Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?

[hamishspence]

They had a truce at the time, and had just worked together to fight monsters.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html

V and Kubota:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html

[MoonCat]

Well at the time that she tried to blow up Miko, Miko was her enemy, so that doesn't count, blowing up Belkar is one of her Elven Chaotic streaks, more of a prank that everybody, with exception of Belkar, found funny, and I don't recall who Kubota is.

The dude who killed Therkla, tried to killed Kazumi and Diago and Hinjo, and was aiming for possession of the throne. Also, classist.

[zimmerwald1915]

This is not the only example, but the first one I found, that displays Vs compassion for random people whom she felt obligated to protect.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html

Posted from Blackberry

She did not feel obligated to protect the Azurites. She had set herself the task of winning the battle all by herself using her magic. She was traumatized by that memory because that Azurite soldier explicitly called her out on not being able to win the battle with her magic. She felt like a failure bacause, strictly speaking, she was: she had failed at her self-appointed task of winning the battle with her magic. She did not feel like a failure because she failed to protect the Azurites. That was purely incidental to what she felt was her real failure.

[Hbgplayer]

Ok, now I remember. But again, that was after she had not tranced for months, and not necessarily evil, just another of her chaotic streaks, since he was obviously evil.
As for Miko, it was also like with Belkar, just a prank, as she said, he has d10 HD, so she was not in danger.

[hamishspence]

"pranks" involving 6d6 of lethal force damage, are a bit sadistic.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm

There's also this scene:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html

[SowZ]

Ok, now I remember. But again, that was after she had not tranced for months, and not necessarily evil, just another of her chaotic streaks, since he was obviously evil.
As for Miko, it was also like with Belkar, just a prank, as she said, he has d10 HD, so she was not in danger.

He was not obviously evil to V. V admits the only reason she killed him was because she knew he was a significant figure of some kind and that he was going to have to go to trial for something. As far as V knew, he was the head conspirator for a group commiting tax fraud.

[Hbgplayer]

That may be true, but not necessarily evil. Also, remember that when Miko cast detect Evil, she registered as Not Evil Even the best of people have the occasional sadistic streak. She does have evil streaks, but she as good that neutralizes it.

[Kish]

True, but all of them were terrorising the plane.

That makes three times you've posted this inaccurate claim in this thread. Is there a reason you're repeating it over and over, even in the face of its inaccuracy being pointed out?

[hamishspence]

"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.

Balancing good acts and intentions with evil acts to be Neutral aligned is a possibility- but we don't see Good acts by V to suggest that V is of this balance.

[SowZ]

"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.

Balancing good acts and intentions with evil acts to be Neutral aligned is a possibility- but we don't see Good acts by V to suggest that V is of this balance.

Yeah, and my example of compassion and guilt was only to show that V has redeemable qualities. Even an average, (neutral,) person would typically feel bad if they witnessed a bunch of good people get slaughtered and they felt as if they should have been able to stop it.

You can justify Vs killing of black dragons as an act that, in the end, helped the world despite parts of it being evil but that is not the reason V did it at all. She was on a bloodthirsty power trip and enjoyed torturing the Black Dragon. IF V had killed the dragons with moral justification in mind, not only would she have most likely have given half a second to contemplate if it is wrong or right, she would have tried to kill all black dragons best she could. One could argue Familicide isn't that powerful, but I think the intention was clear.

V also said, "This, and nothing less, is the price you pay for threatening my family." I have no reason to believe that she would not have commited familicide to a goblin if said goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

[Icedaemon]

Killing Kubota while being unaware of any particular wrongdoing by him- just guessing, may count as well, for "lack of respect for life" (with respect for life being a trait Good characters need).

Come to think of it, just such an offhand murder of a captured foe with no prior knowledge is enough to suggest evil tendencies before the soul spice. V is neutral evil, if not quite so obviously a bastard as Belkar. I would guess that the elf was TN until (after?) the battle for Azure city, but the failure there and subsequent inability to get a message to Haley shifted its alignment to evil as focus drifted off aiding the party and more to proving and increasing one's own power.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right. V seems somewhat Neutral rather than Good in Origin of PCs- and combined with the Arrogant Neutral alignment in the OoTS tabletop game,

I'd say that despite saying "Overwhelmed by pure Evil" in strip 11, V is not in fact sickened- but is suffering the effects a Neutral character would.

While "lack of sleep" might be a mitigating factor, I'd say V is very close to the Neutral/Evil borderline by the time of Kubota's death.

Whether V is over it or not is a bit harder to define- a valid case could be made for either side of the line.

[Holy_Knight]

Posted from Blackberry

She did not feel obligated to protect the Azurites. She had set herself the task of winning the battle all by herself using her magic. She was traumatized by that memory because that Azurite soldier explicitly called her out on not being able to win the battle with her magic. She felt like a failure bacause, strictly speaking, she was: she had failed at her self-appointed task of winning the battle with her magic. She did not feel like a failure because she failed to protect the Azurites. That was purely incidental to what she felt was her real failure.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Being haunted by a recurring nightmare like that seems indicative of guilt, not just of personal failure. That is to say, I think the two are connected--Vaarsuvius felt guilty about not being able to save them, which was part of the impetus for his growing obsession with becoming more powerful, as well as what I take to be an actual fear of going to sleep (or trance), not really thinking it was "inefficient" like he tells himself.

"Good" implies "Makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

So far, it's hard to think of a single personal sacrifice for a stranger that V has made.

I think going back to help O-Chul instead of running away could count.

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

[SowZ]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Being haunted by a recurring nightmare like that seems indicative of guilt, not just of personal failure. That is to say, I think the two are connected--Vaarsuvius felt guilty about not being able to save them, which was part of the impetus for his growing obsession with becoming more powerful, as well as what I take to be an actual fear of going to sleep (or trance), not really thinking it was "inefficient" like he tells himself.


I think going back to help O-Chul instead of running away could count.

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

At the very least, there is a good chance that Roy's gods believe V is evil. Right before Roy was rezzed, a deva or something urgently tried to tell him that one of his party members took a drastic turn towards evil. This wouldn't have happened if she meant, 'One of your allies is in morally questionable territory!' as V has always been there. According to the celestial beings, I think that means V turned evil.

Being evil doesn't mean you don't care about your responsibilities, don't feel compassion/human emotion, or don't have deep, personal relationships. Evil is rarely so stereotypical.

[hamishspence]

True- that's one example way back before lack of sleep was a factor.

V does eventually yield to the temptation to exploit their stupidity after resisting it for a while.

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

It was closed- but was it locked?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html

[rbetieh]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

Actually, he has a change of heart and comes back for O-chul after Xykon mentions that he's going to really really torture O-chul now. V was about to climb down the hole he created during the fight.

[SowZ]

True- that's one example way back before lack of sleep was a factor.

V does eventually yield to the temptation to exploit their stupidity after resisting it for a while.



It was closed- but was it locked?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0656.html

You are right. It probably wasn't... Anyway, even if it was opened it might as well have been locked.

[zimmerwald1915]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

Actually, Holy Knight's right. She went invisible and went to climb down the tower, but heard Xykon talking about upgrading O-Chul to "prisoner first class". She then turned around, fed him a few healing potions, and attempted to exit through the - now-closed - door. She then beelined for the hole in the tower she had tried to climb out in the first place, but was intercepted by Xykon.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Holy_Knight]

Actually, V did turn invisible and try and run away, leaving O-Chul behind. She only helped O-Chul when it turned out she was locked in the room. Going down fighting as opposed to dying right out isn't good or evil.

He wasn't locked in the room--he started to escape through the hole in the wall, but after hearing what Xykon was going to do to O-Chul, turned back to help him instead.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

[SowZ]

Hmm. Reading it again, and yeah, V was running away and leaving O-Chul to his fate initially. But she did change her mind willingly. Yeah, that is a good action.

[Icedaemon]

Trying (unsuccessfully) to disavow the potion merchants of their ill-conceived grasp of economics is a possible smaller-scale example, too.

One could argue that this was more an attempt to correct a stupid thing done by people V considers if not exactly peers, at least sort of falling under the same stereotypes as it and therefore more about self-esteem than charity.

Granted, this is a flimsy explanation. Regardless, a few nice deeds do not outweigh one war-crime level evil act, never mind the other at best questionable deeds.

[hamishspence]

I wonder what V's chart would look like compared to Belkar's, as seen in Roy's afterlife evaluation?

Probably a small downturn in Evilness from the rescue of O'chul onward, but I'm not sure how much.

[SowZ]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html

The, "don't remind me of all I have done," does not seem to be saying, "I acted ineffectually, so don't talk about it." But an admission of guilt.

[veti]

At the very least, there is a good chance that Roy's gods believe V is evil. Right before Roy was rezzed, a deva or something urgently tried to tell him that one of his party members took a drastic turn towards evil. This wouldn't have happened if she meant, 'One of your allies is in morally questionable territory!' as V has always been there. According to the celestial beings, I think that means V turned evil.

I don't think so. "Turn toward" means just that - start heading in the direction of. It says nothing about how far she went.

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't. There were a lot of extenuating circumstances at the time, and anyway, alignment is about what you do normally or habitually, not what you did one time.

As for all those Explosive Runes - 6d6 damage is hardly dangerous to people like Miko and Belkar. In a world where hit points are the sole measure of damage - there's no such thing as "lasting injury" - it's really no more than a smack. V has come to the (not unreasonable) conclusion that it's the most effective way of getting through to them.

[SowZ]

I don't think so. "Turn toward" means just that - start heading in the direction of. It says nothing about how far she went.

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't. There were a lot of extenuating circumstances at the time, and anyway, alignment is about what you do normally or habitually, not what you did one time.

As for all those Explosive Runes - 6d6 damage is hardly dangerous to people like Miko and Belkar. In a world where hit points are the sole measure of damage - there's no such thing as "lasting injury" - it's really no more than a smack. V has come to the (not unreasonable) conclusion that it's the most effective way of getting through to them.

It wasn't just one large evil act. She slaughtered babies, centaurs, hundreds if not thousands of sentient creatures including people without a second thought with no moral justification other then, 'I want to make sure no one else comes at me for revenge,' even though it is clearly because, (and she says in her head it is because,) she enjoys torturing her enemies with the worst torture she could think of.

Again, I propose that we have no reason to believe she wouldn't have done the same to a goblin.

If Haley decided that she didn't want the thieves guild on her back and so blew up the entire city of Greysky then laughed at how funny it was, went back to the ruins, found the tattered remains of her rival there, revived her, then slowly chopped all of her limbs off for fum, would you make this argument?

[Kish]

Is one large evil act enough to change your alignment permanently? Some people obviously think so. I don't.

I would say it's a mistake to consider there are hard-and-fast rules for required number of acts to change alignment.

[lio45]

It wasn't just one large evil act. She slaughtered babies, centaurs, hundreds if not thousands of sentient creatures including people without a second thought with no moral justification other then, 'I want to make sure no one else comes at me for revenge,' even though it is clearly because, (and she says in her head it is because,) she enjoys torturing her enemies with the worst torture she could think of.

Again, I propose that we have no reason to believe she wouldn't have done the same to a goblin.

If Haley decided that she didn't want the thieves guild on her back and so blew up the entire city of Greysky then laughed at how funny it was, went back to the ruins, found the tattered remains of her rival there, revived her, then slowly chopped all of her limbs off for fum, would you make this argument?

I was actually going to ask a pretty similar question: let's say it was Crystal threatening V's family, and V did Familicide on Crystal. Would you merely consider it equally wrong? I'd consider it a LOT more wrong!

The Familicide that V did caused nothing but [quote paladin]just and necessary destruction[/quote paladin], and it dealt a blow to the forces of Evil that was important enough to get Tiamat really pissed at the IFCC. Overall, that action definitely DID help alter the Good/Evil balance towards Good.

I know we have Word of God saying Familicide on Evil dragons is still wrong, and I'm not arguing against that, but really, you gotta admit that was pretty much the Good-est use of Familicide you can think of (I agree that any use is clearly at least somewhat Evil).

[VanBuren]

I was actually going to ask a pretty similar question: let's say it was Crystal threatening V's family, and V did Familicide on Crystal. Would you merely consider it equally wrong? I'd consider it a LOT more wrong!

The Familicide that V did caused nothing but [quote paladin]just and necessary destruction[/quote paladin], and it dealt a blow to the forces of Evil that was important enough to get Tiamat really pissed at the IFCC. Overall, that action definitely DID help alter the Good/Evil balance towards Good.

I know we have Word of God saying Familicide on Evil dragons is still wrong, and I'm not arguing against that, but really, you gotta admit that was pretty much the Good-est use of Familicide you can think of (I agree that any use is clearly at least somewhat Evil).

What if one of those half-dragons had been a mighty Paladin on an important quest? Speculation sure, but the point is that V didn't care whether or not that might have been a possibility. Further, I would argue that some acts are charted differently on the alignment scale based on why they were done. Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not. Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger. Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

[lio45]

I think some people are downplaying Vs good traits. She does have a moral code and does care about people and helping them, (even people she doesn't know,) though she cares about herself more. That is the case with most people.

...and those people would all be Neutral, if we lived in a world that functioned with the D&D alignment system.

There are plenty of Neutral people out there, in fact.

Try needing help on the sidewalk of any large city if you don't believe me ;)

[lio45]

What if one of those half-dragons had been a mighty Paladin on an important quest? Speculation sure, but the point is that V didn't care whether or not that might have been a possibility.

Agreed... but then, many of those dragons were Evil.

The probability that the sum of the Good the half-dragons "on important quests" would possibly have made in the future could've beat the sum of the Evil the black dragons would've done in the future is essentially nil.

(Just arguing for the sake of it, because the gist of your argument, quoted below, I can totally agree with.)

FWIW, I take it you agreed that Familicide on a Human family (statistically including plenty of Good and Neutral individuals) would still be a lot worse than when done on a family of Always Evil Monsters...? That's just how the D&D Good/Evil system works...

I would tend to think Familicide on humans would immediately shift anyone's alignment to "Evil", while on black dragons, it probably did not (in V's case).

Further, I would argue that some acts are charted differently on the alignment scale based on why they were done. Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not. Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger. Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

Totally agree.