-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
Thanks, but that still doesn't answer the question. We already know that
1) Killing a black dragon on sight just because it's a black dragon == "not Good"
2) Killing a smiling, waving citizen peacefully going about his/her business in town because you think it's fun = Evil (I suppose)
...but so far we still don't know if the former is officially any better than the latter. I would clearly think so and I said so throughout the thread, but we still don't know if I'm right and Kish's wrong (below), or Kish's right and I'm wrong.
Again, motivation is most important here. If the black dragon is killed largely out of fear or for some other slightly justifiable reason, then it is not evil in and of itself. Killing an evil being for personal amusement is evil.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Actually he was specifically told that he would have been judged True Neutral had he not made up for abandoning Elan to the bandits by rescuing him and learning his lesson from the experience.
Zevox
One or two strips later, she specifically says Neutral Good. I see what you mentioned, but that was an if, this was an actual possibility.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MoonCat
One or two strips later, she specifically says Neutral Good. I see what you mentioned, but that was an if, this was an actual possibility.
I imagine the NG afterlife would be the most pleasant. You don't have so many people being rebellious just because they can like some hipster 17 year old and you don't have all those self-righteous Paladin types.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SowZ
I imagine the NG afterlife would be the most pleasant. You don't have so many people being rebellious just because they can like some hipster 17 year old and you don't have all those self-righteous Paladin types.
Not all paladins were self righteous... That was mainly Miko in Azure City.
Hey, are all Commoners Lawful by default?
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MoonCat
Not all paladins were self righteous... That was mainly Miko in Azure City.
Hey, are all Commoners Lawful by default?
Hmm? I never said that. I said the majority of humans lean towards neutrality.
I think Paladins are pretty much all self-righteous. The degrees just vary significantly.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SowZ
Hmm? I never said that. I said the majority of humans lean towards neutrality.
I think Paladins are pretty much all self-righteous. The degrees just vary significantly.
You never said most humans leant towards neutrality, you said 'all those self righteous Paladin types" and I said most paladins weren't, Miko was, but not all.
Hinjo isn't, O-chul isn't.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MoonCat
You never said most humans leant towards neutrality, you said 'all those self righteous Paladin types" and I said most paladins weren't, Miko was, but not all.
Hinjo isn't, O-chul isn't.
Eh, Hinjo has a little bit of it, I think (Summon: Conscience), but I definitely don't see it in O-chul.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Eh, Hinjo has a little bit of it, I think (Summon: Conscience), but I definitely don't see it in O-chul.
That wasn't self righteous, that was emotional manipulation.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hbgplayer
Does anyone else find it slightly funny how this thread started out as a debate on Vaarsuvius'(s) alignment on the Chaos-Law axis, and how it quite suddenly changed to the Good-Evil axis?
Going back to the original question, she is probably more lawful, but neutral.
FYI, everything being discussed here is actually part of the original question:
"Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Icedaemon
Again, motivation is most important here. If the black dragon is killed largely out of fear or for some other slightly justifiable reason, then it is not evil in and of itself. Killing an evil being for personal amusement is evil.
Consider that motivation is the exact same in both cases, and you're aware of alignment in both cases. See these two cases:
A) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my (Good) purposes, and I know he's ultra-Evil --> I'll kill him and take his stuff
B) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my purposes, and I know he's Good --> I'll kill him and take his stuff
Equally Evil, or is the latter worse?
The first act helps the cause of Good and weakens Evil, while the second does the opposite.
See for example how Eugene blamed Roy for letting a bastion of Good be overrun by Xykon... Had it been, say, Greysky City being invaded/destroyed, I'm pretty sure that would've been quite a bit better from a "greater Good" point of view. In other words, I think those things (whether or not your actions are contributing to the greater Good, even if it's only a side effect, as long as you're aware you're doing it) do matter in the Stickverse.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
FYI, everything being discussed here is actually part of the original question:
"Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?"
Consider that motivation is the exact same in both cases, and you're aware of alignment in both cases. See these two cases:
A) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my (Good) purposes, and I know he's ultra-Evil --> I'll kill him and take his stuff
B) This guy is a jerk, he has wronged me moderately (I'm not aware of anything else he did), and I could actually use his nice equipment for my purposes, and I know he's Good --> I'll kill him and take his stuff
Equally Evil, or is the latter worse?
The first act helps the cause of Good and weakens Evil, while the second does the opposite.
See for example how Eugene blamed Roy for letting a bastion of Good be overrun by Xykon... Had it been, say, Greysky City being invaded/destroyed, I'm pretty sure that would've been quite a bit better from a "greater Good" point of view. In other words, I think those things (whether or not your actions are contributing to the greater Good, even if it's only a side effect, as long as you're aware you're doing it) do matter in the Stickverse.
If you are not aware of anything else he did you don't know he is ultra-evil?
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Depending on what "wronged me moderately" means, I might even debate whether the first one is good.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Depending on what "wronged me moderately" means, I might even debate whether the first one is good.
Like said your boots are ugly. So ten years later you kill them for it.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SowZ
If you are not aware of anything else he did you don't know he is ultra-evil?
Yes, because I cast Detect Alignment on him (it apparently has nuances: Miko had Durkon register as "strongly Evil").
That was pretty much implied in the two cases (since the guy is otherwise supposed to be a complete stranger). :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Depending on what "wronged me moderately" means, I might even debate whether the first one is good.
Well, it has to be something for which killing is clearly an over-reaction, that is certain.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
Yes, because I cast Detect Alignment on him (it apparently has nuances: Miko had Durkon register as "strongly Evil").
That was pretty much implied in the two cases (since the guy is otherwise supposed to be a complete stranger). :P
Well, it has to be something for which killing is clearly an over-reaction, that is certain.
Detect Alignment doesn't actually work that way. Strength of the evil aura is based on HD and creature type, not how evil they actually are.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
So for a human, strength of the Evil aura is directly linked to their # of HD? (It would actually make some sense...)
Anyway, then just make that "strong Evil aura" in Case A and "strong Good aura" in Case B. The question stands...
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
Yes, because I cast Detect Alignment on him (it apparently has nuances: Miko had Durkon register as "strongly Evil").
That was pretty much implied in the two cases (since the guy is otherwise supposed to be a complete stranger). :P
Well, it has to be something for which killing is clearly an over-reaction, that is certain.
Then it's certainly not a Good action. Killing them just because of what the alignment says, and not for any reason that justified lethal violence is an Evil action. And even if the victim has an Evil alignment, the fact that a supposedly Good being has tainted itself by performing Evil means that as far as the sides are concerned, Evil has gained a point.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
So for a human, strength of the Evil aura is directly linked to their # of HD? (It would actually make some sense...)
Anyway, then just make that "strong Evil aura" in Case A and "strong Good aura" in Case B. The question stands...
An 'evil' person with 1 HD can be more evil then another 'evil' person with 10. If you do not know of any of their actions save for a slight against yourself, you would have no way of knowing if they are 'Ultra-Evil.'
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Then it's certainly not a Good action. Killing them just because of what the alignment says, and not for any reason that justified lethal violence is an Evil action.
We all agree it's not a Good action... we don't agree on whether or not one is more Evil than the other.
Quote:
And even if the victim has an Evil alignment, the fact that a supposedly Good being has tainted itself by performing Evil means that as far as the sides are concerned, Evil has gained a point.
Evil might have gained a bit because the perpetrator has slided towards Evil, but at the same time, Evil compeletely lost a fine warrior. Evil lost more than it gained there: the world is a better place now.
Obvious example:
V's alignment moves towards Evil
+
~25% of an Always Evil species dead
+
Evil Dragon Goddess totally pissed off, to the point that you need to promise her that in exchange you'll weaken the Good side five times as much so as to be "forgiven"
=
the world is a less Evil place (or a more Good place, it's the same).
Definitely not "Evil has gained a point".
Or rather, Evil has gained a point (in V), but lost about a thousand points at the same time.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SowZ
An 'evil' person with 1 HD can be more evil then another 'evil' person with 10. If you do not know of any of their actions save for a slight against yourself, you would have no way of knowing if they are 'Ultra-Evil.'
Agreed, and that is exactly why I told you that now that you pointed that out, let's immediately scratch "ultra-Evil" in my example and replace it with "strong Evil aura".
I said I thought it made some sense, because if you're Evil with 10 HD you've probably done more Evil stuff than if you've just got 1HD. So, on average, it kinda works, yes.
The two extreme examples don't work (the complete monster Level 1 character, and the super-mega-Epic slightly Evil/almost Neutral guy)... but on average, it's not too bad a rule of thumb.
Anyway, as I was saying, my example still works post-your-correction (thanks, BTW) and the question is still asked...
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
Agreed, and that is exactly why I told you that now that you pointed that out, let's immediately scratch "ultra-Evil" in my example and replace it with "strong Evil aura".
I said I thought it made some sense, because if you're Evil with 10 HD you've probably done more Evil stuff than if you've just got 1HD. So, on average, it kinda works, yes.
The two extreme examples don't work (the complete monster Level 1 character, and the super-mega-Epic slightly Evil/almost Neutral guy)... but on average, it's not too bad a rule of thumb.
Anyway, as I was saying, my example still works post-your-correction (thanks, BTW) and the question is still asked...
Yeah, no problem. The Detect Spells are fairly confusing as they have many variables and multiple ways to use them. Anyway, no, it would be equally evil to kill either of them as you aren't killing them for their evil actions. Their alignment is irrelevant to the morality of the discussion since that is not the reason for the execution. In your example, if the evil person had never moderately wronged the character and didn't have stuff they wanted, the character wouldn't kill them. So it is obvious the person is commiting unjust 'murder' to steal from someone. Their alignment just shifted.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
We all agree it's not a Good action... we don't agree on whether or not one is more Evil than the other.
Evil might have gained a bit because the perpetrator has slided towards Evil, but at the same time, Evil compeletely lost a fine warrior. Evil lost more than it gained there: the world is a better place now.
Obvious example:
V's alignment moves towards Evil
+
~25% of an Always Evil species dead
+
Evil Dragon Goddess totally pissed off, to the point that you need to promise her that in exchange you'll weaken the Good side five times as much so as to be "forgiven"
=
the world is a less Evil place (or a more Good place, it's the same).
Definitely not "Evil has gained a point".
Or rather, Evil has gained a point (in V), but lost about a thousand points at the same time.
Again, from the BoED
Quote:
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
At the end of the day, even if Team Evil lost a competent agent, since it was achieved via Evil means, Evil wins.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Again, from the BoED
At the end of the day, even if Team Evil lost a competent agent, since it was achieved via Evil means, Evil wins.
Again, though, D&D proves that good and evil are energies named good and evil out of bias and not philosophical concepts or right and wrong abstracts. Because if this is talking about right and wrong, the BoED is full of utter crap when it says this.
To believe that alignment in D&D is the way it is because the game is written that way AND to believe that good and evil are objective facts of right and wrong you must believe that if you have to cast 'Create Greater Undead' or else let the souls of every single human child that ever existed experience ultimate suffering and torture for all eternity, to stay pure, you have to let it happen. There is no other option that I see. That is just one of the self defeating traps that believing in objective and arbitrary D&D good-evil is right and wrong.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SowZ
Again, though, D&D proves that good and evil are energies named good and evil out of bias and not philosophical concepts or right and wrong abstracts. Because if this is talking about right and wrong, the BoED is full of utter crap when it says this.
To believe that alignment in D&D is the way it is because the game is written that way AND to believe that good and evil are objective facts of right and wrong you must believe that if you have to cast 'Create Greater Undead' or else let the souls of every single human child that ever existed experience ultimate suffering and torture for all eternity, to stay pure, you have to let it happen. There is no other option that I see. That is just one of the self defeating traps that believing in objective and arbitrary D&D good-evil is right and wrong.
While you are free to have your own personal morality. It is not relevant to a discussion of how it is officially designated within the context of 3.5
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
While you are free to have your own personal morality. It is not relevant to a discussion of how it is officially designated within the context of 3.5
But whether the official designation can arbitrarily make right and wrong objective in context of the D&D world as oppossed to the nature of right and wrong being an abstract or else something that by its definition has to follow consistent values within ANY universe is valid. That is, jusy because 'word of god' says something, does that automatically make it true within the context of the story? I say it doesn't. Otherwise, I can write a story about SS Nazis and say that they are good guys and it stands true. I also say that you can take D&D at its face value without having to debate 'word of god' by interpreting alignment one of two ways- the traditional and senseless right and wrong is the same as good-evil energies OR good and evil are energies that happen to be channeled by events most people would consider right and wrong.
I don't see why looking at good-evil as energies is less valid even within the context of D&D, especially when looking at it the other way creates ludicrous hypothetical scenarios like the one above.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
There's probably a combination of factors.
Some deeds (involving Evil magic) are designed to be "inherently evil" regardless of how much good can result from them.
Some classes (and feats) are tied to not committing Evil acts.
That said, the connection between the alignment of an act, and the alignment of a character committing the acts, can be a little looser. For example, a Dread Necromancer (in the class description) regularly commits Evil acts- yet is not required to have an evil alignment (though it must have a nongood one)
Maybe because, such "inherently evil acts" aren't especially character altering- so the character can commit them and still qualify as nonevil.
Other acts might be evil, not for the "energies" reason, but for other reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Callista
Actually, that'd be a pretty cool concept for an NPC. Have a dragon who's grown up like that, and become non-Evil... have the PCs meet it, see what they do. It'll probably be using disguises, of course... *goes to scribble down some ideas*
In Faerun, in the time of Myth Drannor, an elf discovers a red dragon egg, and chooses to raise it. And it successfully turns out non-evil.
On the minus side, it inadvertantly fulfilled a release-condition, that involved a non-evil chromatic dragon flying over Myth Drannor, thus releasing three powerful fiends that were hidden in an invisible magical prison.
Still, the dragon (Garnet) fought bravely in the defense of the kingdom.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanBuren
Again, from the BoED
(...)
At the end of the day, even if Team Evil lost a competent agent, since it was achieved via Evil means, Evil wins.
I would disagree with that conclusion. If you allow major Evil to happen because the only way to stop it would be an Evil act and you don't want to treat the purity of your soul as a commodity, I can't see how you can remain Good. I would definitely expect a Good character to act.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Evil ways to defeat evil just shows evil fights within itself, it doesn't stop it being evil. The ends don't justify the means.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
I don't get the excessive quoting of the Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness. In addition to the somewhat poor quality thereof, and that personally I would never take moral advice from a book that provided me with magical evil-torture spells and told me that they were good (while simultaneously denouncing far lesser things like poison as never ever ever good), we have absolutely no proof at all that OotS uses anything from either of those books, including alignment.
Or, TL;DR, those books are horribly written and have as much bearing on this conversation as Complete Scoundrel or Complete Psionic, or the Book of Erotic Fantasy even.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
I would disagree with that conclusion. If you allow major Evil to happen because the only way to stop it would be an Evil act and you don't want to treat the purity of your soul as a commodity, I can't see how you can remain Good. I would definitely expect a Good character to act.
Your arguments up to this point have consisted of 'the rules say alignment exists, so good and evil are definitive.' So, in that mindset, you can't have the expressed opinion within a D&D game. Same with my 'the souls of all children' example. Without abandoning 'good is right and evil is wrong in D&D' you have no other options.
-
Re: Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kojiro
we have absolutely no proof at all that OotS uses anything from either of those books, including alignment.
Deathless (although they might have been Eberron-style rather than BoED style).
Eye of Fear & Flame (BoVD).
Yes, the books have flaws- but they're still the main sources for the general definitions of Evil acts (and good ones).
And which "magical evil-torture spells" are you thinking of? BoED is pretty clear that torture is evil in itself.