his actions reveal nothing about V's motivations. There's simply too much overlap with what most sane and responsible individuals of any alignment would have done.

Or put simply, V was never on a knife's edge morally. Under normal circumstances, he would normally want to leave well enough alone. Kabuto's simply went out of his way to behave so extremely that killing him is almost universally a "neutral act."

moonbiter

2008-09-25, 03:47 AM

It seems to me that :vaarsuvius: was good, but he that either:
:vaarsuvius:'s failure to achieve the goal of finding :haley: and :roy: is driving him/er to act amorally. In essence, his quest for power has blinded him to questions of right and wrong. Instead, he is taking the path of "whatever works to achieve the goal most effectively, regardless of whom it might harm." NE, in my book, and not CE, because he's not out for himself so much as he is just trying to achieve a goals and using whatever methods are appropriate. :belkar:, being all about self-gratification, is CE. The other thing that occurs to me, however, is that
:xykon: added a little spice to his Cloister spell that has affected :vaarsuvius:'s alignment and health.
While I don't think :xykon: is the type of guy who would actually consider :vaarsuvius: a threat or anything, he might find it amusing to throw some minor alignment-affecting mojo the elf's way just to pass the time. He is certainly bored in Azure City.

Eric

2008-09-25, 04:00 AM

So, esteemed fellow posters, what does this new strip highlighting V's motivations behind disintegrating Kubota do to our ideas of V's alignment.

Stuff that, look at the difference between posters:

Silverlocke: He's definitely True Neutral

LurkerInPlayground: I actually think I have good justification for thinking of Vaarsuvius as being 'True Neutral.'

Now which one is right.

S or L?

L. Because even if it turns out the justification ISN'T good, they still currently think it is. S is wrong if V's not TN.

Dudde

2008-09-25, 04:18 AM

Given the situation I can see almost any alignment doing what s/he did. Right now though I think V is True Neutral, sliding towards Chaotic.

/Dudde

Ashenai

2008-09-25, 04:19 AM

Incidentally, has no one considered the idea that V might be

a lich? It would explain the skin thing; his skin is dead and currently in the process of slowly rotting off. It would also be somewhat in character for him; not needing to bother with petty mortal bothers like eating or sleeping (well, "trancing") would allow him more time to pursue his goals.

I don't know, V just seems like exactly the sort of person to do something drastic like that.

Charity322

2008-09-25, 04:23 AM

I think V has had so long without decent rest that she/he is going slightly crazy. So his/her actions at the moment may not be a good expression of V's normal alignment.

nagora

2008-09-25, 04:35 AM

Disclaimer first off, I think that D&D's alignment system is utter rubbish. Now that's over moving on.

Lawful good. Let me explain this, my favorite D&D character that i have ever made is a paladin. This paladin has tortured people, executed enemies mercilessly and would do it again. He has found a goblin lair near a village by capturing a goblin and torturing it to near death with a dagger, then finishing him off with a coup de grace. But he did this to protect the village, the safety of innocents has in each time came first, and legally he was able to kill them. It should be of no surprise that I am a massive 40K fan...(And an Inquisitor of the Ordo Malleus).
Your character is evil, sorry. "The ends justify the means" is practically the motto of LE in D&D and Real Life(tm).

V is not Lawful - s/he is not a team player except when s/he has to be and without a leader s/he respects (s/he respects - not one lawfully appointed, a very chaotic attitude) is completely uninterested in the rest of the Orders' opinions.

V is not good - s/he has just killed someone for being a potential nuisance and constantly resists "wasting time" helping people, but is s/he evil? I think on balance, I'd say not, but this strip brings him/her very close.

CN; possibly CE, but perhaps just Chaotic Stressed.

KingMerv00

2008-09-25, 04:42 AM

Evil. End of story. Killing someone out of annoyance in this case is a chaotic evil act. Without question.

V has been steadfastly neutral on the Law/Chaos scale since day one so I'm not ready to call him chaotic as of yet.

Neutral evil.

That being said, I like V's character.

nagora

2008-09-25, 06:18 AM

Evil. End of story. Killing someone out of annoyance in this case is a chaotic evil act. Without question.
Unless not in your right state of mind; that's the only get-out clause I would allow and in this case I do think V's gone over the edge mentally speaking. It certainly was an evil act.

V has been steadfastly neutral on the Law/Chaos scale since day one so I'm not ready to call him chaotic as of yet.
I've always though s/he was pretty clearly Chaotic and much moreso since Roy died. V takes orders only from those s/he respects even if someone else's orders are sensible - that's a fairly chaotic position. V seems to default to "loner" when all else is equal.

nagora

2008-09-25, 06:31 AM

Sorry for the double post but:

This is simply because you can't judge the ethical/moral worth of Vaarsuvius killing Kabuto.
Nonsense. It was an evil act. "I killed him because it looked like he might be a pain in the ass" is very easy to judge.

The reason I say this is because I think a character of ANY alignment, with the right personality, could easily have done the same thing.
The same outcome can be reached in ways and for reasons which totally change the alignment implications, yes. However, we know why V did it so we know the moral implications.

The rest of your analysis rests on a misreading/misunderstanding of alignments.

T.Titan

2008-09-25, 09:03 AM

Nonsense. It was an evil act. "I killed him because it looked like he might be an evil pain in the ass" is very easy to judge.

There, better.

While V made it pretty clear "good" his reasoning wasn't, it was hardly evil either... i vote Neutral. (he assessed Kubota's life rather objectively)

I know Paladin types might disagree, but that's why having a stick up the backside is a bad idea. :P

Lamech

2008-09-25, 09:08 AM

Absolutely nothing. As I am arguing currently in the discussion thread, actions are the sole determinants of alignment. Thus the motivations behind the action matter not at all to the alignment of the action.
So if you save a bunch of people from being slaughtered and it turns out one goes on to be the worst mass-murder ever did you commit an extremely evil act. And if those killers had slaughtered the people would they have commited a good act?

JaxGaret

2008-09-25, 09:11 AM

So if you save a bunch of people from being slaughtered and it turns out one goes on to be the worst mass-murder ever did you commit an extremely evil act.

It depends entirely on the circumstances. In all likelihood, it is an overall Good act, the one bit of Evil notwithstanding.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 09:21 AM

Okay, let's take your Serial Killer example.

If someone decides to become a murderer and kills the first person they see - a serial killer on his way to attack an orphanage full of children destined to save the world one time apiece - they still committed an evil act. You keep saying "the good/evil of the rest of the acts outweigh what they do" so let's just say he doesn't kill anyone else.

No Astral Deva's gonna walk up to him and say "Man, that was SO good of you!" No, it was fortunate, they were lucky, but it wasn't a good act.

ericgrau

2008-09-25, 10:00 AM

I would like to retract my claim about V's LG act. Maybe it's not evil, but it certainly doesn't seem to have much thought behind it. I thought he knew what was going on. That explanation seems surprisingly crude for V.

She has a point, though, why does Elan kill minor villians without a thought yet he must tie up the main villian? That seems worse.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 10:02 AM

AKA_Bait

2008-09-25, 10:07 AM

Because only major villains surrender.

Well... I dunno. Elan didn't stop Belkar here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html) and those goblins obviously surrendered.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 10:17 AM

Well... I dunno. Elan didn't stop Belkar here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html) and those goblins obviously surrendered.

Elan's off-screen at the moment, so it could be guessed that he was occupied with getting the dust out of his eyes.

Lamech

2008-09-25, 10:20 AM

It depends entirely on the circumstances. In all likelihood, it is an overall Good act, the one bit of Evil notwithstanding.
For the circumstances the mass-murder killed far more people than got saved. For a more well known example, was Gollum a good person? He was the one who destroyed the Ring. Without him Frodo would have simply replaced Sauron.

Ronnoc

2008-09-25, 11:18 AM

In light of the most recent comic I have to bump V's alignment from CG downt to either CN or CE. Although his analysis was unually lax for her so perhaps V is punch drunk from lack of trance.

SandroTheMaster

2008-09-25, 06:26 PM

Lets stop with the extremes for now. Now LG, no CE, no CG, no LE.

First of, it surprises me that nearly everyone here seems to think a Neutral alignment is supposed to be "Good, with a twist". Neutral characters aren't there to be bossed around by good or evil characters. D&D alignment system is overall good, since it is the one that best translates tendencies of the individual in a general way. "General", see that little word? It means that it in no way dictates how a character should be, only he's general inclination. Given enough reasoning, one could make quite a debate on how Hitler was Lawful Neutral. Really. He'd have a hell of evidences in the three evil spectrum, but the good psychologist with a good understanding of sociology and logistics could find very convincing arguments to the former, enough to make at least the more open minded to think again.

Now, a Neutral character is a character that's generally willing to do a lot more things morally controversial than the good ones (who hardly ever are willing to kill a rabbit if it did nothing wrong for the purpose of saving the world). "Keeping it from the paladin" is the usual Goody-goody two shoes (like Elan) argument that an action is evil. It is not a very good argument, especially because even for the most open-minded paladins, believe the spectrum goes along: Good, then evil. No mid-term. Or, when really open-minded, in a scale where 100 is good and 0 is evil, only exactly at 60 it is neutral. Anywhere below is eeeeeevil. The "Detect Evil" is there more for a paladin to not go on a killing spree against people who don't have only the purest goals in heart than to make him easier to hunt down his assigned evil targets. And without it, a paladin would be completely incapable of discerning the neutral apart after a little get-know.

Neutral characters are pretty much only restricted in the way that they won't kill someone without good reason. They won't kill someone because it is annoying (V's main reason is because Kubota is actively getting in the way of saving the world, and how the other characters seem to don't mind about it, he deemed someone ought to keep them from wasting more weeks doing NOTHING AT ALL).

Just for the record, V's always been this way, it is only that before she had the patience to keep his mind to herself when it seemed that it didn't made the other members of the part (all good save Belkar) comfortable. Remember when he exposed his mind about binding the souls of Nale and company so they don't get in the way (remember, of SAVING THE WORLD) again, Elan and Haley were disgusted by the comment, then he dismissed what he said as just a comment. And there are instances before this. Now... she's mostly just too stressed out to give a c***.

But, I guess I'm wrong. It is better to let a Villain live (a villain that V got a very good argument as to why he thought he was the villain) so the world can be properly annihilated. How fool me.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 06:43 PM

...I'm not really seeing significant differentiations in your version of neutral, save for random "neener neener good is stupid" jabs and taking a lot of text to do it.

kire

2008-09-25, 07:09 PM

I just want to throw my 2 copper pieces in, even though almost no one will read it being buried in this thread.

V seems to be (or has been) somewhere around NG and CG (possibly bumping into TN, CN, LG and maybe even LN territory from time to time, more of the first two, the last two are a bit more hedging my bets than anything else). Now we're seeing hir do some acts that various people view as chaotic and/or evil. I'm fairly sure that V still won't show up on a detect evil, but is definitely starting to slip down and to the right on ye olde 9 box alignment. I don't think s/he has completely fallen, but is definitely edging that way.

Trying to avoid a flamewar, I just want to mention as diplomatically as I can that this might plot slightly similar to Miko's move out of the LG paladin alignment (although faster or slower I can't really say). This arc looks to be pretty awesome, and I'm looking forward to more of it.

SandroTheMaster

2008-09-25, 11:29 PM

Wait till V kills a defenseless and innocent NPC knowing full well of the facts before start labeling him as evil. Even Elan's jab at V using Belkar's illusion was sort of misaimed, especially because Elan is known to so.

Sure she's slipping, but so far she didn't do anything drastically different from his normal mindset. She's only more through and less shy about what he thinks it is best than before.

Really, comparing the killing of a (even though defenseless) villain who's certainly evil so needless (and almost certainly fruitless, as s/he heard himself) court meddling isn't needed to the random killing of a gnome just because he happened to show up (and for a donkey and chocolate) is just ridiculous. It is in the same road as those brain-dead discussions of Belkar being Neutral.

Now, if it happens to fall into the axis of Law or Chaos is a real question that needs discussion. My saying is that V certainly shows a lawful mindset, just not an lawful course of action, that should very well put him in neutral here as well.

Needless to say, this is all just rubbish anyway.

Ricky S

2008-09-25, 11:35 PM

Warren Dew

2008-09-25, 11:42 PM

Really, comparing the killing of a (even though defenseless) villain who's certainly evil so needless (and almost certainly fruitless, as s/he heard himself) court meddling isn't needed to the random killing of a gnome just because he happened to show up (and for a donkey and chocolate) is just ridiculous. It is in the same road as those brain-dead discussions of Belkar being Neutral.

Has someone been comparing those two?

While I think disintegrating Kubota may well be evil, that one act certainly needn't make Vaarsuvius evil. I do think it makes neutral more likely than good, whereas before I thought Vaarsuvius was good.

nagora

2008-09-26, 05:08 AM

There, better.
Sorry, that's not an argument.

Good is, broadly speaking, about giving, and evil is about taking. In between we have those who play "give and take" at different times - when things are good they'll share their surplus; but if it comes to the crunch, they'll take what they need wherever they can get it; most of the time, they'll just mind their own business and expect you to keep out of theirs.

V killed someone because it would be a waste of his/her time listening to their explanations even before anyone had asked V to waste time doing so! Kubota being evil was not a factor as far as I can see, the reason for the act was to avoid wasting V's time. You don't get brownie points for killing evil people as an incidental. You can't play the "kill them all and let god sort them out" in D&D and not drift your alignment.

If V had even ignored the whole situation and killed him after a trial which wrongly found him not-guilty then you might have a basis for "neutral act"; but s/he didn't. It was an evil act, possibly done under a state of mental duress.

Underground

2008-09-26, 07:28 AM

Actually V killed the guy because she figured he deserves to die.

hamishspence

2008-09-26, 07:35 AM

AKA_Bait

2008-09-26, 08:52 AM

[QUOTE=hamishspence;4992006Edit: And murder in D&D is defined (in FC2) as Evil, not Chaotic counterpart to Lawful executions.

FC2 does state carrying out an execution is a Lawful act, interestingly.[/QUOTE]

Also interestingly, one could say that elan gained 3corruption points for smacking Kubota after he surrendered. There's no specific definition I can see for "causing gratuitious injury to a creature" and Elan didn't hurt him a lot but there was no need to hit him after he surrendered.

Eric

2008-09-26, 11:48 AM

"he deserved to die" is not accepted in Britain trial cases. Maybe in other places.

Edit: And murder in D&D is defined (in FC2) as Evil, not Chaotic counterpart to Lawful executions.

FC2 does state carrying out an execution is a Lawful act, interestingly.

This ain't britain.

Germany, it's anything that isn't legal is illegal.

In France, it's guilty until proven innocent.

In MY house, it's guilty 'cos I TELL YOU.

Dervag

2008-09-26, 12:39 PM

Hi

In my opinion V has always been Lawful Good. He has always seemed to follow the rules generally. Although V does lend himself towards chaotic in some circumstances, but generally V seems to always do the right thing. Even if someone is hurt it is usually because its for what V believes is the best thing.

I hope V gets some sleep soon (or at least meditates)I must respectfully disagree. About everything except the sleep part. I agree about the sleep part.

As we see here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html) and in the strip after it, V doesn't want to help save the dirt farmer from the ogres. He thinks it's a waste of time.

Now, it would be reasonable for a Good-aligned person to do that if they were busy saving the world. But at the time, V was not saving the world. As V says in strip 213, V was looking for "key secrets about the nature of the universal order."

So basically, V is too busy studying to save someone from ogres.
_______________________

I think that in normal situations, V is a great example of a Neutral-aligned character (I'm talking about 3rd Edition and earlier here). V can sympathize with someone who's in trouble. V has a sense of right and wrong, and prefers to fight on the side of right. V does not run around committing random evil acts.

But V is not willing to take trouble to help people who aren't part of the main objective. It's like V defines one goal ("Clear out the Dungeon of Dorukan," or "Contact Haley.") Then V sticks to that goal no matter what, and doesn't care about anything else.

A Good-aligned character would normally care about stuff like that. And probably wouldn't kill someone to save time.

Jorrath_Zek

2008-09-26, 01:06 PM

Neutral characters can perform evil acts just as they can perform Good acts.

Lawful Neutral Elves on a Mission to save the gods could easily by granted a boon from the gods and allowed to become Baelnorn with out a phalactery simply to ensure that they succeed on thier mission.

A Baelnorn still looks mostly like an old and powerful elf. The ability to ignore death (because even if your body is destroyed, you can and will have a new one eventually) could easily be considered the ultimate arcane power.

The question becomes, what right four words?

People keep going back to how V could be a Lich, while ignoring the equivlent undead options available. All a Baelnorn loses that a Lich has is the aura of fear, because they are not terriffying to look at.

Sir_Norbert

2008-09-26, 01:13 PM

"he deserved to die" is not accepted in Britain trial cases. Maybe in other places.
Can we *please* stop comparing the situation to Britain, America, Canada or any other real-world country?

See, there's one big difference that you're not taking into account. Azure City was just decimated by a huge army of hobgoblins. Why should Vaarsuvius -- or anyone -- have the slightest trust in Hinjo's ability to keep Kubota imprisoned?

SandroTheMaster

2008-09-26, 01:50 PM

What? No, neutral characters aren't free to do evil acts or good acts. Thinking like that is thinking there's no middle term.

It reminds me of Baldur's Gate 2, when your characters performs trials to decide upon the character's... well, character. Initially you should perform all five trials in the good way so you could KEEP YOU ALIGNMENT or you'd become Neutral Evil, in one act of evil, many players that made a neutral aligned characters were deeply dissatisfied with this trial part, also many did one or two evil resolutions and then, in the expansion, found themselves to be Neutral Evil for no apparent reason. There was then introduced a mod that not only gave you more flexibility to how many evil acts you could do at the trial, it also gave each trial a Neutral approach. Because, you know, there's ALWAYS a third option (and more). Defining actions as necessarily either good or evil is just moral blindness. Many didn't like NWN2 approach to neutral alignment as well because in order to be neutral you had to do equal acts of jerkassness and mother Theressa...sness. Almost never was a neutral choice offered, and always it would be a very uninteresting one when offered. It was also true in the chaos/law axis. I'm still trying to find a mod to fix this.

On another subject, yes making an action and avoiding trial is not necessarily evil in the world of the OotS, because they're in a medieval setting, not a modern one. Nowdays everything boils down to legalities and bureaucracy, but in the medieval times a knight could kill a peasant for blocking the road... and it would be his right. Different settings, different morals. We can see right in the judgment of the OotS how different they see into someones actions because... well... they were being charged with TAMPERING WITH THE FABRICS OF REALITY. How many times you'll find someone being charged for this in real life? Also it is a broken system because apparently no one is trying to charge Xykon with the very same thing. (Of course, they'd just show up and faster than you could say "charges" he'd shout "finger of death", but AC seems to only have given it a thought because he was going to invade the city). So, in short, stop comparing the morals in the setting with the legal system of America, Britain, Australia, Japan or wherever it be, the closest you could get would use the crude legal system of MEDIEVAL EUROPE, and still it'd be missing a lot and you'd see a lot that's very, very worse than executing a captured prisoner.

David Argall

2008-09-26, 03:07 PM

"he deserved to die" is not accepted in Britain trial cases. Maybe in other places.
Oh it's accepted in Britain, and all other courts. It's just a matter of what constitutes deserves to die. [Killing in self defense is a form of saying the victim deserved to die.] The British, among others, are inclined to be skeptical about such claims.

Spiryt

2008-09-29, 04:53 AM

I think that after last comic, there is no doubt that V can't be good.

Threatening his "friend" like that?

Nerdanel

2008-09-29, 05:09 AM

I think V is now Neutral Evil

and a lich.

There has been a definite change in his personality lately. I used to peg him as True Neutral but the last few strips have V as more like True Mean. I don't think he's slid just a little over the border into the Neutral Evil box. I think he's now very Evil, Xykon-style but less charismatic and more organized.

Marsala

2008-09-29, 05:15 AM

I think that after last comic, there is no doubt that V can't be good.

Threatening his "friend" like that?

It's not the first time V has threatened his friends. It's not even the first time he threatened them with a Disintegrate spell. (He pointed out to Roy that the remnants of a dragon were not much different from those of a human, or a halfling.) But it is the first time that V did so with the strong overtone that he would actually carry out said threat.

I think he may be not only Neutral, but on the brink of an alignment change into outright Evil. The sleep deprivation certainly isn't helping things.

DariusAPB

2008-09-29, 05:40 AM

After the last one, yes, true neutral currently with evil leanings. Not slipped yet.

Not a lich, maybe the Baelnorn (that finally someone other than me has mentioned! thankyou!) What bothers me is his obsessive loyalty to Haley, that cannot be healthy.

Dr. Cthulwho

2008-09-29, 05:54 AM

I've always seen V as kind of a self-centred neutral. The afore-mentioned dirt-farmer example, the fact she changed her recommendation on how to deal with Nale the second time when it was pointed out killing him would likely just let him come back faster.

I wouldn't say its evil, but her attitude and motivations have the potential to send her down that path.

Actually V killed the guy because she figured he deserves to die.

Although we've had three strips now, steadily building up the reason for V's action - that is "the haste with which I will remove that which distracts me from my crucial research..."

And the two aren't the same thing. She figured he had the potential to be a distraction (since she admitted she didn't know who he was or what he had done) so should be removed, whether he deserved to die or not was only based upon his potential to inconvenience V.

Oh it's accepted in Britain, and all other courts. It's just a matter of what constitutes deserves to die. [Killing in self defense is a form of saying the victim deserved to die.] The British, among others, are inclined to be skeptical about such claims.

Well, not entirely. Such things are only known as mitigating factors, but actually saying "deserved to die" gets into the mindfield of "when is one life worth more then another or in what circumstances is one person justified in killing another." Which is why, for example in self-defence they look at reasonable force - is the method/means and level of force used in defence reasonable when compared to the threat faced.

Not that the legal systems of our modern world has a lot to do with what goes on in a fantasy setting.