Hypothesis: Vaasuvius is Chaotic Evil

[hamishspence]

Please discuss. Any and all D&D sources welcome, as is an evidence from the strip or bonus strips in the book compilations.

[BRC]

Actually, my dear Hamish, the burden of proof is the one who made the topic. Please provide us with evidence to support your hypothosis.

[CountD]

When Miko used detect evil on them none of the party members were revealed as being evil with the exception of Belkar, who used the lead sheet to block the spell's effect.

[hamishspence]

Is, not Was. And the thread is entirely for the purposes of discussion. I saw comment in previous thread that posters were required to prove V was Not Chaotic Good if they disputed it. This thread does not make assumptions either way.

So, what are your opinions on the hypothesis?

EDIT: Evil implies oppressing and killing others. Chaotic implies having little use for rules and regulations. V's actions, in my opinion, have show increasing tendencies toward this throughout the strip.

[Calavera]

When it came down to it she couldn't dust Elan, even though he was "getting in the way". She couldn't even directly threaten him when he affected to misunderstand her. Killing Kubota is the only vaguely evil thing she has done , and even tht was backed up with a genre-knowledge that marked Kubota out as a bad guy.

[Yendor]

Y'know, it's kind of funny that alignment is only the third most overdone V-related topic on this forum.

[hamishspence]

Setting off Explosive Runes on Belkar, the stablemaster, and attempting to set them off on Miko, might possibly fit.

[Zanaril]

I'd say if anything, s/he started off as true neutral and if drifting towards chaotic neutral. However, if s/he starts following rules again, it'll go back to true neutral.

[B. Dandelion]

Setting off Explosive Runes on Belkar, the stablemaster, and attempting to set them off on Miko, might possibly fit.
V was also positively gloating at the idea of Miko having perished in the fire, and not only suggested killing the Linear Guild in cold blood but went on to question what the problem would be with binding their souls against being raised.

Mind that I don't think she's evil even now, but might be a darker neutral than before.

[BRC]

Is, not Was. And the thread is entirely for the purposes of discussion. I saw comment in previous thread that posters were required to prove V was Not Chaotic Good if they disputed it. This thread does not make assumptions either way.

So, what are your opinions on the hypothesis?

EDIT: Evil implies oppressing and killing others. Chaotic implies having little use for rules and regulations. V's actions, in my opinion, have show increasing tendencies toward this throughout the strip.
Well this brings us to the "Actions Vs Intents" argument.

[zuzak]

When it came down to it she couldn't dust Elan, even though he was "getting in the way". She couldn't even directly threaten him when he affected to misunderstand her. Killing Kubota is the only vaguely evil thing she has done , and even tht was backed up with a genre-knowledge that marked Kubota out as a bad guy.

Elan wasn't really getting in the way, V was just threatening him if he did make himself an obstacle. Elan is a loyal party member, and helps protect the rest of the party as well as the fleet. It's Stupid Evil to kill a loyal minion, so not doing it isn't a good act, its an non-idiotic act. You can't claim that s/he's good because s/he didn't follow though on a threat to a friend.

I can't really think of anything good that V has done for its own sake. S/he had to be forced into helping the dirt farmers, and was hired to fight Xykon, and benefits from the quest through experience and survival, so none of those really count as good acts as much as neutral. However, V threatened the party when s/he was turned into a lizard, hated Miko to the point of being happy when V thought she was dead, for no justified reason, ignored the safety of the fleet, specifically, Lien, and executed a prisoner without any trial, or even knowing his name or what he did. Also,


not only suggested killing the Linear Guild in cold blood but went on to question what the problem would be with binding their souls against being raised.

S/he's Chaotic Evil, or at best Chaotic Neutral.

[B. Dandelion]

I can't really think of anything good that V has done for its own sake.

Might give V some credit for offering to go along with Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html) to rescue Julia despite some misgivings, because "one's family must be defended when the need arises." Also agreeing to go rescue Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) out of friendship and loyalty, above the desires of the team leader.

[Laurentio II]

Awww. If a character breath in the general direction of a peasant, his alignment change. No, really, you can't prove otherwise.

Alignment. Is. Not. All. Of. Character. Personality.

Roy did TONS of things that a Lawful Good is not supposed to do, and guess what? Still is. Has anybody noticed that in several years of webcomic, not a single character has ever changed alignment?
Has anybody noticed that a party with both Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil and Neutral (like, to say, the Order of the Stick) could NOT exist at all, if alignment are considered strict rules to follow, and not simple guidelines?

Anyway, if the question is "Hypothesis: Vaasuvius is Chaotic Evil", without the minimal effort of a debate step, my answer is "No". Both to the question, than to the request of discussion.

[EyethatBinds]

Clearly Vaasuvius is evil because he/she wears red. People in red are always evil.

[Laurentio II]

Clearly Vaasuvius is evil because he/she wears red. People in red are always evil.
And that is the reason Roy wears blue. The thread is closed. Everybody die.

[Corwin Weber]

I'd agree that V isn't currently CE..... but there is some clear movement in that direction. Let's face it, zhe killed a bound and helpless prisoner in cold blood. The fact that said prisoner was also a ruthless villain does act as a mitigating circumstance, but only a vague one.

V's currently moving toward CE, and may already be considered to be CN. I'd say the 'darker shade of neutral' someone mentioned is entirely apt. If V continues on hir current path.... CE is the likely destination. It's entirely possible that something will happen between now and then to change this, but as things stand now, it doesn't look good. (No pun intended.)

[David Argall]

Now we start with #11, which classifies V as [chaotic?] Good. Our writer acknowledges this, but warns that does not mean he remains Good. The lack of Good deeds thereafter does argue for a shift to Neutral. Of course the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but it is all disquieting for fans of a good mage.

Now 597 gives us more worries. The death of Kubota is unimportant here. A CG can certainly kill such a guilty threat. But V is willing to threaten Elan. That she doesn't carry out the threat is something, but he should not be making the threat at all.
In 599, she is willing to deny there is any value to the lives of the common folk, unlike 213 where he merely calls their value small. Again we see alignment movement in a non-good direction.

And at last report, V was being pursued by the imp. The idea that the next time we see her, he will be dressed in black is rather obvious. We may not, but it is a clear possibility.

[Kaytara]

Another alignment discussion? With all due respect, why do you people persist in using a vague, unrefined rulebook definition for something that defies definition, anyway? For example. To those who say Vaarsuvius has Chaotic tendencies because he's been defying Hinjo's authority and the legal system of Azure City, well, it could just be interpreted as a far higher sense of dedication to achieving his goals and arguably loyalty to Roy and Haley.That way, Vaarsuvius shows that he isn't easily swayed from his goal by short-term obstacles and doesn't lose focus easily. That kind of dedication is nothing if not Lawful.
Just an example. There are two sides of the coin to everything, and it makes no sense to argue using definitions that can't even agree with themselves.

It's way easier to just accept that the character has a personality, and that his personality has certain facets that are chaotic and others that are lawful, and that he might be generally a decent person but have a certain mean streak.

These are intricately created characters, people. Trying to narrow them down into DnD terms is like summarizing Lord of the Rings in Neanderthal.

[zuzak]

Might give V some credit for offering to go along with Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html) to rescue Julia despite some misgivings, because "one's family must be defended when the need arises." Also agreeing to go rescue Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) out of friendship and loyalty, above the desires of the team leader.

I'll agree with the Julia story arc being an example of a good action on V's part, but his/her reason for helping Elan was that he was a loyal friend, and therefore useful. It is possible to be CE and protect your friends in the same way that you'd protect your valuables.


Alignment. Is. Not. All. Of. Character. Personality.
Who said it was?


The thread is closed. Everybody die.
If you don't like a thread, just ignore it. I don't see what your problem is with this thread.

[FujinAkari]

Has anybody noticed that in several years of webcomic, not a single character has ever changed alignment?


We should note that the Giant very strongly implies that Miko actually changed alignments within his commentary in War & XP's. Thus, no, we can't note that :).

[Warren Dew]

Another alignment discussion? With all due respect, why do you people persist in using a vague, unrefined rulebook definition for something that defies definition, anyway?

How else are we going to get a good discussion going? And by "good" discussion, I mean "nice, interesting, chaotic" discussion here.


Trying to narrow them down into DnD terms is like summarizing Lord of the Rings in Neanderthal.

Don't knock it. I've heard the Lord of the Rings is even better in Neanderthal.


We should note that the Giant very strongly implies that Miko actually changed alignments within his commentary in War & XP's. Thus, no, we can't note that :).

Your reading of the commentary seems different than mine.

That said, I agree we can't note that everyone's alignment has remained the same as we see no actual evidence that they haven't changed; indeed, in the current strip, Haley's seems to be shifting from "good-ish" toward "good".

[Corwin Weber]

Belkar has gotten more blatantly evil over the strip too. He was evil before, but it's almost like he's shifted from evil to Evil. The former was used for humor value, but it's shifted as the comic progressed to something much more deranged, less controlled, and less funny. Possibly a better way to explain, he started out chaotic evil and has progressed to Chaotic Evil.

[hamishspence]

Since I have been told, repeatedly, that evidence based on supplements is not valid, and that the information in PHB on alignment is too scanty to prove anything, instead of trying to Prove V's alignment, I am only raising it for discussion.

[Chas the mage]

Last time I checked, wizards werent able to be of the chaotic alignment.

[Mystery Meep]

Wizards can be of any alignment--it's just that lawful is more common, because wizardry rewards that kind of personality.

I'd be more inclined to think of it as an alignment shift, myself, in V's case.

[Yukitsu]

Not really. The act is arguably evil (in that hamishpence argues that it is) but a single arguably evil act isn't enough to enact an alignment change, and depending on how good or bad the varying arguments of the alignment of the actions, doing them ad nauseum wouldn't cause an alignment change.

We know objectively that V didn't start off as evil, and I don't see this act as sufficient in any sense to cause that kind of swing.

[Warlord JK]

suggested killing the Linear Guild in cold blood but went on to question what the problem would be with binding their souls against being raised.

V specifically stated in that strip that she was representing the halfling's view point on the subject.

Also, V most likely started out as True Neutral, but since Roy's death and the parties' schism, has been going downhill. Due to the lack of sleep and major stress, V has been shifting to Chaotic Neutral with slowly growing tendencies to be more Chaotic Evil. I'm guessing that if V got a good week's sleep, another week to ponder his innerself, and then met up with the party again, we'd have a new V.

[Optimystik]

V is drifting towards evil (Raistlin keeps coming to mind in recent comics - yay for obsession!) but he isn't there yet.

I refuse to believe he's chaotic though... he's way too goal-oriented for that. Could anyone chaotic devote themselves to one task (developing new scrying spells) for that long? He's gotta be neutral, if not lawful.

[hamishspence]

V is surprisingly ruthless to anyone who crosses V- the stablemaster, Belkar, V has initiated force numerous times. And how justified are these uses of force?

You see a shopkeeper say- No refunds- and the customer taser the shopkeeper, and he pays up- what would you say the customer was?

To me, V's been sliding ever since V got out of the dungeon. I'd have said CG or NG in dungeon, Neutral by the time V met Miko, and close to the Neutral/Evil border by the Kubota incident.

[Moechi_Vill]

Please discuss. Any and all D&D sources welcome, as is an evidence from the strip or bonus strips in the book compilations.

V being a CE is a weaker case then Miko being a misguided (I still blame Roy and a lack of affection by those around her) LG.

Miko was self-centered and delusional under mitigating circumstances, but she fought for good despite two-three grave mistakes.

V is clearly CG with slips towards CN when under extreme duress, similarly to Miko, but while the stress was less the actions were much less serious (though powered by an amoral obsession rather than delusion self-centeredness). The worst thing he did was to imply a threat against Elan and I doubt he would have gone through with it.

[Morty]

To me, V's been sliding ever since V got out of the dungeon. I'd have said CG or NG in dungeon, Neutral by the time V met Miko, and close to the Neutral/Evil border by the Kubota incident.

Seconded. V might, with emphasis on "might" have been Good in the dungeon, but not later.
I wouldn't say s/he's Chaotic Evil now, because one or two evil acts don't suffice for Evil alignment, but s/he's on a very good way.

[Nerdanel]

I think V might have been Neutral Good in the dungeon and True Neutral after that. I think he's now firmly in the Neutral Evil camp.

I think V is too spontaneous to be Lawful but he's also too goal-oriented to be Chaotic. He doesn't kill or hurt people for fleeting fun like Belkar and Xykon. He does that in order to further his own interests. V's numerous Belkar-targeted exploding runes were meant to discourage unwanted romance and V's murder of Kubota was committed solely in order to avoid a trial. As per his own words, V was unaware that what Kubota had done and if Elan's reasoning in capturing him had been sound. For all V knew, the real villain might have fooled Elan (potentially very easy to do) to capture a framed innocent person. That kind of thing would have come out in the trial, but V showed utter disregard for other people's lives - both the stranger's and Elan's. He didn't even ask the stranger to clarify himself, but killed him in a very final way on the basis of a few overheard words. I believe V was truly prepared to kill Elan too, but decided that it was unnecessary when Elan displayed Elan-grade stupidity.

Also, the lich issue still isn't resolved. I think V may have been a lich from since before the pitfiend battle. It certainly would explain his alignment shift... We didn't find either way in strip 600, so now I'm waiting for V's next appearance. Maybe we'll get a big reveal in strip 666?

[Kish]

Also, the lich issue still isn't resolved. I think V may have been a lich from since before the pitfiend battle. It certainly would explain his alignment shift... We didn't find either way in strip 600, so now I'm waiting for V's next appearance. Maybe we'll get a big reveal in strip 666?

:smallconfused: What lich issue?

[Raging Gene Ray]

Some people seem to think V's become a lich. I think I may have been one of the first after this comic, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0553.html) People were arguing about what was in the cage and I suggested that V became a lich and, in the senility that comes with a lack of sleep, thought that a foolproof way to protect his/her phylactery would be to lock it in a cage.

[maxon]

I refuse to believe he's chaotic though... he's way too goal-oriented for that. Could anyone chaotic devote themselves to one task (developing new scrying spells) for that long? He's gotta be neutral, if not lawful.

Oh, I'd disagree with that analysis of chaotic (at least in DnD terms). I don't see why a chaotic person can't devote themselves to one task - dedication is not the same as lawful.

[Optimystik]

I think V is too spontaneous to be Lawful but he's also too goal-oriented to be Chaotic. He doesn't kill or hurt people for fleeting fun like Belkar and Xykon. He does that in order to further his own interests. V's numerous Belkar-targeted exploding runes were meant to discourage unwanted romance and V's murder of Kubota was committed solely in order to avoid a trial. As per his own words, V was unaware that what Kubota had done and if Elan's reasoning in capturing him had been sound. For all V knew, the real villain might have fooled Elan (potentially very easy to do) to capture a framed innocent person. That kind of thing would have come out in the trial, but V showed utter disregard for other people's lives - both the stranger's and Elan's. He didn't even ask the stranger to clarify himself, but killed him in a very final way on the basis of a few overheard words. I believe V was truly prepared to kill Elan too, but decided that it was unnecessary when Elan displayed Elan-grade stupidity.

I don't think V is spontaneous at all. He planned everything, even Kubota's death (even though he didn't know his name); he just SEEMS spontaneous because he formulates plans quickly. For example, handing Miko the second bill with explosive runes on it was clearly a contingency plan, he even said so himself... and getting Belkar to read it was a stroke of brilliance related to that plan.

And as for the "real villain fooling Elan," V heard Kubota's admission of guilt himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html) (panel 8), so that possibility is out also.

Conclusion? V was NG, then TN, and is drifting into NE.

EDIT:


Oh, I'd disagree with that analysis of chaotic (at least in DnD terms). I don't see why a chaotic person can't devote themselves to one task - dedication is not the same as lawful.

Focus is an important characteristic of lawful alignment - the monk and paladin classes prove that. The chaotic classes (Bard and Barbarian) rely on emotional strength instead (and draw power from NOT being focused.)

I'm not saying that only lawful characters can be focused, I'm just saying it's much more difficult for chaotics to be. In any case, that statement was only part of my analysis. :smallsmile:

[Nerdanel]

V himself admitted that he didn't know who Kubota was. He also didn't know what Kubota's crime was. If V had been listening from the start of strip 595 he would not have been as totally ignorant as he was, as he would have heard Kubota use phrases like "consorted with devils" and make an educated guess that the pitfiend he fought earlier might have something to do with Kubota. V is a high-int character, after all.

Conveniently, we have a V quote that gives us some idea about when he started hearing what was spoken:


As I landed on deck, I overheard him say something his trial taking weeks.


This is what V heard (from "few weeks" to when Kubota stopped speaking):


My trial will last a few weeks, at most, and when it is over, Hinjo will look like an out-of-touch buffoon for even bringing charges against me - a beloved pillar of the community - while his own people wasted away at sea. Now come along, bring me before your master so that we may begin the Trial of the Century.


(We cannot completely shut out V hearing earlier bits of the conversation, but I think if V would have heard about things like the aristocrat-friendly prestige class, he would have mentioned that to Elan to support his argument, even if it wasn't his real reason behind killing Kubota.)

In the quote above Kubota says nothing that would not befit an innocent Lawful Neutral - or even Lawful Good - high-status noble. Kubota's words give the impression that the trial is far from a sure thing, which - opposite to several people's arguments - in this case actually means that V was even less justified in killing Kubota without a trial.

The story from V's point of view:

(Forget everything you knew about Kubota, please.)

V sees Elan leading a bound Azurite nobleman. The Azurite nobleman says that after a trial of several weeks the court will find him innocent. Elan is known not to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

V decides that "several weeks" of a trial of another person is too much for V to endure, so V kills the Azurite nobleman in a way that is very permanent and leaves little in the way of evidence. When Elan turns out to be upset because of the sudden murder, V suggests Elan lie about the episode. However, when Elan seems to be deeply bothered by the morality of the act itself and not just what the paladin would do if he heard about it, V tries to intimidate Elan into keeping his mouth shut by threatening to murder him too if he doesn't comply. However, Elan fails to understand the threat, and instead of belaboring the point, V departs from his presence.

(Not on screen but likely to have happened: V sees paladins canvassing every inch of the the ship with Detect Evil.) Some time later in the same night, V bids a chilly farewell to Elan and Durkon and leaves the ship with whatever he has managed to pack, not intending to ever return.

---------

I think V is very definitely evil nowadays, I think Neutral Evil. He's not bubbling at the border of Neutrality; he's fallen into Evil and no questions about it. In fact, the new V reminds me of Xykon. The difference is that V is a colder type of Evil.

And as for the spoilered thing, the bird cage thing has nothing to do with my view...

Why V being a lich is a position consistent with the facts (short version):

1. V looks so unhealthy with grayish, cracked skin because he's dead.

2. V can be efficient and forgo trancing with no ill effects (including anything that gives him an additional skin condition) because he's now an undead and the undead never need sleep or trance.

3. V has damage reduction which explains how the pit fiend didn't manage to make scratches on him when it hit him twice with its claw attacks. If that's not enough, he also now has a d12 hitdie, making him a lot less squishy. Note that he refused Durkon's offer of healing. The undead are harmed by positive energy.

4. Becoming a lich turns one evil. Notice how V has been acting lately?

[Scion_of_Darkness]

I would have to say V is currently neutral, drifting towards evil. I already posted elsewhere my idea about V joining Xykon and V turning evil fits in with that.

[Studoku]

I would say Lawful Neutral, using the definition of Lawful where it is about discipline rather than obeying laws.

[David Argall]

V himself admitted that he didn't know who Kubota was. He also didn't know what Kubota's crime was.
He also knew he didn't need to.

“Your strict adherence to dramatic convention has proven to me…that you only bother to take captive the main vilains of any encounter…The man I kill was bound, and you were holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort, and therefore a valid target.”

V didn't know whether Kubota had killed A, B, or both. He did know that Kubota had done something worthy of death. And that is all he needed to know.
On the basis of what he did know, killing Kubota could be deemed a CG deed. It is certainly not evil. it was just not lawful.



In the quote above Kubota says nothing that would not befit an innocent Lawful Neutral - or even Lawful Good - high-status noble. Kubota's words give the impression that the trial is far from a sure thing, which - opposite to several people's arguments - in this case actually means that V was even less justified in killing Kubota without a trial.
No. We know, and V knew, that Kubota was guilty beyond question. If there was danger of his getting off, there was danger of a perversion of justice, and justification for killing him.


V sees Elan leading a bound Azurite nobleman. The Azurite nobleman says that after a trial of several weeks the court will find him innocent. Elan is known not to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Elan is known to closely follow dramatic convention. He does not need to know anything. He simply follows such conventions without thought. Thus there is simply no chance this is some sort of innocent noble. He is definitely guilty of very major crime.



(Not on screen but likely to have happened: V sees paladins canvassing every inch of the the ship with Detect Evil.) Some time later in the same night, V bids a chilly farewell to Elan and Durkon and leaves the ship with whatever he has managed to pack, not intending to ever return.
Total speculation. An immediate problem is that there are only two known paladins, who have a great many other duties. Another is that V had to be dragged from her research, and her chance to notice these paladins was about zero.


Why V being a lich is a position consistent with the facts (short version):

1. V looks so unhealthy with grayish, cracked skin because he's dead.
V consistently looks worse from event to event. That is inconsistent with the idea she is a lich.


2. V can be efficient and forgo trancing with no ill effects (including anything that gives him an additional skin condition) because he's now an undead and the undead never need sleep or trance.
On the available evidence, a lich is no more efficient, and is likely less efficient.


3. V has damage reduction which explains how the pit fiend didn't manage to make scratches on him when it hit him twice with its claw attacks. If that's not enough, he also now has a d12 hitdie, making him a lot less squishy. Note that he refused Durkon's offer of healing. The undead are harmed by positive energy.
But V was scratched in the fight.


4. Becoming a lich turns one evil. Notice how V has been acting lately?

There is no such requirement. The process is described as very evil, and so those who undergo it are going to be evil anyway, but the process itself does not change alignments.
Nor do we have any evidence of evil actions.

And of course, we have no evidence of how V became a lich, nor evidence that V could profit from such an idea.

[evileeyore]

There is no such requirement. The process is described as very evil, and so those who undergo it are going to be evil anyway, but the process itself does not change alignments.
Nor do we have any evidence of evil actions.

Also there have been stories of Good Liches, Heroic mages (or more often Clerics) who have become Undead to continue the neverending fight against Evil.

And no, I'm not looking up which stories or world books. Suffice to say there were Good Liches in both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms cannon. Probably other D&D campaing worlds too.

[Nerdanel]

V didn't know whether Kubota had killed A, B, or both. He did know that Kubota had done something worthy of death. And that is all he needed to know.
On the basis of what he did know, killing Kubota could be deemed a CG deed. It is certainly not evil. it was just not lawful.

Elan is known to closely follow dramatic convention. He does not need to know anything. He simply follows such conventions without thought. Thus there is simply no chance this is some sort of innocent noble. He is definitely guilty of very major crime.

It is part of dramatic convention to have occasional surprise twists. A hero is not guaranteed to always be right, and few characters in the strip (like :mitd: and :thog:) would be easier to dupe than Elan of the low int and low wis. Indeed, Elan is perfectly capable of duping himself by accident.

It is fairly likely that Elan did catch a real villain. But then, V only KILLED Kubota and DISPERSED THE ASHES so that Kubota isn't going to be resurrected by anyone any time soon, no matter if everyone is really sorry and wants their pillar of community back. It is unknown if the entire planet has a cleric capable of casting True Resurrection. If there is, Redcloak is probably it. Durkon would have to do quite a bit of adventuring to get to that level.



No. We know, and V knew, that Kubota was guilty beyond question. If there was danger of his getting off, there was danger of a perversion of justice, and justification for killing him.

We don't actually know Kubota was "guilty beyond question". And if he was guilty, he might not have been guilty of something that had the death penalty in Azure City. Not all villains are murderers and the like. Perhaps Kubota had merely filched money from Crown coffers to fund his lifestyle and his true function in the detective story side plot for Elan had been nothing but a red herring to make things more complex. Be careful not to ascribe out-of-character knowledge to V. A character exclaiming that a trial will establish his innocence doesn't have to mean that the character has subverted the courts. It could also mean that the character is good at positive thinking even though he has no real case. And, you know, it could also mean that the character is innocent and believes that justice will vindicate him.

But hey, if you think suspicion is proof of guilt, let's just dispense with slow, costly, less than 100% reliable, and most of all BORING trials altogether and just shoot anyone the police catches. (Do you see the problem here?)

I think V's "Disintegrate. Gust of Wind." was a Chaotic Evil act and V himself was Neutral Evil at the time.


Total speculation. An immediate problem is that there are only two known paladins, who have a great many other duties. Another is that V had to be dragged from her research, and her chance to notice these paladins was about zero.

V must have been dragged from his research by SOMETHING, or else he didn't research at all and only packed his packs. And the paladins were going through the whole ship searching for a small, invisible devil. They would have gone to V's room too and he would have noticed them knocking.



V consistently looks worse from event to event. That is inconsistent with the idea she is a lich.

V first had bags under his eyes while his skin was the natural color. Later on his skin became grayish and cracked. I think the first is fatigue, the second is undeath. It's not like there was a smooth transition between the two.


On the available evidence, a lich is no more efficient, and is likely less efficient.

Any efficiency loss in V's build is a long-term matter due to him now having a level adjustment. Becoming a lich makes him a lot more powerful and smarter RIGHT NOW. And a lich V can skip trancing without any additional ill effects.


But V was scratched in the fight.

Look more carefully. The scuff mark had been on V's robe for a good while. I think it's simple dirt. And when a pit fiend claws TWICE a squishy living elf wizard (of a level too low to really fight a pit fiend, a not-so-great con, and only a few rounds worth of notice before the pit fiend attacks) I would expect some fairly large and visible lines on the wizard's body.


There is no such requirement. The process is described as very evil, and so those who undergo it are going to be evil anyway, but the process itself does not change alignments.
Nor do we have any evidence of evil actions.

If the process itself is a major evil deed, it has the power to shift an alignment in a big way. The lich template itself says "Any Evil" for the alignment. V has in the past shown himself willing to consider evil actions if they are practical, such as binding Nale's soul to a gem. Chronic fatigue would then compound V's likelihood of doing something irreversible.

In my opinion I've already made an argument for recent evil actions by V.


And of course, we have no evidence of how V became a lich, nor evidence that V could profit from such an idea.

He has had the time, he has never been seen to spend much of his share of the treasure, and you only need to take a look at the lich template to see how it would profit a power-hungry wizard.

[xelliea]

V did not detect as evil

[Corwin Weber]

Even as a Neutral character, V can occasionally commit evil acts without an alignment shift. That's part of being neutral. If these acts start to form a pattern, then you're looking at a shift toward evil.

The problem is that we are starting to see such a pattern. He killed a bound prisoner in cold blood and threatened one of hir own party members if they 'got in the way' which is itself a pretty classic evil trope.

I still have to go with the option that V isn't currently actually evil.... but is definitely headed that direction.

[Winged One]

I don't actually think I know V's current alignment, but I feel I should at least correct this:
Last time I checked, wizards werent able to be of the chaotic alignment.
That must have been a long time ago, because that hasn't been the case in any edition of the game from 3.0 on(I don't know about 2nd or 1st edition).

[Kish]

Wasn't the case in 2ed either, or 1ed, or 0ed D&D-no-A. It's a very "wha?" assertion.

[David Argall]

It is part of dramatic convention to have occasional surprise twists.
And here the surprise twist is that Kubota gets offed so suddenly.


A hero is not guaranteed to always be right, and few characters in the strip (like :mitd: and :thog:) would be easier to dupe than Elan of the low int and low wis. Indeed, Elan is perfectly capable of duping himself by accident.
Elan is also capable of being Voice of God, in particular in the matter of dramatic conventions. All we see in the comic says that V was correct in judging Elan to have correctly judged the situation.


It is fairly likely that Elan did catch a real villain.
Fairly likely? We have been reading the same comic, haven't we?


We don't actually know Kubota was "guilty beyond question". And if he was guilty, he might not have been guilty of something that had the death penalty in Azure City.
Just how could Kubota be shown to be more guilty without messing up the comic? We see the man issuing orders for the death of Elan, plotting death traps, and grumbing when they don't work out. He is flatly guilty of several dozen counts of murder, treason, ....



Be careful not to ascribe out-of-character knowledge to V.
I don't need to. She tells us what she knows, and within the logic of the comic, it is quite sufficient to label Kubota as "shoot on sight".


But hey, if you think suspicion is proof of guilt, let's just dispense with slow, costly, less than 100% reliable, and most of all BORING trials altogether and just shoot anyone the police catches. (Do you see the problem here?)
Yes. The police are not ruled by the same conventions as Elan is, and do arrest innocent people. So V could not morally dust a prisoner they had arrested.


V must have been dragged from his research by SOMETHING, or else he didn't research at all and only packed his packs. And the paladins were going through the whole ship searching for a small, invisible devil. They would have gone to V's room too and he would have noticed them knocking.
Now from our available evidence, V does not have a door to knock on. V seems to reside in the ship's hold and there is a set of stairs leading into it. Now that does make it possible for Lien to be seen as she detects evil all over the ship, but it means it is very easy for her to have detected evil on V in the process. Recall here that Detect Evil is virtually impossible to detect. The party members do not notice Miko detecting evil on them. They merely react to her statements about what she discovers. So V would only see Lien wandering into the room and standing around, if she noticed Lien at all. And since V does concentrate on research, he is quite likely not to notice.

So the basic presumption here is that Lien did scan V, and thus she is neither evil, nor a lich.




V first had bags under his eyes while his skin was the natural color. Later on his skin became grayish and cracked. I think the first is fatigue, the second is undeath. It's not like there was a smooth transition between the two.
SOD We do have a case of lich making in SoD, and it is a quick transition. Xykon goes from healthier looking than V is now to a skeleton in a matter of rounds. One can claim other cases of lich making will have different results and processes, but the presumption is that SoD rejects the V as lich idea.


Any efficiency loss in V's build is a long-term matter due to him now having a level adjustment. Becoming a lich makes him a lot more powerful and smarter RIGHT NOW. And a lich V can skip trancing without any additional ill effects.
This is a guess. There are no rules for converting a PC into a lich, and the basic rule is that a PC should not be tremendously more powerful than the others in the party. So if the PC suddenly gains all the powers of the lich, it is entirely reasonable for the DM to rule he loses some of his old powers in order to maintain game balance.
And we do have our lich saying the rules do not allow him to use more than the 8 hours that V could use anyway.


In my opinion I've already made an argument for recent evil actions by V.
Your opinion is only your opinion. why should we share it?


He has had the time, he has never been seen to spend much of his share of the treasure, and you only need to take a look at the lich template to see how it would profit a power-hungry wizard.
I look. I see little that would interest a wizard interested in arcane power, which is what V wants.

[Saint Nil]

For all the V=lich fans, has anyone yet mentioned that V has BANNED NECROMANCY!?
We have seen him cast from every school of magi but Conjuration and Necromancy, and he has said so himself that he is a specilized mage, and we know it is either Evoction or enchanment due to Pompey banning those classes, equalling evil opposite.

[Prak]

In 599, she is willing to deny there is any value to the lives of the common folk, unlike 213 where he merely calls their value small. Again we see alignment movement in a non-good direction.
V regularly denies the value of anyone's lives, other than his/her own. That's not evil, that just arrogant, and V has been arrogant since the very first strips.

[gibbedman]

I think any thread about character alignment has gone awry if we don't talk about how a player playing V would look at him/her.

V may be about to take some big leaps into some evil acts, and, if so, she/he knows what those acts will be, as V and his/her player are meticulous in planning. In order to show that the character is willing to perform those acts, the player may make an alignment change. There is no strict mechanism for those things, but if I were a responsible player about to have as sharp of a change as "I was willing to be morally grey and not really do any damage" to "Forget the rest of the world, I'm doing what I want" I'd have a chat with my DM and say, "I think my character needs to be evil to do the things he would do"

Has V already put a that 'E' on his/her character sheet? I think only time will tell.

You don't need to be evil (in a DnD world) to kill someone who wasn't all that good of a guy and who was going to be more trouble than he's worth. You do need to be evil to meddle with creating undead or commit a genocide of a non-evil race.

[FujinAkari]

For all the V=lich fans, has anyone yet mentioned that V has BANNED NECROMANCY!?

While I also think the idea that V is a lich is dumb, I am compelled to note that SoD makes it clear that...

Becoming a Lich requires no actual spellcasting... meaning that barring necromancy isn't actually a factor.

[Forealms]

V was also positively gloating at the idea of Miko having perished in the fire

First, Miko was taking control of the party and giving them NO control over their actions. In fact, she would have killed them upon first sight had she had the opportunity and the motive. Vaarsuvius certainly has no reason to like such a person.

If you'd like an example, would it be evil or chaotic for Frodo and Gandalf and them to cheer at the death of Sauron? Sauron (as was Miko) was clearly oppressive.


and not only suggested killing the Linear Guild in cold blood but went on to question what the problem would be with binding their souls against being raised.

If I remember correctly, she specifically stated she was representing the halfling's viewpoint.

If that isn't convincing enough for your tastes, let me give you this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html), this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0360.html), and this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html). If Vaarsuvius has half of my intellectual abilities (which i daresay he/she does), then he/she would clearly recognize the threat Nale has shown in the past as well as his clearly evil tendencies. While it may not exactly be a super Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) act to kill him whilst defenseless, it could potentially save countless lives in the future. By that logic, Vaarsuvius would probably be about the same alignment as Lord Shojo. That is, removing a threat unlawfully but with good intentions.

[Optimystik]

V sees Elan leading a bound Azurite nobleman. The Azurite nobleman says that after a trial of several weeks the court will find him innocent. Elan is known not to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

You are assuming, as are too many people, that V is basing his assessment on Elan's deductive skills. This is not the case. V himself said he was relying on Elan's dramatic instincts to have tied up an actual criminal.

I'm not disputing that V's reaction was extreme (making it evil) - I'm saying it was thoroughly premeditated, like every other action he takes. Therefore, it is unlikely that V is Chaotic.

[Nerdanel]

And here the surprise twist is that Kubota gets offed so suddenly.

V wouldn't have known that his interference was the only surprise twist. Surprise twists are surprises, after all, and there is no rule limiting them to one per plot thread.


Elan is also capable of being Voice of God, in particular in the matter of dramatic conventions. All we see in the comic says that V was correct in judging Elan to have correctly judged the situation.

The island orcs were like Elan himself - not too hard to dupe. Notice that Therkla wasn't fooled. The island orcs probably all had low mental stats and about zero points in spot and sense motive.


Fairly likely? We have been reading the same comic, haven't we?

"Fairly likely" based on the information V has available. I'd put the probability at about 70%. We have both been reading the comic where "Elan" is involved in the capture of "Nale" in Cliffport, haven't we? Or is this point invalid because of the role of the police? In any case Elan doesn't exactly have that extensive record in capturing villains even if he has managed to beat and capture Nale twice. I wouldn't be confident in making snap-second life-or-death choices on that level of statistic information, especially when the situation wasn't urgent at all.


Just how could Kubota be shown to be more guilty without messing up the comic? We see the man issuing orders for the death of Elan, plotting death traps, and grumbing when they don't work out. He is flatly guilty of several dozen counts of murder, treason, ....

V has seen none of that. Characters in OOTS cannot act with out-of-character knowledge since they don't have it in the first place. Those panel borders aren't transparent, you know.


Now from our available evidence, V does not have a door to knock on. V seems to reside in the ship's hold and there is a set of stairs leading into it.

How do you know V doesn't have a cabin?




SOD We do have a case of lich making in SoD, and it is a quick transition. Xykon goes from healthier looking than V is now to a skeleton in a matter of rounds. One can claim other cases of lich making will have different results and processes, but the presumption is that SoD rejects the V as lich idea.

SoD
When Xykon becomes a lich, his skin cracks suddenly. After that, Xykon rips off his own flesh. It doesn't just fall off. Later in the book Xykon mentions ripping off his own flesh, so it must have been an act of volition. He could have kept wearing his dead and diseased flesh but he chose not to.

V has cracks in his skin. For all we know, they appeared suddenly as his skin dried up when it became undead. For him, however, ripping his own flesh makes no sense at all as long as he can pass himself off as a living, if dangerously sickly, elf. The paladins around him aren't in the habit of using detect evil all the time, but they would notice a walking skeleton.




This is a guess. There are no rules for converting a PC into a lich, and the basic rule is that a PC should not be tremendously more powerful than the others in the party. So if the PC suddenly gains all the powers of the lich, it is entirely reasonable for the DM to rule he loses some of his old powers in order to maintain game balance.

As per RAW, becoming a lich requires time, XP, money, the Craft Wondrous Item feat, a caster level of at least 11, and willingness to do something unspeakably evil. After that, the template is added on the base creature, in this case V. We know that V acquired books for getting himself rules about researching spells, which may have included the information about researching lichdom. As the OOTS world is very blatant about working by D&D rules, V needs only to know which rules to apply, and then if something works by the rules the details take care of themselves.


And we do have our lich saying the rules do not allow him to use more than the 8 hours that V could use anyway.

But he doesn't have to trance anymore. I'm not saying V was entirely in his right mind when he became a lich.


I look. I see little that would interest a wizard interested in arcane power, which is what V wants.

+2 to int, which increases spell DCs and gives bonus spells. Ability to take epic feats four levels early. Most of the rest is stuff that makes V less squishy and better at surviving, which in turn makes it possible for him to take on greater challenges.

[Yukitsu]

"Fairly likely" based on the information V has available. I'd put the probability at about 70%. We have both been reading the comic where "Elan" is involved in the capture of "Nale" in Cliffport, haven't we? Or is this point invalid because of the role of the police? In any case Elan doesn't exactly have that extensive record in capturing villains even if he has managed to beat and capture Nale twice. I wouldn't be confident in making snap-second life-or-death choices on that level of statistic information, especially when the situation wasn't urgent at all.


The difference there isn't the police. It's the speech that was given by the respective "bad guys".

[David Argall]

The island orcs were like Elan himself - not too hard to dupe. Notice that Therkla wasn't fooled. The island orcs probably all had low mental stats and about zero points in spot and sense motive.
You may be misunderstanding what "Voice of God" means. It is not a reference to the island situation. Rather it is a more general case where the character speaks as the voice of the writer, explaining facts to the reader, which are not to be doubted. Any character can be Voice of God in the right circumstances.



"Fairly likely" based on the information V has available. I'd put the probability at about 70%. Elan doesn't exactly have that extensive record in capturing villains even if he has managed to beat and capture Nale twice. I wouldn't be confident in making snap-second life-or-death choices on that level of statistic information, especially when the situation wasn't urgent at all.
You are assuming you have all the relevant information here, which is clearly wrong. Elan and V have associated for closing in on 2 years, and we have total information that amounts to 1 day of that period. We can hope we have the more important periods in that time, but we still have about 1/10 of 1% of their association.
More important, V is acting here as "Sherlock Holmes". [We note that V says "simplicity itself" here, possibly a reference to the Holmes "elementary".] She deducts correctly on very little evidence what others can't on much more. Whether or not the evidence presented is at all adequate, the logic of the story decrees it is entirely adequate. Any flaw in the logic is story flaw, not flaw by V.



V has seen none of that.
V does not need to have seen any of that. Story logic is that Elan Only ties up major villains, people it is morally reasonable to just kill.



How do you know V doesn't have a cabin?
What would V do with a cabin? He doesn't sleep or trance.





SoD


When Xykon becomes a lich, his skin cracks suddenly. After that, Xykon rips off his own flesh. It doesn't just fall off. Later in the book Xykon mentions ripping off his own flesh, so it must have been an act of volition. He could have kept wearing his dead and diseased flesh but he chose not to.

It is an act of volition, but apparently not an act of literal ripping of living flesh. His skin is shown cracking at a tremendous rate, like something extremely brittle. Xykon goes from no cracks to far more than V has in approximately 2 rounds.

[QUOTE=Nerdanel;5266898]
V has cracks in his skin. For all we know, they appeared suddenly as his skin dried up when it became undead.
But we see V's skin gradually getting worse, and V is under daily observation by his companions. There is no chance she has made a sudden skin change.



For him, however, ripping his own flesh makes no sense at all as long as he can pass himself off as a living, if dangerously sickly, elf. The paladins around him aren't in the habit of using detect evil all the time, but they would notice a walking skeleton.
Which brings up the next point. Undead Voice=White on Black. Standard for all undead. V is speaking the normal Black on White and is thus not undead.




But he doesn't have to trance anymore. I'm not saying V was entirely in his right mind when he became a lich.
He is not trancing anyway.



Ability to take epic feats four levels early.
This would only be the case if V was 17th level and her apparent level is 13 or 14. So V would not get Epic feats a moment early as a lich. And frankly, the epic feats do not look useful to V's research.



Most of the rest is stuff that makes V less squishy and better at surviving, which in turn makes it possible for him to take on greater challenges.
And which is irrelevant to V's research to contact Haley now. She is not wanting to go gain XP for a year and then see if Haley is still alive.

[Kranden]

I do believe V is chaotic, many of his actions do support this

Firing off explosive runes on Belkar, threatening to kill those who work with him a few times.

V's actions may be chaotic at times, but his ethics are logical at best. He does what has the highest probability of success especially if it benefiting himself. Killing Kubuto was not some act of good or evil in intent, only a logical one as he points out Elan always captures the villains and it always leads to disaster and more wasted time for Vaarsuvius.

Vaarsuvious is interested only in becoming more powerful, yes at times he will care for and watch the back of his comardes but by doing so it insures his own survival and progression into far more power than he could attain by himself. Obviously now he feels that his power progression is being hindered by those he considered allies. Finding Haley is his drive for success manifesting himself, failure is not an option for V if he can help it.

Vaarsuvius is an egomaniac, Elan is one of the first people to actually point out that HE IS WRONG! I don't think for all of his Intelligence he can comprehend the fact that he may be wrong about something. This was the final straw for him.

[Optimystik]

I just don't see V as Chaotic. Sure, a chaotic person can plan SOME things, but V premeditates every single action - the explosive runes stints, his role in combat, even the scrying research. The most spontaneous thing he ever did was threatening Elan on the boat, and even the glow is no proof that he would've made good on his threat.

I might even have pegged him as lawful, except he has no regard for any authority except Roy's (a fact borne out by his self-emancipation in Roy's absence.)

[Nerdanel]

Argh! I had a long reply nearly finished when my browser crashed, taking the reply with it...

I'm too tired to redo the whole thing, so here's some of the major points:

:elan: "What did you DO?"

:vaarsuvius:" I saved us all from a second tedious trial scene. I would think you would be exceedingly grateful."

:elan: *sigh* "I guess - I guess it's for the best. I mean, we don't know for sure that he would've gotten away with it, but.. but I guess it's for the greater good. It's not like he didn't totally deserve it, but... it just feels so weird, even for a jerkhead like him."

:vaarsuvius: "Great elven gods, what are you blathering about?"

Here we see that Elan managed to totally blindside V with his talk about whether Kubota deserved it. V's initial reply was all about convenience and avoiding boredom, an Evil motive for murder. He didn't bring morally very questionable vigilante justice into it before Elan did.

:vaarsuvius: "According to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway."

"Probably" is the key word. V doesn't think himself a Sherlock Holmes and wasn't certain of the unidentified nobleman's guilt. He just didn't care. In any case, Elan the spoony bard would have been treated by the rest of the OOTS differently if he had a habit of catching major villains, and after he became a Dashing Swordsman there isn't much space in the plot for foiling major villains.

And anyway, this comic is too god for Elan or V to be Mary Sue type characters who can never do wrong. Elan can catch an innocent guy if the circumstances are against him.

If V takes the Item Familiar feat on level 15 and is a lich, he can arrange his skill points so that he can take Epic Spellcasting on level 18 when he gets his next feat. Epic Spellcasting = Ultimate Arcane Power? In any case it's way powerful and desirable for V.

[Optimystik]

If V takes the Item Familiar feat on level 15 and is a lich, he can arrange his skill points so that he can take Epic Spellcasting on level 18 when he gets his next feat. Epic Spellcasting = Ultimate Arcane Power? In any case it's way powerful and desirable for V.


I thought Item Familiar granted skill bonuses, which aren't the same as skill ranks. He would still have to be 21 to gain 24 ranks in the skills he needs for epic spellcasting.

In any case, I'm not disputing V's slide toward evil, just the "chaotic" part that people are tacking on arbitrarily.

[Forealms]

Vaarsuvious is interested only in becoming more powerful, yes at times he will care for and watch the back of his comardes but by doing so it insures his own survival and progression into far more power than he could attain by himself.

I don't believe V does not care about the party and instead finds them a means to an end. I believe V does care about the party, and will help them merely for the sake of it. Total cosmic power is just a convenient (and very pleasing) benefit.

But anyway, about V only caring about total power, I have these few comments:
1. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html), V has a deep concern over righting her actions with Elan.
2. Again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), V mentions her hard-earned friendship with Elan [which, admittedly, is shown later to be less important than helping Haley, and saving the world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html) in general (Good acts, no?)].
3. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0294.html), V willingly accompanies the party, even though the contract has been voided. (Not my strongest of arguments, but it's still a point in V's favor.)
4. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html), V is willing to postpone their mission to help Roy's sister.
5. Group hug. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0398.html) If V were concerned merely with the Order's ability to function, why would V be offering his/her "most sincere congratulations"? After all, Haley was functioning well enough without being able to speak, so why would V care if she suddenly could speak again?
6. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html), V states that she does not wish Haley to suffer any longer due to her lack of power (Okay, technically V says "will not let" instead of "does not wish", but the point is essentially the same).
7. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0505.html), V apologizes for overreacting.

I believe most of V's actions since then have been (rather extreme) cases of overreaction. I found that, while reading from 501 and on, V's actions are seeming more and more justifiable (with the notable exception of 597 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html)). Reading one after the other, V seems more logical, it's just that we have spent more time listening to Elan and Durkon that we have come to be more on their side. In any case, my belief is that Vaarsuvius is somewhere around Chaotic Good/Neutral

Chaotic Evil? No.

Edit: Also, on a side note, V expresses regret (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html) over not being able to save the lives of countless soldiers.

[Optimystik]

Sheesh.

Is anyone reading what I write?

Where are so many of you people getting the "chaotic" from?

Someone, anyone, convince me.

[Corwin Weber]

Sheesh.

Is anyone reading what I write?

Where are so many of you people getting the "chaotic" from?

Someone, anyone, convince me.

I'd say chaotic is a possibility, but then so is neutral evil.

I'd agree that while V has had some chaotic behavior, it's the sort that would fit under either chaotic or neutral. Chaotic isn't required.

[Yukitsu]

To answer your question Optimystic, and using the above as an example, no, no we are not.

[David Argall]

:vaarsuvius: "According to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway."

"Probably" is the key word.
The key words here are "According to your own words..."

V is not talking about her opinion, but about Elan's. In sum, he is saying "You agree he got what he deserved. So why object to details about how he got it?"



V doesn't think himself a Sherlock Holmes and wasn't certain of the unidentified nobleman's guilt.
Quite the contrary. V's view of himself is of greatly superior mental ability. And Panel 6 of 596 shows that V had no doubt on the subject of guilt. Elan only took captive those who could be properly killed.



Elan the spoony bard would have been treated by the rest of the OOTS differently if he had a habit of catching major villains, and after he became a Dashing Swordsman there isn't much space in the plot for foiling major villains.
Again you are trying to argue with the plot. The party members are well known for not doing the most sensible thing. If they did, there would be no story. So the presumption that only V noticed such a detail is entirely reasonable.


And anyway, this comic is too god for Elan or V to be Mary Sue type characters who can never do wrong. Elan can catch an innocent guy if the circumstances are against him.
The comic is mortal so of course it makes errors. And neither character is a Mary Sue. They simply have certain characteristics.


If V takes the Item Familiar feat on level 15 and is a lich, he can arrange his skill points so that he can take Epic Spellcasting on level 18 when he gets his next feat. Epic Spellcasting = Ultimate Arcane Power? In any case it's way powerful and desirable for V.
No, for several reasons.
A character with an elevated level like this has to pay for these levels, during which time he does not gain hp, feats, etc. If we assume V starts at 13, levels 14, 15, 16, & 17 are dead time during which nothing changes, unless she were not to get full lich powers right away. Only when he gets
18th does she start working on another feat. And he doesn't get one until
19th level.
I can't find Item Familiar feat off hand, but it almost certainly does not free the PC from the normal limit of level+3, and any sensible wizard has already maxed out the relevant skills.
A majority of Epic wizard feats require the wizard be able to cast 9th level spells, which would not happen before 21st level for our lich-wizard.

[Optimystik]

I'd say chaotic is a possibility, but then so is neutral evil.

I'd agree that while V has had some chaotic behavior, it's the sort that would fit under either chaotic or neutral. Chaotic isn't required.

You know, I think reading comprehension should be a mandatory part of every ISP's contract.


To answer your question Optimystic, and using the above as an example, no, no we are not.

You have won one (1) internet! Please redeem your coupon at the front desk.

[Corwin Weber]

You know, I think reading comprehension should be a mandatory part of every ISP's contract.



You have won one (1) internet! Please redeem your coupon at the front desk.

My reading is just fine, thanks. Possibly you'd like to check yours? I'm actually agreeing with you. V could be but does not have to be chaotic. Neutral is also possible. Whether V is evil in either case has yet to actually be demonstrated, although it seems highly likely to either already be the case, or to be rapidly forthcoming.

[David Argall]

Whether V is evil in either case has yet to actually be demonstrated, although it seems highly likely to either already be the case, or to be rapidly forthcoming.
A future change seems distinctly a danger. However, as has been pointed out, Lien went over the entire ship with Detect Evil, which means the odds are quite good she checked V, if only by accident. One can find ways for V to avoid this, but for the most part, these require V having been evil for some time, and being aware of being evil, not merely having drifted into it. So when last seen, the odds are strong that V is not evil.

[Optimystik]

My reading is just fine, thanks. Possibly you'd like to check yours? I'm actually agreeing with you. V could be but does not have to be chaotic. Neutral is also possible. Whether V is evil in either case has yet to actually be demonstrated, although it seems highly likely to either already be the case, or to be rapidly forthcoming.

I'm going to post this slowly.

What. Makes. You. Think. He. Could. Be. Chaotic?

That's all I'm asking for, is some reasoning. You're not agreeing with me if you think there's any possibility that he's chaotic, because I don't consider it to be possible in the slightest. And please note that I wasn't the only one to call you out for your response to my post. It wasn't worded as well as you seem to think.

[evileeyore]

Sheesh.

Is anyone reading what I write?

Ah... no.

What was your theory agian? i've been following Argyle and fighting my own wars agianst the forces of entropic stupidity, so I've probably missed what you;ve said...


Where are so many of you people getting the "chaotic" from?

I have no idea. I think Vaarsuvius is Lawful.

It's the Good/Evil axis I think Vaarsuvius is sliding down.

[Kish]

If V takes the Item Familiar feat on level 15 and is a lich, he can arrange his skill points so that he can take Epic Spellcasting on level 18 when he gets his next feat. Epic Spellcasting = Ultimate Arcane Power? In any case it's way powerful and desirable for V.

Why wouldn't s/he still have to be epic level to take Epic Spellcasting? Especially since Xykon apparently does have to be at least level 21, lich level adjustment notwithstanding?

[Lissibith]

Alas, poor V.

When did pragmatism become evil, any more than self-interest or selfishness?

V can be and often is selfish, and displays a surprising amount of practicality, even in the depths of whatever self-induced craziness he's in right now. Killing the lying, murdering, clever and very likely evil noble is a practical decision, in fitting with a long-standing tendency V seems to have of removing obstacles instead of essentially asking them to kindly step aside. But even now, even with all the "But he killed!!!" lines being thrown about, I see nothing inherently evil in that or most of his other actions. Grating, sure. frustrating, irritating, but still for what he considers the greater good.

Granted, the definition of greater good is becoming increasingly warped...

[Optimystik]

I have no idea. I think Vaarsuvius is Lawful.

It's the Good/Evil axis I think Vaarsuvius is sliding down.

That's precisely what I've been saying, although V's impatience with authority might preclude a truly lawful alignment. I think V was NG -> TN -> now bordering on NE.

It also seems he may ditch his raven and pick up that imp zooming toward him at the end of 599. (I actually hope so, the bird has been worse than useless.)


Why wouldn't s/he still have to be epic level to take Epic Spellcasting? Especially since Xykon apparently does have to be at least level 21, lich level adjustment notwithstanding?

I think Nerdanel was trying to get 24 skill ranks in the requisite skills (In V's case, Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft) without being level 21 so that V could qualify for the feat early, but the method he describes doesn't make this possible (unless I'm missing something huge.)

[Jophes]

I read most of the comments on this thread, but I'm going to stick with my guns to saying V is Neutral if not Chaotic Neutral. Never have seen any indication of pure evil, nor pure good... I dunno, I'm a big fan of V and I kinda like this "F this" attitude that V has recently.

[hamishspence]

My argument is- extreme pragmatism, of the murderous kind (willing to murder many innocents to save more innocents) crosses the line into Evil. D&D has followed this for a long time- 2nd ed, 1st ed, etc- with the classic example being burning the plague-village to save the country.

As far as we know, V isn't this pragmatic, yet.

The "Trials are Lawful, Chaotic people don't have to bother with them" claim seems to be the only evidence for the Chaoticness of V. And V seems much more methodical and logical, under most circumstances, than the more Chaotic Elan, Haley, Belkar.

[Shatteredtower]

It also seems he may ditch his raven and pick up that imp zooming toward him at the end of 599. (I actually hope so, the bird has been worse than useless.)

The bird probably holds a similar view concerning the wizard. :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

My argument is- extreme pragmatism, of the murderous kind (willing to murder many innocents to save more innocents) crosses the line into Evil. D&D has followed this for a long time- 2nd ed, 1st ed, etc- with the classic example being burning the plague-village to save the country.

As far as we know, V isn't this pragmatic, yet.

V's action (or more precisely, that of his index finger) definitely tipped the scales towards evil. He was not motivated by a desire to give Kubota his just desserts, but rather a desire to avoid wasting time on a trial. He further elected to abandon his friends (not to mention a fleet full of civilians in which he had once taken refuge) to an unknown fate on two occasions since the fall of Azure City, which is yet more textbook evil.


The "Trials are Lawful, Chaotic people don't have to bother with them" claim seems to be the only evidence for the Chaoticness of V. And V seems much more methodical and logical, under most circumstances, than the more Chaotic Elan, Haley, Belkar.

THANK YOU. My faith in humanity is being restored by your reasoning skills.

Seriously, half this thread had me questioning it.

[hamishspence]

While I personally agree aout his motivation, the words "deduced he was an enemy and therefore a valid target" were used.

I feel that "after the fact justification" seems a more plausible reason for these words than extrapolating from them a genuine concern for the needs of others.

V's personality traits seem strongly Lawful- its only the disregard for actual Laws that stands out.

[Yukitsu]

V's action (or more precisely, that of his index finger) definitely tipped the scales towards evil. He was not motivated by a desire to give Kubota his just desserts, but rather a desire to avoid wasting time on a trial. He further elected to abandon his friends (not to mention a fleet full of civilians in which he had once taken refuge) to an unknown fate on two occasions since the fall of Azure City, which is yet more textbook evil.

First case leaving wasn't evil. An unarmed squishy wizard who is out of spell slots isn't going to help, and as such abandoning them all wasn't really evil, unless you think that the good thing to do is run around being a liability. The second time, they were no longer being threatened (because V killed kubota) so abandoning hir freinds wasn't evil then either. If they were in danger, then leaving the fleet would have been evil.

As for that action being evil, only if you subscribe to the mess that is D&D ethics/morality.

[hamishspence]

How messy it is depends on point of view "no, you can't be That pragmatic and still be good" is a pretty common view.

Its a principle going way back- its not like its a new thing.

[Yukitsu]

How messy it is depends on point of view "no, you can't be That pragmatic and still be good" is a pretty common view.

Its a principle going way back- its not like its a new thing.

The level of pragmatics V has displayed isn't yet what I nor many people would consider overly pragmatic nor evil. Most moral models mention pragmatism as evil only when it hurts innocent people, not mass murderers/conspirators to mass murders.

[hamishspence]

Dexter? Pragmatism would say- let him keep doing it. Moralistic theory would say: "evil acts can be done to evil people- they don't suddenly become Neutral to good acts"

[hamishspence]

Kubota could claim "pragmatic" reasons for wanting Hinjo out of the way: No attempt to sue for peace with goblin army, fighting a losing battle that killed thousands of Azurites. Admittedly that could partly be because the nobles and their forces sat the battle out.

Doesn't change the fact the methods he used were evil, and killed ordinary soldiers (and one co-conspirator)

"pragmatism" all to easily becomes an excuse.

[Yukitsu]

Dexter? Pragmatism would say- let him keep doing it. Moralistic theory would say: "evil acts can be done to evil people- they don't suddenly become Neutral to good acts"

Dexter does it for entirely different reasons. Motive is important in both law and morals. V did it for a plethora of reasons, some good and some selfish, whereas Dexter derives no small amount of pleasure from killing people. There is a difference in the morality of the act itself dependant upon the reason that it is done.

In fact, the highest moral functioning isn't going with set rules, according to moral development theory, but in having a good reason to have done it.

[Yukitsu]

Kubota could claim "pragmatic" reasons for wanting Hinjo out of the way: No attempt to sue for peace with goblin army, fighting a losing battle that killed thousands of Azurites. Admittedly that could partly be because the nobles and their forces sat the battle out.

Doesn't change the fact the methods he used were evil, and killed ordinary soldiers (and one co-conspirator)

"pragmatism" all to easily becomes an excuse.

Pragmatism targeting innocents is different from pragmatism targeting non-innocents, as I brought up earlier.

[Optimystik]

First case leaving wasn't evil. An unarmed squishy wizard who is out of spell slots isn't going to help, and as such abandoning them all wasn't really evil, unless you think that the good thing to do is run around being a liability. The second time, they were no longer being threatened (because V killed kubota) so abandoning hir freinds wasn't evil then either. If they were in danger, then leaving the fleet would have been evil.

As for that action being evil, only if you subscribe to the mess that is D&D ethics/morality.

To quote V, "You misunderstand as usual."

I wasn't referring to him huddling with the masses to escape Azure City, I was referring to his abandonment of Lien to the hungry orc tribe because Durkon and Elan were distracting him. That was the first instance. The second of course is him flying away from the whole ordeal in 599. Yes Kubota is dead, but the fleet is far from safe, and his leaving constituted a lack of care for the near-defenseless refugees.

[Lloyd]

Setting off Explosive Runes on Belkar, the stablemaster, and attempting to set them off on Miko, might possibly fit.

I dunno. V's intent there seemed to be for annoyance (Okay, maybe not in Miko's case...), not to kill. I would call that more of a chaotic move instead of an evil one.

[Yukitsu]

To quote V, "You misunderstand as usual."

I wasn't referring to him huddling with the masses to escape Azure City, I was referring to his abandonment of Lien to the hungry orc tribe because Durkon and Elan were distracting him. That was the first instance. The second of course is him flying away from the whole ordeal in 599. Yes Kubota is dead, but the fleet is far from safe, and his leaving constituted a lack of care for the near-defenseless refugees.

Lien isn't a comrade of V's, so that case isn't really a matter of abandonment of the party. Ellan and Durkon, at the time of V's apathy were both fine, so the argument that leaving a person you don't have a personal or professional obligation to go to save doesn't really apply. Saying so is forcing V to assume tentative allies as freinds, which isn't the case, which is why by my reading, that case doesn't fit your own criteria of abandoning freinds.

In the second case, the fleet hasn't met any threats unrelated to Kubota, and V isn't obligated to help people who are essentially being unkind to hir. Sure, and altruist might do so, but a neutral person would not defend the lives of people who constantly criticize them when they are actually right.

[Optimystik]

I dunno. V's intent there seemed to be for annoyance (Okay, maybe not in Miko's case...), not to kill. I would call that more of a chaotic move instead of an evil one.

The ER incident was a very premeditated act of revenge inspired by a deliberate desire to both repay a grudge and correct Belkar's behavior towards him. There was no spontaneity, no emotion, and V even justified his actions via psychoanalysis to Durkon as an attempt to recondition Belkar's mind. NO part of that was chaotic.

[Optimystik]

Lien isn't a comrade of V's, so that case isn't really a matter of abandonment of the party. Ellan and Durkon, at the time of V's apathy were both fine, so the argument that leaving a person you don't have a personal or professional obligation to go to save doesn't really apply. Saying so is forcing V to assume tentative allies as freinds, which isn't the case, which is why by my reading, that case doesn't fit your own criteria of abandoning freinds.

Durkon: "What if she dies, Vaarsuvius? What then?"
V: "Then I suppose you will need to raise her, who knows?...Either way, it is hardly my concern. Fly!"

Abandoning people in danger to their fate - not just friends - is evil.


In the second case, the fleet hasn't met any threats unrelated to Kubota, and V isn't obligated to help people who are essentially being unkind to hir. Sure, and altruist might do so, but a neutral person would not defend the lives of people who constantly criticize them when they are actually right.

Durkon: "We need ye!"
V: "Yet I see no reason why I need ye. You."

More neutral than the last, yet still uncaring.

EDIT: I apologize for the double post, I thought the last one actually didn't go through (stupid computer logged me out.)

[Yukitsu]

Durkon: "What if she dies, Vaarsuvius? What then?"
V: "Then I suppose you will need to raise her, who knows?...Either way, it is hardly my concern. Fly!"

Abandoning people in danger to their fate - not just friends - is evil.

No, it's neutral. If I don't care about someone, I would have to put myself at risk to save them, and yet I save them anyway, that would be good. If I don't think the problem relates to me, which it doesn't, I'm neutral. If I actively try to make things worse, I'd be evil.


More neutral than the last, yet still uncaring.

Neutral is frequently described as uncaring, which describes V to the T. Uncaring isn't evil. It's the definition of neutral.

[hamishspence]

Uncaring fits Neutral Evil better- see PHB. Neutral people care, but much more about their friends than anyone else "will risk themselves for friends/country but not strangers"

Not attacking Kubota at all because "not my problem" wouldn't that be Neutral by your definition?

Killing is difficult to reverse except in the Tippyverse, and V made it as hard to reverse as possible.

as for belief that its "for the greater good" and deaths from Kubota are responsibility of the heroes for not killing him- doesn't necessarily follow.

Thats the Hostage Dilemma, and the classic solution is- don't treat hostages as having that kind of a claim. No-one has the right to demand you commit evil acts.

[Yukitsu]

Uncaring fits Neutral Evil better- see PHB. Neutral people care, but much more about their friends than anyone else "will risk themselves for friends/country but not strangers"

Lien/the azurites are not V's freinds nor is their fleet hir country. Uncaring is only evil if it's relevant to you. So basically all this means is V would be evil, if they gave V a reason to care about them.


Not attacking Kubota at all because "not my problem" wouldn't that be Neutral by your definition?

I do believe the constant interuptions caused by kubota were in fact V's problem.


Killing is difficult to reverse except in the Tippyverse, and V made it as hard to reverse as possible.

I think that was intentional.


as for belief that its "for the greater good" and deaths from Kubota are responsibility of the heroes for not killing him- doesn't necessarily follow.

Thats the Hostage Dilemma, and the classic solution is- don't treat hostages as having that kind of a claim. No-one has the right to demand you commit evil acts.

I don't really care to say it necessarily follows. I merely have to show that it can follow and be ethical is true, because V can indeed take responsibility to Kubota and as such kill him without being unethical. Also, hostage dilemma assumes that you gain something from the hostage being alive.

[Optimystik]

No, it's neutral. If I don't care about someone, I would have to put myself at risk to save them, and yet I save them anyway, that would be good. If I don't think the problem relates to me, which it doesn't, I'm neutral. If I actively try to make things worse, I'd be evil.

You're forgetting one thing:

He knows Lien is in danger. He even acknowledges the possibility of her death.

If you know someone is in imminent danger, refusing to help isn't neutral, it's EVIL.

V may still be neutral overall, but trust me, he is hanging on by a thread.

[Yukitsu]

You're forgetting one thing:

He knows Lien is in danger. He even acknowledges the possibility of her death.

If you know someone is in imminent danger, refusing to help isn't neutral, it's EVIL.

V may still be neutral overall, but trust me, he is hanging on by a thread.

As a citizen, I know that a bank is being robbed and I see on the television that neigbor Bob, who I don't really like is being held at gunpoint. Why am I suddenly morally responsible for his safety?

There isn't any moral theory anywhere that states that not risking my life to save others is immoral. Find me one that is respected in any way that does. You can't call someone immoral for not risking their lives to help someone they don't care about.

[Optimystik]

As a citizen,

There's the flaw in your analogy. V is not just a citizen, he is a PC with considerable arcane power. With that power comes the responsibility to employ it. Liking Lien has nothing to do with the fact that she is in mortal peril.

I repeat, not caring when you see an innocent in danger and you have the power to prevent it, is evil.

[Kish]

I do believe the constant interuptions caused by kubota were in fact V's problem.
Vaarsuvius made a point of the fact that s/he didn't know that until Elan told him/her, after Kubota was dead.

[Yukitsu]

There's the flaw in your analogy. V is not just a citizen, he is a PC with considerable arcane power. With that power comes the responsibility to employ it. Liking Lien has nothing to do with the fact that she is in mortal peril.

I repeat, not caring when you see an innocent in danger and you have the power to prevent it, is evil.

I happen to have a rifle and am a decent enough shot to have helped neigbor Bob. However, that doesn't make me obligated to do it. Having power doesn't make one resonsible to use it to help others, and while doing so is morally good, V is still just a citizen who has no real reason to help the Azurites. Not doing it is neutral, not evil. Unless you want to say that I as a citizen with the powers of a person with a gun are responsible to help other people via vigilante applications of said powers, but that kind of defeats the arguments against V's killing of Kubota.

Again, name me one well proposed moral model that states I have to help people that are not part of my life, if it's to my detriment.

As for V not knowing about Kubota until afterwards, I suppose that is true. However, not being morally obligated to do something still doesn't make it evil if you do do it.

[Optimystik]

I happen to have a rifle and am a decent enough shot to have helped neigbor Bob. However, that doesn't make me obligated to do it. Having power doesn't make one resonsible to use it to help others, and while doing so is morally good, V is still just a citizen who has no real reason to help the Azurites. Not doing it is neutral, not evil. Unless you want to say that I as a citizen with the powers of a person with a gun are responsible to help other people via vigilante applications of said powers, but that kind of defeats the arguments against V's killing of Kubota.

Again, name me one well proposed moral model that states I have to help people that are not part of my life, if it's to my detriment.

The key issue here is the imminent harm. Lien was in clear and present danger, and not doing anything to help her goes beyond mere indifference - it requires a genuine lack of good morals.

I am Superman. As I fly overhead, I see a bank robber about to kill a helpless teller. Your argument is that stating "I don't care!" and flying onward is a neutral act. It is not.

[Zevox]

I'm with the group that considers V True Neutral, although I'd add I believe she has lawful tendencies, and most recently has developed evil tendencies, and may be headed towards actually changing to an evil alignment. What she has done thus far though isn't enough to cause a full shift yet though, at least not in my eyes. She has certainly become more selfish and less concerned for others recently, but there's really no comparison between her and known evil characters like Redcloak, Tsukiko, or Belkar. It's even possible her current mental condition is in no small part due to her lack of sleep/reverie/trancing/whatever. She's just not thinking straight (what, after all, could convince her that Durkon and Elan were actually hindering her efforts to contact Haley?).

I also think the "V has become a Lich" theory is preposterous. There is just far too little evidence, far easier ways to explain that evidence, and absolutely no logical explanation for why she would want to become one. None of the benefits would be of any great help to her - the increased hp and physical durability in general would be the best of it, and she could no doubt replicate that with a spell or two if she really wanted it - and the drawbacks are far and away too great (all the xp and money she'd have to sacrifice that could be put to much better use, the level adjustment slowing her growth as a Wizard, the risk of being completely ostracized from the Order, not to mention the potential ramifications when she finally returns to her mate...). Granted, she isn't thinking straight right now, but I don't think her wits have failed her quite that badly yet.

Zevox

[Yukitsu]

The key issue here is the imminent harm. Lien was in clear and present danger, and not doing anything to help her goes beyond mere indifference - it requires a genuine lack of good morals.

Imminant was not true, as V didn't see where she was. And Bob is in imminant danger just the same, and I wouldn't have a lack of good morals.


I am Superman. As I fly overhead, I see a bank robber about to kill a helpless teller. Your argument is that stating "I don't care!" and flying onward is a neutral act. It is not.

Yes, it is. Evil states that ignoring freinds and nation is immoral, not strangers. And superman is in no risk, whereas V is.

[David Argall]

As a citizen, I know that a bank is being robbed and I see on the television that neigbor Bob, who I don't really like is being held at gunpoint. Why am I suddenly morally responsible for his safety?

There isn't any moral theory anywhere that states that not risking my life to save others is immoral. Find me one that is respected in any way that does. You can't call someone immoral for not risking their lives to help someone they don't care about.

Of course I can, and so will just about any moral system. You have a duty to help when your help can be efficiency useful.
There are a number of pragmatic limitations here of course. What can you really do to help neighbor Bob the hostage? Do you have any of the useful skills? Equipment? If you rushed down to the bank, wouldn't you just get in the way?
These practical limits are quite common. If you see somebody drowning, the experts will tell you the best thing for you to do is stay out of the water. You dive in, and the result is likely to be two people drowning. You see somebody sick, you run a serious risk of making him worse if you try many things that look possibly useful.
Then there are more subtle points. Paying a ransom is a clearly superior idea in the short run, but are you not encouraging future demands for ransoms? Sparing Kubota is the nicer thing to do in the short run, but will it endanger others in the future? ...

So we have a large number of pragmatic reasons why we should not act, but the basic moral duty remains. If you can help, you should.

[Optimystik]

Imminant was not true, as V didn't see where she was. And Bob is in imminant danger just the same, and I wouldn't have a lack of good morals.

V was told where she was, he didn't have to see. And he knows she is being held captive by bloodthirsty half-orcs.

And if you have the power to save Bob and choose not to use it, then yes, your morals are called into question.


Yes, it is. Evil states that ignoring freinds and nation is immoral, not strangers. And superman is in no risk, whereas V is.

Lien is hardly a stranger, they've been sharing the same boat for months now (plus he knows who she is.) As for the semantics argument, substitute Batman (for whom a bullet is decidedly more fatal) and ask him to be indifferent to her imminent harm.

(In case you're wondering why I'm using superheroes in my analogies, that's exactly how the PCs are seen in this world. See the Azure City battle for proof.)

[evileeyore]

The key issue here is the imminent harm. Lien was in clear and present danger, and not doing anything to help her goes beyond mere indifference - it requires a genuine lack of good morals.

Death and harm are impermanent in the OotS world. As Vaarsuvius said, 'Then I suppose you will need to raise her, who knows?"

Vaarsuvius knows that with or without Vaarsuvius' help, Lien was in no lasting danger. Therefore there was no reason for Vaarsuvius to be bothered to help.

[Kaytara]

Also, it's simply not about morality for Vaarsuvius. Ever since the separation after the battle, V has been in Problem-Solving Mode, operating strictly on logic and pragmatism and thus effectively amoral. That behaviour only escalates in later strips. But before the battle, V DID acknowledge standards and principles and showed it.
Examples:
-Deciding to help rescue Elan at certain danger to himself, for no other reason than friendship and loyalty, even against the authority of the acknowledged leader and his sound, logical judgement ("Elan just gets in our way, so let's leave him behind." - which is exactly what the present logic-crazed Vaarsuvius has recently done)
-Supporting Roy in his rescue of Julia simply because "One's family must be defended when the need arises." Must, as in unbreakable principle.
Contrast to Belkar, who ALSO supported both rescue missions but for reasons that really ARE selfish, rather than what people have been accusing V of in this thread. "Only cares about power", "sees the Order as a way to gain power", etc.

So yes, my opinion is that Vaarsuvius is normally a decent person, certainly nowhere near Evil. At this point, though, V has dedicated himself to solving this problem and has discarded petty distractions like morals and principles. He's not good or evil, he's just amoral. Morality doesn't enter into it.
As for the Lien example, V's actions were justified if callous in that case. Several important factors:
1) Like V said, Lien is an adult. V doesn't care about her enough to get her out of the consequences of her own Lawful Stupid decision. (Refusing to run and regroup when an orc tribe attacks IS Lawful Stupid. Somewhat ironic, considering her later statements.) Also, V despises stupidity in general.
2) Three people are already going after her. Two of them are high-level and include a cleric, the other is a mid-level warrior. They're up against low-level dim-witted barbarians.
3) If she gets hurt, Durkon will heal her. If she gets killed, Durkon will raise her. With diamonds that Hinjo the King should be more than willing to provide. Where is the problem there?
4) Rather than chasing through tropical forests after a horde of orcs in order to toss a few superfluous fireballs, V really should spend the time on making some headway on his research and saving Miss Starshine.

Logically, all factors were in favour. Morally, it's a person's duty not to take any chances and do their best to minimise the amount of harm another person will experience, but maybe V's morality gets turned off when the elf spends a lot of time without trancing and the self-reflection that comes with it.

[Yukitsu]

Of course I can, and so will just about any moral system. You have a duty to help when your help can be efficiency useful.

Actually, I said explicitly where I risk my own life. Most models assume that you can do so by expending time effort and resources, but few will say that someone who could save another by risking their own life but not doing so is evil. They would simply say they aren't moral, or were wusses or something.


V was told where she was, he didn't have to see. And he knows she is being held captive by bloodthirsty half-orcs.

And I've been told innocent people are being rocketed to death in Isreal, but that doesn't mean I have to do anything to help them to be neutral.


And if you have the power to save Bob and choose not to use it, then yes, your morals are called into question.

Why? The "cops" (Elan, Durkon) can do it. Something like 50 000 gun owners where I live could go help Bob. Do we all have to now for some reason? Even if none of us did, shouldn't the cops do it?


Lien is hardly a stranger, they've been sharing the same boat for months now (plus he knows who she is.) As for the semantics argument, substitute Batman (for whom a bullet is decidedly more fatal) and ask him to be indifferent to her imminent harm.

Batman is moral. He's incredibly moral to the point of blatant stupidity. Asking what he would do is what good does. Asking what Tim the shotgun owning baker does (probably nothing, unless it was literaly within line of sight) is what neutral would do.


(In case you're wondering why I'm using superheroes in my analogies, that's exactly how the PCs are seen in this world. See the Azure City battle for proof.)

You seem also to be saying that V's actions are not good, and that by default they must be evil. I'm saying they aren't good or evil, they'd neutral.

[Optimystik]

Actually, I said explicitly where I risk my own life. Most models assume that you can do so by expending time effort and resources, but few will say that someone who could save another by risking their own life but not doing so is evil. They would simply say they aren't moral, or were wusses or something.

He didn't say, "I'd help if I wasn't worried about my own safety," he said "I don't give a damn about Lien" (effectively.) How can that be neutral? Keep in mind also that Lien protected HIM before (along with tons of other evacuees) when she was keeping the junk from being boarded by hobgoblins and he was powerless.


And I've been told innocent people are being rocketed to death in Isreal, but that doesn't mean I have to do anything to help them to be neutral.

Irrelevant. You have no power to prevent that nor do you know/see any of them.


Why? The "cops" (Elan, Durkon) can do it. Something like 50 000 gun owners where I live could go help Bob. Do we all have to now for some reason? Even if none of us did, shouldn't the cops do it?

V is not just a "gun owner." He is a superhero in this world, for reasons I mentioned previously. See Hinjo's attitude towards Roy, the soldiers' attitudes towards Haley, and yes, the commander's attitude towards V himself during the AC battle.


Batman is moral. He's incredibly moral to the point of blatant stupidity. Asking what he would do is what good does. Asking what Tim the shotgun owning baker does (probably nothing, unless it was literaly within line of sight) is what neutral would do.

Again, V is not merely a gun-owner. There's many ways he could assist here, even just buffing the rescue crew or making them invisible if he didn't want to assist Lien himself.


You seem also to be saying that V's actions are not good, and that by default they must be evil. I'm saying they aren't good or evil, they'd neutral.

My argument is that neutrality is not possible when someone you know is in danger of death AND you have the power to prevent it. Either you try to help them, or you don't - there is no middle ground.

[hamishspence]

If you take the view that Not Helping People who are not your friends is neutral- no moral obligation to them, what D&D evidence is there to support this?

Altruism is first word in D&D definition of Good. Absence of it, while not necessarily evil, skirts very close to it, and might require one to refrain absolutely from evil acts, to keep to Neutral. "a person who never commits an evil act is solidly Neutral, in absence of Good acts"

[Yukitsu]

He didn't say, "I'd help if I wasn't worried about my own safety," he said "I don't give a damn about Lien" (effectively.) How can that be neutral? Keep in mind also that Lien protected HIM before (along with tons of other evacuees) when she was keeping the junk from being boarded by hobgoblins and he was powerless.

I don't give a damn about Bob, yet I know him, and he's in danger. I don't do anything at all to help, the police deal with it, and I'm still perfectly moral or neutral in this case. Also, Lien wouldn't have known V was on board, and as such was defending the boat. Not to mention V spent a considerably larger amount of effort protecting the Azurites in that battle than Lien had. A pragmatic person would agree that the Azurites at least owed V that much in return.


Irrelevant. You have no power to prevent that nor do you know/see any of them.

Oh? I think you doth assume too much. I do know some people who live in Isreal, and I do see what happens there (via the news, which is no less seeing it than V hearing about something that happened from Elan.) I do have the power to do something (even if it's not everything) by joining the peace keeping corpse, becoming a diplomatic mediator between those sides. I could join a mercenary unit that fights for cheap in the middle east. I don't do any of this, nor do many other individuals, and all of us have that ability to change the situation there, even if it's only a little. Are we all immoral now, because we know someone from Isreal, and aren't crippled?


V is not just a "gun owner." He is a superhero in this world, for reasons I mentioned previously. See Hinjo's attitude towards Roy, the soldiers' attitudes towards Haley, and yes, the commander's attitude towards V himself during the AC battle.

I think you have to agree that hero has alignment of good built into it to a large degree. V is a civilian with a large degree of personal power. V is not some crazy generous individual who spends all of hir time trying to help others. That would be the hero part. V is a super civilian.


Again, V is not merely a gun-owner. There's many ways he could assist here, even just buffing the rescue crew or making them invisible if he didn't want to assist Lien himself.

Not many non-personal long term mass buffs that I can think of that would be useful. Especially since V has by default 1 spell slot per level dedicated to evocation, which has no buffs, a few with transmutations (disintegrate and overland flight) and the rest in divinations which doesn't have any good buffs.


My argument is that neutrality is not possible when someone you know is in danger of death AND you have the power to prevent it. Either you try to help them, or you don't - there is no middle ground.

I don't know how you get that not helping is actually evil, considering doing so presents a large degree of risk to myself. Is not wanting to risk death for the sake of someone I don't like really evil?


If you take the view that Not Helping People who are not your friends is neutral- no moral obligation to them, what D&D evidence is there to support this?

Players handbook says that neutral is "lack of commitment one way or the other." which is relevant. All of your good acts require a degree of commitment to a good cause, which a neutral person to remain neutral must lack. Lawful neutral states that "Ember, a monk who follows her discipline but is not swayed by those in need..." states unequivocably that neutral doesn't care about other people. "Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by semantic debate is neutral." is another individual who is too caught up in themselves to care about moral quandaries. Chaotic neutral says "values own liberty, but does not strive to protect others." Which is again, not helping other people.


Altruism is first word in D&D definition of Good. Absence of it, while not necessarily evil, skirts very close to it, and might require one to refrain absolutely from evil acts, to keep to Neutral. "a person who never commits an evil act is solidly Neutral, in absence of Good acts"

Strange, but people have been having a difficult time naming more evil acts of any significant scope compared to the large number of good acts V does, including trying to get the party back together.

[Optimystik]

I don't give a damn about Bob, yet I know him, and he's in danger. I don't do anything at all to help, the police deal with it, and I'm still perfectly moral or neutral in this case. Also, Lien wouldn't have known V was on board, and as such was defending the boat. Not to mention V spent a considerably larger amount of effort protecting the Azurites in that battle than Lien had. A pragmatic person would agree that the Azurites at least owed V that much in return.

Fair enough, V might not owe Lien anything from the battle. And if you have the power to assist the police and actively choose not to use it, you are demonstrating a lack of concern for Bob's welfare.


Oh? I think you doth assume too much. I do know some people who live in Isreal, and I do see what happens there (via the news, which is no less seeing it than V hearing about something that happened from Elan.) I do have the power to do something (even if it's not everything) by joining the peace keeping corpse, becoming a diplomatic mediator between those sides. I could join a mercenary unit that fights for cheap in the middle east. I don't do any of this, nor do many other individuals, and all of us have that ability to change the situation there, even if it's only a little. Are we all immoral now, because we know someone from Isreal, and aren't crippled?

Straw man. I notice none of your examples involve possessing arcane power, or being a superhero.


I think you have to agree that hero has alignment of good built into it to a large degree. V is a civilian with a large degree of personal power. V is not some crazy generous individual who spends all of hir time trying to help others. That would be the hero part. V is a super civilian.

I agree with this, but it is only part of his downward slide. See below:

Not many non-personal long term mass buffs that I can think of that would be useful. Especially since V has by default 1 spell slot per level dedicated to evocation, which has no buffs, a few with transmutations (disintegrate and overland flight) and the rest in divinations which doesn't have any good buffs.

Given that his flight spell lasted all the way from the battle with the demon to Kubota's boat, I think you're underestimating the duration of his buffs.


I don't know how you get that not helping is actually evil, considering doing so presents a large degree of risk to myself. Is not wanting to risk death for the sake of someone I don't like really evil?

As I said before, V's motivation was not any concern for personal danger; it was a lack of regard for Lien's well-being. I hardly think he would have been nearly as scared of the orcs as you seem to be.


Players handbook says that neutral is "lack of commitment one way or the other." which is relevant. All of your good acts require a degree of commitment to a good cause, which a neutral person to remain neutral must lack. Lawful neutral states that "Ember, a monk who follows her discipline but is not swayed by those in need..." states unequivocably that neutral doesn't care about other people. "Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by semantic debate is neutral." is another individual who is too caught up in themselves to care about moral quandaries. Chaotic neutral says "values own liberty, but does not strive to protect others." Which is again, not helping other people.

"Not striving to protect others" is indeed neutral.

Turning your back on someone in peril is evil.


Strange, but people have been having a difficult time naming more evil acts of any significant scope compared to the large number of good acts V does, including trying to get the party back together.

If getting the party back together is his focus, then why did he abandon them?

I've never said V was outright evil. Yet. I'm merely claiming that he is sliding in that direction by gradually committing evil acts.

There was a time in the comic when V was actually good - for instance, he felt guilty about hurting Elan's feelings and made amends, and expressed no misgivings about postponing their mission to help Roy's family. That side of V has gradually faded to neutral, and his growing obsession with recovering Haley - which is becoming less about actually reuniting the group, and more about acquiring the power to do so - is pushing him toward evil.

V is pulling a classic Raistlin. Don't be surprised if he reappears in black robes at some point.

[Yukitsu]

Fair enough, V might not owe Lien anything from the battle. And if you have the power to assist the police and actively choose not to use it, you are demonstrating a lack of concern for Bob's welfare.

Indeed. I don't need to be actively concerned for the safety of others who are in danger when people who are are doing it, and I'm apathetic to their plight anyway.


Straw man. I notice none of your examples involve possessing arcane power, or being a superhero.

So suddenly fighters are excempt from having to help people simply because their class is pants? I have the power to take anothers life, and can do so to protect others. What difference does the relative ability make, unless you want to say that V is superior to the others in the party. Wizarding is just another form of power, just like a gun is just another way to kill people.


I agree with this, but it is only part of his downward slide. See below:

So the slippery slope fallacy.


Given that his flight spell lasted all the way from the battle with the demon to Kubota's boat, I think you're underestimating the duration of his buffs.

I know the duration of wizard buffs, and combat useful ones that can be massed have minute long durations on average. Overland flight is a single target spell, not mass. Elan is better at group buff than V is.


As I said before, V's motivation was not any concern for personal danger; it was a lack of regard for Lien's well-being. I hardly think he would have been nearly as scared of the orcs as you seem to be.

Scared has nothing to do with it. It's a chance that I don't want to have to take, even if the odds are low, because I don't care enough to commit myself to that kind of effort.


"Not striving to protect others" is indeed neutral.

Turning your back on someone in peril is evil.

Explain "is not swayed by those in need." from the PHB then. As in, will not help those in need. And tell me where you get that turning my back on someone who is not in my immediate vicinity is evil. I don't think I'll find that quote in the PHB.


If getting the party back together is his focus, then why did he abandon them?

What is the actual party goal? Defeat Xykon and stop the snarl from making it into reality. What are Durkon and Elan doing? Helping the Azurites found a new city. One that won't relate at all to their actual goals. V is likely hoping that the party leader, the parties other pragmatic and the psycho would rather go adventuring to defeat Xykon as opposed to helping the Azurites.


I've never said V was outright evil. Yet. I'm merely claiming that he is sliding in that direction by gradually committing evil acts.

And I'm claiming those arguments that the acts are evil at all are pretty weak.


There was a time in the comic when V was actually good - for instance, he felt guilty about hurting Elan's feelings and made amends, and expressed no misgivings about postponing their mission to help Roy's family. That side of Elan has gradually faded to neutral, and his growing obsession with recovering Haley - which is becoming less about actually reuniting the group, and more about acquiring the power to do so - is pushing him toward evil.

Oh for the love of... OK, go start an Elan alignment thread. I would really love to see that one. I think your looking at everything in a manner just so that anything not directly good has automatic evil connotations, and I'm betting any story with 3 dimensional characters would have you claim every last one of them evil.


V is pulling a classic Raistlin. Don't be surprised if he reappears in black robes at some point.

I'm also not putting money on it. People get too caught up in their little theories, and every time it happens, they stop looking at alternatives or evidence to the contrary.

[Optimystik]

Indeed. I don't need to be actively concerned for the safety of others who are in danger when people who are are doing it, and I'm apathetic to their plight anyway.

Even when said people ASK FOR YOUR HELP?


So suddenly fighters are excempt from having to help people simply because their class is pants? I have the power to take anothers life, and can do so to protect others. What difference does the relative ability make, unless you want to say that V is superior to the others in the party. Wizarding is just another form of power, just like a gun is just another way to kill people.

He is not just any wizard, he is a PC. A PC who happens to be nearby and has two other PCs about to go assist.


So the slippery slope fallacy.

Wrong, that fallacy relates to a presumption of future events - not an observed moral degradation.


I know the duration of wizard buffs, and combat useful ones that can be massed have minute long durations on average. Overland flight is a single target spell, not mass. Elan is better at group buff than V is.

What group? There are only 2 PCs besides himself. Just buffing one of them (or himself) could easily have guaranteed Lien's safety.

And as for V's group buffing skill, kindly read this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0427.html)


Scared has nothing to do with it. It's a chance that I don't want to have to take, even if the odds are low, because I don't care enough to commit myself to that kind of effort.

See first response.


Explain "is not swayed by those in need." from the PHB then. As in, will not help those in need. And tell me where you get that turning my back on someone who is not in my immediate vicinity is evil. I don't think I'll find that quote in the PHB.

Lien was close enough for his decision to matter to her welfare - that puts her in his vicinity as far as morality goes.


What is the actual party goal? Defeat Xykon and stop the snarl from making it into reality. What are Durkon and Elan doing? Helping the Azurites found a new city. One that won't relate at all to their actual goals. V is likely hoping that the party leader, the parties other pragmatic and the psycho would rather go adventuring to defeat Xykon as opposed to helping the Azurites.

Oh, so abandoning innocents and friends is fine in the short run as long as it beats the Snarl eventually? Since you're so fond of quoting the PHB, maybe you remember that the ends DON'T justify the means in D&D?


And I'm claiming those arguments that the acts are evil at all are pretty weak.

Hence the term "gradual."


Oh for the love of... OK, go start an Elan alignment thread. I would really love to see that one. I think your looking at everything in a manner just so that anything not directly good has automatic evil connotations, and I'm betting any story with 3 dimensional characters would have you claim every last one of them evil.

I meant V, not Elan, there, which should have been obvious from my context as that whole paragraph was about V anyway. Chill out.


I'm also not putting money on it. People get too caught up in their little theories, and every time it happens, they stop looking at alternatives or evidence to the contrary.

Didn't think you would.

[Yukitsu]

Even when said people ASK FOR YOUR HELP?

Yes. I have people actively try to enlist me into the police and military, because we need help in both cases. I choose not to, even though it's a decision that is risking other lives potentially. Also, read the quote about the neutral monk again. This doubly applies, because they clearly didn't need V's help.


He is not just any wizard, he is a PC. A PC who happens to be nearby and has two other PCs about to go assist.

That doesn't change morality. If an NPC didn't help, they'd be neutral, even if that NPC was Elminster, but a PC has to help, even if it's a PC commoner? PC or NPC doesn't change anything.


Wrong, that fallacy relates to a presumption of future events - not an observed moral degradation.

See your later statement that V isn't yet evil, but will be. That's on the assumption that moving from good to neutral with some evil acts will lead to Raistlin. That's the slippery slope fallacy. Not to mention we have one act that you can't even really make a convincing argument for being evil.


What group? There are only 2 PCs besides himself. Just buffing one of them (or himself) could easily have guaranteed Lien's safety.

And an NPC. Also, name the buff that could do it.


And as for V's group buffing skill, kindly read this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0427.html)

Minutes, minutes, minutes. Any days per level? Any hours per level? Even ten minutes per level? I guess V's much vaunted buffing isn't really great unless you time it down to the 60 foot distance line.


See first response.

Can I exchange it for a better one.


Lien was close enough for his decision to matter to her welfare - that puts her in his vicinity as far as morality goes.

On the other side of an island, where the amount of time taken to get from one point to the other is indeterminant? And since when did you get to draw the boundary? My city is probably larger than that island, and I still have no moral obligation to save Bob just because of proximity.


Oh, so abandoning innocents and friends is fine in the short run as long as it beats the Snarl eventually? Since you're so fond of quoting the PHB, maybe you remember that the ends DON'T justify the means in D&D?

Since when is leaving freinds an evil act? It's not like they're very good freinds, and it's not like they are in any danger. Leaving freinds is a neutral act. I do it every time I head home from the pub. Leaving my freinds to go do something useful shouldn't have to be justified, because there is nothing to justify.


Hence the term "gradual."

If you can't prove any of them as evil, then there is no gradual slide at all. It's just you assuming that the shades of grey actions all lead inevitably to evil despite a lack of evidence.


I meant V, not Elan, there, which should have been obvious from my context as that whole paragraph was about V anyway. Chill out.

Good, because if you had actually thought Elan was turning evil, I'd just call you a moron or a troll and call it a day. Since you're apparantly smarter than that, I guess this drags on.


Didn't think you would.

I haven't been given any reason to.

[David Argall]

Actually, I said explicitly where I risk my own life.
Unimportant. Moral theories routinely call on you to put others first. [Which is illogical, but can easily be corrected to requiring you deem damage to you the same as damage to A, B, or X.] If Bob is in trouble, it is your duty to do what is practicable to help him. That may or may not involve danger to you. But the point is merely practical. If Bob is 50-50 to die, it would be foolish to make a 75% chance of dying to save him, but if the odds were 3-1 in your favor, you have a duty to help.


Most models assume that you can do so by expending time effort and resources, but few will say that someone who could save another by risking their own life but not doing so is evil. They would simply say they aren't moral, or were wusses or something.
And saying he's a wuss is much like saying he is evil.



And I've been told innocent people are being rocketed to death in Isreal, but that doesn't mean I have to do anything to help them to be neutral.
You have a number of possible excuses, such as not being able to do much, but they are just that, excuses.


Why? The "cops" (Elan, Durkon) can do it. Something like 50 000 gun owners where I live could go help Bob. Do we all have to now for some reason? Even if none of us did, shouldn't the cops do it?
That they can does not eliminate your duty. It may cover the duty for you since someone else may act. But until you can be reasonably sure someone else is covering the duty, you are still under that duty.


Batman is moral. He's incredibly moral to the point of blatant stupidity. Asking what he would do is what good does. Asking what Tim the shotgun owning baker does (probably nothing, unless it was literaly within line of sight) is what neutral would do.
The laws of Good cover both. Batman can expect to survive a lot more often than Tim, and so he should act a lot more often, but that does not give Tim a blanket excuse for leaving the shotgun under the counter, nor does it require Batman to attack the criminal in all cases.



V is not just a "gun owner." He is a superhero in this world
Unimportant. This merely means there will be a lot more times when he can effectively help. It doesn't change any of the principles under discussion.



V has been in Problem-Solving Mode, operating strictly on logic and pragmatism and thus effectively amoral.
Logic and pragmatism is not amoral. It's figuring out how to actually reach your goals instead of dithering about nonsense. It is only amoral in the sense it can be used for non-moral goals too. Since V is trying to reach good goals of saving the world and rescuing Haley, etc, any pragmatism involved is Good.



-Deciding to help rescue Elan at certain danger to himself,
-Supporting Roy in his rescue of Julia

As for the Lien example, V's actions were justified if callous in that case. Several important factors:
1) Like V said, Lien is an adult. V doesn't care about her enough to get her out of the consequences of her own Lawful Stupid decision.
Largely unimportant. Lien is a person who needs help, and thus has a call on others. That it is her own fault in some degree lessens that, but does not end it.


2) Three people are already going after her. Two of them are high-level and include a cleric, the other is a mid-level warrior. They're up against low-level dim-witted barbarians.
Who caught them and had them at their mercy. That V would have been useful is clear.


3) If she gets hurt, Durkon will heal her. Where is the problem there?
The party was expecting to raise Roy tomorrow 200 days ago. Assuming it is no big deal is rash here.


4) V really should spend the time on making some headway on his research and saving Miss Starshine.
On the face of it, an hour spent saving Lien is not going to be vital on a project that has already lasted months.

Now we can't call V's action evil, but we do see a contrast here. V helped in these earlier cases, without much better reason than in the Lien case when she refused. So we are seeing hints of a troubling trend here, from being willing to do the good to unwilling. That this may be continuing to where V is actively doing the evil is all too possible.

[Yukitsu]

Unimportant. Moral theories routinely call on you to put others first. [Which is illogical, but can easily be corrected to requiring you deem damage to you the same as damage to A, B, or X.] If Bob is in trouble, it is your duty to do what is practicable to help him. That may or may not involve danger to you. But the point is merely practical. If Bob is 50-50 to die, it would be foolish to make a 75% chance of dying to save him, but if the odds were 3-1 in your favor, you have a duty to help.

Only if you want to be moral. You don't need to do so to avoid being evil, unless you want to split the world into purely good or evil, as opposed to mostly neutral acts.


And saying he's a wuss is much like saying he is evil.

It's not evil to have shortcomings.


That they can does not eliminate your duty. It may cover the duty for you since someone else may act. But until you can be reasonably sure someone else is covering the duty, you are still under that duty.

Since when was it my amoral duty though? I'm not trying to argue how a good person should act. A good person would go, eventually get killed, and thus remove good from the gene pool because there are conflicts everywhere. An apathetic person isn't actually evil just because of a lack of that morality.


The laws of Good cover both. Batman can expect to survive a lot more often than Tim, and so he should act a lot more often, but that does not give Tim a blanket excuse for leaving the shotgun under the counter, nor does it require Batman to attack the criminal in all cases.

Assume Tim can manage the same level of success, but has just devoted his life to baking instead of fighting crime. It doesn't make him good, certainly, but it's not as though not using vigilante justice just because you have the capacity for it is evil in a system that demands neutral be accounted for.

[Optimystik]

Yay, quote-streams.


The laws of Good cover both. Batman can expect to survive a lot more often than Tim, and so he should act a lot more often, but that does not give Tim a blanket excuse for leaving the shotgun under the counter, nor does it require Batman to attack the criminal in all cases.
...
Unimportant. This merely means there will be a lot more times when he can effectively help. It doesn't change any of the principles under discussion.

There is a contradiction between these two statements. Having greater power gives a greater capacity for both good and evil - this leaves less and less grey area neutrality to hide behind, because more and more moral situations present themselves to you as your reach broadens. Inability ceases to be an excuse for inaction.

V (like Batman) has a greater capacity for good, which means that choosing not to use it directly leads to sacrificing innocents, which is evil.


Now we can't call V's action evil, but we do see a contrast here. V helped in these earlier cases, without much better reason than in the Lien case when she refused. So we are seeing hints of a troubling trend here, from being willing to do the good to unwilling. That this may be continuing to where V is actively doing the evil is all too possible.

Bolded for emphasis (directed at Yukitsu.)


Yes. I have people actively try to enlist me into the police and military, because we need help in both cases. I choose not to, even though it's a decision that is risking other lives potentially. Also, read the quote about the neutral monk again. This doubly applies, because they clearly didn't need V's help.

Straw man, again. Firstly, the military and police aren't your close friends and compatriots, and secondly, that implies a much longer-term commitment than postponing your research to save one innocent life. Irrelevant.


That doesn't change morality. If an NPC didn't help, they'd be neutral, even if that NPC was Elminster, but a PC has to help, even if it's a PC commoner? PC or NPC doesn't change anything.

"PC" is synonymous with "hero" in OotS land. (Hinjo himself lampshaded this term in #413. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html)) That is how I am using it, so bringing up Elminster and other absurdities is also irrelevant.


See your later statement that V isn't yet evil, but will be. That's on the assumption that moving from good to neutral with some evil acts will lead to Raistlin. That's the slippery slope fallacy. Not to mention we have one act that you can't even really make a convincing argument for being evil.

And your assumption is that he will stay neutral despite abandoning his friends, murdering a man without due process and harboring a growing obsession with seeking power? That's no fallacy, that's prediction, friend.


And an NPC. Also, name the buff that could do it.
...
Minutes, minutes, minutes. Any days per level? Any hours per level? Even ten minutes per level? I guess V's much vaunted buffing isn't really great unless you time it down to the 60 foot distance line.

All he had to do was go with them to render buff durations moot. He didn't.

Want to know another spell that's minute/level? Fly.


Can I exchange it for a better one.

When you refute it, yes.


On the other side of an island, where the amount of time taken to get from one point to the other is indeterminant? And since when did you get to draw the boundary? My city is probably larger than that island, and I still have no moral obligation to save Bob just because of proximity.

Where did you read the orc village being on the other side of the island?


Since when is leaving freinds an evil act? It's not like they're very good freinds, and it's not like they are in any danger. Leaving freinds is a neutral act. I do it every time I head home from the pub. Leaving my freinds to go do something useful shouldn't have to be justified, because there is nothing to justify.

Are your friends in danger at these pubs? Do you commonly kill people right before leaving them? You might want to drink somewhere else.


If you can't prove any of them as evil, then there is no gradual slide at all. It's just you assuming that the shades of grey actions all lead inevitably to evil despite a lack of evidence.

The fact that you won't admit what is right in front of you doesn't change anything.


Good, because if you had actually thought Elan was turning evil, I'd just call you a moron or a troll and call it a day. Since you're apparantly smarter than that, I guess this drags on.

You know that passive-aggressive insults are forbidden by the rules, right? Seriously, tone it down.

[Warlord JK]

Optimystik, amazing work. Can't believe we are still arguing about the Chaotic/Lawful axis here :smallannoyed:. Anyway, V is NOT Chaotic, he thinks way to logically and orderly to ever be chaotic. Everything he does is thoroughly thought out based on the facts in front of him. He does have a disobedience to the laws though, as he loathes trials and is willing to take matters into his own hands rather then let the government/authorities take care of the issue. Thus we arrive at V being neutral on the Law/Chaos axis. V has definitely drifted to far for him to be NG. Lots of his acts are selfish now, but he has not drifted far enough to be truly NE. Therefore, V is between TN and NE, but if he doesn't trance soon, we may be seeing a very NE V next time.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik, amazing work. Can't believe we are still arguing about the Chaotic/Lawful axis here :smallannoyed:.

I think (or hope, anyway) that I scared off the Chaotic supporters. :smallwink:


Anyway, V is NOT Chaotic, he thinks way to logically and orderly to ever be chaotic. Everything he does is thoroughly thought out based on the facts in front of him. He does have a disobedience to the laws though, as he loathes trials and is willing to take matters into his own hands rather then let the government/authorities take care of the issue. Thus we arrive at V being neutral on the Law/Chaos axis. V has definitely drifted to far for him to be NG. Lots of his acts are selfish now, but he has not drifted far enough to be truly NE. Therefore, V is between TN and NE, but if he doesn't trance soon, we may be seeing a very NE V next time.

This post sums up my stance on the issue perfectly. Thank you.

[Warlord JK]

This post sums up my stance on the issue perfectly. Thank you.

Really? I thought my argument for the Good/Evil axis was a little weak, but that was cause I didn't think anyone really needed any convincing on that :smallbiggrin:.

[Optimystik]

Really? I thought my argument for the Good/Evil axis was a little weak, but that was cause I didn't think anyone really needed any convincing on that :smallbiggrin:.

You'd be surprised. :smalltongue:

*points up*

[Yukitsu]

Bolded for emphasis (directed at Yukitsu.)

That doesn't contradict a shift to neutrality.


Straw man, again. Firstly, the military and police aren't your close friends and compatriots, and secondly, that implies a much longer-term commitment than postponing your research to save one innocent life. Irrelevant.

One close freind is in the military and another is in the police force, so yes, they are. Also, why does time factor into ethics? If I have to spare a day, why not a couple years? Where are you cutting the line?


"PC" is synonymous with "hero" in OotS land. (Hinjo himself lampshaded this term in #413. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html)) That is how I am using it, so bringing up Elminster and other absurdities is also irrelevant.

I'll point out again that hero has a positive alignment assumption built in, unless you refer to Belkar as he is as a hero, and by that standard V is a shining paragon of light and goodness.


And your assumption is that he will stay neutral despite abandoning his friends, murdering a man without due process and harboring a growing obsession with seeking power? That's no fallacy, that's prediction, friend.

No, my stance is there is no demonstrated change. (S)he may or may not turn out to be evil, but the change hasn't happened yet, and the actions haven't sunk to that low yet.


All he had to do was go with them to render buff durations moot. He didn't.

So now you agree the only way to help is to go with them, correct?


Want to know another spell that's minute/level? Fly.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/overlandFlight.htm


When you refute it, yes.

I did. You still insist that an absence of morals=evil by default, which makes no real sense in a setting with neutral as a listed alignment.


Where did you read the orc village being on the other side of the island?

Why not? Could be anywhere, and if they were on the same side, V likely would have already left, due to an increase in the odds of being harrassed by orcs.


Are your friends in danger at these pubs? Do you commonly kill people right before leaving them? You might want to drink somewhere else.

To be honest, Elan and Durkon aren't in any immediate danger. That's why it's not unethical to leave. It may be unlawful to skip out on the court, but I don't really think it's evil to do so.


The fact that you won't admit what is right in front of you doesn't change anything.

You mean like the lawful neutral excerpt that describes non-involvement into other peoples problems as neutral? Yeah, I'm really ignoring some important information here. Give me a quote from the PHB that states that a neutral person must help someone in need, or fall to evil.

[Warlord JK]

I don't give a damn about Bob, yet I know him, and he's in danger. I don't do anything at all to help, the police deal with it, and I'm still perfectly moral or neutral in this case. Also, Lien wouldn't have known V was on board, and as such was defending the boat. Not to mention V spent a considerably larger amount of effort protecting the Azurites in that battle than Lien had. A pragmatic person would agree that the Azurites at least owed V that much in return.

Ok, lets look at it this way. You would be considered a 3rd-4th level fighter in D&D, with your gun. This means you are fairly weak, just slightly above the common soldier. You could maybe take on 3-4 kobolds at a time, maybe 2-3 goblins. A hobgoblin against you would be a tough match, but you would win. Now an orc would also be a tough match. Lets say Bob is being held hostage by a mob hitman, probably a 6-7th level fighter in D&D terms, possibly 8-9th. Thus, you would surely be killed if you tried to fight him. Plus he has much better equipment, maybe even a bullet-proof vest. Therefore, if you tried to help Bob, you would die, whereas a group of police could help Bob more so.

V, on the other hand, is a 15th level wizard with enough power to easily take a band of possibly 15 orcs. He also has a cleric to heal him, a bard who is combatly sound and a paladin who can also help. All 4 of you together should be able to easily massacre a group of 65-70 orcs, many of which could have class levels of barbarian up to 3rd-4th. This group of 4 would not be equivalent to a police force. It would be more like a group of 5 Marines paired up with 7 Navy Seals. The orcs are more like a minor gang in LA to this group. Thus, V has absolutely no danger to himself if he comes to rescue Lien. V should even have a moral obligation as he knows and has fought beside Lien. Any neutral person would come to help. This means that the act commited by V is evil, so V is bordeline evil, but still neutral.

[Yukitsu]

Ok, lets look at it this way. You would be considered a 3rd-4th level fighter in D&D, with your gun. This means you are fairly weak, just slightly above the common soldier. You could maybe take on 3-4 kobolds at a time, maybe 2-3 goblins. A hobgoblin against you would be a tough match, but you would win. Now an orc would also be a tough match. Lets say Bob is being held hostage by a mob hitman, probably a 6-7th level fighter in D&D terms, possibly 8-9th. Thus, you would surely be killed if you tried to fight him. Plus he has much better equipment, maybe even a bullet-proof vest. Therefore, if you tried to help Bob, you would die, whereas a group of police could help Bob more so.

Real world humans never get past level 5 or so, don't gain extra hit points at the same rate, nor for the same reasons, and one shot will usually kill any human. Specifically, most vests that are found on the street don't stop rifle ammunition designed for killing moose. As such, supposed technical specs won't come into play, and my odds of beating him are as good as vice versa.


V, on the other hand, is a 15th level wizard with enough power to easily take a band of possibly 15 orcs. He also has a cleric to heal him, a bard who is combatly sound and a paladin who can also help. All 4 of you together should be able to easily massacre a group of 65-70 orcs, many of which could have class levels of barbarian up to 3rd-4th. This group of 4 would not be equivalent to a police force. It would be more like a group of 5 Marines paired up with 7 Navy Seals. The orcs are more like a minor gang in LA to this group. Thus, V has absolutely no danger to himself if he comes to rescue Lien. V should even have a moral obligation as he knows and has fought beside Lien. Any neutral person would come to help. This means that the act commited by V is evil, so V is bordeline evil, but still neutral.

If your assumption of levels is true, then why were Elan and Durkon running away? In practice, 2 level 16ish characters will beat literally hundreds of 3-4 level characters by themselves. Frankly, they could have, and should have, without V, since they really don't need hir help. As for neutral people helping, what would be the good thing to do here, the neutral thing, and the evil thing? Your assumption here seems to be that the moral thing to do is merely neutral, or that there is no neutral ground and that morality is black and white, but you are also ignoring that neutrals don't have to help people to maintain neutrality.

[Warlord JK]

Ok, firstly, V is the most powerful member in the group besides Roy. Elan and Dukon are both about 14th level, and each is fairly useful in a fight, but would rather have V's help in getting Lien back as it makes it much easier and much less risky. Hinjo is probably around 11-12th level and a paladin. There are probably a good solid 50-60 fighting orcs, with most being 2nd-3rd level barbarians, with maybe 7-8 being 5th level and the chief being 6th level. This means that it would take Hinjo, Durkon, Elan, and Daigo a while to deal with them and the possibility of taking a strong amount of damage and Daigo possibly dieing (Daigo is probably 7th level). V on the other hand is an extremely powerful 14th level wizard with numerous area of effect abilities that could take out 8 3rd level orcs in one round. Thus, it would be extremely ideal for V to come back and help, ensuring the safety of such 7th level characters as Daigo and 9th level characters as Lien.

[Warlord JK]

Oh, also, about the whole Israel thing. You are half way across the world, have no combat training, and are probably too old to go get training to go help over there. That is two nations at war, and the rest of the world trying to keep peace. You will not have an outcome on the events and are also not in an immediate state to go help. V is right there and is already extremely powerful to quickly take out bushels of orcs.

[Optimystik]

That doesn't contradict a shift to neutrality.

I'm not contradicting a shift to neutrality at all. The difference between you and I is that you think he's going to stop there, whereas I see the slide continuing.


One close freind is in the military and another is in the police force, so yes, they are. Also, why does time factor into ethics? If I have to spare a day, why not a couple years? Where are you cutting the line?

Scale has everything to do with good and evil. The less of a commitment required by a good act, the more deliberate it must be when that good act is not carried out.

It is more evil for a rich man to refuse a copper to a beggar than it is for a commoner. Scale.


I'll point out again that hero has a positive alignment assumption built in, unless you refer to Belkar as he is as a hero, and by that standard V is a shining paragon of light and goodness.

Comparing V to Belkar is hardly productive. There's a lot of daylight (twilight?) between someone just dipping into evil and a depraved sociopath.


No, my stance is there is no demonstrated change. (S)he may or may not turn out to be evil, but the change hasn't happened yet, and the actions haven't sunk to that low yet.

It IS happening. It may not be complete, but V is becoming evil. You can keep your head in the sand all you like, that's not going to change it.

Answer this question - would V have had to "lie to the paladin" when discussing any of his actions before Azure City?


So now you agree the only way to help is to go with them, correct?

Not at all. Where are you getting this stuff from?


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/overlandFlight.htm

Wrong. That's the one Xykon used. V used Fly. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/Fly.htm)

To quote The Giant: "In OotS-land, saying the name of a spell constitutes its verbal component." If he was casting O.F., he would have said that.


I did. You still insist that an absence of morals=evil by default, which makes no real sense in a setting with neutral as a listed alignment.

I never said that. I said intentional inaction - with lives at stake, AND you have the ability to do something about it - is evil.


Why not? Could be anywhere, and if they were on the same side, V likely would have already left, due to an increase in the odds of being harrassed by orcs.

Wrong again. It's not "anywhere," it's in the jungle, which takes up the middle of the island. And again, if it was so far inland, his flight spell wouldn't have taken him all the way from the middle of the island to the boat. (Not to mention Elan and Therkla making it back to the boat in time to stop Kubota.)


To be honest, Elan and Durkon aren't in any immediate danger. That's why it's not unethical to leave. It may be unlawful to skip out on the court, but I don't really think it's evil to do so.

V doesn't know that, as the orchestrator of the fleet's attacks (Qarr) hasn't been accounted for. He chose to leave regardless.


You mean like the lawful neutral excerpt that describes non-involvement into other peoples problems as neutral? Yeah, I'm really ignoring some important information here. Give me a quote from the PHB that states that a neutral person must help someone in need, or fall to evil.

Hamish already told you that uncaring fits NE better than TN. You didn't listen to him either.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not contradicting a shift to neutrality at all. The difference between you and I is that you think he's going to stop there, whereas I see the slide continuing.

Hence my near constant accusation that your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. You have to have a reason to assume it will happen, and frankly, V as we see hir has nothing to gain from going evil.


Scale has everything to do with good and evil. The less of a commitment required by a good act, the more deliberate it must be when that good act is not carried out.

By that logic, it's necessary that an easy to do good task which helps billions forever in many ways is less good than the person who struggles in many vain years to give a child a pat on the back, assuming of course that that doesn't lead to anything greater. And again, why do you get to decide the scale? I see a man robbing an old lady of her purse, and she's right beside me. I'm probably immoral if I don't go after him. What if I'm one block away? Two? Three? Everyone varies in distance for moral action to occur.


It is more evil for a rich man to refuse a copper to a beggar than it is for a commoner. Scale.

Again, not caring about others is defined as neutral in the PHB, despite what Hamishpence keeps saying.


Comparing V to Belkar is hardly productive. There's a lot of daylight (twilight?) between someone just dipping into evil and a depraved sociopath.

So PC only means hero when you want it to? I don't think so. V is a PC but not a hero, just like Belkar is a PC but not a hero.


It IS happening. It may not be complete, but V is becoming evil. You can keep your head in the sand all you like, that's not going to change it.

Evidence that it's going to keep going to cackling sycophant as opposed to a permanantly grumpy amoral jerk?


Answer this question - would V have had to "lie to the paladin" when discussing any of his actions before Azure City?

No one has to do anything, V isn't answerable to them, and I doubt V cares about hir actions enough for duplicity. Nor do I think the Azurites would care to or have the capacity to stop V from just walking out of any prison they can manage on those ships.


Not at all. Where are you getting this stuff from?

You had one listed example, and that was buffs. You are now stating that to use them, V would have to go with them. Do you have any other tasks V could do without going with them?


Wrong. That's the one Xykon used. V used Fly. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/Fly.htm)

To quote The Giant: "In OotS-land, saying the name of a spell constitutes its verbal component." If he was casting O.F., he would have said that.

There was already a lengthy discussion about the odds of it being cast off screen after the fly spell wore out, because V can't really make it anywhere relevant using a fly spell.


I never said that. I said intentional inaction - with lives at stake, AND you have the ability to do something about it - is evil.

Doing something in that situation=moral. Not doing something = evil. See how you've dichotomized it? There is a neutral activity in all problems, and as the actual text indicates that neutral is inactivity and apathy towards others, V fits that description.


Wrong again. It's not "anywhere," it's in the jungle, which takes up the middle of the island. And again, if it was so far inland, his flight spell wouldn't have taken him all the way from the middle of the island to the boat. (Not to mention Elan and Therkla making it back to the boat in time to stop Kubota.)

The jungle takes up most of the island, and in turn has sides. It's because V uses fly to get back to the ships that indicates they were at one of the edges of the woods, and not in the center. The orc village? Probably not all that close by, if Durkon thought that yelling was a good idea.


V doesn't know that, as the orchestrator of the fleet's attacks (Qarr) hasn't been accounted for. He chose to leave regardless.

V didn't know about that.


Hamish already told you that uncaring fits NE better than TN. You didn't listen to him either.

Hamishpence was making stuff up. Uncaring is defined as neutral in the PHB. Unless we want to talk real world morals, in which case you'd have to define your stance a lot more clearly as to what morals are.

[Yukitsu]

Ok, firstly, V is the most powerful member in the group besides Roy. Elan and Dukon are both about 14th level, and each is fairly useful in a fight, but would rather have V's help in getting Lien back as it makes it much easier and much less risky. Hinjo is probably around 11-12th level and a paladin. There are probably a good solid 50-60 fighting orcs, with most being 2nd-3rd level barbarians, with maybe 7-8 being 5th level and the chief being 6th level. This means that it would take Hinjo, Durkon, Elan, and Daigo a while to deal with them and the possibility of taking a strong amount of damage and Daigo possibly dieing (Daigo is probably 7th level). V on the other hand is an extremely powerful 14th level wizard with numerous area of effect abilities that could take out 8 3rd level orcs in one round. Thus, it would be extremely ideal for V to come back and help, ensuring the safety of such 7th level characters as Daigo and 9th level characters as Lien.

Incidently, a level 14 cleric is just as powerful as a wizard according to most optimizers. I happen to find clerics a little bit better in a battle of attrition because they have armour and melee to fall back on, as well as more hit points. A level 14 cleric should be able to defeat everything you just mentioned essentially by himself. Elan and Daigo helping out just makes things faster.


Oh, also, about the whole Israel thing. You are half way across the world

Plane


have no combat training

False. I've used handguns, rifles (training on the latter) and have a black belt in practical self defense.


and are probably too old to go get training to go help over there.

21


That is two nations at war, and the rest of the world trying to keep peace. You will not have an outcome on the events and are also not in an immediate state to go help. V is right there and is already extremely powerful to quickly take out bushels of orcs.

I'm not saying I can go there and change the course of the war. I said I can help. Such as by saving a few lives while I'm over there.

[Warlord JK]

Ok, we need to stop thinking and using hero as a term for a superman/batman like person. Lets think of PCs as either "superpeople" (inclduing superheroes and supervillians) or the Greek version of a hero, with some going about tasks easily while others struggle but overcome in order to develop their mind and character. We have the Herculean type hero, one who consistently tries to do good and we can get an Odysseusian hero, one who struggles yet overcomes. We can also name others who were not perfect. Heroes are not beings of pure and utter moral perfection. PCs are classic example of Greek heroes, where we have varied structure, and some who were out right evil/bad. If I can remember 9th grade English correctly, Jason ended being a bad person and dieing because of his actions. So hero is not "Superman" it is a varied term used to describe a group of people with powerful abilities and varied morals.

[Warlord JK]

Plane



False. I've used handguns, rifles (training on the latter) and have a black belt in practical self defense.



21



I'm not saying I can go there and change the course of the war. I said I can help. Such as by saving a few lives while I'm over there.

Ok, there is a difference between a 16 hours plane ride a quick 10 second fly to an orc tribe. Also, in reference to my above post, we have numerous types of heroes and people who don't want to be actively involved in helping others. However, this is not our world but a fantasy D&D world we are talking about. In this situation, V is commiting an evil act by first of all refusing to help a friend who is mere seconds away and also saying he does not care and it is a hassle.

[Yukitsu]

Ok, we need to stop thinking and using hero as a term for a superman/batman like person. Lets think of PCs as either "superpeople" (inclduing superheroes and supervillians) or the Greek version of a hero, with some going about tasks easily while others struggle but overcome in order to develop their mind and character. We have the Herculean type hero, one who consistently tries to do good and we can get an Odysseusian hero, one who struggles yet overcomes. We can also name others who were not perfect. Heroes are not beings of pure and utter moral perfection. PCs are classic example of Greek heroes, where we have varied structure, and some who were out right evil/bad. If I can remember 9th grade English correctly, Jason ended being a bad person and dieing because of his actions. So hero is not "Superman" it is a varied term used to describe a group of people with powerful abilities and varied morals.

All heroes strive to be good, even if they don't reach that ideal. V doesn't even want to be a good person. Even anti-heroes have the automatic connotation that they are evil doing the occasional good deed. Neutral people don't fit into these story antagonist archetypes because neutral people are pretty much just boring.

Basically, include something between a superhero and a supervillain and that's what a super neutral is.

[Yukitsu]

Ok, there is a difference between a 16 hours plane ride a quick 10 second fly to an orc tribe.

Not really. I don't do anything with my Saturdays anyway.


Also, in reference to my above post, we have numerous types of heroes and people who don't want to be actively involved in helping others. However, this is not our world but a fantasy D&D world we are talking about. In this situation, V is commiting an evil act by first of all refusing to help a friend who is mere seconds away and also saying he does not care and it is a hassle.

In V's world, the rules define a lack of caring about the welfare of others as neutral, and states so explicitely.

[Optimystik]

Hence my near constant accusation that your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. You have to have a reason to assume it will happen, and frankly, V as we see hir has nothing to gain from going evil.

By abandoning his friends, he gains the clarity he needs to focus on obtaining power. Raistlin to a tee.

If you remember Dragonlance, Raist even abandoned his party while they were at sea, just like V did.


By that logic, it's necessary that an easy to do good task which helps billions forever in many ways is less good than the person who struggles in many vain years to give a child a pat on the back, assuming of course that that doesn't lead to anything greater. And again, why do you get to decide the scale? I see a man robbing an old lady of her purse, and she's right beside me. I'm probably immoral if I don't go after him. What if I'm one block away? Two? Three? Everyone varies in distance for moral action to occur.

My point exactly, distance matters. The island is not that large, therefore by doing nothing he is morally accountable.


Again, not caring about others is defined as neutral in the PHB, despite what Hamishpence keeps saying.

So not caring about life is neutral?


So PC only means hero when you want it to? I don't think so. V is a PC but not a hero, just like Belkar is a PC but not a hero.

No, PC means hero because that is how the Giant defines it.
Hinjo: "I don't want anyone trying to be a PC out there." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html)

And Belkar has committed several heroic acts (e.g. saving Hinjo and Haley's lives.) Heroism is not dependent on alignment. (See also: Gollum.)


Evidence that it's going to keep going to cackling sycophant as opposed to a permanantly grumpy amoral jerk?

What? You lost me here.


No one has to do anything, V isn't answerable to them, and I doubt V cares about hir actions enough for duplicity. Nor do I think the Azurites would care to or have the capacity to stop V from just walking out of any prison they can manage on those ships.

You're right, he doesn't care about any of them. My point exactly.


You had one listed example, and that was buffs. You are now stating that to use them, V would have to go with them. Do you have any other tasks V could do without going with them?

Again, I never said that. You're the one assuming his buffs wouldn't last long enough, not me.


There was already a lengthy discussion about the odds of it being cast off screen after the fly spell wore out, because V can't really make it anywhere relevant using a fly spell.

Let's assume he did cast O.F. and not Fly, despite Fly being the spell he has used every single time before. Now explain how Therkla and Elan made it back to the boats from the middle of the island in time to save Daigo and his wife, despite using no spells at all.


Doing something in that situation=moral. Not doing something = evil. See how you've dichotomized it? There is a neutral activity in all problems, and as the actual text indicates that neutral is inactivity and apathy towards others, V fits that description.

Apathy is not always neutral. By your logic, I'm neutral if a child runs in front of my car and I don't do anything about it.


The jungle takes up most of the island, and in turn has sides. It's because V uses fly to get back to the ships that indicates they were at one of the edges of the woods, and not in the center. The orc village? Probably not all that close by, if Durkon thought that yelling was a good idea.

The fiend is clearly at the center of the island (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), so there goes that theory.


V didn't know about that.

Not only was he standing right behind Qarr when Lien accosted him, he was watching him closely (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) while he summoned the fiend. So yes, he knows the imp got away.


Hamishpence was making stuff up. Uncaring is defined as neutral in the PHB. Unless we want to talk real world morals, in which case you'd have to define your stance a lot more clearly as to what morals are.

So not caring about life is neutral?

We may have to agree to disagree on this but again, don't be surprised if V ends up sliding further. You heard it here first.

[Yukitsu]

By abandoning his friends, he gains the clarity he needs to focus on obtaining power. Raistlin to a tee.

If you remember Dragonlance, Raist even abandoned his party while they were at sea, just like V did.

Raist did it for a different ultimate motivation. Power for the sake of power, as opposed to power for the purpose of finding your other freinds, one of which is your best freind (Haley), and one which is sensible (Roy).


My point exactly, distance matters. The island is not that large, therefore by doing nothing he is morally accountable.

We don't know how large the island actually is, and in general, people don't go after cut purses unless it's within 4 or 5 blocks.


So not caring about life is neutral?

According to the rules, yes.


No, PC means hero because that is how the Giant defines it.
Hinjo: "I don't want anyone trying to be a PC out there." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html)

Yes, but you are using people like superman or batmans as synonyms, which makes the definition different.


And Belkar has committed several heroic acts (e.g. saving Hinjo and Haley's lives.) Heroism is not dependent on alignment. (See also: Gollum.)

I've done heroic acts (mostly when mountaneering, because people seem to unused to walking up a slight incline to not slip off. I don't even do extreme climbs, and people seem to manage to get themselves into potentially deadly situations.) but I'm not a hero.


What? You lost me here.

Why do you think V will go all the way to evil, as opposed to stopping at neutral? Raistlan turned evil isn't an argument for V doing the same, because they are not identical people.


Again, I never said that. You're the one assuming his buffs wouldn't last long enough, not me.

Using the island with the orcs, not the people, we don't know how far they had to go to get anywhere. I've never seen a minutes per level being used effectively out of combat before, even when I had reason to believe combat was coming up soon.


Let's assume he did cast O.F. and not Fly, despite Fly being the spell he has used every single time before. Now explain how Therkla and Elan made it back to the boats from the middle of the island in time to save Daigo and his wife, despite using no spells at all.

Overland flight is slow, boats are likely just as fast, or faster, which actually indicates that it is more likely to have been O.F. instead of fly. Either way, I think the more common idea was that V used fly, went back to her room, cast overland flight, then saw Elan and Kubota, or had overland flight active all day, and simply cast fly for combat purposes because overland flight isn't good in combat.


Apathy is not always neutral. By your logic, I'm neutral if a child runs in front of my car and I don't do anything about it.

If you were that apathetic, what are the odds you'd have a child?


The fiend is clearly at the center of the island (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), so there goes that theory.

And the OoTS not being adjascent at the start. And the rowboat starting on the opposite side of the island when compared to the fleet, then moving to the side of the fleet when Elan used it. Again, exact distances are hard to say, and the party does seem to be near to the water when you see them in standard form. Admittedly as it's a 2d stick comic, depth is a bit lost.


Not only was he standing right behind Qarr when Lien accosted him, he was watching him closely (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) while he summoned the fiend. So yes, he knows the imp got away.

I mean didn't know Qarr was masterminding and puppeting people into doing his biddings.


So not caring about life is neutral?

According to the game rules, yes.


We may have to agree to disagree on this but again, don't be surprised if V ends up sliding further. You heard it here first.

I won't be surprised. I just don't accept it as a given.

[Warlord JK]

Incidently, a level 14 cleric is just as powerful as a wizard according to most optimizers. I happen to find clerics a little bit better in a battle of attrition because they have armour and melee to fall back on, as well as more hit points. A level 14 cleric should be able to defeat everything you just mentioned essentially by himself. Elan and Daigo helping out just makes things faster.

Durkon is a cleric who focuses on healing rather than combat. Thus, he is not the real equivalent to V in combat. So no, Durkon cannot replace V because he would also be more preoccupied with healing Elan and Daigo.

[Yukitsu]

Durkon is a cleric who focuses on healing rather than combat. Thus, he is not the real equivalent to V in combat. So no, Durkon cannot replace V because he would also be more preoccupied with healing Elan and Daigo.

All good clerics are automatically focused on healing, no feats or spell slots needed. At his level, dictum and holy word are available, which would kill almost anyone in its radius except the chief automatically with no save, or if he's the same level as V, firestorm, which could wipe out large chunks of the enemy, or symbol of death, which would defeat about 50 of the orcs on its own, or if things are getting problematic, he could cast something like wall of stone to buy time to heal.

[Warlord JK]

Since when is what we are arguing a given? We are trying to show that V has been slowly commiting evil actis with increasing frequency, causing his alignment to be more borderline between TN and NE. Anyway, it appears we really aren't changing are topics anymore or our points and just regurgitating what we already said.

[Yukitsu]

Since when is what we are arguing a given? We are trying to show that V has been slowly commiting evil actis with increasing frequency, causing his alignment to be more borderline between TN and NE. Anyway, it appears we really aren't changing are topics anymore or our points and just regurgitating what we already said.

I'm mostly arguing that V's alignment is now neutral due to a persistant use of neutral actions 9instead of good, while others are arguing that V is committing small evil acts, which if it were true, would actually mean that V was currently heading towards evil. However, I'm arguing that most of V's actions are neutral in nature, and that V would have to cross that border between neutral and evil acts before a slide to evil is demonstrated, or you start even nearing the NE TN border at all.

[Warlord JK]

I'm mostly arguing that V's alignment is now neutral due to a persistant use of neutral actions 9instead of good, while others are arguing that V is committing small evil acts, which if it were true, would actually mean that V was currently heading towards evil. However, I'm arguing that most of V's actions are neutral in nature, and that V would have to cross that border between neutral and evil acts before a slide to evil is demonstrated, or you start even nearing the NE TN border at all.

I consider killing Kubota based on not wanting a long trial an evil act as well as some of his other acts (the Lien event we've been arguing included) also evil so that he is definitely more borderline TN/NE.

[Yukitsu]

I consider killing Kubota based on not wanting a long trial an evil act as well as some of his other acts (the Lien event we've been arguing included) also evil so that he is definitely more borderline TN/NE.

Yes, and I've been arguing that they are largely neutral acts, whether it be in the books, or it's in real life morality.

[Warlord JK]

Thus the argument between me, you, and Opt over these issues while only regurgitating our old points. Neither of us is going to shift so I guess we just have to wait to see V's new alignmnent :smallbiggrin:.

[Yukitsu]

Thus the argument between me, you, and Opt over these issues while only regurgitating our old points. Neither of us is going to shift so I guess we just have to wait to see V's new alignmnent :smallbiggrin:.

It doesn't matter what it turns out to be. I've admitted a shift to evil is possible, but we need a bit more information to determine if V will or will not do so. Optymystik seems dead set that V going Raistlan is the only thing that can happen. I'll probably have reached my conclusion when we see how (s)he deals with Qarr.

[David Argall]

It's not evil to have shortcomings.
Often it is.


Since when was it my amoral duty though?
You seem in love with a term that is meaningless here. That you wish to be amoral does not excuse you from a moral duty.


I'm not trying to argue how a good person should act. A good person would go, eventually get killed, and thus remove good from the gene pool because there are conflicts everywhere.
As can be seen from the very fact there is human society, it is not that simple. Being the good guy has a number of advantages as well as disadvantages, and the gene pool has always got a lot of good people.



Having greater power gives a greater capacity for both good and evil - this leaves less and less grey area neutrality to hide behind, because more and more moral situations present themselves to you as your reach broadens. Inability ceases to be an excuse for inaction.
On the other hand, the excuse that you are more needed elsewhere becomes more valid. If I can save 100 lives elsewhere, saving the one life now can easily be a disaster. The grey area changes in various ways, but continues to exist.

[Optimystik]

Raist did it for a different ultimate motivation. Power for the sake of power, as opposed to power for the purpose of finding your other freinds, one of which is your best freind (Haley), and one which is sensible (Roy).

Yet another point where we disagree. He may be convincing himself that he is doing this for Haley and Roy, yet what would Haley and Roy say if they saw him acting the way he is?

His motivations began benevolently, but he is but a step away from pursuing power for power's sake.


We don't know how large the island actually is, and in general, people don't go after cut purses unless it's within 4 or 5 blocks.

It's small enough that two people running on foot can get to the shore during a ninja attack.


According to the rules, yes.

Funny, sounds like evil to me.


Yes, but you are using people like superman or batmans as synonyms, which makes the definition different.

Not as synonyms, as examples and analogies of the main characters' status in OotS-land. The definition fits.


I've done heroic acts (mostly when mountaneering, because people seem to unused to walking up a slight incline to not slip off. I don't even do extreme climbs, and people seem to manage to get themselves into potentially deadly situations.) but I'm not a hero.

Who on earth was talking about you? I was talking about Belkar killing Hinjo's would be assassin, and saving Haley from wights. Heroic acts, regardless of his motivation - even Roy agreed.


Why do you think V will go all the way to evil, as opposed to stopping at neutral? Raistlan turned evil isn't an argument for V doing the same, because they are not identical people.

In my opinion, the parallel is unmistakable, but I'm not basing my conclusions solely on that. His slide has been apparent to me, from abandoning Lien, to vaporizing Kubota, to abandoning the fleet.


Using the island with the orcs, not the people, we don't know how far they had to go to get anywhere. I've never seen a minutes per level being used effectively out of combat before, even when I had reason to believe combat was coming up soon.

Except, you know, on a small island. And I'd probably have reason to believe combat was coming up soon on a rescue mission, wouldn't you?


Overland flight is slow, boats are likely just as fast, or faster, which actually indicates that it is more likely to have been O.F. instead of fly. Either way, I think the more common idea was that V used fly, went back to her room, cast overland flight, then saw Elan and Kubota, or had overland flight active all day, and simply cast fly for combat purposes because overland flight isn't good in combat.

That, or... he cast fly and the island is small. Occam's Razor?


If you were that apathetic, what are the odds you'd have a child?

Way to dodge the question. Who said it was MY child?


And the OoTS not being adjascent at the start. And the rowboat starting on the opposite side of the island when compared to the fleet, then moving to the side of the fleet when Elan used it. Again, exact distances are hard to say, and the party does seem to be near to the water when you see them in standard form. Admittedly as it's a 2d stick comic, depth is a bit lost.

I'm not judging by the art. V could fly from the middle of the island out over the water using a minutes/level spell. That's hard numbers.


I mean didn't know Qarr was masterminding and puppeting people into doing his biddings.

He knew Qarr was using Charm Monster to put the fleet under attack. Lien accused him of this very fact.


I won't be surprised. I just don't accept it as a given.

Well, I WILL be surprised if V doesn't (a) have a crisis of conscience, (b) goes full on into evil, or (c) does (b) followed by (a).

EDIT:


On the other hand, the excuse that you are more needed elsewhere becomes more valid. If I can save 100 lives elsewhere, saving the one life now can easily be a disaster. The grey area changes in various ways, but continues to exist.

Straw man. Those 100 lives cannot be an issue until they are also in imminent peril.

[Yukitsu]

Often it is.

Only if you define "evil" as "not actively good". which doesn't work in a system that must include neutral, and defines that neutrality as apathy.


You seem in love with a term that is meaningless here. That you wish to be amoral does not excuse you from a moral duty.

No it doesn't excuse me. However, not following that duty doesn't make me evil, if you have to include neutrality, which in D&D, you do. I would simply not be good.


Yet another point where we disagree. He may be convincing himself that he is doing this for Haley and Roy, yet what would Haley and Roy say if they saw him acting the way he is?

His motivations began benevolently, but he is but a step away from pursuing power for power's sake.

Generally, V listens to Roy, Roy already has seen V, albiet from beyond the grave, and didn't seem overly effected by the situation, and this reaction may or may not have anything to do with V going for power for the sake of power depening on whether or not Haley's reaction causes a BSOD.


It's small enough that two people running on foot can get to the shore during a ninja attack.

So? Ninja have the same move speed, and I've yet to see a running scene anywhere that implied distance through ability to get to point B from point A at a run. It could have been 1-2 kilometers for example, which is runnable in about 20 minutes, but as they walked, would likely have taken more than the duration of any buff.


Funny, sounds like evil to me.

Then you should argue from a stance I recognize. For instance, Hamishpence argues Objectivism. If you don't have one, you should mention what you do think morals are. It makes things easier.


Not as synonyms, as examples and analogies of the main characters' status in OotS-land. The definition fits.

Then include apathetic heroes that still fight evil, but don't stop to help people in trouble, like the characters of the watchmen. They are still heroes of a vigilante stripe like batman, but they have far different moral standings.


Who on earth was talking about you? I was talking about Belkar killing Hinjo's would be assassin, and saving Haley from wights. Heroic acts, regardless of his motivation - even Roy agreed.

I'm saying that doing heroic things doesn't by default make you a hero. Not in a personality manner, nor in a truly meaningful way.


In my opinion, the parallel is unmistakable, but I'm not basing my conclusions solely on that. His slide has been apparent to me, from abandoning Lien, to vaporizing Kubota, to abandoning the fleet.

Yes, but you understand that opinions can be wrong, and I like pointing out that your confidence is not exactly warranted. It's as good a guess as any, but in the end, it's still just an educated guess. As for slide, I agree. It's a clear slide to neutral actions where good could have easily been done.


Except, you know, on a small island. And I'd probably have reason to believe combat was coming up soon on a rescue mission, wouldn't you?

To be honest, I'm still not seeing how scale is clear to you. You have running, but running as long as a few minutes to travel a walking distance taking over a dozen minutes is fairly easy, both by the book and in real life.


That, or... he cast fly and the island is small. Occam's Razor?

Wizards don't operate on the principle of occam's razor. Seriously, get into a campaign and play a pragmatic wizard. Simple starts falling out of your day to day useage. In either case, one has to wonder how it's lasted as long as it did. People don't leave a fleet to fly to an island, then back, then back again, but skipping over the island to keep going using fly, they use overland flight.


Way to dodge the question. Who said it was MY child?

At this point, as it's directly in front of you, you can stop it, in theory you can do so without being hurt, you'd be vastly morally responsible. You'd probably be an evil person for not doing something, but to be honest the driver and the parents were more evil than you are.


I'm not judging by the art. V could fly from the middle of the island out over the water using a minutes/level spell. That's hard numbers.

And then on to the boat after Kubota's little episode then back over the island, not stopping on the island as far as can be discerned, but straight over and on over open waters? OK.


He knew Qarr was using Charm Monster to put the fleet under attack. Lien accused him of this very fact.

Use of charm spells doesn't make you the mastermind. Making the plans makes you the mastermind.


Well, I WILL be surprised if V doesn't (a) have a crisis of conscience, (b) goes full on into evil, or (c) does (b) followed by (a).

Other alternatives is we wind up with a grumpy mage forever, or V mellows back out without a crisis when Roy gets back, or various other possibilities. While I agree those are good theories, I don't really emphasize evil as strongly as you tend to.


Straw man. Those 100 lives cannot be an issue until they are also in imminent peril.

Any diviner could find 100 lives that are in some sort of immediate peril in any given day, one would think.

[Optimystik]

Only if you define "evil" as "not actively good". which doesn't work in a system that must include neutral, and defines that neutrality as apathy.

I define evil as "doing nothing to help someone WHO IS IN IMMINENT DANGER." There is no neutrality there.

I direct you to this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html), where the archon deems Roy's commission of a similar act as being evil AND chaotic. Not neutral.


Generally, V listens to Roy, Roy already has seen V, albiet from beyond the grave, and didn't seem overly effected by the situation, and this reaction may or may not have anything to do with V going for power for the sake of power depening on whether or not Haley's reaction causes a BSOD.

We haven't seen Roy since V left the rest of the Order, so you're incorrect. We DON'T know Roy's take on the situation.


So? Ninja have the same move speed, and I've yet to see a running scene anywhere that implied distance through ability to get to point B from point A at a run. It could have been 1-2 kilometers for example, which is runnable in about 20 minutes, but as they walked, would likely have taken more than the duration of any buff.

Fly lasted long enough and has the same duration. Keep trying.


Then you should argue from a stance I recognize. For instance, Hamishpence argues Objectivism. If you don't have one, you should mention what you do think morals are. It makes things easier.

I've repeatedly given you my definition of evil in this thread. It's even at the top of this post. I feel like I'm bashing my head into a brick wall at this point.


Then include apathetic heroes that still fight evil, but don't stop to help people in trouble, like the characters of the watchmen. They are still heroes of a vigilante stripe like batman, but they have far different moral standings.

Again, you are trying to reconcile alignment with heroic acts. Everyone, regardless of alignment, is capable of doing heroic things - I once more point to both Gollum and Belkar as proof.


I'm saying that doing heroic things doesn't by default make you a hero. Not in a personality manner, nor in a truly meaningful way.

I'm not talking about personality, I'm talking about STATUS. If you save the villagers from a dragon, they will have a feast in your honor. They won't care that you killed it just to get goodies from its trove - you still did what they consider a heroic act. The same is true for the entire OotS.


Yes, but you understand that opinions can be wrong, and I like pointing out that your confidence is not exactly warranted. It's as good a guess as any, but in the end, it's still just an educated guess. As for slide, I agree. It's a clear slide to neutral actions where good could have easily been done.

Then we'll agree to disagree.


To be honest, I'm still not seeing how scale is clear to you. You have running, but running as long as a few minutes to travel a walking distance taking over a dozen minutes is fairly easy, both by the book and in real life.

So you agree with me that he could have easily gone with them, then?


Wizards don't operate on the principle of occam's razor. Seriously, get into a campaign and play a pragmatic wizard. Simple starts falling out of your day to day useage. In either case, one has to wonder how it's lasted as long as it did. People don't leave a fleet to fly to an island, then back, then back again, but skipping over the island to keep going using fly, they use overland flight.

Like I said in my last post, even if he did use overland flight, it doesn't mean the island is large.


At this point, as it's directly in front of you, you can stop it, in theory you can do so without being hurt, you'd be vastly morally responsible. You'd probably be an evil person for not doing something, but to be honest the driver and the parents were more evil than you are.

You're misunderstanding me. Again. Let me reiterate the situation.

My car, which I am driving, is racing down a street when a child, any child at all, walks out in front of it. Doing nothing DOES NOT make me neutral, it makes me evil, even if stepping on the brake may harm me personally.

Rebuttal?


And then on to the boat after Kubota's little episode then back over the island, not stopping on the island as far as can be discerned, but straight over and on over open waters? OK.

Funny you only bring up off-screen casting to support your point of view.


Use of charm spells doesn't make you the mastermind. Making the plans makes you the mastermind.

With Kubota and Therkla dead, he IS the mastermind. And V didn't even know Kubota was behind the attacks when he killed him ("What is a Kubota?") so for all he knows, the imp will continue.


Other alternatives is we wind up with a grumpy mage forever, or V mellows back out without a crisis when Roy gets back, or various other possibilities. While I agree those are good theories, I don't really emphasize evil as strongly as you tend to.

Those are possibilities, but I see them being far more miniscule than you do. Why even bother degrading V's personality if it's not leading up to something?


Any diviner could find 100 lives that are in some sort of immediate peril in any given day, one would think.

And then teleport to them? Oh wait, V can't do that.

I'm not referring to hypothetical hundreds of endangered innocents across the world, I'm referring to one woman that V abandoned.

[Yukitsu]

I define evil as "doing nothing to help someone WHO IS IN IMMINENT DANGER." There is no neutrality there.

I direct you to this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html), where the archon deems Roy's commission of a similar act as being evil AND chaotic. Not neutral.

"If you hadn't gone back, I would have chucked you file straight into the true neutral bin right now."

Unless you think that kind of action is not evil or chaotic enough to warrant sending him all the way to the other end, but that still doesn't demonstrate that it's chaotic evil as written. In addition, I've made mention to the difference between people who are close to you and people who are acquantances. Elan was a close freind of Roy who trusted him explicitly, he ordered the rest of the team to abandon the quest (whereas V stated that (s)he was ultimately confident that the three sent would be sufficient) and he did so out of actual malice, as opposed to a lack of caring.


We haven't seen Roy since V left the rest of the Order, so you're incorrect. We DON'T know Roy's take on the situation.

He saw "Don't interrupt me for anything with a challenge rating below 11." which is a fairly good indication of the island of orcs depending on how you determine CR. V does after all fight the pit fiend, which has a much higher CR, even though (s)he didn't have to. I'd say the general philosophy has held.


Fly lasted long enough and has the same duration. Keep trying.

To get through the battle and to the ship. Not, however, to get through the kubota scene, the scene with Durkon, and to go past the only land feature in line of sight, as opposed to stopping to cast something else.


I've repeatedly given you my definition of evil in this thread. It's even at the top of this post. I feel like I'm bashing my head into a brick wall at this point.

That's because it's a one line definition of something inherently complex, and isn't following any known moral rule as far as I know. It could be part of your personal opinion on evil, but it's not telling me anything about your moral stance (utilitarian, nihilistic, customized, whatever).


Again, you are trying to reconcile alignment with heroic acts. Everyone, regardless of alignment, is capable of doing heroic things - I once more point to both Gollum and Belkar as proof.

I'm trying to reconcile "hero" as being someone who makes a living off of doing heroic things or at least is consistant, not just doing it on ocassion.


I'm not talking about personality, I'm talking about STATUS. If you save the villagers from a dragon, they will have a feast in your honor. They won't care that you killed it just to get goodies from its trove - you still did what they consider a heroic act. The same is true for the entire OotS.

Belkar and V simply don't do those things all that often. Belkar without Roy would be just as likely to butcher the townsfolk, and V wouldn't have shown up to let the people know (s)he had killed it.


So you agree with me that he could have easily gone with them, then?

But not that the proximity is sufficiently close that one must go help to avoid being evil.


Like I said in my last post, even if he did use overland flight, it doesn't mean the island is large.

It also doesn't mean that it's small. It also doesn't adress the issue I brought up way back when that V likely doesn't have long duration mass buffs prepared.


You're misunderstanding me. Again. Let me reiterate the situation.

My car, which I am driving, is racing down a street when a child, any child at all, walks out in front of it. Doing nothing DOES NOT make me neutral, it makes me evil, even if stepping on the brake may harm me personally.

Rebuttal?

Murder through negligence has a different moral connotation than letting other people die through inaction where you are not functionally (not morally) responsible for the life of that individual. And in particular, not caring about lives of others is different from killing people because you don't care about them, and there is no argument that saves you from having been the babies killer in this case.

I didn't answer your question as asked because it's different when you are the one at the wheel.


Funny you only bring up off-screen casting to support your point of view.

Unless you think that flying over the only terrain feature with a minutes per level spell is indicative of an intelligence of 22, an overland flight is the only really plausible option that V has.


With Kubota and Therkla dead, he IS the mastermind. And V didn't even know Kubota was behind the attacks when he killed him ("What is a Kubota?") so for all he knows, the imp will continue.

Actually, if the mastermind dies, it doesn't mean a new one will spring up in his place. And in any event, the Azurites keep arguing that their way of fighting these things is superior to the way V does it. If they truly think that, then they should get along just fine without. Also, imps have exactly average int scores, and if anyone has knowledge of the outer planes and their denizens, it would be V and Durkon. The odds of an imp being the masterming behind anything is extremely low.


Those are possibilities, but I see them being far more miniscule than you do. Why even bother degrading V's personality if it's not leading up to something?

Further degredation of the team, possible flashy entrance when everything is starting to go wrong, character development. It doesn't have to lead up to evil.


And then teleport to them? Oh wait, V can't do that.

It works out better once you hit a more populated place.


I'm not referring to hypothetical hundreds of endangered innocents across the world, I'm referring to one woman that V abandoned.

David Argall's stance is that taking effort to save that one person just because of the convenience of her being close by is evil when you are just as capable of helping 100 people who are far off instead. I happen to disagree, but that's because I think a lack of morals doesn't automatically mean evil, and proximity counts for a little. I generally tend to say it's a moral obligation if it's within line of sight.

[Optimystik]

"If you hadn't gone back, I would have chucked you file straight into the true neutral bin right now."

Unless you think that kind of action is not evil or chaotic enough to warrant sending him all the way to the other end, but that still doesn't demonstrate that it's chaotic evil as written. In addition, I've made mention to the difference between people who are close to you and people who are acquantances. Elan was a close freind of Roy who trusted him explicitly, he ordered the rest of the team to abandon the quest (whereas V stated that (s)he was ultimately confident that the three sent would be sufficient) and he did so out of actual malice, as opposed to a lack of caring.

Do I really have to explain this to you? Neutral actions don't shift your alignment. They're NEUTRAL. Abandoning Elan came up on the screen because it was both chaotic (disregarding a surrogate) and evil (abandoning someone in need... sound familiar?)

The degree of friendship between Lien and V is irrelevant, because his close friends (Durkon and Elan) asked for his help. By refusing her, he refused them.


He saw "Don't interrupt me for anything with a challenge rating below 11." which is a fairly good indication of the island of orcs depending on how you determine CR. V does after all fight the pit fiend, which has a much higher CR, even though (s)he didn't have to. I'd say the general philosophy has held.

I repeat, you have no idea how Roy views V's decision to abandon the order. None.


To get through the battle and to the ship. Not, however, to get through the kubota scene, the scene with Durkon, and to go past the only land feature in line of sight, as opposed to stopping to cast something else.

Whether it was Overland Flight or offscreen casting is irrelevant - you still haven't explained how Elan and Therkla covered the distance on foot in similar time.


That's because it's a one line definition of something inherently complex, and isn't following any known moral rule as far as I know. It could be part of your personal opinion on evil, but it's not telling me anything about your moral stance (utilitarian, nihilistic, customized, whatever).

Given the Giant's definition of evil acts throughout the strip, I'd say my definition lines up pretty neatly with his.


I'm trying to reconcile "hero" as being someone who makes a living off of doing heroic things or at least is consistant, not just doing it on occasion.

Frequency is irrelevant. You are a hero for slaying a dragon, even if it is the only dragon or indeed the only monster you ever kill in your life. Similarly, if you save someone's life, that person will remember it forever even if you do nothing else of note. You will be a hero to those people indefinitely.


Belkar and V simply don't do those things all that often. Belkar without Roy would be just as likely to butcher the townsfolk, and V wouldn't have shown up to let the people know (s)he had killed it.

See above, frequency is irrelevant.


But not that the proximity is sufficiently close that one must go help to avoid being evil.

Agree to disagree. I still say you're wrong about this.


It also doesn't mean that it's small. It also doesn't adress the issue I brought up way back when that V likely doesn't have long duration mass buffs prepared.

Again, he doesn't need mass buffs with two high-level PCs in front of him.


Murder through negligence has a different moral connotation than letting other people die through inaction where you are not functionally (not morally) responsible for the life of that individual. And in particular, not caring about lives of others is different from killing people because you don't care about them, and there is no argument that saves you from having been the babies killer in this case.

They are the same thing when my inaction results in their death. The same.


Unless you think that flying over the only terrain feature with a minutes per level spell is indicative of an intelligence of 22, an overland flight is the only really plausible option that V has.

And had I seen him cast it at any point in past comics, I wouldn't be arguing with you - but he didn't.


Actually, if the mastermind dies, it doesn't mean a new one will spring up in his place. And in any event, the Azurites keep arguing that their way of fighting these things is superior to the way V does it. If they truly think that, then they should get along just fine without. Also, imps have exactly average int scores, and if anyone has knowledge of the outer planes and their denizens, it would be V and Durkon. The odds of an imp being the masterming behind anything is extremely low.

If he has no interest in being a mastermind, why didn't he go home when his master died? Answer: he has schemes he wishes to continue on the Prime Material, and something about V has given him a nefarious idea.


Further degredation of the team, possible flashy entrance when everything is starting to go wrong, character development. It doesn't have to lead up to evil.

I'm dealing with probability here, not absolutes. You're saying it's just as likely that V will land in the midst of the reunited Order, share a group hug, and continue like nothing ever happened. I just don't see that being a dramatic result from all the deterioration (physical AND moral) of V's character.


It works out better once you hit a more populated place.

Which the island is not.


David Argall's stance is that taking effort to save that one person just because of the convenience of her being close by is evil when you are just as capable of helping 100 people who are far off instead. I happen to disagree, but that's because I think a lack of morals doesn't automatically mean evil, and proximity counts for a little. I generally tend to say it's a moral obligation if it's within line of sight.

I agree; but the more personal power you have (say, oh I don't know, the ability to fly and turn invisible) the broader that obligation becomes.

[Yukitsu]

Do I really have to explain this to you? Neutral actions don't shift your alignment. They're NEUTRAL. Abandoning Elan came up on the screen because it was both chaotic (disregarding a surrogate) and evil (abandoning someone in need... sound familiar?)

Actually, neutral acts are specifically aligned acts when a certain life changing moral choice is presented to you. Roy was already close to the edge prior to that single problem and I've stated why Lien is different from Elan. Roy asked that everyone abandon Elan, Varsuuvius stated that the other three were sufficient. V doesn't care, Roy did it because Elan is a drag. Elan trusts that Roy will save him, I can't imagine Lien expecting any help at all from V.


The degree of friendship between Lien and V is irrelevant, because his close friends (Durkon and Elan) asked for his help. By refusing her, he refused them.

So? Denying my freinds help when they aren't in imminant danger isn't evil. I'm not evil if I decide my homework is more important then helping my buddies furniture. The only argument for alignment is denying the help of Lien, who does need it. Not helping Durkon and Elan when it's not endangering them isn't evil.


I repeat, you have no idea how Roy views V's decision to abandon the order. None.

He had no comment, and the logical conclusion is no comment. And really, why should he care? He's always had to hold the party together, and he knows that V does stuff like that. The dirt farmers come to mind rather rapidly.


Whether it was Overland Flight or offscreen casting is irrelevant - you still haven't explained how Elan and Therkla covered the distance on foot in similar time.

Foot and boat. Run actions are faster than flight of either kind, and a boat is also as fast if not faster. Why would V be capable of getting there faster just because of flight?


Given the Giant's definition of evil acts throughout the strip, I'd say my definition lines up pretty neatly with his.

He allows a great deal of ambiguity, considers situational thinking, and seems to go with the "the majority of decisions are neutral" idea which is presented in the books as well. Miko did many things which are arguably evil prior to her fall, but actual evil acts are unequivacably so.


Frequency is irrelevant. You are a hero for slaying a dragon, even if it is the only dragon or indeed the only monster you ever kill in your life. Similarly, if you save someone's life, that person will remember it forever even if you do nothing else of note. You will be a hero to those people indefinitely.

Does scope matter? Because by your definition, I'm actually a hero.


Again, he doesn't need mass buffs with two high-level PCs in front of him.

I've yet to meet a wizard who prepares two castings of bears strength or cats grace. In fact, I've never actually seen anyone cast those in game at those levels. Which buffs have you got in mind?


They are the same thing when my inaction results in their death. The same.

"I run over the child" is partly inaction, but is still classified as actively murdering the child. The other, you aren't the murderer. Just like pushing someone off a bridge by bumping into them is still an action, even if all I did was walk.


And had I seen him cast it at any point in past comics, I wouldn't be arguing with you - but he didn't.

The world isn't entirely limited to what we see occur. Or did V cast no spells at all during the time Roy wasn't viewing the planet?


If he has no interest in being a mastermind, why didn't he go home when his master died? Answer: he has schemes he wishes to continue on the Prime Material, and something about V has given him a nefarious idea.

Look up the imp entry. They can't get back to the nine hells on their own at all, save for through death, which weakens them. What else is he going to do, but latch on to the most powerful person that he could perhaps sway to his cause, even if he doesn't actually have a smart or relevant plan.


I'm dealing with probability here, not absolutes. You're saying it's just as likely that V will land in the midst of the reunited Order, share a group hug, and continue like nothing ever happened. I just don't see that being a dramatic result from all the deterioration (physical AND moral) of V's character.

I think you're changing the context slightly here. It can be dramatic without being evil.


Which the island is not.

I doubt V is stopping on the island.


I agree; but the more personal power you have (say, oh I don't know, the ability to fly and turn invisible) the broader that obligation becomes.

So you agree with David Argall then, as that's basically what his stance is.

[Optimystik]

Actually, neutral acts are specifically aligned acts when a certain life changing moral choice is presented to you. Roy was already close to the edge prior to that single problem and I've stated why Lien is different from Elan. Roy asked that everyone abandon Elan, Varsuuvius stated that the other three were sufficient. V doesn't care, Roy did it because Elan is a drag. Elan trusts that Roy will save him, I can't imagine Lien expecting any help at all from V.

Aligned, yes. Showing up on an archon's screen as a black mark? No.


So? Denying my freinds help when they aren't in imminant danger isn't evil. I'm not evil if I decide my homework is more important then helping my buddies furniture. The only argument for alignment is denying the help of Lien, who does need it. Not helping Durkon and Elan when it's not endangering them isn't evil.

They were never the ones in danger, so that's a non-issue. The innocents on the fleet, and Lien, are/were.


He had no comment, and the logical conclusion is no comment. And really, why should he care? He's always had to hold the party together, and he knows that V does stuff like that. The dirt farmers come to mind rather rapidly.

Again, you don't know that, so stop making things up. Roy was on the mountain when V defected, and since coming down he has only scryed on Haley and Belkar. We have yet to see his reaction to V.


Foot and boat. Run actions are faster than flight of either kind, and a boat is also as fast if not faster. Why would V be capable of getting there faster just because of flight?

Because he doesn't have to fly through undergrowth and between trees.


He allows a great deal of ambiguity, considers situational thinking, and seems to go with the "the majority of decisions are neutral" idea which is presented in the books as well. Miko did many things which are arguably evil prior to her fall, but actual evil acts are unequivacably so.

Such as... abandoning innocents in peril.


Does scope matter? Because by your definition, I'm actually a hero.

To the mountaineers whose lives you saved, yes you are. Ask them if they remember the incident, and see what they tell you.


I've yet to meet a wizard who prepares two castings of bears strength or cats grace. In fact, I've never actually seen anyone cast those in game at those levels. Which buffs have you got in mind?

We're talking about a wizard that actually prepared Owl's Wisdom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html)


"I run over the child" is partly inaction, but is still classified as actively murdering the child. The other, you aren't the murderer. Just like pushing someone off a bridge by bumping into them is still an action, even if all I did was walk.

If you have the opportunity AND ability to stop walking before bumping that person and choose not to use it, then You. Are. Evil.


The world isn't entirely limited to what we see occur. Or did V cast no spells at all during the time Roy wasn't viewing the planet?

So you agree he could have cast Fly off-screen?


Look up the imp entry. They can't get back to the nine hells on their own at all, save for through death, which weakens them. What else is he going to do, but latch on to the most powerful person that he could perhaps sway to his cause, even if he doesn't actually have a smart or relevant plan.

And why would he bother trying to sway someone who's going to stay neutral? Game, set, match.


I think you're changing the context slightly here. It can be dramatic without being evil.

Alignment shifts that come about without epiphanies are very lacking in drama, wouldn't you agree? As V has had no epiphany (and indeed thinks he is doing nothing wrong whatsoever), the only logical conclusion is that he has further to slide yet.


I doubt V is stopping on the island.

I don't care where he is going - his alignment depends on what he is flying away from.


So you agree with David Argall then, as that's basically what his stance is.

Of course I do. The "100 lives" he mentioned do not apply to Lien as she is in imminent harm and they aren't. They DO apply when he decides to leave the fleet.

[evileeyore]

Do I really have to explain this to you? Neutral actions don't shift your alignment. They're NEUTRAL.

Yes, they do.

If one's Alignmnet were CE and one were consistently doing Nuetral and Evil acts, but no Chaotic. one's Alignemnet would shift to NE.

One does not need to do only Good or Evil`. Lawful or Chaotic, there is an inbetween state.


However, caveat: In the case you are discussing, I agree they were a bit stronger than NN.


Aligned, yes. Showing up on an archon's screen as a black mark? No.

Of course it would. It was neither Lawful nor Giood, therefore was strike against Roy as to whether he was Lawful and Good. He wasn't being Judged on whether he was Neutral, Evil, or Chaotic, but Lawful and Good, therefore any marks not in the Lawful and Good categories would be black marks on his permanent record.

[hamishspence]

PHB: Neutral: Lacks commitment to make sacrifices to help others. (will do so for those they have a personal commitment to.)
BoED: Good people have responsibility to help those in need.

Not even trying to help someone who is clearly in immediate need would be enough to drop Roy from LG to NN, according to the Deva.

But, would it be enough to drop someone from LN to LE or NN to NE? How about in conjunction with multiple other acts?

NE can be simply "lacking in compassion" PHB- it doesn't have to be utter malevolence.

[Optimystik]

Yes, they do.

If one's Alignmnet were CE and one were consistently doing Nuetral and Evil acts, but no Chaotic. one's Alignemnet would shift to NE.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's ridiculous. Would brushing your teeth change your alignment? Polishing your sword? Reading a (non-magical) book? Those are neutral acts.

Look at Belkar - he goes where the Order tells him to and does what they want him to do. He gripes and complains about it, but he does it, yet he is still classified as Chaotic. And Roy's neutral actions, such as standing by while Haley picked the Azure City jail-cell lock, didn't show up on his record either. And Miko was still Lawful despite "deceiving" the MitD by letting it believe she was going to play along with it. I could go on.


One does not need to do only Good or Evil`. Lawful or Chaotic, there is an inbetween state.

I never said you have to do only G, E, L, or C acts. The vast majority of acts in a person's life are Neutral, and that is why they don't define that person. Being neutral means one of two things: personal detachment from moral/ethical situations (e.g. doing neither lawful nor chaotic things), or a symmetrical application of ethics and morals (e.g. committing a mix of good and evil acts.)


Of course it would. It was neither Lawful nor Giood, therefore was strike against Roy as to whether he was Lawful and Good. He wasn't being Judged on whether he was Neutral, Evil, or Chaotic, but Lawful and Good, therefore any marks not in the Lawful and Good categories would be black marks on his permanent record.

If it was a neutral act, it wouldn't have been strong enough to shift his alignment all the way to True Neutral. Do you think one Neutral act is enough to cancel out all the LG things Roy had done in his life? That would be one messed up system. Logically, abandoning Elan had to be a CE act.

[hamishspence]

symmetrical application of morals was more second ed- effectively, you had to fight for both sides- described in 2nd ed PHB. Not the best way of doing it.

from late 3rd ed onward, evil acts have tended to count far more heavily than good ones- Fiendish Codex 2 exemplifies this, as do predecessors, Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds.

and even in 2nd ed, really evil act (slaughter village) for really good reasons (save country from plague) was enough to move paladin all the way from LG to NE or CE. Mentioned in 2nd ed PHB.

[Assassin89]

symmetrical application of morals was more second ed- effectively, you had to fight for both sides- described in 2nd ed PHB. Not the best way of doing it.

from late 3rd ed onward, evil acts have tended to count far more heavily than good ones- Fiendish Codex 2 exemplifies this, as do predecessors, Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds.

and even in 2nd ed, really evil act (slaughter village) for really good reasons (save country from plague) was enough to move paladin all the way from LG to NE or CE. Mentioned in 2nd ed PHB.

If that was true...
Wouldn't all of the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village have fallen?

[hamishspence]

hence all the arguments over that very same subject. Usually resolved with either:
"evil children can be killed without Falling" or "Sapphire Guard are exception to the rules" or:
"Neither 2nd ed nor BoED rules apply, only 3.5 core, which doesn't define specifically what counts as "morally murder"

Chasing unarmed children to kill them, after you've killed the bad guy you were after, really doesn't fit well. Some novels had paladins do that, but these novels tended to make that kind of paladin order positively distrusted by less zealous groups, like the Harpers.

The Giant used phrase "Bad things are done to bad people by good people acting bad" and later "Most damning of all" for this, and "Even the Twelve Gods can't stop karma kicking them in the (behinds)."

[Texas Jedi]

If that was true...
Wouldn't all of the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village have fallen?

It would be true if it was a normal human village were there was a good mixture of good and evil.

Since goblins are for the most part evil and the paladins were serving lawful and good orders they should not have fallen.

I know that is in the real world there is lots of shades of grey but in DnD there is very little grey. I am going to estimate that in DnD 90% of goblins are evil. If the villiage had 100 goblins in that would mean 10 would be good if we were following the dice. The paladins might have had their detect evil on and were only killing the evil goblins. They might have spared the other goblins because you don't really get a good view of the battle. You only see Redcloaks, and Right-Eye's perspective.

[hamishspence]

"for the most part" as in "usually NE"? Depending on which book you read- no matter how evil the non-combatants are, if you actively target them, you Fall.

"Exterminate the rest and let us be done here" is not exactly discriminatory.

[Texas Jedi]

"for the most part" as in "usually NE"? Depending on which book you read- no matter how evil the non-combatants are, if you actively target them, you Fall.

"Exterminate the rest and let us be done here" is not exactly discriminatory.


I forgot about that line. It has been a while since I read SoD. Then in that case no it is isn't discriminatory.

[hamishspence]

Given the number of times D&D novels have done "Exceptions to the rule" I tend to look with suspicion on "we have to kill these unarmed children- their species is naturally inclined to evil"

and even when that inclination is quite strong (drow) neutral drow living under evil system, like Zaknafein, are revolted at idea of killing children, even drow children.

[David Argall]

Straw man. Those 100 lives cannot be an issue until they are also in imminent peril.
Imminent peril is a useful rule of thumb, but no more than that.

A factory has accidentally used salt instead of sugar in babyfood, making it lethal for babies. You can rush to stop the truck from making deliveries, and save hundreds of lives over the course of the next several weeks or months, or you can pull one kid out of traffic and save only the one life now. The moral choice is to stop the truck. The fact that the hundreds are not in immediate danger and are entirely unidentifiable at this time is not important. We must let the one die and save the hundred.

Now in a real situation, we would expect that there is time to do both. One saves the child now, and maybe calls up the first delivery location to tell them to stop the truck. But this merely complicates the situation. You may not be able to call up the delivery location, or convince them to hold the truck.
there is also the factor of your actual knowledge. Do you actually know the factory used salt instead of sugar. They normally check for such things after all. So maybe there is a misunderstanding. And you usually do know the kid is in danger. And can you actually stop the truck. Often enough you are nobody the truck driver needs to pay attention to. But pulling the kid off the street is within your ability.
All of this is why you routinely use immediate danger as a standard. But this does not change the point that immediate danger is a rough and ready standard. The immediate danger is in the last analysis not what you judge the situation by.

Oh yes, there are two islands involved in the plot. The orcs live on an island with a high mountain. The battle with the devil takes place on a smaller, flat island.



"for the most part" as in "usually NE"? Depending on which book you read- no matter how evil the non-combatants are, if you actively target them, you Fall.
Incorrect, at least in the absolute sense. Non-combatants are not legitimate targets for many purposes, but they remain targets for other purposes. Our base case again is the prisoner condemned to execution. The paladin does not fall for killing this helpless individual.
Once we accept this basic case, we find a number of elaborations that might justify a given killing of a non-combatant. Which one applies to SoD is an open question, but a complete rejection of a basic rule seems distinctly less likely than that one of them applies.

[Yukitsu]

Aligned, yes. Showing up on an archon's screen as a black mark? No.

When it's a life changing moral decision, and he chooses neutral then it's a black mark to a lawful good individual.


They were never the ones in danger, so that's a non-issue. The innocents on the fleet, and Lien, are/were.

For the record, you're the one that stated that not helping lien was letting down Elan and Durkon. I was simply stating that there is no reason that a neutral person must help them if they aren't in danger.


Again, you don't know that, so stop making things up. Roy was on the mountain when V defected, and since coming down he has only scryed on Haley and Belkar. We have yet to see his reaction to V.

What is V doing now that V hasn't articulated or done in the past?


Because he doesn't have to fly through undergrowth and between trees.

And it's still slower. Undergrowth etc. doesn't seem to be impeding those two at all, and is probably light, or the path they follow is in fact an actual path.


Such as... abandoning innocents in peril.

Only if you ignore that neutral acts are a black mark to a lawful good paragon.


To the mountaineers whose lives you saved, yes you are. Ask them if they remember the incident, and see what they tell you.

They remember that I'm their freind because I'll do that. I'm not a hero, even to them.


We're talking about a wizard that actually prepared Owl's Wisdom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html)

I believe I mentioned level dependance for spells prepared. At those levels low to mid range buffs are excellent in combat, but they lose efficacy around levely 9 or so.


If you have the opportunity AND ability to stop walking before bumping that person and choose not to use it, then You. Are. Evil.

Exactly. Because you actively murdered someone. If I were to let it happen, it is different from doing it myself.


So you agree he could have cast Fly off-screen?

No, as that would be daft. Fly isn't a transit spell, it's for combat and to solve very local problems, like pits.


And why would he bother trying to sway someone who's going to stay neutral? Game, set, match.

Read the entry, and tell me where imps have detection abilities. They can't know innately if V is neutral, evil, or even good.


Alignment shifts that come about without epiphanies are very lacking in drama, wouldn't you agree? As V has had no epiphany (and indeed thinks he is doing nothing wrong whatsoever), the only logical conclusion is that he has further to slide yet.

V is arguably the least likely to care about drama. In fact, V's character seems to go out of the way to avoid common dramatic tropes.


Of course I do. The "100 lives" he mentioned do not apply to Lien as she is in imminent harm and they aren't. They DO apply when he decides to leave the fleet.

Actually, I'd bet V could find 100 people who actually are in dire need of help. I think V can cast path of shadows now, so even the getting there isn't impossible if V wants to do it.


Pardon me for saying so, but that's ridiculous. Would brushing your teeth change your alignment? Polishing your sword? Reading a (non-magical) book? Those are neutral acts.

Neutral with no real moral alternative. Not doing them is also pretty much neutral. The difference is when you have alternatives as options.


Look at Belkar - he goes where the Order tells him to and does what they want him to do. He gripes and complains about it, but he does it, yet he is still classified as Chaotic. And Roy's neutral actions, such as standing by while Haley picked the Azure City jail-cell lock, didn't show up on his record either. And Miko was still Lawful despite "deceiving" the MitD by letting it believe she was going to play along with it. I could go on.

Chaotics that are weaker than someone else play along to what the bigger one says. Chaotic evil societies are built around the structure that a chaotic individual will follow orders if there is something in it for them, even if they resent it. When the alternative is death, or jail, then following Roys orders is probably better for the little psychopath. Watching Haley pick locks wasn't major in any conceivable manner, and Miko is capable of doing the occasional chaotic act without falling.


I never said you have to do only G, E, L, or C acts. The vast majority of acts in a person's life are Neutral, and that is why they don't define that person. Being neutral means one of two things: personal detachment from moral/ethical situations (e.g. doing neither lawful nor chaotic things), or a symmetrical application of ethics and morals (e.g. committing a mix of good and evil acts.)

And V is doing neither good nor evil things. V isn't doing anything.


If it was a neutral act, it wouldn't have been strong enough to shift his alignment all the way to True Neutral. Do you think one Neutral act is enough to cancel out all the LG things Roy had done in his life? That would be one messed up system. Logically, abandoning Elan had to be a CE act.

Considering the scope of the act, yes, it would be enough. Other good or lawful aligned planes may disagree with true neutral due to that process anyway, but it certainly doesn't state that it was definitely chaotic evil.


NE can be simply "lacking in compassion" PHB- it doesn't have to be utter malevolence.

Compassion doesn't require you have compassion for everyone, nor do you need to do anything about that feeling to be neutral.

[King of Nowhere]

I want to remmember everybody that the paladin code in oots is much less rigid than in the manuals.
Under the "normal" paladin code, Miko should have fallen a nuber of times before killing sojo (just for the fact that she felt entitled to kill anything with an evil alignment).
Tanah wilfully associated with Belkar, knowing he's extremely evil, and not as an attempt of redeeming him, but just because he was in desperate need of help and they had a common goal, so he should have fallen too.
So instead of trying to justify what happened at Redcloak's village with some circular logic (it was a good act because they didn't fall, and they didn't fall because it was a good act) or some improbable argument, just recognize that the conditions for falling in the comic is much more lax than in the book.

[Assassin89]

I want to remember everybody that the paladin code in oots is much less rigid than in the manuals.
Under the "normal" paladin code, Miko should have fallen a number of times before killing sojo (just for the fact that she felt entitled to kill anything with an evil alignment).
Thanh willfully associated with Belkar, knowing he's extremely evil, and not as an attempt of redeeming him, but just because he was in desperate need of help and they had a common goal, so he should have fallen too.
So instead of trying to justify what happened at Redcloak's village with some circular logic (it was a good act because they didn't fall, and they didn't fall because it was a good act) or some improbable argument, just recognize that the conditions for falling in the comic is much more lax than in the book.

In the comic the idea of good and evil for the Paladins of Azure city is defined by the twelve gods. The twelve gods may have seen Thanh's association with Belkar as a means for greater good.

[Yukitsu]

They also have to know those people are actually evil, and Belkar keeps foiling the detect evil spell when the paladins cast it.

[Atheist_Cleric]

At the moment I think that any conjecture about V's alignment is mostly moot, mainly because when we last saw him/her, it was at a turning point. V's lack of trance, constant spell research etc have lead him/her to the edge of one of the two sides of the characters personality. Killing Kubota was another big step in that direction, as was leaving the ship to resume the search for Haley and Roy on his/her own. I still dont truly think that V's alignment had totally shifted then, from whatever it originally was (TN, CN, whatever). And then we were given the foreshadowing of a catalyst, the potential final ingredient in V's alignment change: The imp. How V reacts (or maybe has already reacted, we wont necesarily see exactly what happened) will more than likely decide what new alignment stance he/she will take.

It could be anything from the "accepts imps tutelage in hell magics to gain more power" angle to the "Kills imp without a second thought and resumes solo journey" theory. If Qwarr isnt a custom handbook imp, then it could be anything; for all we know he could have the ability to possess people who are in an unbalanced state of mind. Hopefully soon we'll get a new appearance by the elf (although somehow I think it will be a while), and that will probably give us a defnite answer.

[Yukitsu]

I strongly agree with that. The way V reacts to Qarr is probably going to be the real defining moment.

[David Argall]

Under the "normal" paladin code, Miko should have fallen a nuber of times before killing sojo (just for the fact that she felt entitled to kill anything with an evil alignment).
We do not see that. We are told that Miko has killed a number of creatures she detected as evil, but we do not see her detect without cause. Rather she seems to detect when she already suspects the answer. And that would mean the suspect is presumably already guilty of major crime. The detect then would be sparing those who are not evil, not killing those with merely an evil alignment.


Tanah wilfully associated with Belkar, knowing he's extremely evil, and not as an attempt of redeeming him, but just because he was in desperate need of help and they had a common goal, so he should have fallen too.
PH does not say a paladin falls for associating with an evil sort. It merely says he won't do it. And that obviously means he won't do it if he has much choice in the matter. Since Thant didn't have much in the way of options, he is merely on shaky grounds here, not falling.


So instead of trying to justify what happened at Redcloak's village with some circular logic (it was a good act because they didn't fall, and they didn't fall because it was a good act) or some improbable argument,
The logic is not at all circular. PH says a paladin falls, no exceptions, when he does an evil deed. The paladins did not fall when they raided the village. Therefore the raid on the village was not an evil deed. Standard deductive syllogism. Nothing circular to it.



just recognize that the conditions for falling in the comic is much more lax than in the book.
Possibly, but this is not lax. This, on the face of it, is a flat out rejection of this requirement.



In the comic the idea of good and evil for the Paladins of Azure city is defined by the twelve gods.
This too is a categorical rejection of D&D rules, which discuss at length the need of the paladin to reject any commands from above to do evil deeds. The gods of D&D do not define good or evil.

[Optimystik]

Yukitsu, you're really living up to your sig.


When it's a life changing moral decision, and he chooses neutral then it's a black mark to a lawful good individual.

Neutral acts, by definition, cannot BE black marks. Otherwise every neutral act Roy had ever done would be used against him during his review.


For the record, you're the one that stated that not helping lien was letting down Elan and Durkon. I was simply stating that there is no reason that a neutral person must help them if they aren't in danger.

You're missing the point - they were never in danger. They were asking V's help for Lien's sake, not theirs.


What is V doing now that V hasn't articulated or done in the past?

Left the Order.


And it's still slower. Undergrowth etc. doesn't seem to be impeding those two at all, and is probably light, or the path they follow is in fact an actual path.

You don't know what is or isn't impeding them, stop pulling things out of your ass. And even if they were running down a path that was clear as day, that's still only 30 ft. per round. If the island was large they wouldn't have made it.


Only if you ignore that neutral acts are a black mark to a lawful good paragon.

Why would they be? Rich's message is that true LG people (like Roy, Lien and Hinjo) don't walk around all the time with a stick up their ass; i.e. that they do neutral things. That doesn't make them any less good or lawful in alignment.


They remember that I'm their freind because I'll do that. I'm not a hero, even to them.

Your sig had me suspecting, but now I'm convinced you're just trolling. Adults who've had their lives saved by someone will generally remember the incident. But this isn't about you and your "friends" in any event.


I believe I mentioned level dependance for spells prepared. At those levels low to mid range buffs are excellent in combat, but they lose efficacy around levely 9 or so.

So at level 9 and up, a free +4 bonus to a key stat becomes useless? Are you even reading your posts anymore?


Exactly. Because you actively murdered someone. If I were to let it happen, it is different from doing it myself.

Not if in both cases you could prevent it.


No, as that would be daft. Fly isn't a transit spell, it's for combat and to solve very local problems, like pits.

I didn't ask whether it was practical, I asked whether it was possible. The answer is yes.


Read the entry, and tell me where imps have detection abilities. They can't know innately if V is neutral, evil, or even good.

Qarr saw V leave his friends, it didn't need Detect Evil for that. And the imp wouldn't be calling it an "opportunity" if all he was planning to do was attack him.


V is arguably the least likely to care about drama. In fact, V's character seems to go out of the way to avoid common dramatic tropes.

Does The Giant also avoid dramatic character development?


Actually, I'd bet V could find 100 people who actually are in dire need of help. I think V can cast path of shadows now, so even the getting there isn't impossible if V wants to do it.

Under your hypothesis he is flat neutral, and under mine he is neutral bordering on evil. Why would he? Especially given that he is willing to abandon just one innocent who is right in front of him.


Neutral with no real moral alternative. Not doing them is also pretty much neutral. The difference is when you have alternatives as options.

There are plenty of alternatives to reading a book or grooming. They are all neutral also. And none are black marks.


Chaotics that are weaker than someone else play along to what the bigger one says. Chaotic evil societies are built around the structure that a chaotic individual will follow orders if there is something in it for them, even if they resent it. When the alternative is death, or jail, then following Roys orders is probably better for the little psychopath.

However they justify it, following orders still isn't Chaotic. Yet their alignments by the neutral act of going along with them.


Watching Haley pick locks wasn't major in any conceivable manner

Precisely, because it is neutral. Had HE been the one breaking the lock, it would have been mentioned during his review (just like resisting arrest was.)


and Miko is capable of doing the occasional chaotic act without falling.

Allowing others to believe a mistaken impression is neutral, not chaotic. As you keep saying, she didn't do anything.


And V is doing neither good nor evil things. V isn't doing anything.

Turning your back on your friends is an action, as is turning your back on an innocent in peril.


Considering the scope of the act, yes, it would be enough. Other good or lawful aligned planes may disagree with true neutral due to that process anyway, but it certainly doesn't state that it was definitely chaotic evil.

It is enough because it is evil. Look at the other acts she named:
"Resisting Arrest" - Chaotic, not neutral.
"Taking gifts intended for a king" - Chaotic, not neutral.
"Dangling an Oracle out of a window." - Evil, not neutral.

See the pattern?

If the angel had a problem with neutral acts it wouldn't have given him a pass on most of his life. Notice the program she checks his life with is called the "Malev-o-meter." She is looking not for neutral acts, but evil ones.

Or are you trying to say that leaving Elan was the only neutral act of all the neutral acts Roy ever committed that was worthy of note?


Compassion doesn't require you have compassion for everyone, nor do you need to do anything about that feeling to be neutral.

Right. But ignoring someone in danger is evil.


The way V reacts to Qarr is probably going to be the real defining moment.

Finally, we agree on something. My bet is it will be the moment he slips into evil.

I'm not going to spend forever arguing with you on this, but I'll gladly bookmark this thread for later. Say, after V turns evil.

[Warlord JK]

We haven't seen Roy since V left the rest of the Order, so you're incorrect. We DON'T know Roy's take on the situation.

We have actually seen Roy appear, in the Haley threads after 600, but Roy missed the part about V because he was up on the mountain training. His dad did not fill him in on the situation with V, as he was probably paying more attention to Haley. Thus Roy has no idea what the situation is with V, so he has no take on it. Just giving a little clarification here :smallbiggrin:.

[Warlord JK]

"If you hadn't gone back, I would have chucked you file straight into the true neutral bin right now."

Unless you think that kind of action is not evil or chaotic enough to warrant sending him all the way to the other end, but that still doesn't demonstrate that it's chaotic evil as written. In addition, I've made mention to the difference between people who are close to you and people who are acquantances. Elan was a close freind of Roy who trusted him explicitly, he ordered the rest of the team to abandon the quest (whereas V stated that (s)he was ultimately confident that the three sent would be sufficient) and he did so out of actual malice, as opposed to a lack of caring.

She was chucking it into true neutral not because it was a neutral act, but because it was such an evil act that it balanced out almost all his good acts to bring him down to TN. It would take a much worse act to make a skip from LG to NE. Normally, small evil acts take a LG person slowly towards evil and through neutral, not directly to it. It has to be big to go a whole alignment step and even bigger to skip 2 alignments.

[Yukitsu]

Yukitsu, you're really living up to your sig.[/quotes]

I thought I asked you to stop bothering me about it.

[quote]Neutral acts, by definition, cannot BE black marks. Otherwise every neutral act Roy had ever done would be used against him during his review.

No one else agrees with this, other than warlord. Celestia states that you must do lawful good acts to get in. Acting neutrally in a moral quandary means you are not cut out for celestia.


You're missing the point - they were never in danger. They were asking V's help for Lien's sake, not theirs.

And V doesn't have to help freinds, if not helping doesn't put them in any danger. It's not like I have to go help my freinds every time they need help, if I'm busy at the time.


Left the Order.

Which is evil how? Some unqualified threat that doesn't exist is putting them in immediate personal danger?


You don't know what is or isn't impeding them, stop pulling things out of your ass. And even if they were running down a path that was clear as day, that's still only 30 ft. per round. If the island was large they wouldn't have made it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#run

120 feet, compared to 40 or 60 feet depending on the spell V had active. There is some argument that you can run using your fly speed, but I somewhat find that questionable.


Why would they be? Rich's message is that true LG people (like Roy, Lien and Hinjo) don't walk around all the time with a stick up their ass; i.e. that they do neutral things. That doesn't make them any less good or lawful in alignment.

Because moral issues don't come up very often. I can eat cheerios, or I can eat a poptart. No moral quandry means that their action must be neutral. However, people like Lien, Hinjo or Roy won't do neutral acts when they can do a good act. V won't. The tests of alignment don't come from day to day things, they come from bigger choices than that.


Your sig had me suspecting, but now I'm convinced you're just trolling. Adults who've had their lives saved by someone will generally remember the incident. But this isn't about you and your "friends" in any event.

I said they would remember, and we're freinds because of it. If I asked if I was their hero, they would say no. Just as if the person who saved my life (Almost drowned) asked if they were my hero, I would say no, but they are my freind. Why? Because freinds save their freinds.


So at level 9 and up, a free +4 bonus to a key stat becomes useless? Are you even reading your posts anymore?

Comparably, yes. At that level, it starts to become more and more likely that you have at least a few items of that amount to your primary stats, and I've seen the hypothesis that V likely has a headband of +4 int from spell slot numbers. Go see a theoretical wizard build and see how many have owl's wisdom prepared at say, 15th level. Do you play the game at these levels?


Not if in both cases you could prevent it.

Even given your moral intolerance to apathy, who would you blame more? the murderer or the bystander?


I didn't ask whether it was practical, I asked whether it was possible. The answer is yes.

Sure it is possible, but it's also possible that I'm the in fact god, and am only doing this because screwing with existance is boring. Saying something possible doesn't add much.


Qarr saw V leave his friends, it didn't need Detect Evil for that. And the imp wouldn't be calling it an "opportunity" if all he was planning to do was attack him.

Why is V leaving evil when they aren't in danger again?


Does The Giant also avoid dramatic character development?

Generally, there is a lack of it for both V and Durkon. V and redcloak seem to have actual disdain for conventions of literature as predictable and inane.


Under your hypothesis he is flat neutral, and under mine he is neutral bordering on evil. Why would he? Especially given that he is willing to abandon just one innocent who is right in front of him.

Maybe because the rules state in no uncertain terms that abandoning an innocent that is right in front of you (which is a lie) is neutral.


There are plenty of alternatives to reading a book or grooming. They are all neutral also. And none are black marks.

It's because there are no moral options within reason to pursue, nor do those actions prevent you from doing moral things to any significant degree.


However they justify it, following orders still isn't Chaotic. Yet their alignments by the neutral act of going along with them.

You can maintain alignment within a group by acting appropriately to that alignment within the group. Chaotics don't follow along with everything you want, and certainly Haley tricks the group, Belkar is always being forced to stop the things he initiates, and Elan who does harmless chaos isn't a bother to the lawful members of the party (mostly). Most acts, even for chaotic, lawful, good or evil people will be neutral. Most acts don't have an aligned alternative. Alignment comes from moral dillemas.


Precisely, because it is neutral. Had HE been the one breaking the lock, it would have been mentioned during his review (just like resisting arrest was.)

Which goes back to prove that watching other people do things of certain alignment isn't the same as doing them yourself.


Allowing others to believe a mistaken impression is neutral, not chaotic. As you keep saying, she didn't do anything.

Letting ones emotions get the best of them is generally considered chaotic, which she does do more than a few times.


Turning your back on your friends is an action, as is turning your back on an innocent in peril.

Not if it started turned away from them. Not doing something isn't an action in morals.


It is enough because it is evil. Look at the other acts she named:
"Resisting Arrest" - Chaotic, not neutral.
"Taking gifts intended for a king" - Chaotic, not neutral.
"Dangling an Oracle out of a window." - Evil, not neutral.

See the pattern?

That your definition of morals seems to always require good, evil, law or chaos when assigning alignment to them, assuming they are moral quandaries?


If the angel had a problem with neutral acts it wouldn't have given him a pass on most of his life. Notice the program she checks his life with is called the "Malev-o-meter." She is looking not for neutral acts, but evil ones.

Or are you trying to say that leaving Elan was the only neutral act of all the neutral acts Roy ever committed that was worthy of note?

How many other life changing moral quandaries did Roy solve through neutrality, as opposed to good and law? Tying ones shoes isn't a life changing moral quandary, nor are any of the other trivial straw men you present.


Right. But ignoring someone in danger is evil.

Stating that doesn't make it so. I've stated why it's false, and you haven't even attempted to back up that assertion, except by saying that running over infants is somehow a passive thing.


Finally, we agree on something. My bet is it will be the moment he slips into evil.

I'm not going to spend forever arguing with you on this, but I'll gladly bookmark this thread for later. Say, after V turns evil.

I don't really care what V's alignment turns out to later, I care as to what it is now, and evidence for change later. Using all the wrong methods can very easily come to the correct conclusion, just like throwing money on a craps table in Vegas can win you some cash.


She was chucking it into true neutral not because it was a neutral act, but because it was such an evil act that it balanced out almost all his good acts to bring him down to TN. It would take a much worse act to make a skip from LG to NE. Normally, small evil acts take a LG person slowly towards evil and through neutral, not directly to it. It has to be big to go a whole alignment step and even bigger to skip 2 alignments.

Roy doesn't do many purely lawful good acts, which are a strong requirement to being lawful good to the point of making it to celestia, and has several other questionable actions that a paragon of law and good wouldn't have to defend. I've also stated how Roy's case differs from V's case, such as Elan is a freind, Lien is not, Roy asked the party to ignore Elan, V asserted that the rest of the group is enough to get Lien, and Roy was stating that leaving Elan was because he actively disliked him, whereas V stated that (s)he simply doesn't care about Lien. If you think these are equal footings from a moral standard, I'd have to disagree.

[hamishspence]

"prisoner condemned to execution"

Actually, if the paladin is not the one tasked with carrying out the execution, they may indeed Fall.

Its defined as a very hard rule, an "Out of the Question" to violate, in BoED. And also in other D&D comics- Zogonia "killing helpless prisoners is evil! We are not evil!" Unless the prisoner has actually been condemned, its not the kind of rule Good beings can violate.

Extrapolating from "execution isn't evil" to "killing evil beings isn't ever evil" is extrapolating a very long way.

[Optimystik]

I thought I asked you to stop bothering me about it.

Pointing it out bothers you? I should do it more often. :smallamused:


No one else agrees with this, other than warlord. Celestia states that you must do lawful good acts to get in. Acting neutrally in a moral quandary means you are not cut out for celestia.

I was looking for reasoning, not consensus.


And V doesn't have to help freinds, if not helping doesn't put them in any danger. It's not like I have to go help my freinds every time they need help, if I'm busy at the time.

But if they or innocents under their protection ARE in danger, not helping is callous.


Which is evil how? Some unqualified threat that doesn't exist is putting them in immediate personal danger?

He doesn't know the threat has left the fleet. (And is, coincidentally, making a beeline for him.)


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#run

120 feet, compared to 40 or 60 feet depending on the spell V had active. There is some argument that you can run using your fly speed, but I somewhat find that questionable.

So Elan was planning to walk out of the Cliffport bar? "30 ft. per round movement rate."

And even if flight is slower, all that does is prove my point that the island is small since V was only moments behind him. :smallsigh:


Because moral issues don't come up very often. I can eat cheerios, or I can eat a poptart. No moral quandry means that their action must be neutral. However, people like Lien, Hinjo or Roy won't do neutral acts when they can do a good act. V won't. The tests of alignment don't come from day to day things, they come from bigger choices than that.

Moral quandaries:

A lawful act would be to instruct Haley not to pick the lock.
A lawful act would be to tell his friends the truth about wearing the gender belt instead of trying to lie about it.
A good act would be not being mean to Elan when he is being silly.
A good act would be to give the sleeping goblins a fighting chance.

I could go on, but you get the point. None of those neutral acts came up on his record. Neutral acts don't count.


I said they would remember, and we're freinds because of it. If I asked if I was their hero, they would say no. Just as if the person who saved my life (Almost drowned) asked if they were my hero, I would say no, but they are my freind. Why? Because freinds save their freinds.

And don't abandon them either, right?


Comparably, yes. At that level, it starts to become more and more likely that you have at least a few items of that amount to your primary stats, and I've seen the hypothesis that V likely has a headband of +4 int from spell slot numbers. Go see a theoretical wizard build and see how many have owl's wisdom prepared at say, 15th level. Do you play the game at these levels?

So what level was V when he had it prepared way back when? 12? 13? And why is it so inconceivable for him to have Bull's Strength, Endurance or Eagle's Splendor also?


Even given your moral intolerance to apathy, who would you blame more? the murderer or the bystander?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not intolerant to apathy.
And if both actors are morally responsible (since both have the power to save the victim's life) then "blaming one of them more" is pretty irrelevant.


Sure it is possible,

Thanks, that's all I wanted from you.


Why is V leaving evil when they aren't in danger again?

Again, V has no way of knowing they aren't in danger. He simply doesn't care. Try and keep up.


Generally, there is a lack of it for both V and Durkon. V and redcloak seem to have actual disdain for conventions of literature as predictable and inane.

And yet both of them have had far more character development than V. He is due.


Maybe because the rules state in no uncertain terms that abandoning an innocent that is right in front of you (which is a lie) is neutral.

You misunderstood me again. Rephrased: "Why would V scry for 100 innocents in peril when his is unwilling to help even one?"


It's because there are no moral options within reason to pursue, nor do those actions prevent you from doing moral things to any significant degree.

V had a moral option right in front of him and walked away from it. By your own admission, that isn't neutral.


You can maintain alignment within a group by acting appropriately to that alignment within the group. Chaotics don't follow along with everything you want, and certainly Haley tricks the group, Belkar is always being forced to stop the things he initiates, and Elan who does harmless chaos isn't a bother to the lawful members of the party (mostly). Most acts, even for chaotic, lawful, good or evil people will be neutral. Most acts don't have an aligned alternative. Alignment comes from moral dillemas.

My point exactly, hence V's deteriorating alignment. There's hope for you yet.


Which goes back to prove that watching other people do things of certain alignment isn't the same as doing them yourself.

Never said it was.


Letting ones emotions get the best of them is generally considered chaotic, which she does do more than a few times.

So? How about talking about the instance I mentioned, when she encountered the MitD?


Not if it started turned away from them. Not doing something isn't an action in morals.

So if one of your mountain-climbing friends slipped and was about to fall to their death, and you were in a position to save them, you would be morally neutral by just staring at them until their grip gave way? Harsh.


That your definition of morals seems to always require good, evil, law or chaos when assigning alignment to them, assuming they are moral quandaries?

If you take issue with the alignments I assigned to his actions, then dispute them instead of directing ad hominems at me. Oh that's right, you can't.

[QUOTE]How many other life changing moral quandaries did Roy solve through neutrality, as opposed to good and law? Tying ones shoes isn't a life changing moral quandary, nor are any of the other trivial straw men you present.

Listed a bunch above.


Stating that doesn't make it so. I've stated why it's false, and you haven't even attempted to back up that assertion, except by saying that running over infants is somehow a passive thing.

Except you haven't.


I don't really care what V's alignment turns out to later, I care as to what it is now, and evidence for change later. Using all the wrong methods can very easily come to the correct conclusion, just like throwing money on a craps table in Vegas can win you some cash.

Obvious cop-out is obvious.


Roy doesn't do many purely lawful good acts, which are a strong requirement to being lawful good to the point of making it to celestia, and has several other questionable actions that a paragon of law and good wouldn't have to defend. I've also stated how Roy's case differs from V's case, such as Elan is a freind, Lien is not, Roy asked the party to ignore Elan, V asserted that the rest of the group is enough to get Lien, and Roy was stating that leaving Elan was because he actively disliked him, whereas V stated that (s)he simply doesn't care about Lien. If you think these are equal footings from a moral standard, I'd have to disagree.

...and yet he got in anyway, despite all that neutrality. I'm glad you aren't the one with the admission tickets if you really think neutral acts lower your alignment.

Look, clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me, and your arguments are getting progressively ludicrous, so I'll just break it off here. Thread tagged for future reference.

[hamishspence]

"a good end excuses what is morally wrong"

Emphasis on the words morally wrong. The sort of example he gives is Romulus murdering Remus. Not "authorized assassination." not "killing in self defence" not "war" not "killing to save another's life." Murder.

In D&D "morally wrong" acts stay morally wrong regardless of altruistic intentions- BoED.

and in Machiavelli, they are still morally wrong, just "excusable"

[OITS]

*excuses for not reading the whole thread*

Unbelievable that most people are just too dumb to get, what alignments are for, or what they meen. You're not judged by the last act you commited, but by your whole life. Furthermore, an alignment is just a proposed direction (except with paladins) if you are chaotic good, you are still allowed to do lawful acts without being lawful or neutral instantly. Just one actions (or two, or three, or ten) do not tell anything about ones alignment, because the whole life is, what counts. I do agree, that V has changed its personality, so it would be possible to totally change (just like having a brain surgery), but for this case, it would be important, that this is a oneway-evolution, but it isn't, because the moment they are back together (and V gets his trance), it'd be normal again. So you can say, it is drunk and doesn't know what it is doing. (which leads back to the cause why it is "drunk", which ist wanting to reunite with the others as soon as possible wich seems to me lawful good - so I'd say, V is actually lawful good. Period.)

[hamishspence]

and V's acts have shown a trend. And, historically in D&D, your alignment was judged by your last act, if it was big enough.

in Fiend Folio, we are told in Fiend of corruption section, that even acts carried out under magical compulsion are relevant, they just aren't nearly as important.

"Mad, I tell you" is an evil trope- Champions of Ruin, though V's a very long way from there. "driven to acts that would horrify a demon" Nope, V is more an Ends justify Means type- V doesn't come across as all that deluded.

[cheesecake]

I have no problem believeing that V is Chaotic. Evil...well, I'd say shes Neutral but swings more to the evil line than the good line.

Remember Lein's speech about lawful doesn't mean stupid.

Evil doesn't mean stupid.

CE people can care for people, love people, but also has no regard for life of people he/she doesn't know or gets in the way.

[hamishspence]

Yes- and in Savage Species there is support for this, also in Champions of Ruin, and Fiendish Codex 2.

while "How you Think" is relavent to alignment "What You've Done" is significantly more important, regardless of "Why You Did It"

[Yukitsu]

Pointing it out bothers you? I should do it more often. :smallamused:

Sure, ignore the request. :smallsigh:


I was looking for reasoning, not consensus.

OK, if I act in a neutral manner when millions of lives are at stake, is my alignment good, neutral, or evil? I don't care what the "neutral" answer happens to be, all I care about is that I do it. Roy doesn't do many lawful good acts when faced with moral decisions. Acting neutrally in the face of such things is enough to push an alignment to neutral when you consider that Roy isn't exactly the penultimate in lawful goodness, and the scope of the action.


But if they or innocents under their protection ARE in danger, not helping is callous.

So? The reason it's callous is because there is a person in danger, but leaving a person who is in danger is defined as neutral in the PHB.


He doesn't know the threat has left the fleet. (And is, coincidentally, making a beeline for him.)

He knows Therkla and Kubota are dead. Qarr is frankly just an imp who had DM caveat to let him summon a pit fiend once, despite the fact they don't actually have that capacity. Unless there were more pit fiends that are that bad at poker, Qarr isn't really a threat (CR of about 1), and V would know it.


So Elan was planning to walk out of the Cliffport bar? "30 ft. per round movement rate."

Movement dictates your run speed. When you answer the one, you answer the other by default.


And even if flight is slower, all that does is prove my point that the island is small since V was only moments behind him. :smallsigh:

V came after they had fought off Kubota, had extended dialog, had another boat chase, Kubota was tied up, and brought aboard. That's quite a bit of time.


Moral quandaries:

A lawful act would be to instruct Haley not to pick the lock.
A lawful act would be to tell his friends the truth about wearing the gender belt instead of trying to lie about it.
A good act would be not being mean to Elan when he is being silly.
A good act would be to give the sleeping goblins a fighting chance.

I've stated for one that Roy doesn't do much that is lawful good, but frankly, your standards for being good or lawful are fairly high. For one, I can't escape from a foreign government with no actual jurisdiction that threatens my execution for crimes I don't know about. I can't have the fault of being embarrassed by an impromptu gender change, I have to be nice to people who are doing stupid wreckless things, and I have to fight fair when fighting fair could get me killed. The last one is called lawful stupid, by the way.


I could go on, but you get the point. None of those neutral acts came up on his record. Neutral acts don't count.

Considering the alternatives require some lack of intelligence, why would they?


And don't abandon them either, right?

Some live in different cities now, so one could make a strong case that we have indeed abandoned eachother. It's not like it's evil to move on.


So what level was V when he had it prepared way back when? 12? 13? And why is it so inconceivable for him to have Bull's Strength, Endurance or Eagle's Splendor also?

Highest level spell we see V use at around that time is black tentacles with a spin, so probably level 8, because they seem to start using one level higher by the time they get to Xykon. And people don't take those spells later on because they are less useful than others, such as protection from arrows, gust of wind apparantly, invisibility, scorching ray, which actually scales well for a low level spell, and a bunch that are more situational. Being able to increase a single stat for a short period of time would actually be OK, but since you need to prepare a different spell for each stat, it's not really useful, unless you know which stats you will need hours prior to the situation at hand. Other spells are far less situational.


Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not intolerant to apathy.
And if both actors are morally responsible (since both have the power to save the victim's life) then "blaming one of them more" is pretty irrelevant.

There is a difference between murdering someone and watching without enjoyment. Find someone who disagrees.


Thanks, that's all I wanted from you.

It's not really anything to be proud of, considering.


Again, V has no way of knowing they aren't in danger. He simply doesn't care. Try and keep up.

Keep up to what? The blind conspiracy theories where you have to prove a negative before you can leave? It's impossible to know a negative. There is no reason for V to assume that there is a threat.


And yet both of them have had far more character development than V. He is due.

I'm not sure. Durkon doesn't get much either, and has never had any shift in his alignment.


You misunderstood me again. Rephrased: "Why would V scry for 100 innocents in peril when his is unwilling to help even one?"

You are missunderstanding the moral theory. David Argall stated that a moral powerful person will ignore the 1 to scry and save the 100. He stated to not save the 100 by saving the 1 is evil, not simply not good. I disagreed, but you agreed to a portion at the time. V likely won't do either, but it doesn't make sense to cry evil at that.


V had a moral option right in front of him and walked away from it. By your own admission, that isn't neutral.

It wasn't in front of V, and I constantly say that it's neutral. If it were a freind, then it likely wouldn't be, but Lien isn't V's freind.


My point exactly, hence V's deteriorating alignment. There's hope for you yet.

I have to wonder if you're paying any attention. V is falling to neutral right now.


Never said it was.

Person knocking another off the bridge? You admit the person watching is neutral then?


So? How about talking about the instance I mentioned, when she encountered the MitD?

Yeah, a chaotic action that didn't cause a fall. Lawful people can do that sort of stuff, because little things don't matter.


So if one of your mountain-climbing friends slipped and was about to fall to their death, and you were in a position to save them, you would be morally neutral by just staring at them until their grip gave way? Harsh.

Lien isn't V's freind, and I have real life morals. On the other hand, I wouldn't condemn someone as evil if they didn't take the effort to save that other persons life if they didn't care about eachother. So yes, someone would be neutral if they just kept going. Watching isn't ignoring the problems of others, and is probably different.


If you take issue with the alignments I assigned to his actions, then dispute them instead of directing ad hominems at me. Oh that's right, you can't.

I could simply cite that you later list them as neutral in the post that I'm arguing right now. Also, which ad hominems, save for my statement that you are not daft?


Listed a bunch above.

And none of those address what is stated explicitly in the PHB.


Except you haven't.

So basically you don't want to admit that the PHB ruling is that apathy is neutral.


Obvious cop-out is obvious.

Not really. I simply hate all these absurd theories that pop up with little founding evidence. It's almost as bad as conspiracy theories.


...and yet he got in anyway, despite all that neutrality. I'm glad you aren't the one with the admission tickets if you really think neutral acts lower your alignment.

Their specific quote was that he tried, and that counted for something. It wasn't his lack of neutral acts that got him in, nor his good or lawful ones. It was ultimately the fact that he tried. And you seem intent on claiming minor neutral actions when there is either no moral alternative, or where all the aligned decisions are unintelligent are moral quandaries.

[hamishspence]

Walk on By isn't much defined in D&D, alignment-wise- closest thing is in Vile darkness:

"Standing by while mass-murder is committed is far more evil than preventing the poisoning"- deluded person is about to tip poison into water supply, if not attacked immediately, many will die.

While objectivism doesn't have We Have A Duty- it does have "don't commit evil acts- ever"

That appears to be one thing it and BoED have in common- no justification for evil acts, not even altruistic justification. When killing is to prevent immediate murder, its not evil.

But otherwise, to be good at all in D&D, you must be altruistic.

[Yukitsu]

Walk on By isn't much defined in D&D, alignment-wise- closest thing is in Vile darkness:

"Standing by while mass-murder is committed is far more evil than preventing the poisoning"- deluded person is about to tip poison into water supply, if not attacked immediately, many will die.

Key term is "more evil than" and in this case the point is picking the lesser of two evils is fine. (killing the guy) PHB specifically states that you can be neutral on the good evil axis and not care about the welfare of others.


While objectivism doesn't have We Have A Duty- it does have "don't commit evil acts- ever"

That appears to be one thing it and BoED have in common- no justification for evil acts, not even altruistic justification. When killing is to prevent immediate murder, its not evil.

But otherwise, to be good at all in D&D, you must be altruistic.

Which basically just reinforces that you can be neutral by not doing altruistic things, and not doing evil things.

[hamishspence]

strictly, post BoVD (and, in fact, mentioned in it in another paragraph) the "lesser of two evils" here isn't an evil act at all. If someone's life is in immediate danger, killing to save it isn't evil- attempted murder means you have both "Just Cause" and "Good Intentions" and the fact the the killer is deluded rather than actually evil doesn't matter.

the phrasing of "much greater evil" implies that to be not evil, you are obliged to act.

In the absence of immediate threats to life though, you can be selfish, and not help others, without being evil- its the scale and the immediate threat, that makes Not Helping seriously dubious here.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not sure. Golems are intelligent, and force to be neutral. They would likely also do nothing. Neither would the inevitables, unless it's against written legislature that you can't put toxins into the water stream.

[hamishspence]

Golems couldn't because they aren't intelligent and cannot make moral choices, only obey- Inevitables may be LN but they aren't unable to do Good or Evil acts. Elder evils has one trying to free a potentially world-destroying terror- because it must enforce contracts- thats more LE than LN.

Question might be- is "turning down a legitmate request for help" something that would make a Paladin (or exalted) fall? Is so, does that make it by definition a mildly evil act?

the deva phrased roy's case as "deserting a comrade" somerthing that even a Neutral person shouldn't really do, since Neutrals are committed to country or family or fellow party members.

But is that morally similar to not helping someone who you aren't committed
to?

The Paladin's code doesn't mention it- "act with honor" is more a list of prohibitions.

Miko treated it as an absolute- even with a gang of prisoners in tow, she was morally obliged to help. Haley not only stated they had to help, but didn't even try to ask for a reward afterwards.

if "helping" when needed is Good, is "refusing to" when its needed. and you can, Neutral, or very mildly evil?

[hamishspence]

Here's an interesting possibility- both ends are judged more harshly (or gently) than the middle.

Selfishness in Neutral people is par for the course- while in some cases it might be evil, it requires a lot of it to drop them down.

Good people get judged harshly- they drop to Neutral, or worse, for sufficiently evil acts.

Evil beings are judged gently, in the sense that self-sacrifice, even for moderately selfish reasons (Big Bad is murdering your kinsman, in Vader's case) may be enough to redeem them.

[Yukitsu]

Golems couldn't because they aren't intelligent and cannot make moral choices, only obey- Inevitables may be LN but they aren't unable to do Good or Evil acts. Elder evils has one trying to free a potentially world-destroying terror- because it must enforce contracts- thats more LE than LN.

Golems are intelligent actually, though I admit they aren't free willed. Inevitables can do either good or evil, if it fits the law, but will always maintain neutral on that axis.


Question might be- is "turning down a legitmate request for help" something that would make a Paladin (or exalted) fall? Is so, does that make it by definition a mildly evil act?

Exalted always, as they have higher standards. Paladins usually can't because they fall if they violate their code of conduct, which includes being good and not neutral. I'd say, however, that the completel lack of effort is probably fairly close to evil just because telling people takes no time, no effort, and presents no risk to the person who saw it happen.


the deva phrased roy's case as "deserting a comrade" somerthing that even a Neutral person shouldn't really do, since Neutrals are committed to country or family or fellow party members.

But is that morally similar to not helping someone who you aren't committed
to?

Possible, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that V veiws the Azurites as anything more than acquantances, and you'll have an even harder time convincing me V is committed to the Azurite nation, as opposed to the elf lands. It is probably morally the same, but neutrals don't consider ethics or morals when they act. If they don't care about the person enough to save them, they don't save them, they don't. If they do care, then they do.


The Paladin's code doesn't mention it- "act with honor" is more a list of prohibitions.

Miko treated it as an absolute- even with a gang of prisoners in tow, she was morally obliged to help. Haley not only stated they had to help, but didn't even try to ask for a reward afterwards.

if "helping" when needed is Good, is "refusing to" when its needed. and you can, Neutral, or very mildly evil?

If you want to call not doing good evil, then what action would a neutral person take? If you can't think of anything that is neutral between helping and not helping, then not helping is neutral, and evil is actively doing something to aggravate the situation.

One of the reasons evil counts a lot more towards alignment is that doing evil things is rarely actually in an individuals best interest, and it tends to make people like you less. Taking some degree of effort to hurt people or make their lives worse is far less likely to come up in a moral quandary than merely ignoring the problem. For instance, a hungry dog is chained to a fence. You can spend the effort to feed it an look for the owner, you can ignore it, or you can literally kick the dog. There isn't any good reason to take the effort, and there aren't many opportunities in life that give you benefits for doing a kick the dog kind of action. Hence, when you do kick the dog, it counts for a lot more of your alignment than all the dogs you fed.

[hamishspence]

A paladin, unless it has one of those unusual prestige classes, falls for committing any act of evil. And if Atonement description (or fiend of corruption description in Fiend folio) is taken literally, that includes involuntary ones. in 2nd ed this was explicitly stated, and in 3.0 under atonement, and Paladins falling. in 3.5 its only under atonement.

Check statblock of stone golem, flesh, iron. Int - . Only the more exotic golems, or other constructs like the Nimblewright, are intelligent.

Fiendish Codex 2 put the benchmark for automatic condemnation of Lawful individuals pretty high- 2 murders will do it, one murder won't. note its possible to atone, and if truly repentant but haven't atoned, they become Hellbred.

Since it applies to Good and Neutral alike, in that sense, Neutral individual is no "closer" to being condemned than a Good individual is.

so you couldn't say "LG individual becomes LE with 2 murders, LN person, with 1" The amount of evil needed to send a Lawful individual to the Nine Hells is the same. And they don't have to be evil to be condemned- just have to have done evil acts.

[Yukitsu]

so you couldn't say "LG individual becomes LE with 2 murders, LN person, with 1" The amount of evil needed to send a Lawful individual to the Nine Hells is the same. And they don't have to be evil to be condemned- just have to have done evil acts.

And that just proves that Roy leaving Elan in the forest was neutral, not evil. :smallbiggrin:

For the rest, I agree, that is basically what the books seem to state.

[hamishspence]

As I said earlier, even a Neutral person, who betrays someone they have made a commitment to (fellow party member, leaving them in the lurch is betrayal) would be committing an Evil Act. For a LG to do that is even more shocking. Note that V is not willing to do the same.

alignment changing acts- how big do they have to be to do it? According to the Deva, the act, had roy not thought better of it, would have dropped his alignment to True Neutral.

[Optimystik]

@ Yukitsu: So the alternatives in a moral quandary have an intelligence requirement now? Is THAT in the PHB? How many more arbitrary requirements will you add to "refute" my points?

Like I said, I'm done arguing with you, agree to disagree, etc. You won't convince me that turning your back on your friends (and people they are trying to help) isn't evil, and I won't convince you that neutral acts don't shift your alignment, so this discussion has become pointless. But really, you should follow your sig a bit more closely, especially the first part. Ciao!

[Yukitsu]

As I said earlier, even a Neutral person, who betrays someone they have made a commitment to (fellow party member, leaving them in the lurch is betrayal) would be committing an Evil Act. For a LG to do that is even more shocking. Note that V is not willing to do the same.

alignment changing acts- how big do they have to be to do it? According to the Deva, the act, had roy not thought better of it, would have dropped his alignment to True Neutral.

I think the big or small margin is a case by case thing. For Roy, that one life was someone who really trusts him, has faith in him, and is his freind. For the guy with the well, the scope isn't attachment, but it is a lot more people, and a lot less effort. For V, it's a single person, who isn't a close buddy, and it would have taken more effort than the guy at the well. V's probably at the point where there isn't any evil there. Doubly since V thinks that the rest of the gang is sufficient to help Lien.


@ Yukitsu: So the alternatives in a moral quandary have an intelligence requirement now? Is THAT in the PHB? How many more arbitrary requirements will you add to "refute" my points?

To note, Miko and Shojo had no arbitrary need to follow alignment to a T in situations where doing so provides a strategic disadvantage. Even Hinjo is willing to compromise his morals when the alternative (stay and try to defend the city) would have been more pragmatic. So yes, if the moral thing to do is sufficiently daft, good people have been seen to take the alternate route.

[hamishspence]

Miko was on a "retrieve" mission and chose to stop it to resue some farmers. Even when doing so posed risk to herself, and possibly the mission. A little thought would have said that armed prisoners could turn on her in middle of fight.

"rescuing people" is the classic Good thing to do.

[Warlord JK]

We all need to agree to disagree on this subject, as the last 3 pages show we are never going to agree on anything :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

sounds about right- my views were, whatver V's current alignment, maybe LN or NE, the act of killing Shojo was evil. Maybe not enough to cause alignmnet change, but evil, and not the first evil act either.

But then, I tend to take an "if its legally murder, its D&D murder" view- adventurers who are commissioned to stop dangerous raids aren't murderers, those who slaughter bound prisoners, in civilized area, without trial, are.

I tend to see BoVD, BoED, and successors as important- to show "Well Intentioned Extremists" are still committing evil acts.

similar with older books like 2nd ed PHB, which also came down very hard against certain kinds of Well Intentioned Extremism.

So my views, harsh as they are, do follow guidelines set in D&D books, going back some way.

I wouldn't say my views are neccessarily right in real world, but I do try to make them coincide as closely as possible with what D&D books of various kinds actually say.

on real world morality, I would say- agree to disagree. And BoED can be harsher than me on some issues.

[David Argall]

A good act would be to give the sleeping goblins a fighting chance.

No. This is basically a chaotic act, with some degree of evil. One may consider it less evil than a simple evil killing, but all you are really doing is disguising an act of murder.
You either have grounds for killing the goblins, in which case you don't need to give them a fighting chance, and are being foolish if you do, or you have no grounds, in which you shouldn't be attacking them, fighting chance or not.
All you are doing by giving them a fighting chance is making a false appeal to self defense. You are trying to confuse the issue, trying to fool people, quite likely including yourself.

[hamishspence]

Thats dragons in D&D- killing sleeping dragons isn't evil, not even for profit. Sleeping goblins, that's trickier.

Giving them opportunity to surrender, maybe. Not so much the "fighting chance" as the "offering quarter"?

To quote one of the earliest D&D novels: The Crystal Shard:

"A more experienced fighter, even a knight of honor, who'd have looked beyond his chivalrous code, seen his fortune as a blessing, and slain the worm as it slept. Few adventurers, even whole parties of adventurers, have ever given an evil dragon of any color an even break and lived to boast about it."

Notice Miko claimed attacking unready foes was "dishonorable"

And in bonus strips to Dungeon Crawling Fools, Roy does take goblin prisoners, and in Origin of PCs, Roy disapproves of killing even evil beings without what he sees as just cause.

[Optimystik]

We all need to agree to disagree on this subject, as the last 3 pages show we are never going to agree on anything :smallannoyed:

On the bright side, all the slash and parry "dinged" me to Dwarf. :smallcool:

But time will tell if I was right or not.

[Warlord JK]

On the bright side, all the slash and parry "dinged" me to Dwarf. :smallcool:

Sweet :smallcool:. I was hoping to get Orc, but oh well :smallfrown:.

[Yukitsu]

On the bright side, all the slash and parry "dinged" me to Dwarf. :smallcool:

But time will tell if I was right or not.

I'm kind of disgusted that I got there as well, considering I've only been here 3 weeks...

[Warlord JK]

I'm kind of disgusted that I got there as well, considering I've only been here 3 weeks...

You should definitely go back and see how many pages has just been you 2 arguing in quote streams. I know, I had to read through them as I came here when the thread was on its 4th page :smallannoyed:.

[Optimystik]

I'm kind of disgusted that I got there as well, considering I've only been here 3 weeks...

I registered this account over a year ago to ask one question, and promptly forgot about it during one of Rich's long hiatuses. But now that the comic is updating more regularly I'll definitely be around more.

The nice thing is that when I hit Bugbear+ in '09, the 2007 will make me look like some kind of veteran :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

I think many of my posts have involved arguing the opposite to David Argall for various reasons. Generally differences of interpetation of books leading to opposite conclusions.

[David Argall]

In the absence of immediate threats to life though, you can be selfish, and not help others, without being evil- its the scale and the immediate threat, that makes Not Helping seriously dubious here.
Immediate is merely a practical consideration. And scale does not affect the fact of evil. It merely measures the amount. Whether you refuse a beggar a copper, or stand by and watch a city being burnt down, you are, or are not, doing evil. We still measure by such factors as how much the effort will actually cost you, and how much good you will actually do.

[hamishspence]

if scale is irrelavent to evilness, of acts, why is amount of lives saved by the act relevant? or the fact that lives are saved (or assumed to be in Kubota's case) at all?

[Warlord JK]

Scale and situation are what matter when determining the evilness/goodness of the act. If you save 100 lives merely to kill 1000 it is an evil act of horror. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was slightly good because it saved more lives than it destroyed, but the after effects were bad, so you can argue that it was an extremely evil act only balanced out by the lives it saved.

[hamishspence]

ah, but what if you murder- not kill in war- murder- people in the hope of saving lives in the future? Not quite the same thing.

[Eloel]

We've also seen V's good side, when she helped a random shop (or tried to help), get profits, instead of buying everything off from a very cheap cost. If a single act makes her evil, that makes her good?

[hamishspence]

generally it has to be a fairly big act to make you Evil if you are confortably in Neutral. But it doesn't have to be a big act to make you end up in Nine Hells if you are Lawful, it can just be "the straw that breaks the camel's back"

Fiendish Codex 2 tells us evil acts Always outweigh good ones for afterlife purposes- the only way to get out from it is to atone- and properly.

The total is fairly high- in absence of other evil acts, even 1 murder won't send the LG hero to Nine Hells. Two will.

the Explosive Runes cast on various people are nasty but minor- on a par with Elan punching Kubota, maybe. Or perhaps slightly worse, since Kubota wasn't yet tied up, and an adversary, and Elan had reason to be very angry.

[David Argall]

ah, but what if you murder- not kill in war- murder- people in the hope of saving lives in the future? Not quite the same thing.

Hope is not the same as expect. This is why we denounce 'ends justify the means'. The mere hope it will cause the 2nd Coming is not good enough because we know it often won't.
But we live by "results justify the means." We go by what we can reasonably expect to have happen as a result of our actions.

[Warlord JK]

ah, but what if you murder- not kill in war- murder- people in the hope of saving lives in the future? Not quite the same thing.

Is it evil for a police officer to kill a guy lieing on the ground? Is it also evil for a police officer to kill a serial killer who has his hands in the air? Killing a serial killer to save lives is also an example of murder in the hope to save future lives.

[hamishspence]

If police officers kill in this sort of circumstances they may face murder charges.

the whole "killing prisoner without trial is Chaotic, not Evil" argument.

the writer who most famously wrote that rulers (not necessarily ordinary people) may have to live with results excusing means, also said of a man:

"He was a man of such goodness that that, among the other things for which he is given credit, it is said that during the fourteen years he reigned he never put anyone to death without trial"

Page 63- The Prince

so, here we have "not killing prisoners without trial", being defined as a morally Good act.

[Texas Jedi]

If police officers kill in this sort of circumstances they may face murder charges.

the whole "killing prisoner without trial is Chaotic, not Evil" argument.

the writer who most famously wrote that rulers (not necessarily ordinary people) may have to live with results excusing means, also said of a man:

"He was a man of such goodness that that, among the other things for which he is given credit, it is said that during the fourteen years he reigned he never put anyone to death without trial"

Page 63- The Prince

so, here we have "not killing prisoners without trial", being defined as a morally Good act.

There is no MAY face a murder charges. They WILL face murder charges. They were under no immidiate threat. The subject was passive, and not a threat to others or to the officers.

[hamishspence]

unless act wasn't seen by witnesses and superiors accept their version of event- but yes.

"A civilian may do anything which is not explicitly forbidden, a government official nothing except that which is explicitly permitted"

In general- I figure thats what execution is for, and PCs really shouldn't be that quick to kill their prisoners.

[Schaffer1979]

It might have been said before, I didn't read all eight pages but, according to this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html

V is not evil. Unholy blight worked on V.

I would say Neutral Good for my interpretation of V's alignment.

[Schaffer1979]

Reasons why I believe V is Neutral in addition to my argument for good (regarding the fact V is caught by the unholy blight):

Not Lawful- V is best friends with Haley, a rogue who is definitely not of lawful alignment and commits acts against the law; lawful personages would not support breaking the law. Lawful people tend to uphold the law and live by the law.

Not Chaotic- V does not do random things with no regard for consequences. For example, his acts of harm towards others that are not immediate enemies of OOTS have a clear intent. Chaos is the absence of order. V believes in reaons for some order and the support of said order above doing things without thought or planning (examples are V's marriage, the concept of love and relationships, his execution of various enemies which require relying upon the established causal and effects of magical "law", he manipulates order and relies upon order to assist his planning.

however, he does not choose either of his positions with regard to law and chaos based on superiority of either; he favors expediency, survival, and success and relies upon logic rather than emotions and morales of society to make decisions (with the sole exception of V's loyalty to a friend, Haley).

And even then, within the boundaries of alignment definition, it is possible to have exceptions. Exceptions add complexity to one's life and do not define the standard but the moments where the standard was set aside.

[Warlord JK]

It might have been said before, I didn't read all eight pages but, according to this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html

V is not evil. Unholy blight worked on V.

I would say Neutral Good for my interpretation of V's alignment.

Remember, that strip was oh, 597 pages ago. So V has had plenty of time to shift alignment.