WARNING: FAMLICIDE THREAD! Eviler Wizard then V who is (likely) good

[Saambell]

I am going to list a series of out of context evil actions of a Wizard who is still probably good.

-Killed their Mentor
-Lures Pixies into Traps
-Kills FBI agents
-Starts war over personal reasons
-Murders Being of Compassion (in a style like stabbing Superman with a kryptonite dagger)
-Beats a captive brutally when he had surrendered then leaves him to crawl over shattered glass to get help
-Gets Paladin Horrifically tortured and killed
-accepts Fallen Angel into mind
-Gives position of power to Soul Eating Demon
-Creates Zombie of Ancient Monster
-Sends Creatures of Horror after Teenage girl
-Destroys city block simply because he is frustrated
-Gets Another paladin Crippled for life
And now for the big one:
-Casts Famlicide equivalent on an ENTIRE SPECIES using an Infant and Carving its heart out!
Even now feels no regret for the species only about how it impacts his life.

He is still the hero and probably still good.
V looks nice(ish) to that.
Can someone list V's Evil acts? cause its probably shorter.

[martianmister]

Who is this wizard?

EDIT: The Doctor from Doctor Who?

[Ramien]

Considering most of those cease to be evil when context is applied, I think the case for

Spoiler

Show

Harry Dredsen

being evil is pretty weak.

[Keltest]

Who is this wizard?

EDIT: The Doctor from Doctor Who?

it looks like Harry Dresden

[Oakianus]

Performing a evil act - even an act as mind-bogglingly evil as Familicide - doesn't actually make V evil. In fact, if we go with the wanky "Tendencies" bollocks, I'd say that V leans more toward NG than NE ever since the casting of Familicide.

Not that I think she's actually that close to NG at this point. There'd be a whole lot of development that would have to happen for that to be the case. But V's certainly not irredeemably evil by any stretch, and I'm not entirely sure why this defense via Dresden is being mounted.

[Landis963]

OK, this comparison is laughably terrible for several reasons.

-The Mentor sicced a literally demonic assassin on him.
-The Pixies were set free after a short chat, and later paid in pizza.
-The FBI agents were a) werewolves, b) trying to kill him, c) and abusing their position.
-Said "personal reasons" included "safeguarding Excalibur from being unmade" and "protecting an innocent."
-The "Being of Compassion" (bwahahaha) was possessed by a demonic force who severely misguided her, and was threatening to choke the world in uncontrolled growth.
-Said captive's pleas for help were mocking, and specifically intended to tie the hands of the paladins present.
-Said horrific torture and death was not his fault.
-He specifically does not let the fallen angel get any farther than the ad campaign.
-"Gives position of power to Soul Eating Demon" What? I don't remember this.
-This ancient monster zombie was very much terrestrial, very much a lesser evil as opposed to the ethereal threat it was raised to help avert, and to quote the man himself; "I was going to put the dino back!"
-Because he didn't know that the Teenage Girl was a black-magic user, nor that the Creatures of Horror were piggybacking on her workings.
-If this is the "destroying the city block" incident I'm thinking of, he did it to fight his way out of a trap that vampires put him in.
-Again, the paladin's crippling was not his fault, IIRC, and allowed the holy knight in question a happy retirement instead of a going-away party in a cemetery.
-"Casts Famlicide equivalent on an ENTIRE SPECIES" of blood-sucking monsters "using an Infant" vampire who had just succumbed to bloodlust after 10+ years of abstaining "and Carving its heart out!"

Remember, kids, context is important.

[Gift Jeraff]

V:
-killed someone because they looked evil and s/he didn't want to spend time on a trial
-seeks power for the sake of power
-mocked the ancient black dragon about how her son mewling helplessly before s/he killed him
-enslaved a kobold, forced them to eat cat feces, and used them to test for traps
-suggested killing and soul binding prisoners
-threatened to kill Elan
-cast invisibility on her/himself before fleeing from the war, instead of casting it on someone else
-harmed a paladin in order to prevent her from bringing justice to a known murderer
-associates with a murderer and a vampire
-asked a devil for power
-accepted help from a devil, daemon, and demon
-took tips from a demon
-gave relationship advice to a demon
-didn't want to kill a powerful psion who co-rules an evil regime, yet had no problem burning said regime's poor helpless mooks
-tells physics to sit down and shut up
-made Elan and Belkar cry
-blows up teammates for fun
-breaks tables s/he doesn't own, just to flaunt his/her power
-is a pompous jerk in general
-neglects her/his spouse and loyal familiar
-wallowed in self-doubt when s/he knew her/his teammates were fighting mummies; his/her neglect lead to Durkon's death

V is the most evilest of evils.

[oppyu]

-made Elan and Belkar cry

Since Belkar is evil, I think V making Belkar cry was morally justified.

[Sir_Leorik]

{{scrubbed}}

[zimmerwald1915]

Nothing good ever comes of these Familicide threads.

Well, there's the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation. That's pretty good.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well, there's the catharsis following the expression of righteous indignation. That's pretty good.

Yeah, but if I want to do that I'll head over to the "Dumbing of Age" thread on the Webcomics board and rant about the sewer that is the "Dumbing of Age" comments section. (Seriously, what is wrong with those people? And why does Willis egg them on in the alt-text? )

[SavageWombat]

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.

If you weren't - the list is wildly argumentative.

[Keltest]

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.

If you weren't - the list is wildly argumentative.

I would go so far as to say "Wrong"

[Kish]

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

[KillianHawkeye]

Witholding important contextual information only serves to distort the message of whatever information you actually choose to reveal.

[Keltest]

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

Shows what you know

[zimmerwald1915]

If you were trying to make the point about the importance of context, it's a good list.

That's what I got out of the OP. Of course the context for familicide has been hashed over dozens upon dozens of times on these boards, and it's nowhere near as mitigating as Landis' post seems to indicate he believes the context for Dresden's actions is. I wouldn't know, never having read the books [ ], but I suspect we'd have different opinions on that.

[Plactus]

I wasn't aware that Rich Burlew wrote Harry Dresden.

Rich Burlew

Jim Butcher

...I can see the resemblance.

[Socksy]

He's neutral-or-chaotic good

Spoiler

Show

to start with at least, does anyone have any idea where the latest book leaves him on the alignment charts?

[Landis963]

That's what I got out of the OP. Of course the context for familicide has been hashed over dozens upon dozens of times on these boards, and it's nowhere near as mitigating as Landis' post seems to indicate he believes the context for Dresden's actions is. I wouldn't know, never having read the books [ ], but I suspect we'd have different opinions on that.

It's true. In context, those actions are very reasonable and far more heroic than Harry gives himself credit for. He has lapses, of course, (I recall one time when he was having far too much fun beating a lawyer-friendly-xenomorph to notice its victim bleeding out on the floor), but he's always shaken and guilty enough about it, and it's never really moral-event-horizon material - again, in context.

And you really should read the books. (Although you can basically skip the one with the werewolves - it changes essentially nothing, a central character acts stupidly vindictive for very little reason, and it gets much better in book 3 all around)

[BrokenChord]

V:
-killed someone because they looked evil and s/he didn't want to spend time on a trial
-seeks power for the sake of power
-mocked the ancient black dragon about how her son mewling helplessly before s/he killed him
-enslaved a kobold, forced them to eat cat feces, and used them to test for traps
-suggested killing and soul binding prisoners
-threatened to kill Elan
-cast invisibility on her/himself before fleeing from the war, instead of casting it on someone else
-harmed a paladin in order to prevent her from bringing justice to a known murderer
-associates with a murderer and a vampire
-asked a devil for power
-accepted help from a devil, daemon, and demon
-took tips from a demon
-gave relationship advice to a demon
-didn't want to kill a powerful psion who co-rules an evil regime, yet had no problem burning said regime's poor helpless mooks
-tells physics to sit down and shut up
-made Elan and Belkar cry
-blows up teammates for fun
-breaks tables s/he doesn't own, just to flaunt his/her power
-is a pompous jerk in general
-neglects her/his spouse and loyal familiar
-wallowed in self-doubt when s/he knew her/his teammates were fighting mummies; his/her neglect lead to Durkon's death

V is the most evilest of evils.

Less than half of these are Evil; a lot of this (cast Invisibility on self, seeking power for sake of power) are Neutral at worst. And yes, I'm trying to respond to this in a way that accounts for the fact that a few of the things on that list are jokes.

[unbeliever536]

V:
...
-gave relationship advice to a demon
...

Horror of horrors!

[Sith_Happens]

-The Pixies were set free after a short chat, and later paid in pizza.

Because enabling someone's drug addiction is totally the Good thing to do.

[Rodin]

Familicide is an Evil spell, but casting a single Evil spell is not enough to change a Character's Alignment.

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.

From a story-telling standpoint though, V's personality hasn't swerved towards Evil as a result - rather the opposite, in fact.

I tend to lean towards the "V is still True Neutral...but only just" line of thinking. The remorse and subsequent change in character helps in that regard. If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.

[Landis963]

Because enabling someone's drug addiction is totally the Good thing to do.

He didn't know how much they liked pizza until they formed an honor guard for him in its name.

[Keltest]

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.

From a story-telling standpoint though, V's personality hasn't swerved towards Evil as a result - rather the opposite, in fact.

I tend to lean towards the "V is still True Neutral...but only just" line of thinking. The remorse and subsequent change in character helps in that regard. If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.

The way I would run it and (I believe) the way some PHBs describe it is that one of two ways a neutral alignment on the good-evil scale is handled is that they do an equal number of good and evil deeds to maintain a balance (like the Diablo cult of Rathma), rather than not doing any deeds that are definitely good or evil.

[hamishspence]

The way I would run it and (I believe) the way some PHBs describe it is that one of two ways a neutral alignment on the good-evil scale is handled is that they do an equal number of good and evil deeds to maintain a balance (like the Diablo cult of Rathma), rather than not doing any deeds that are definitely good or evil.

The Necromancers in Diablo are more

"if either angels or demons Take Over The World, it's doomed- so oppose whichever side has the upper hand".

So it has less to do with "doing good/evil deeds" and more to do with "keeping both sides from winning the contest for the world"

[Kish]

This one has always seemed a lot more of a grey area to me. I suspect there are more than a few DMs who would see a player raising a creature from the dead just to cast a Genocide spell on it and instantly chuck that player's "Neutral/Good" alignment in the bin.

Indeed. I would add that "Familicide was an Evil spell" misses the point. I don't give a damn if the spell has the Exalted descriptor; what matters is that Vaarsuvius committed mass murder based on racism.

[tomandtish]

It's true. In context, those actions are very reasonable and far more heroic than Harry gives himself credit for. He has lapses, of course, (I recall one time when he was having far too much fun beating a lawyer-friendly-xenomorph to notice its victim bleeding out on the floor), but he's always shaken and guilty enough about it, and it's never really moral-event-horizon material - again, in context.

And to further muddy the waters, while the creature is fleeing HIM, there's no guarantee it is going to flee the scene altogether. I actually think he assumes a little too much self-guilt here. He thinks it might have, but given what the creature is imitating

Spoiler

Show

one of the aliens from the Alien franchise

there's no certainty of that.

[zimmerwald1915]

If V had cast the spell and then gone back to hir old ways, I would be less forgiving.

Erm, V did immediately go back to her old ways (it'd be more accurate to say she never abandoned them in the first place), as seen in Sandsedge. It took another two weeks, almost the entire book, for her to begin to step away from that.