Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?

[SowZ]

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).

No, it's equally evil. Miko was under the assumption they were fighting the dragon, first off, when she said it was just. (Also, that was part of a joke and it is implied that killing a dragon because it's scales aren't shiny is wrong and Miko is hypocritical.)

The dragons V killed were not evil. According to standard alignments, most probably were. But there were infants, baby dragons, that V murdered. Even if you think those babies are evil for some arbitrary and senseless in universe law, there were half dragons. Half dragons don't seem particularly rare in OOTS, so even if there were only 20 black half dragons on the planet and 60% of black half dragons are evil, that's still 2 people who aren't evil that V murdered and had fun doing so. V enjoyed slaughtering them because it reinforced her 'control' of the situation, inflated her pride, and gave her vengeance. She basically laughed maniacly at what were probably the deaths of some good aligned people.

Also, as I've stated, V said the familicide was the price of threatening her family. NOT the price of being an evil creature. She most likely would have done it even if a goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.

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).




Totally agree.

If you don't care about their morality, their impact on the world, or anything but revenge, it takes an equal disregard for life and mental state if you are killing devas or demons. It is the same morally. Besides, half dragons centaurs are not an always evil species.

[Holy_Knight]

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

Oh I agree--I mentioned that example in response to the idea that Vaarsuivius never sacrificed personal interest to help others.

[Warren Dew]

Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.

I'm pretty sure that if Haley had blown up Greysky after murdering Crystal, the cheers would have drowned out the very rare objectors.

[lio45]

No, it's equally evil. Miko was under the assumption they were fighting the dragon, first off, when she said it was just. (Also, that was part of a joke and it is implied that killing a dragon because it's scales aren't shiny is wrong and Miko is hypocritical.)

IMO, the joke there is the fact that these things are soooo much simpler in the very stereotypical and very binary universe of D&D than in real life.

The ending comment ("Dragons: Color-coded for your convenience!") shows it...

The dragons V killed were not evil. According to standard alignments, most probably were. But there were infants, baby dragons, that V murdered. Even if you think those babies are evil for some arbitrary and senseless in universe law...

They were Evil, yes. As soon as you exist, you have an alignment. That's how it works.

...there were half dragons. Half dragons don't seem particularly rare in OOTS, so even if there were only 20 black half dragons on the planet and 60% of black half dragons are evil, that's still 2 people who aren't evil that V murdered and had fun doing so.

FWIW, your math is off...

20 black half dragons and 60% of them evil = V killed 8 non-evil creatures

20 black half dragons and V killed 2 non-evil creatures = 90% of them are Evil

Not that it changes the argument, of course...

V enjoyed slaughtering them because it reinforced her 'control' of the situation, inflated her pride, and gave her vengeance. She basically laughed maniacly at what were probably the deaths of some good aligned people.

Also, as I've stated, V said the familicide was the price of threatening her family. NOT the price of being an evil creature. She most likely would have done it even if a goblin had threatened her family/humiliated her so much.

But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.

Also, Greysky is a city that is a fairly evil force in the world. Just about all of it's major players are evil and there are no examples of good citizens that live ther. (In fact, I can't think of one character developed enough for us to know their alignment that wasn't evil.) If you are saying getting rid of the dragons, even if a few good ones were scattered among them, was okay, Haley blowing up Greysky is A.OK too.

Which is exactly why I would consider destroying Greysky City a MUCH less Evil act than destroying, say, Cliffport or Azure City.

If you don't care about their morality, their impact on the world, or anything but revenge, it takes an equal disregard for life and mental state if you are killing devas or demons. It is the same morally. Besides, half dragons centaurs are not an always evil species.

The thing is, you can't ignore the fact the killer KNEW what he was killing.

Obeying to

"Press this red button and you'll destroy a random city doing so"

versus

"Press this red button and you'll destroy Greysky City doing so"

aren't the same morally, even if you were angry when you destroyed Greysky City and did it for revenge.

[SowZ]

IMO, the joke there is the fact that these things are soooo much simpler in the very stereotypical and very binary universe of D&D than in real life.

The ending comment ("Dragons: Color-coded for your convenience!") shows it...





They were Evil, yes. As soon as you exist, you have an alignment. That's how it works.




FWIW, your math is off...

20 black half dragons and 60% of them evil = V killed 8 non-evil creatures

20 black half dragons and V killed 2 non-evil creatures = 90% of them are Evil

Not that it changes the argument, of course...




But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.





Which is exactly why I would consider destroying Greysky City a MUCH less Evil act than destroying, say, Cliffport or Azure City.





The thing is, you can't ignore the fact the killer KNEW what he was killing.

Obeying to

"Press this red button and you'll destroy a random city doing so"

versus

"Press this red button and you'll destroy Greysky City doing so"

aren't the same morally, even if you were angry when you destroyed Greysky City and did it for revenge.

Nah, V only killed a quarter of Black Dragons. So it's still two good creatures dead. V probably amused himself with the deaths of at least two non-evil people. You still haven't touched it. You still haven't said if blowing up Greysky city then slowly torturing Crystal to death is evil or not. 'They are monsters.' Yes, which is why V still would have done it to Goblins. And, once again, V didn't do it because he wanted to improve the world so whether or not it did is irrelevant in determining if Vs actions were good or evil. The fact that Belkar tried to kill O-Chul, but it turned out for the best, does not mean Belkar's act was good because it wasn't his intention.

Blowing up a random city or blowing up Gresky both firmly place someone into complete monster categories. The only reason I don't place V into a lower moral category then Redcloak is because she is trying to reform.

It doesn't matter if they were monsters or not. The very fact that people like V exists is the reason people like Redcloak exist, btw, and the evil force that V is in the world a is far greater than the evil of, say, Belkar, despite Belkar being a more evil person. If it is justified for a human to kill a black dragon because they are a black dragon, it is justified for a Black Dragon to kill a human because they are a human. Anything else breaks the rules of logic. The setting can't say one plus one is three then go by the rules of logic where one plus one is two.

Saying human's can kill Black Dragons is just how it is completely ignores the is ought problem. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it should be. So in this case, good and evil are not syonymous with right and wrong. Even if it is justified to kill Black Dragons, (it creates the evil in the first place, as even this comic points out all over the place,) it is still clear that Vs act was a grossly evil act for many other reasons and most of my reasons are not contingent on the morality of black dragons.

[lio45]

Nah, V only killed a quarter of Black Dragons.

OK... that's not how I had figured it.

Since we have no idea how many dragons were killed anyway, I supposed your guesstimate number ("20 half dragons") was for the killed part, which actually would've been the most straightforward way to bring a number into it. Otherwise, it's an estimation to which we need to apply another estimation (the one quarter) to get a number: needlessly complicated.

So I stand corrected: your math is right, but you used TWO estimations where only one could have been used (which would have been better) :P

So it's still two good creatures dead. V probably amused himself with the deaths of at least two non-evil people. You still haven't touched it.

I already said the death of all those Evil dragons was almost sure to outweigh the few non-Evil casualities of the act, meaning it would almost certainly have a Good-strengthening, Evil-weakening net effect.

But yeah, collateral damage on non-Evil people is making the act more Evil. We agree on that.

You still haven't said if blowing up Greysky city then slowly torturing Crystal to death is evil or not.

I said the Familicide used on Always Evil monsters was "somewhat Evil" (look up my post if you want. I believe it's on last page).

I would say blowing up Greysky City then torturing Crystal to death would also be somewhat Evil. Same order of magnitude as V's black dragon Familicide IMO.

'They are monsters.' Yes, which is why V still would have done it to Goblins.

Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.

Had V done the Familicide on Goblins, that would have put him morally on the same level as those Azure City Paladins... not a saint, definitely, but not that Evil either.

And, once again, V didn't do it because he wanted to improve the world so whether or not it did is irrelevant in determining if Vs actions were good or evil. The fact that Belkar tried to kill O-Chul, but it turned out for the best, does not mean Belkar's act was good because it wasn't his intention.

V knew the creatures that were going to be killed were black dragons. You can't escape that fact.

So we can't assume he's have gone ahead with the act if the target hadn't been an Evil monster. It's morally TOTALLY different.

The Azure City paladins did something just as bad as what Nale did in Cliffport to attract the police... only the paladins did it on goblins; they would clearly NEVER have done the same thing on Cliffport citizens.

Hence the big difference in actual Evilness between Nale and the Azure City paladins (might not be obvious to you, but I guess it is to most of us: Nale is more Evil than the paladins).

Blowing up a random city or blowing up Gresky both firmly place someone into complete monster categories.

You don't see the difference?

It doesn't matter if they were monsters or not. The very fact that people like V exists is the reason people like Redcloak exist, btw, and the evil force that V is in the world a is far greater than the evil of, say, Belkar, despite Belkar being a more evil person.

I disagree. I think Belkar's more Evil than V in every single possible way (including V's chances of generating Redcloaks), and I'm fairly sure it's a fact we can take to the bank.

If it is justified for a human to kill a black dragon because they are a black dragon, it is justified for a Black Dragon to kill a human because they are a human. Anything else breaks the rules of logic. The setting can't say one plus one is three then go by the rules of logic where one plus one is two.

Aren't you aware the Good vs Evil fight is inherently unfair? Good has its hands partly tied.

The Evil side "can" do things the Good side can't/won't. That's the very nature of that "war", and it doesn't break the rules of logic at all.

[Gift Jeraff]

Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.

Goblins are listed as usually neutral evil.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any humanoid is listed as "always <whatever>."

[SowZ]

OK... that's not how I had figured it.

Since we have no idea how many dragons were killed anyway, I supposed your guesstimate number ("20 half dragons") was for the killed part, which actually would've been the most straightforward way to bring a number into it. Otherwise, it's an estimation to which we need to apply another estimation (the one quarter) to get a number: needlessly complicated.

So I stand corrected: your math is right, but you used TWO estimations where only one could have been used (which would have been better) :P





I already said the death of all those Evil dragons was almost sure to outweigh the few non-Evil casualities of the act, meaning it would almost certainly have a Good-strengthening, Evil-weakening net effect.

But yeah, collateral damage on non-Evil people is making the act more Evil. We agree on that.




I said the Familicide used on Always Evil monsters was "somewhat Evil" (look up my post if you want. I believe it's on last page).

I would say blowing up Greysky City then torturing Crystal to death would also be somewhat Evil. Same order of magnitude as V's black dragon Familicide IMO.





Aren't Goblins also Always Evil? Unless I'm mistaken there, I don't see what's the difference between Goblins and Black Dragons. Both are always Evil, and monsters.

Had V done the Familicide on Goblins, that would have put him morally on the same level as those Azure City Paladins... not a saint, definitely, but not that Evil either.




V knew the creatures that were going to be killed were black dragons. You can't escape that fact.

So we can't assume he's have gone ahead with the act if the target hadn't been an Evil monster. It's morally TOTALLY different.

The Azure City paladins did something just as bad as what Nale did in Cliffport to attract the police... only the paladins did it on goblins; they would clearly NEVER have done the same thing on Cliffport citizens.

Hence the big difference in actual Evilness between Nale and the Azure City paladins (might not be obvious to you, but I guess it is to most of us: Nale is more Evil than the paladins).




You don't see the difference?




I disagree. I think Belkar's more Evil than V in every single possible way (including V's chances of generating Redcloaks), and I'm fairly sure it's a fact we can take to the bank.





Aren't you aware the Good vs Evil fight is inherently unfair? Good has its hands partly tied.

The Evil side "can" do things the Good side can't/won't. That's the very nature of that "war", and it doesn't break the rules of logic at all.

It wasn't collateral damage for the good ones that died. This isn't a, "The city is overun by evil invaders and some of my people are still inside. Alas, I must blow up the city to keep the invaders from attacking the next town" scenario. V deliberately killed the good creatures. He wanted every single family member dead, even good ones and he didn't even bother to check though he knew he was killing half dragons that my be good, otherwise the whole effect would have been lost. In an unnecesarry move that in no way was done to enact the greater good, V deliberately murdered and took pleasure in the murder of what could very well have been good and were probably neutral people. It's not a minor loss for the greater gain scenario at all. You can't justify it retroactively. If I see a guy walking down the street and feel compelled to push him into traffic for the lulz, then later find out that guy was the next Jefferey Dahmer, I can't say, "Oh, I guess my act wasn't evil after all. Cool."

Wait... Slaughtering a whole town of people, most of which have not provoked you, not for any good reason at all but soley because that town inconviences you, (even though the town may contain no/few good people,) is only somewhat evil?

Goblins are not always evil, (they could be as much as 60% is all,) but neither were Vs targets. He didn't kill all black dragons. First off, being born morally irreprehensible from birth does not make any sense. But even allowing that they are evil, (?,) there are magnitudes of evil and not all are deserving of death. One guy might harm others and get pleasure out of it like a sadistic boss at work and is a small degree of lawful evil but he has never permanently harmed anyones life beyond what they can fix. Should I pop him in the head with a .308 because his alignment registers as evil?

Secondly, yeah, it is completely evil for the Azure City Paladins to slaughter goblins many of whom were not evil and even killing the ones that were evil not because of a crime but because of hate propaganda and prejudice is evil. However, I'm sure they were not aware of what they were doing. This does not mean the act wasn't evil, it was very evil, but it means the people aren't necessarily evil. Just like foot soldier nazis in WWII. They weren't all terrible human beings. But V? He was totally aware of what he was doing. It wasn't out of a deluded or tricked sense of morality but out of pure malice and spite.

As for the Gresky City thing, no, I don't see a difference. Why should I? Because one city is full of humans? Black Dragons are what they are and do what comes naturally to them. If they harm someone else that someone has full right to defend themselves and even retaliate for damage done. But even if someone has evil tendancies or, shoot, they are outright evil, it is wrong to kill them when they haven't done anything. A guy who has nothing but hate in his heart and would like to see people dead but does nothing to act on these feelings can't be tried for murder nor should he. That's what V did to those dragons assuming they were all evil.

Belkar is more evil then V, that is not what I am saying. But V has done more to advance the cause of evil. He helped establish a demonic organization. He commited genocide. What has Belkar done? Killed as many people as he, a halfling ranger, as he can get away with? And, by the reasoning of killing the black dragons/half dragons was good so it balances out, Belkar isn't an evil force, either. He saved Hinjo and has, (as far as we can tell,) killed far more monsters and evil aligned things then anything else. So is Belkar good, too? Or does he not balance out because when he killed evil it wasn't to advance good but instead to have fun butchering? Because that is exactly what V did. He killed for fun/vengeance. Vs moderate evil can do far more then Belkar's large evil. Because V is far more powerful then Belkar, a little bit goes a long ways.

As far as the good side/bad side thing... Not in the D&D world. What can't the good side do? Create undead? Align with devils?Because there are spells evil cannot cast and creatures evil cannot align with. These are just abstract decisions that don't have a direct result on much of anything. It is what you do with your zombies or your celestial/infernal allies that counts. And evil/good? They do the same things if you are talking about evil as races and good as races. "Evil" races butcher "good" races when they can and "good" races butcher "evil" races when they can. It is not a battle between right and wrong. It is a blood fued. A cycle of violence where one species and another are at war and contributing to the cycle is no more 'good' then ignoring it. Only through peace and rationality will Redcloaks stop being created and countless people/monsters senselessy die. V? He contributed to that cycle of violence big time.

((Crap, I'm sounding like a lawful good Paladin of Freedom and Peace... Lio! What have you done to me?!?))

[Morithias]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?

"A single good act does not forgive a single evil act. Saving a single life, does not forgive a single murder." It's sad but it's true, as far as I'm concerned if he/she ended up on my desk it would be "evil go to hell NEXT" with virtually no question.

Hell by official standards the cold blooded murder of the noble would probably be enough to get you to the underworld.

The only thing that's preventing me from being 100% sure is that Drow. Then again it's not like he/she was created via a mirror of opposition.

[SowZ]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?

"A single good act does not forgive a single evil act. Saving a single life, does not forgive a single murder." It's sad but it's true, as far as I'm concerned if he/she ended up on my desk it would be "evil go to hell NEXT" with virtually no question.

Hell by official standards the cold blooded murder of the noble would probably be enough to get you to the underworld.

The only thing that's preventing me from being 100% sure is that Drow. Then again it's not like he/she was created via a mirror of opposition.

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good.

[Morithias]

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good.

Yeah but trying isn't everything. I will admit that yes, ATTEMPTING to be good, is still good however there is a reason "attempted murder" is less of a crime then "murder".

In other words, if all he/she is doing is ATTEMPTING to be good, instead of actually doing good well...let's just say he/she better hope he/she dies of old age instead of a knife in the head. Because he/she is going to be working off that debt for a LONG time.

[SowZ]

Yeah but trying isn't everything. I will admit that yes, ATTEMPTING to be good, is still good however there is a reason "attempted murder" is less of a crime then "murder".

In other words, if all he/she is doing is ATTEMPTING to be good, instead of actually doing good well...let's just say he/she better hope he/she dies of old age instead of a knife in the head. Because he/she is going to be working off that debt for a LONG time.

Yeah, which is why I still say V is evil. Just not deliberately so. Fortunately, barring untimely death, V will have a long time to change. And I don't think one needs to truly outweigh their evil actions to be 'good.' But for those that have done great evil, some great sacrifice or very brave action proving the true change of heart is necessary.

[hamishspence]

As far as i'm concerned he/she is NE. There were eggs in that group for one. And revenge by proxy is evil, end of story. Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2. So as far as I'm concerned it's now not a matter of "good vs evil" or more, as the title says "Law vs Chaos" Baator, Abyss, or in between?.

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

Also- Corruption determines one's afterlife destination- but it doesn't determine one's alignment.

The DMG points out that while alignment change is generally gradual, there are exceptions- and gives as an example an evil character who has a massive change of heart and attitude, and goes straight to Good without actually doing anything. So, while acts that "prove the change of heart" are helpful, they're not required for alignment change to occur.

Such a character would, however, not have removed any of their Corruption- it takes more than repentance to remove Corruption- it takes atonement.

Characters destined for Baator who die genuinely repentant without having successfully atoned, become Hellbred- getting another chance at atoning over their new lifetime.

[Icedaemon]

Killing someone because it's convenient is Evil, but killing that exact individual if you have no other options is not.

Mostly, I agree, though many cases of manslaughter are probably tied to the 'had to kill him/her, otherwise there'd be a witness to X crime committed earlier' sort of 'no other options'. Killing in self defense is not evil, but neither is it good.

Killing all black dragons would be Good if they were all a Clear and Present danger.

First of all, this is a nil-chance-of-occurring event. Whelps are a clear and present danger to, what? Toddlers? Bunnies? Even if all black dragons would be a threat to several other sapient species, killing them all is not quite perfectly good, though it is not evil either. Self defense counts as Neutral. Defense of someone else counts as Meddling.

Killing them all to get revenge on a particular dragon is Evil.

We agree wholly on this bit though. This is probably a more evil act than anything Belkar, for one, has done. Even Redcloak probably has not done something noticeably worse.

But V still knew the creatures being killed were monsters. That was part of the equation from the start. He didn't seem to stop and think about it, but he still KNEW it all along. The decision was taken knowing it.

Considering what we know of V, I very strongly doubt he'd have killed humans as easily as he did those black dragons.

And this is supposed to be a redeeming factor, how? 'Monsters' is a daft label at best. Dragons are more intelligent, wise and long-lived than any humans or even elves could hope to be. That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much.

Look at the dragons objectively. At worst, both black dragons exhibited mildly evil personality traits. They were both about as close to the 'evil/neutral' border (and probably on the same side thereof) as V pre-soul-splice. They were harsh, but not monstrously vicious. Neither was nearly as horrible a person as Xykon, for one.

[hamishspence]

I lean to the view that "Murder is a Corrupt act" trumps all other statements about killing, for act alignment purposes.

Like "Killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil such as a chromatic dragon, purely for profit, is not an evil act or a good act" (BoVD)

Or "Killing a Fiend is always a Good act" (BoVD).

Thus- if the killing doesn't qualify as murder (a bunch of extremely greedy adventurers hired by townsfolk to kill a dragon that's been attacking towns, who take the job purely out of greed), then the adventurers don't gain corruption points.

But if a chromatic dragon joins a town, becomes a citizen, and (while still evil) takes up a law-abiding way of life, someone who decided to murder the dragon (for revenge, or for profit) would gain the normal corruption points that any Murder grants.

And arguably- the same might apply if the dragon never joins a town, but remains in its habitat and does not venture out to attack its neighbours.

Same principles apply to fiends.

[Morithias]

I lean to the view that "Murder is a Corrupt act" trumps all other statements about killing, for act alignment purposes.

Like "Killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil such as a chromatic dragon, purely for profit, is not an evil act or a good act" (BoVD)

Or "Killing a Fiend is always a Good act" (BoVD).

Thus- if the killing doesn't qualify as murder (a bunch of extremely greedy adventurers hired by townsfolk to kill a dragon that's been attacking towns, who take the job purely out of greed), then the adventurers don't gain corruption points.

But if a chromatic dragon joins a town, becomes a citizen, and (while still evil) takes up a law-abiding way of life, someone who decided to murder the dragon (for revenge, or for profit) would gain the normal corruption points that any Murder grants.

And arguably- the same might apply if the dragon never joins a town, but remains in its habitat and does not venture out to attack its neighbours.

Same principles apply to fiends.

I agree. And since an unborn/new born is the ultimate non-combatant I don't think there's really a reasonable argument one could make for the eggs as least. Unless one really believes that the world rules on "always chaotic evil" and that killing someone based on race alone is ok (at which point i'm inclined to say you're missing the whole entire POINT that the comic is trying to make).

[SowZ]

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

Also- Corruption determines one's afterlife destination- but it doesn't determine one's alignment.

The DMG points out that while alignment change is generally gradual, there are exceptions- and gives as an example an evil character who has a massive change of heart and attitude, and goes straight to Good without actually doing anything. So, while acts that "prove the change of heart" are helpful, they're not required for alignment change to occur.

Such a character would, however, not have removed any of their Corruption- it takes more than repentance to remove Corruption- it takes atonement.

Characters destined for Baator who die genuinely repentant without having successfully atoned, become Hellbred- getting another chance at atoning over their new lifetime.

Ding ding ding! V gets the full 7 points about a thousand times over as he commited mass murder for pleasure.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. Though a case could be made that "murder for pleasure" requires "the pleasure of committing a murder" to be the primary motivation.

Whereas V might not be taking pleasure in any of the individual murders- but taking a great deal of pleasure in the anguish of the mother dragon.

Still, seems like a pretty shaky counter.

Some DMs might give V 6 pts for every murder, some might give 7 pts for every murder.

And a few might consider mass murder to be, for corruption purposes, equivalent to single murder- with killing 10 people with a single fireball having exactly the same effect as killing 1 person would have.

[Warmage]

I think it's pretty bad when people are arguing on the moral basis and the possible good results of GENOCIDE!

Apparently some people on this thread think it's ok to kill unborn children for something their mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt attempted (but failed) to do.

Alignment changes are generally gradual and subtle changes, but at times, a large enough act of evil (or good/law/chaos) can immediately change your alignment. An act that was so evil it left actual fiends speechless. No matter how you chalk it up, genocide is bad. The use of Familicide was worse than anything we have seen Belkar, Redcloak, or even Xykon do so far.

Leaving out corruption points entirely, he is clearly in one of the evil catagories. However, V does have a chance to atone for it, but it will not be easy or quick.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. BoVD does call acts of genocide as among the most evil events in the D&D universe- ones which can taint massive areas, and the lifeforms in them.

[lio45]

Last I recalled a SINGLE cold blooded murder was a '9' on the corrupt meter in Fiendish Codex 2.

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

So where exactly does Haley's murder of Crystal rank on that scale? I would say halfway between "Cold Blooded Murder" and "Murder For Pleasure".

Yet I don't see that preventing her from getting into the Chaotic Good afterlife... I'd picture the analysis of her file more or less the way it happened with Roy:

Afterlife Staff person, frowning: "Cold Blooded Murder of someone just getting out of the shower? And enjoying it to boot???"

Haley: "But that b*tch was ultra-Evil! And a personal nemesis!"

Afterlife Staff person, after a moment's hesitation: "Very well... I guess my superiors wouldn't mind if I sent your file off to whatever Neutral afterworld is appropriate, but I can also let that one pass, because of the context"



Basically, my argument is that who exactly are the people getting murdered does matter big time.

Murdering Crystal, or a black dragon, is way less Evil than, say, murdering a gnome salesman because he happens to have candy you want.

And this is supposed to be a redeeming factor, how? 'Monsters' is a daft label at best. Dragons are more intelligent, wise and long-lived than any humans or even elves could hope to be. That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much.

Look at the dragons objectively. At worst, both black dragons exhibited mildly evil personality traits. They were both about as close to the 'evil/neutral' border (and probably on the same side thereof) as V pre-soul-splice. They were harsh, but not monstrously vicious. Neither was nearly as horrible a person as Xykon, for one.

The comic plays a lot on the fact that the alignment system is very limited and has flaws.

(It's actually broader than that: essentially everything that's overly simplified/irrealistic in D&D is object of satire at some point in the comic... it's a large chunk of the humor.)

I see the OotS world as being on the fence between the binary way the world is supposed to work (if you're Evil, then you're Evil) and how it would morally work in real life (you've just been born, haven't done anything wrong, you're "clean").

In other words, "That they are deemed monsters is just a handy way of justifying things for newbie players who just want to roll dice and pretend to kill things without thinking all that much" is something I think would partially apply to the Stickverse: it's part of stereotypical D&D. Elan's comment on dragons being color-coded shows it.

On the other hand, I haven't missed all the signals the Giant has sent us on the flaws of that extremely limited alignment system and the moral paradoxes it creates (like the fact that casting Detect Evil on a goblin kid and mowing it down on the spot if it's Evil = "Good").

I agree. And since an unborn/new born is the ultimate non-combatant I don't think there's really a reasonable argument one could make for the eggs as least. Unless one really believes that the world rules on "always chaotic evil" and that killing someone based on race alone is ok (at which point i'm inclined to say you're missing the whole entire POINT that the comic is trying to make).

Like I said above, I think the comic the Giant has created has part of both "strict D&D" and "the completely more logical way real life works as opposed to strict D&D".

If I see a guy walking down the street and feel compelled to push him into traffic for the lulz, then later find out that guy was the next Jefferey Dahmer, I can't say, "Oh, I guess my act wasn't evil after all. Cool."

For the analogy to be right, you have to be aware he's strongly Evil at the moment when you decide to push him into traffic.

Wait... Slaughtering a whole town of people, most of which have not provoked you, not for any good reason at all but soley because that town inconviences you, (even though the town may contain no/few good people,) is only somewhat evil?

If the town is a cesspool of Evilness, yes.

Otherwise, no: it's a LOT worse than that.

One guy might harm others and get pleasure out of it like a sadistic boss at work and is a small degree of lawful evil but he has never permanently harmed anyones life beyond what they can fix. Should I pop him in the head with a .308 because his alignment registers as evil?

If you're Miko, you might do exactly that.

In spite of that, she still remained Good most of her life... and it's a safe bet she never became Evil. She died Neutral at worst.

Obvious conclusion, it takes more than that to actually be Evil in the Stickverse.

What has Belkar done? Killed as many people as he, a halfling ranger, as he can get away with? And, by the reasoning of killing the black dragons/half dragons was good so it balances out, Belkar isn't an evil force, either. He saved Hinjo and has, (as far as we can tell,) killed far more monsters and evil aligned things then anything else. So is Belkar good, too?

If you look at the Evilness chart for Belkar, the Belkar we've seen is the green line. So yes, it's a confirmed fact that he hasn't been too much of an Evil force for the duration of the comic. Unfortunately for his soul, credit goes mostly to Roy for that.

V could use the "but they were Evil monsters" argument in his discussion with Afterlife staff as well to avoid going to Hell, and it would have some weight.

Unlike Belkar, V's never killed someone Good for no reason at all.

Or does he not balance out because when he killed evil it wasn't to advance good but instead to have fun butchering? Because that is exactly what V did. He killed for fun/vengeance.

Haley did exactly that with Crystal...

[the_tick_rules]

I assumed she was true neutral

[Kish]

While I would say NE, too, the only thing preventing the hell judgment for me is that V is trying to be good.

Mm, well, there's trying and then there's trying.

Vaarsuvius wants to look at his/her character sheet and not see the word "evil." Vaarsuvius also wants to continue to behave as s/he always has, as an arrogant, conceited snob who treats most people with contempt and howls when not treated with respect, who responds to insults with violence and to attacks with disproportionate retribution.

Which s/he wants more, and how much s/he recognizes that the two sets of desires are incompatible, remain to be seen.

[VanBuren]

If you look at the Evilness chart for Belkar, the Belkar we've seen is the green line. So yes, it's a confirmed fact that he hasn't been too much of an Evil force for the duration of the comic. Unfortunately for his soul, credit goes mostly to Roy for that.

Not so. It isn't a confirmed fact that Belkar hasn't been "too much" of an evil force. It's been confirmed that he's been significantly less evil than he would have been without Roy's interference, but the chart is measure in kilonazis. Even Restricted!Belkar is plenty Evil.

[Morithias]

Mm, well, there's trying and then there's trying.

Vaarsuvius wants to look at his/her character sheet and not see the word "evil." Vaarsuvius also wants to continue to behave as s/he always has, as an arrogant, conceited snob who treats most people with contempt and howls when not treated with respect, who responds to insults with violence and to attacks with disproportionate retribution.

Which s/he wants more, and how much s/he recognizes that the two sets of desires are incompatible, remain to be seen.

The same was a sociopath is chaotic neutral right? I mean we've all had those players right? Those who claim they are "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" but if you actually ever looked at what they're doing you could easily call them NE or CE without a second thought.

I personally may be evil, but at least I'm not full of crap!

[SowZ]

The same was a sociopath is chaotic neutral right? I mean we've all had those players right? Those who claim they are "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" but if you actually ever looked at what they're doing you could easily call them NE or CE without a second thought.

I personally may be evil, but at least I'm not full of crap!

My first character, a gnomish, sorcerer, was Chaotic Neutral. But looking back on it... Well... If the party had ever taken my suggestions, (Look, guys, we can just burn the village down right now. That would solve all of our problems.) he would have been doing evil... a lot. I'll address Lio in a bit.

[Morithias]

My first character, a gnomish, sorcerer, was Chaotic Neutral. But looking back on it... Well... If the party had ever taken my suggestions, (Look, guys, we can just burn the village down right now. That would solve all of our problems.) he would have been doing evil... a lot. I'll address Lio in a bit.

Yeah sorry to say but I'd have to agree with you there. That gnome would probably be CE in my book.

[hamishspence]

If you're Miko, you might do exactly that.

In spite of that, she still remained Good most of her life... and it's a safe bet she never became Evil. She died Neutral at worst.

Obvious conclusion, it takes more than that to actually be Evil in the Stickverse.

Or, that Miko doesn't scan people unless they've done things to warrant being scanned.

And even after scanning Roy and having him ping as Evil, she did give him a chance to surrender first. Partly because she'd been ordered to bring them back alive "if possible".

[Hbgplayer]

Strictly, for the varieties of murder it's:

Murder 5 pts
Cold Blooded Murder 6 pts
Murder For Pleasure 7 pts

What is the difference between murder and Cold Blooded?

[Morithias]

What is the difference between murder and Cold Blooded?

Cold blooded: "Without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous"