Is killing black dragons evil?

In light of the recent V threads, I wonder why V gets flak for killing black dragons.

Killing black dragons is no crime. Warriors dream of doing it. Heroes become famous for doing it. Paladins hunt dragons and some even boast about it on Macebook.

Even good aligned people don't really care about BDs. Compare and contast the party's reaction to the disintegration of the BD kid to Elan's reaction to the Kubota dusting.

As such familicide isn't as bad as it looks at first glance, the only real evil V did was slaughtering the innocent dragon blooded humans.

People don't give him flak for killing dragons specifically, they give him flak for killing creatures he has never met for as arbitrary reason as someone they were distantly related to.

{{Scrubbed}}

A) Killing something or someone because you think they are evil is evil.
B) Killing something or someone just because you know they are evil, but you do not know about a specific act is evil.
C) Genocide is evil. In general.
D) Killing all relatives of someone on the odd-chance they might come after you is evil.
E) Killing relatives of someone you have a problem with simply because you can is evil.

So, yes. The monster manual stating some member of a race is "usually" (or even "always") evil is not enough to kill them. Doing so is evil in itself.

{SCRUBBED}

@Copperdragon

A)I disagree, this would make Miko evil the moment she killed Samantha and her dad. Since she didn't fall at that point, this statement is wrong.
B)I disagree here as well, killing monsters for example does not make you evil.
C)Agreed.
D)Arguable.
E)Agreed.

Note that, however, the creatures in question are black dragons. If killing individual black dragons isn't evil, why would killing them en masse would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

A)I disagree, this would make Miko evil the moment she killed Samantha and her dad. Since she didn't fall at that point, this statement is wrong.

---

they attacked first, remember?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

Note that, however, the creatures in question are black dragons. If killing individual black dragons isn't evil, why would killing them en masse would be?

---

Please note C on your list

Because it was indiscriminate. If V had taken some measures to ensure the only casualties were evil black dragons, it wouldn't have been an evil act. But no, (s)he targeted an evil creature, all of its blood relations, and all of their blood relations. So, Tarquin's wife. So, the draketooth clan. So, who knows how many people who's only crime is who they were related to.

I'm sorry, D is arguable?

Killing someones entire family on the off-chance they grow a revenge complex one day is absolutely an evil act.

@Keltest

Did they? Guess I misremembered. I suppose a better example would be V's execution of Kubota without even knowing his name.

@Dumbestupidiot

So, killing an individual is fine but killing a group made up of these individuals is wrong? That doesn't seem logical to me.

I suppose genocide is fine when it is against creatures that would literally love to eat you for breakfast or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

@Gift Jeraff

D'aww is the wittle bunny confused by all the adult tawk?

Why are you even around anyway? All you do is insult people for no reason.

@Copperdragon

A)I disagree, this would make Miko evil the moment she killed Samantha and her dad. Since she didn't fall at that point, this statement is wrong.
B)I disagree here as well, killing monsters for example does not make you evil.
C)Agreed.
D)Arguable.
E)Agreed.

Note that, however, the creatures in question are black dragons. If killing individual black dragons isn't evil, why would killing them en masse would be?

---

Well, there's the genocide, for starters.

Stepping back for a moment from the what of Familicide to the why--which is arguably more important in determining whether an action is evil or not, because evil intent overrides good results, whereas good intent does not override evil results--Vaarsuvius did what she did as much out of a desire to inflict pain, fear, and suffering as out of a desire to protect her family from future attacks. "This and no less is the price of threatening my family"--The price for threatening my family is that everyone you've ever known and loved is dead, whether they had anything to do with this or not.

That's an Evil intent right there.

Now, as to the what--hunting down a malevolent black dragon and murdering the hell out of it is, as you say, not inherently evil, but that's because there's been a judgment call made that that dragon is a threat to innocent life. If, however, you snapped your fingers and killed every black dragon--anywhere, no matter what each individual is doing or intends to do in the future--then you haven't judged whether those dragons are doing anything wrong or not. You've just said, BAM, you're all dead because I feel like it.

Collectivism is a heinous and dehumanizing (dedragonizing?) philosophy even in the best of situations, let alone a judgment call on whether to wipe out a whole sapient species.

Also, don't forget that the "Always" in "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't actually mean always.

And even if it did in Dungeons and Dragons, I doubt that it would in The Order of the Stick.

So it's not just the humans who were nonEvil victims of Familicide. Some of the dragons could have been. V brings this up in panel 7 here.

Let's look. "Is killing bad"? No.
Is killing under these circumstances bad? Depends on the circumstances.

Killing and murder are different. Killing a black dragon is not evil. Murdering a black dragon is evil. V gets flak because he is directly and knowingly, in cold blood, premeditated.lying responsible for murder. Doesn't matter what the victims were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

@Dumbestupidiot

So, killing an individual is fine but killing a group made up of these individuals is wrong? That doesn't seem logical to me.

I suppose genocide is fine when it is against creatures that would literally love to eat you for breakfast or something.

---

{SCRUBBED}

Also, for one individual, i can be certain is evil, other individuals whom i have never had any interaction with whatsoever doesn't make them evil.

{SCRUBBED}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

In light of the recent V threads, I wonder why V gets flak for killing black dragons.

Killing black dragons is no crime. Warriors dream of doing it. Heroes become famous for doing it. Paladins hunt dragons and some even boast about it on Macebook.

Even good aligned people don't really care about BDs. Compare and contast the party's reaction to the disintegration of the BD kid to Elan's reaction to the Kubota dusting.

As such Familicide isn't as bad as it looks at first glance, the only real evil V did was slaughtering the innocent dragon blooded humans.

---

Killing any living being just because it's there is questionable at best and a crime at worst.

The Young Black Dragon attacked first; the party had no idea he was there.

You're right, familicide isn't as bad as it looks at first glance. It's worse than it looks at first glance. First glance is that V killed a bunch of dragons. That's a horrible act, but first glance limits it to dragons. Second glance tells us that V actually killed an uncounted number of multiple kinds of beings. The scope of death was greatly expanded with that, and so Familicide became much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

@Keltest

Did they? Guess I misremembered. I suppose a better example would be V's execution of Kubota without even knowing his name.

@Dumbestupidiot

So, killing an individual is fine but killing a group made up of these individuals is wrong? That doesn't seem logical to me.

I suppose genocide is fine when it is against creatures that would literally love to eat you for breakfast or something.

---

Killing an individual depends on the circumstances. Killing a group of individuals not doing anything to you isn't fine.

No, genocide is NEVER okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

@Copperdragon...

---

About your disagreements: Those are moral judgements which we cannot decide here.

But killing an "evil" being just for it being evil... ... wait a second, I just saw this thread went into RL and also was godwined... What I had to say I said in the list above.

Just to be clear, V didn't do any genocide, nor did he try to commit one. I don't like how the word is thrown around aimlessly. The intro to the Wikipedia article is unusually well written, and I suggest reading it.

Anyway, I think it is for the same reason why Miko would (possibly) have fallen if she had killed Belkar while he was defenseless and he could have been easily taken into custody.

Besides, "always evil" includes an implied "unless stated otherwise".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keltest

they give him flak for killing creatures he has never met

---

Thank you, I think this is the crux of the issue. Even in OOTSverse, killing is a serious-enough decision that you should at least know who you're killing. If not for morality's sake, then for honor's.


"What about war?", I hear someone saying? Well, war... is war. *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orrion

No, genocide is NEVER okay.

---

As the overlord to a small nation, I am going to have to disagree with you. Genocide is the perfect device for reigning in the inherent disrepute of my regime by scapegoating countless masses for my crimes. I find it perfectly reasonable that the people know what will happen to them if they cross me and fear shall keep the system in line. I find it is best to find a niche audience with an already brewing antipathy and lots of gold (e.g. black dragons) to exploit pre existing outrage and take a hefty percentage of the resulting new found wealth this country has suddenly discovered was left to us in recently made wills.
It is good times being an overlord, if you can get the people to fight against themselves they shall never fight you.

{SCRUBBED}

Would you trust a black dragon sympathizer with your children's safety?

@TroubleBrewing

It is indeed arguable. Slaughtering an entire family is not evil if it is necessary.

Look back on many succession crises, if a prince managed to overcome the opposing prince, he wouldn't just stop at killing his rival but he would also kill his entire family and this would be considered neccessary for the security of the kingdom.

On the same vein, V considered the familicide necessary for the security of his family; since he already had precedence to fall back on.

I would give specific examples, but I am not sure if real world examples are allowed here...

@Loreweaver15

Fair enough.

Note that, however, people kill BDs that are not judged a threat to the people as well. For example, the OOtS killed the teen BD. Sure he attacked them first, but they invaded his territory.

It's like a teenager attacking some guy he sees invading his house, the invader putting the teen down when he could subdue him.

The teen wasn't threatening anybody and yet was put down all the same. Isn't this an evil act?

@ORione

Ah right, forgot about this part.

@SiuiS

The difference between killing and murder is decided by the discretion of law, dragons do not abide by laws so the difference is null and void.

@Dumbestupidiot

But that's just it. In this world people kill dragons for being dragons. Dragons hoard treasure and knights kill them and are lauded as heroes. Nobody cares if the dragon was good or not. Most don't even attempt to communicate with them.

Killing someone who's momentarily defenseless isn't an Evil act if they have the capacity and desire to continue committing evil when they are no longer evil. The only problem I saw with Miko's behavior as a Lawful Good character was her ability to Leap To Conclusions (Even killing Shojo would have been Good if he actually WAS as bad and corrupt as Miko thought he was - adhering to protocol in the face of that protocol being demonstrably broken or tried to apply to someone who can break it is Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good behavior)

Meh... to me, killing someone "Because they're Evil" (And you confirm they're evil) isn't an Evil act, because being Evil is something someone chooses to do (Their choices are absolutely making the world a worse place) and I have a higher standard of what constitutes someone becoming Evil (Instead of the darker side of Neutral).

@Kruplov - All those "Not Evil" acts you describe are inherently and fundamentally Evil despite your assertations to the contrary.

The prince who kills his brother and his brother's family? That's an undeniably evil act, even if you seem to think otherwise. :smalleek:

Actually, Murder has two definitions, one defined in terms of Law/Chaos(Killing someone in a premeditated manner without being authorized to do so), and one defined in terms of Good/Evil(See the BoVD).

And... one of the overwhelming themes of OotS is setting up that you think the last three points to be valid, then completely shooting those preconceptions to hell - No, it's NOT okay to kill dragons for being Dragons.

Fundementally, Evil is a choice, even in D&D (you gotta write it on your character sheet after all). Part of the reason that there are (always) evil creatures is so that players and GMs don't get into these sort of arguments (you know people would exploit it). OOTS is different in that it is a story so such conventions are far more flexible and he can have a more real world based story approach as opposed to rigid standards.

With war you can align yourself with evil (or what the other group thinks is evil, those bastards) which makes you justifiable to kill and in more individual actions evil acts are much more blatent. It is damned difficult to kill someone's cousin thrice removed and say you are justified because they are evil when they live on pluto and you have never even conceived of them existing in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kruploy

But that's just it. In this world people kill dragons for being dragons. Dragons hoard treasure and knights kill them and are lauded as heroes. Nobody cares if the dragon was good or not. Most don't even attempt to communicate with them.

---

...Are you...saying that's okay?

Because it's really not, and that's the whole point of V's arc.

Genocide is always an evil thing. V deliberately exterminated around a 1/4 of all black dragons in the name of vengeance. This is evil! We do not know what alignment these dragons were, and we should not judge whether killing them was just based on an assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

{SCRUBBED}

Would you trust a black dragon sympathizer with your children's safety?

---

I wouldn't leave my children with anybody i haven't personally vetted and think can take care of them. If i think the black dragon is trustworthy, then why not?

I'm going to save this thread and link to it the next time someone tells me that the themes I put in the comic are so simple and obvious that I shouldn't be bothering expressing them, because everyone already knows that you shouldn't kill people for being different than you.

Needless to say, I disagree with every single word of the opening post, as I would have thought was obvious from reading the actual story.

Further, this thread is 1.) continuing a topic that is already under discussion elsewhere, 2.) has included mentions of real-world politics, and 3.) has included flaming. Thread locked, scrubbing and infractions forthcoming.