-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
E^G
Um, no.
Familicide only kills beings linked by a *living* immediate family member (that's being generous, could just be Parent/Child).
While disastrous in the modern, highly intermarried context. It's much less damaging if you consider that for most of human history in most parts fo the world marriages were largely confined to members of a group/tribe/smaller region. Eventually there would be no living links.
It's an interesting sociological question what the linkage of modern humans is and how disastrous it would be, but it definitely wouldn't kill non-humans. There are no *living* blood relations among humans and non-humans. (This is kind of what defines "species" in the real world.)
Not actually true.
(Explanations spoilered for length.)
Spoiler
Show
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Giant
I really thought that last comic would end this debate, but it seems like there's still a lot of confusion. So here goes:
Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. This is a simple yes/no effect: Is a creature (the secondary target) related by blood to the original target at all, in any way? If yes, kill it. If no, move on. Number of generations or percentage of blood or direction doesn't matter.
Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1. Think of it as killing everyone descended from (or siblings to) any and all still-living ancestors of each secondary target. So if Penelope had a grandfather on one side and a great-grandmother on the other side who were still alive, every person who could trace their blood back to either of those people would be dead, because Penelope's daughter carries both of their bloods. If a person can only trace their blood through (say) Penelope's already-dead great-great-great-grandfather, then they're safe. Thus cousins and second-cousins and the like are all dead, but more distant genetic relations are not. It is possible for some cousins to survive if all older generations were already dead, yes, but Vaarsuvius wasn't really likely to take the time to make that distinction while sobbing on a dungeon hallway floor.
Now for some anticipated FAQs:
That's not exactly what Vaarsvuius said when the spell was cast, though.
First, Vaarsvuius is prone to poetic word choice and had no particular reason to include various exceptions or inclusions while in the middle of punishing the dragon. Second, as the author, I also had an interest in not necessarily giving away the twist that the Draketooths would be killed two years ahead of time (leading me to choose words that maybe implied one thing while allowing for another). In other words, don't try to parse the language too precisely.
Wouldn't that spell kill everyone of the original target's species?
In our world? Maybe. The OOTS world is not ours, though. It was created fully populated, even with black dragons. So there could be 100 original black dragons who (as V noted) breed slowly over the relatively-short span of time the current world has been in existence, leading to one-quarter of them being wiped out. If it had been cast on a human first, it may well have taken half or more of the population with it, depending on how many Original Humans there had been and how much interbreeding had occurred. Good thing that's not what happened, right?
But if it worked like that, it would have [insert obscure effect proven with math]!
Yeah, well, it didn't. Why? I don't know. But it didn't. I guess that makes me a crappy writer because I didn't think of whatever implication you just thought of, but there it is. I'm not a biologist or a mathematician. If it makes you feel better, just assume that all the laws of heredity and genetics work differently because It's Magic™.
I hope this will end the endless debates. It's really quite simple, and if you're getting to a point where it seems utterly complicated or recursive or whatever, you're probably thinking about it more than I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Giant
So, just to be clear:
1.) The people created at the moment of the planet's creation were all unrelated to each other, or perhaps only related in small groups—a family of 5 or 10 might have been created, but with no relation to all the other families being simultaneously created. Why? Because.
2.) There is no reason to think that just because the comic shows something that it is statistically likely, or that the number of panels I draw of something is intended to be a statement about the frequency of such a thing. I do not draw the comic based on statistics or demographics, I draw it based on what looks good.
3.) Yes, the proof that not all humans have the blood of that specific black dragon is the fact that they didn't all die. Things aren't errors just because they don't support your preferred assumptions. It just means your assumptions are wrong.
4.) Explicitly, I am going to say that no black dragon, ever, in the history of the world, ever mated with any human being until Girard's grandparents. Some black dragons mated with other species, and some other colors of dragon mated with humans. But black dragons and humans? One time only in the history of OOTS-world. That's canon now. Done.
It's now impossible for any humans to have died other than the Draketooths and the families they intermingled with in the last 5 generations. And since Step 2 of the spell requires a LIVING link to keep the chain going, humans that have no living ancestors with those people are safe.
So, yeah. The spell works exactly as I explained, it's just the world that works differently than assumed. Which is exactly what I said the first time I explained how it worked.
Yeah. Familicide was really, really nasty.
EDIT: Agh! Ninja'd. Well, here's the full two explanatory quotes for anyone who wants them.
Basically - Step 1 literally goes back to any and all ancestors of the individual, then kills off everyone descended from them. Step 2 goes back to the oldest living ancestor of those related to everyone in Step 1 and kills everyone descended from them.
Familicide was nasty.
(Someone actually ran the numbers and found that with a decent original population of unrelated black dragons, the 1/4 figure was pretty plausible. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280163 )
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir_Leorik
Not actually relevant. As far as we know V is level 15 with at least 18 int.
V needs to gain 6 levels to gain epic spellcasting, and gets a minimum of 6 skill points per level. That's a total of 36 skill points, 6 to keep knowledge arcana maxed, 6 to keep concentration maxed, 24 to have the required 24 ranks in knowledge religion.
Note that this assumes V does not do anything to increase intelligence and has not boosted Int with any level gains since V was much lower level. In all likelihood at level 16 V ALSO gets 20 Int, and can thus keep spellcraft maxed as well as all the other skills listed.
Conclusion: V can have ZERO ranks in knowledge religion now, and have the skill at an adequate level at the FIRST level V can possibly take epic spellcasting.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doug Lampert
Not actually relevant.
What's more, knowing the properties of spells, including casting time, falls under the domain of Spellcraft, not Knowledge.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
What's more, knowing the properties of spells, including casting time, falls under the domain of Spellcraft, not Knowledge.
Does it? I mean, Spellcraft lets you understand what you're looking at with regards to magic, but just knowing off the top of your head that Resurrection takes 10 minutes might actually be a Knowledge check? (Of course, he can see Durkon casting, so it'd be Spellcraft anyway.)
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reddish Mage
The post about "beings with cosmetic differences" i've referred to, that does well for humanoids, but a magical firebreathing lizard that flies and is classically a greedy monster that terrorizes villages, kidnaps princesses, and keeps massive amounts of treasurer needs to be seperately stated, and it is, in DStP.
Frankly, when it comes to sentience, that in itself is the only similarity that matters, and absolutely everything else is a cosmetic difference. And indeed, "magical firebreathing lizard" fits the literal meaning of "cosmetic", as it is a difference in outward appearance.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
E^G
Um, no.
Familicide only kills beings linked by a *living* immediate family member (that's being generous, could just be Parent/Child).
While disastrous in the modern, highly intermarried context. It's much less damaging if you consider that for most of human history in most parts fo the world marriages were largely confined to members of a group/tribe/smaller region. Eventually there would be no living links.
It's an interesting sociological question what the linkage of modern humans is and how disastrous it would be, but it definitely wouldn't kill non-humans. There are no *living* blood relations among humans and non-humans. (This is kind of what defines "species" in the real world.)
As several others have already mentioned, the question of *living* blood relations is utterly irrelevant. In the real world, or any world where universal common descent and evolution are the laws that govern biology, it is step one of Familicide, the step that explicitly does not require *living* relatives, that wipes out the whole biosphere. Because Universal Common Descent means that ALL living things share blood relationship, however remote.
As an interesting narrative side effect of this, the presentation of Familicide as written actually indirectly tells us about a salient feature of the Stickverse without having to explicitly mention it at all.
In the real world, the entirety of step two, where living links are even considered at all, would be utterly superfluous and would never trigger, because step one will have killed everything, period.
The very fact that Haerta found it "necessary" to design step two into the spell tells the audience instantly that the Stickverse does not operate by Universal Common Descent and was created pre-population with an established biosphere.
The destructive power of Familicide simply boggles the mind. Presumably if someone wanted to craft such a spell in a world where Universal Common Descent operated, it would cost a *lot* more in XP and any other required resource than it cost Haerta in the stickverse. (Either that or it would have to have a penetration limitation, perhaps based on the caster's level, on how far back into the family tree is extends.)
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raymundo
I don't know why people are disputing that killing hundreds/thousands of indiscriminately sentient creatures - no matter if they're "Evil", mass murderers or just unpleasant persons - is an EVIL act, no matter what.
It's mostly because the most common interpretation of the D&D alignment system is that killing evil creatures isn't evil. See for example:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=311
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielmayer
- Killing Evil is a good act for good PCs (D&D core and #207: "ah, then its destruction was just and necessary.")
I don't think that necessarily follows, either. Killing evil creatures, absent other considerations, could be neutral.
Now, Vaarsuvius's familicide would still have been evil, not because it killed so many evil black dragons, but rather because it killed numerous nonevil targets as well, presumably including much of the Draketooth family.
Apropos of the recent discussion, though, reversing the familicide would likely also be evil, for the reasons people have mentioned: it would bring many evil beings into the world, and thus would be responsible for their subsequent evil acts.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
noone is arguing it was a "good" act (as in a morally justified act) but you can argue it is a good act (as in an alignmentlly justified act, as in a paladin would be able familicide a black dragon and conceivalby not fall)
Vs alignment did not turn evil because he cast familicide in other words
No, that is precisely incorrect and the opposite of what Rich said.
Killing a being because of its race/species rather than because of its actions - which is what Familicide does on a massive scale - is an Evil act in alignment terms, and a Paladin would absolutely fall for doing so, just as they would fall for indiscriminately slaughtering innocent goblin children.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if any spell seen outside of The Book of Vile Darkness ever qualified for the [Vile] descriptor, it would be Familicide.
And, strangely enough, I think casting [Vile] spells should be considered a no-no for paladins. :smalltongue:
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
First off, awesome comic. Never played D&D, but these fantasy stick-figures tell a great story.
What do you make of Director Lee said after meeting with Ms. Tiamat in
strip 668, panel two? This was the aftermath of Familicide, I think.
Quote:
I did need to promise that we would eventually destroy five Good dragons for every black one that died today.
What, if anything, an upset Tiamat and a appeasing promise to destroy Good dragons say about the alignment and/or morality of the black dragons (and family) killed?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
punch_bunny
First off, awesome comic. Never played D&D, but these fantasy stick-figures tell a great story.
What do you make of Director Lee said after meeting with Ms. Tiamat in
strip 668, panel two? This was the aftermath of Familicide, I think.
What, if anything, an upset Tiamat and a appeasing promise to destroy Good dragons say about the alignment and/or morality of the black dragons (and family) killed?
Well, since you bring it up, obviously you believe it's relevant. So why don't you explain how?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
punch_bunny
What, if anything, an upset Tiamat and a appeasing promise to destroy Good dragons say about the alignment and/or morality of the black dragons (and family) killed?
Absolutely nothing. It says rather a lot about Tiamat. It also says rather a lot that the person who thought most like Tiamat in the previous twenty strips was Vaarsuvius.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Warren Dew
Now, Vaarsuvius's familicide would still have been evil, not because it killed so many evil black dragons, but rather because it killed numerous nonevil targets as well, presumably including much of the Draketooth family.
V's familicide was evil because it was done for an evil reason - to avenge, taunt and torture the ABD by inflicting harm on third parties unrelated to the dispute between them that the ABD emotionally valued. In intent and motivation it was no different than the cackling supervillain shooting the defeated hero's kid sister in front of him just to taunt him. Even if you be *very* generous and accept the "prevent them from seeking revenge" transparent self-justification, it is no different from the Evil Overlord slaughtering all the newborn babies in the kingdom because some prophecy said that a child born under the ninth moon of the ninth year would be destined to overthrow him. It's still evil either way.
(Also, in a vastly greater echo of the original disintegration of the YABD, it was massive, massive overkill for the needs of the moment, and V deliberately went over the top, just to show off.)
It is evil also because it was done in an evil manner, indiscriminately and wantonly slaughtering without consideration for restraint. V knew the spell was indiscriminate. V knew that spell's effects were far-reaching and that the caster does not have control of what it might kill, and indeed, cannot even necessarily *know* the extent that it would kill. V didn't care and cast it anyways. THAT is evil.
It matters not at all the alignment of who was killed. Even if no nonevil targets had died it would still have been evil.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
noone is arguing it was a "good" act (as in a morally justified act) but you can argue it is a good act (as in an alignmentlly justified act, as in a paladin would be able familicide a black dragon and conceivalby not fall)
Vs alignment did not turn evil because he cast familicide in other words
The indiscriminate, uncontrollable nature of Familicide precludes it from ever being acceptable as a "good" act.
V's alignment did not turn evil because a single evil act does not necessarily automatically flip one' alignment immediately.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
punch_bunny
First off, awesome comic. Never played D&D, but these fantasy stick-figures tell a great story.
What do you make of Director Lee said after meeting with Ms. Tiamat in
strip 668, panel two? This was the aftermath of Familicide, I think.
What, if anything, an upset Tiamat and a appeasing promise to destroy Good dragons say about the alignment and/or morality of the black dragons (and family) killed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
Absolutely nothing. It says rather a lot about Tiamat. It also says rather a lot that the person who thought most like Tiamat in the previous twenty strips was Vaarsuvius.
Weird thing, I entirely agree with zimmerwald here. Tiamat wants Good dragons slaughtered in return for her children, we have no information as to what these children would want.
Of course, we can make assumptions that since Tiamat is so Evil she's likely to care about her children only if they are also Evil... but it would be wrong and not based on how alignment works in OotSverse (see Reddy and how much he cares about the goblins' alignments). A point can even be made that Good children are even more likely to be loved by an Evil parent (or goddess) due to being basically nice and generally sympathetic.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphiox
Frankly, when it comes to sentience, that in itself is the only similarity that matters, and absolutely everything else is a cosmetic difference. And indeed, "magical firebreathing lizard" fits the literal meaning of "cosmetic", as it is a difference in outward appearance.
As far as sentience goes...no, just no. Cthulhu, invading aliens, personifications of our fears, fiends, and inhabitants of the far realms are all sentient and yet you seem to be suggesting that anything less than total blindness to those differences with each individual monster is unacceptable.
Magical and firebreathing are not cosmetic if you mean "of or relating to outward appearance." There's nothing outward about those traits.
What I said in my previous post is that in discussion of reverse familicide we can talk about several other subjects prior, some ("actionability of knowledge of creature tendencies,") tangentially related. That particular point, which I raise only to point out a differences in view exists and that opinions on such are cited during familicide discussions, is not specific to dragons, or issues surrounding spells of mass destruction/resurrection. I omitted points in the PHB and the giant there that I do not think settle this particular matter, but deserve mention.
Yet, in attempting to seperate out the discussion and note the differences, one point of view i mentioned appears again with its own champions. That no knowledge of any sort of creature category is relevant in dealing with sentient creatures.
I believe that is an extreme point of view, that apparently requires good/neutral/non-lawful creatures to waste their surprise round to retain their alignment everytime they encounter a new individual horror from the great beyond, and to treat a vampire or succubus's request for a date the same way you would treat the girl/boy next door. it appears to be willful ignorance in attempting to impose the entirety of an outlook meant for 21st century humans with minor differences, to interact with each other on an equitable basis and applying it to "War of the Worlds" I think it can be a lousy way to run a game session, and a good way to get a perfectly "good" character killed quickly.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
No, that is precisely incorrect and the opposite of what Rich said.
Killing a being because of its race/species rather than because of its actions - which is what Familicide does on a massive scale - is an Evil act in alignment terms, and a Paladin would absolutely fall for doing so, just as they would fall for indiscriminately slaughtering innocent goblin children.
no Rich was talking morally its wrong morally for people to say "oh this race is evil its OK to kill them"
alignmentally its OK to say "this race is evil its OK to kill them" (which is why Miko functioned as a paladin for so long) as long as your not brain dead and start killing the helpless (old young and too sick to be a threat)
casting Familicide wouldnt affect Vs alignment hes still true neutral and at his current velocity will wind up in the TN afterlife (actualy his current actions are even pushing him slower to a neutral good afterlife)
Quote:
V's familicide was evil because it was done for an evil reason - to avenge, taunt and torture the ABD by inflicting harm on third parties unrelated to the dispute between them that the ABD emotionally valued.
one way of looking at it, ANOTHER way (you know the actual motivation for it) is taht since the ABD already apeared promising to kill his family in the most painful way possible, then ensure there souls were trapped in an eternity of suffering he decided to ensure noone else would come to do similar
Quote:
In intent and motivation it was no different than the cackling supervillain shooting the defeated hero's kid sister in front of him just to taunt him
no it would be like the Joker shooting Robin or some other mainly unrelated superhero or gordon
Quote:
(Also, in a vastly greater echo of the original disintegration of the YABD, it was massive, massive overkill for the needs of the moment, and V deliberately went over the top, just to show off.)
no it was V killing the YBD (how does one be a young ancient black dragon?) Dsentagrate was his best damage spell and only one to ensure that the dragon died before it could go back to EATING his team mates
Quote:
The indiscriminate, uncontrollable nature of Familicide precludes it from ever being acceptable as a "good" act.
V's alignment did not turn evil because a single evil act does not necessarily automatically flip one' alignment immediately.
if the spell had not turned into the human gene pool it (to the powers of good) might have considered it one of the most good acts to happen, and the amount of lifes V had saved may have been uncountable
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Just wondering but how did a familicide discussion come up in a comic about V going back down to the material plane? Does it tie into any predictions as to the narrative?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reddish Mage
Just wondering but how did a familicide discussion come up in a comic about V going back down to the material plane? Does it tie into any predictions as to the narrative?
V coming back -> vir future actions -> possibility of redemption -> OMG not for that horrible horrible thing -> ??? -> PROFIT!
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Maybe we should just set up a Familicide subforum at this point - it would certainly make things more efficient.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Only if people looked for it before expressing their beliefs about the redemption possibilities/redemption nonnecessity of Familicide in the main comic discussion thread.
(Or to put it another way, only if pigs flew.)
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
Only if people looked for it before expressing their beliefs about the redemption possibilities/redemption nonnecessity of Familicide in the main comic discussion thread.
(Or to put it another way, only if pigs flew.)
I just really hope these Familicide discussions don't end up banned )=
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
...Is that a "don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Fox" wish, or do you actually enjoy going around and around about Familicide, with people who say there's nothing wrong with genociding black dragons on the right and person-named-zimmerwald1915 who says Vaarsuvius is beyond hope or interest* on the left?
*I hope this is an accurate paraphrase, Zimmer; let me know if it's not.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
...Is that a "don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Fox" wish, or do you actually enjoy going around and around about Familicide, with people who say there's nothing wrong with genociding black dragons on the right and person-named-zimmerwald1915 who says Vaarsuvius is beyond hope or interest* on the left?
*I hope this is an accurate paraphrase, Zimmer; let me know if it's not.
I actually do. I like discussing something I'm interested in, and even if I can't contribute it's always fun to learn new arguments and have new ideas. Seriously.
This is not one of those discussions where I can eventually change my mind, but it's still fun!
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
...Is that a "don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Fox" wish, or do you actually enjoy going around and around about Familicide, with people who say there's nothing wrong with genociding black dragons on the right and person-named-zimmerwald1915 who says Vaarsuvius is beyond hope or interest* on the left?
*I hope this is an accurate paraphrase, Zimmer; let me know if it's not.
Am I on the right there? I can't remember if I ever took devils advocate on that one, or if I just made some points against the well-winged* one's hope part (as far as interest go I for one think a redemptive arc is beyond the strip, V will live and be wiser for what (s)he did).
*not to be read as an endorsement of a certain thing that happened on a certain show.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
punch_bunny
What, if anything, an upset Tiamat and a appeasing promise to destroy Good dragons say about the alignment and/or morality of the black dragons (and family) killed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
Absolutely nothing. It says rather a lot about Tiamat. It also says rather a lot that the person who thought most like Tiamat in the previous twenty strips was Vaarsuvius.
I agree with Zimmerwald1915; this was a case of Tiamat, a Lawful Evil bitch-goddess, demanding that the IFCC go out and murder five times as many Metallic Dragons as the number of Black Dragons V murdered with Familicide, because Tiamat is a Lawful Evil bitch-goddess. Also, before Lee made that promise, he appeased Tiamat by informing her that the Black Dragons were murdered as a side-effect of a scheme by the IFCC to overthrow the Forces of Good. Think about that for a moment: Tiamat is pissed that hundreds (if not thousands) of her worshipers were murdered, but she's suddenly okay with that if it knocks Odin, Thor, Dragon, Anu and Marduk down a peg, and if Director Lee promises to go and murder a greater number of Chromatic Dragons. Tiamat's one sick puppy.
In Tiamat's defense, I will point out that her Krynnish counterpart, Takhisis, is even worse. :smalleek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Liliet
I just really hope these Familicide discussions don't end up banned )=
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
...Is that a "don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Fox" wish, or do you actually enjoy going around and around about Familicide, with people who say there's nothing wrong with genociding black dragons on the right and person-named-zimmerwald1915 who says Vaarsuvius is beyond hope or interest* on the left?
*I hope this is an accurate paraphrase, Zimmer; let me know if it's not.
I think that we've reached a point where discussing certain aspects of Familicide and V's arc are going to touch on "morally justified" territory. We should stop discussing them, period. We all have strong opinions about this, and rehashing them is not going to change anyone's mind. I propose that until V's story arc moves on (probably sometime in Book six) we focus on what Vaarsuvius does/will do in a specific strip, and leave the moralizing in a heavily trapped treasure chest.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
*I hope this is an accurate paraphrase, Zimmer; let me know if it's not.
It's a perfectly fine paraphrase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Liliet
This is not one of those discussions where I can eventually change my mind, but it's still fun!
Indeed, this is one of those arguments where the aim is more to convince readers who haven't made up their minds about things than to convince one's counterpart of to change their position. And that is worthwhile. Viewing familicide as something other than a vile, vile act, for example, used to be much more common than it is now. Observing that V is "constantly benched" used to be rather controversial; now it is taken as axiomatic enough that people make threads based on that premise.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir_Leorik
I think that we've reached a point where discussing certain aspects of Familicide and V's arc are going to touch on "morally justified" territory. We should stop discussing them, period. We all have strong opinions about this, and rehashing them is not going to change anyone's mind. I propose that until V's story arc moves on (probably sometime in Book six) we focus on what Vaarsuvius does/will do in a specific strip, and leave the moralizing in a heavily trapped treasure chest.
If we did have our own subforum we could be clear on rules like what could be discussed:
Words and arguments related to the real-world ethics: "should," "appropriate" "nothing wrong" "legitimate" are not to be avoided in discussing V's acts and hypothetical future wizardry acts. Words like "alignment appropriate," and "a good/lawful/evil/neutral act" are in game and much better.
Redemption: one needs to be clear between types of redemption for a character (in the eyes of the audience, the characters own eyes, a particular alignment group of deities, or simply in terms of listed alignment).
Discussing V's alignment as is or will be is very different from discussing what one should do (in RL) if in such situations, it also differs from placing similar situations in a game situation.
That said there are a number of interesting subjects that been brought up and could have threads about (if we could somehow keep these discussions from bleeding into each other):
1. How do we treat certain actions in our own games (such as if adventurers kill certain or any sort of creature for any sort of reason, does it shift them along the alignment meter?).
a. On a related note: if we treat things a certain way are we using alignment as a straightjacket and is the game less fun?
2. What do we expect to actually happen in OOTS?
3. What are the literary merits of Rich's personification of various creatures in OOTS (that is Xykon and Sabine and Celia, others all appear to be people* with comprehensible motives) and is there also literary merit in non-personified treatment of certain intelligences (that is treating monsters and aliens as having intelligences and values that are monstrous and alien).
* I.e. Xykon is not the sort of Lich that wears tattered clothes and lives in the ruins of his living glory without even noticing or caring about the decay around him (its in the description). Sabine actually loves Nale, seems to have a real kinship with V, and can be plain lousy at picking targets for seduction like Roy and Miko, but she does swoon at Elan's kiss. Celia appears to be more like a typical middle-class person than anyone else in the strip. These are all outsiders or undead and, if an alien intelligence treatment is appropriate towards anything, it would be towards creatures like them.
Edit: Zimmer is right about weighty issues germane to the strip and very obviously being brought up being generally discussable, but my understanding is that there is also a ban on bringing in real world ethics in to argue real world ethical issues. We are supposed to keep alignment discussion on alignments and game treatment. The term morally justified may have cropped out of the ridiculousness of arguing things like "Tarquin is evil, but morally justified" but it also applies to "genocide is wrong, because racial profiling is wrong." That clearly differs from "familicide is an evil act, because taking any action based on being confronted by a being of monstrous, possibly extra-planar, origins is a lawful evil act" but the two are close cousins that one is inevitably going to lead to the other if we aren't clear about the rules.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphiox
Even if you be *very* generous and accept the "prevent them from seeking revenge" transparent self-justification, it is no different from the Evil Overlord slaughtering all the newborn babies in the kingdom because some prophecy said that a child born under the ninth moon of the ninth year would be destined to overthrow him.
To the extent that the black dragons are evil, it is quite different, since newborn human babies are not evil.
Quote:
It is evil also because it was done in an evil manner, indiscriminately and wantonly slaughtering without consideration for restraint.
And what made the spell "indiscriminate"? Oh yes, the fact that it didn't discriminate between evil aligned targets and nonevil targets. This just collapses back to the spell being evil because it killed good and neutral targets.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
Indeed, this is one of those arguments where the aim is more to convince readers who haven't made up their minds about things than to convince one's counterpart of to change their position. And that is worthwhile. Viewing familicide as something other than a vile, vile act, for example, used to be much more common than it is now. Observing that V is "constantly benched" used to be rather controversial; now it is taken as axiomatic enough that people make threads based on that premise.
I think that has more to do with how the story evolved than our discussion of it. Its clear from what we've seen that V's actions had horrific consequences*, and that one of the consequences is being very clearly yanked from the action at a crucial point for the very purpose of being "benched."
*Note: those consequences did not include having dragon treasure flood the world economic markets starting runaway inflation.