Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?

[Hbgplayer]

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

In that case, that's what I would classify Vaarsuvius'(s) familycide.
She did not take pleasure in killing the family, only the single dragon.

[Kish]

In that case, that's what I would classify Vaarsuvius'(s) familycide.
She did not take pleasure in killing the family, only the single dragon.

Debatable at best, but in any case, you realize that you're arguing over whether Vaarsuvius should plummet one or two thousand feet deep into the floor of Hades, right?

[Hbgplayer]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual, and this is a direct quote: "Alignment:Always Chaotic Evil.
Black Dragons are evil-tempered, cunning, and malevolent,..."
Is the destruction of evil, throughout the world, not worth even a little appreciation from good deities? Thus, I believe that it will take less to reverse it than many are giving credit for.

[hamishspence]

Seeing as the OoTS deities, working together, created all the monsters of that world in the first place, they might not be quite so appreciative.

After all "respect for life" is a basic principle of Good, and BoED extends this to "respect for all life, even evil life" suggesting that even the evil should not be killed without both just cause and good intentions.

[Icedaemon]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual, and this is a direct quote: "Alignment:Always Chaotic Evil.
Black Dragons are evil-tempered, cunning, and malevolent,..."
Is the destruction of evil, throughout the world, not worth even a little appreciation from good deities? Thus, I believe that it will take less to reverse it than many are giving credit for.

When both one of the motives and the method were pure evil of the highest grade, 'but they was bad guys' is hardly an excuse. Besides, "always X" alignment on any non-outer-planar entity is bollocks anyway, at least seven times out of ten.

[SowZ]

A. 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").






B. 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".







C. 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.



D. If the town is a cesspool of Evilness, yes.

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




F. 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.





G. 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.

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




Haley did exactly that with Crystal...

1. Which is why good and evil, when taken as objective things, cannot be right and wrong. They have to be different. What makes someone evil? Is it their hair color? Their skin color? Their country? No, it is their actions or the actions they would/intend to commit for evil purposes. Since a baby Black Dragon has never done any evil acts or had any intent to do an evil act, it is literally impossible for it to be philosophically evil. If evil is just an energy or force seperate from good and evil, then things can be born good and evil. That does not mean they are born right and wrong. Besides- why do you expect Black Dragons to follow a human code of ethics? Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

B. Sorry, D&D can't say 'I am the creator of D&D so all Black Dragons regardless of their actions are evil' any more than it can say 'all Jews are evil inside my campaign world regardless of their actions.' or '1 and 1 is 3.' You have to examine the campaign world by its own merits.

C. Even allowing that Black Dragons are all 'philisophically' evil, (which is senseless IMO,) my analogy doesn't need to be altered since V willingly and knowingly killed people who probably weren't evil and he wanted even thos non-evil ones to die.

D. Really? Even if only a couple of them slighted you?

E. What if you destroyed the town and murdered the people for no good reason? (An evil one, actually.)

F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power. If someone with extreme evil was manager at Starbucks and someone with moderate evil was dictator of a country, who would have a more evil impact? You don't have to be more evil to have a greater evil impact.

H. Killing possible good people for fun/revenge is a good reason?

Anyway, most of my points weren't addressed. That's fine, you had a lot of people to answer to. So here, I'll number the points of my previous post for convenience and clarity.

Spoiler

Show

1. 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."



2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

[Morithias]

When both one of the motives and the method were pure evil of the highest grade, 'but they was bad guys' is hardly an excuse. Besides, "always X" alignment on any non-outer-planar entity is bollocks anyway, at least seven times out of ten.

It's even bolock on outer-planar entities. Or is everyone forgetting the infamous succubus paladin?

[hamishspence]

Or various fallen celestials that retain their Good subtype- there's one in Elder Evils, for example.

Having a subtype, having Always X Alignment, are not barriers against changing- (not with magic, just with attitude adjusting over time).

[SowZ]

Or various fallen celestials that retain their Good subtype- there's one in Elder Evils, for example.

Having a subtype, having Always X Alignment, are not barriers against changing- (not with magic, just with attitude adjusting over time).

Which is why Good/Evil are energies, not abstract conepts. This is also why creatures born with the Evil type are not born as immoral beings.

[Morithias]

Which is why Good/Evil are energies, not abstract conepts. This is also why creatures born with the Evil type are not born as immoral beings.

Which is also why it makes no bloody sense. You can't have heroes and villains when a lot of the time the villain is the one making the most sense. You can't claim black and white morality, because if it was black and white, there would be no debate at all. It would be obvious who was the good guy/bad guy. The mere fact there is a debate shows there is a huge grey area.

[hamishspence]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

[SowZ]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

But if a species naturally, (they are born that way and it is a fundamental part of their society/there species evolution,) acts a certain way then it isn't philosophically evil. Certain insects eat their own mates. Certain mammals kill their own parents/use rape as their only real method of procreation. These acts are evil for humans but totally okay for these creatures. There are also acts humans can do that would be fine but would be unethical for another animal because it violates their social instincts/conscious.

Which is also why it makes no bloody sense. You can't have heroes and villains when a lot of the time the villain is the one making the most sense. You can't claim black and white morality, because if it was black and white, there would be no debate at all. It would be obvious who was the good guy/bad guy. The mere fact there is a debate shows there is a huge grey area.

Exactly. Even the fact that 'Evil' energy is labeled evil is a bias placed by certain species. Another species may have a different name for it that is just as, (or more,) valid which has no moral implications. The universe is neutral and we have to make sense of it the best we can.

[Morithias]

There may be a bit of both. If chromatic dragons, and newly incarnated demons, start out with massively sociopathic/psychopathic personalities, then they're evil by personality as well as by energy.

A personality can change, but it takes a lot of work.

Savage Species, in its campaign archetypes, has one (Chaotic/Accepting) where, from the point of view of people in the setting "even the vilest tanar'ri is in truth the victim of its own psychoses"- and that while they're cautious, they hold out hope that evil beings can be won over to goodness.

Now we're getting into the juicy stuff. Mainly the debate of "is personality genetic or is it based on experiences/raising habits?"

Basically if I take twins, put one in a brutal place like North Korea, and put the other to be taken care of in a well-off happy mansion, am I going to get an evil person both times? How about a good person both times?

Basically if you were to delete a person's memories, everything that made them who they are, are they still the same person?

[veti]

Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

Lions aren't considered sentient, so it's not valid to assign a moral value to their actions.

But try this: do you condemn dragons for eating people, when people are so tasty and just the right size and keep walking into their lair at mealtime intervals?

To me, in that scenario, "is the dragon good or evil?" is the wrong question. My answer: who freakin' cares, if it's eating people it's an enemy and I'm justified in fighting and killing it if I can. And if it has eggs, that's my dinner sorted into the bargain.

(What, you want me to spare the young? Can you promise to look after them and feed them properly and train/condition them so that they won't do what the parent did? Promise promise? Remember, if they do eat someone, that'll be blood on your hands. And if you don't know how to look after them, or you're not willing to devote the rest of your life to the job, it would probably be kinder to just kill them now.)

F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

I would dispute that. V was not in her right mind at the time, for several reasons: trance deprivation, post-traumatic stress, reaction to extreme terror/despair, and an epic-level necromancer shouting suggestions directly into her hindbrain.

G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power.

Belkar simply isn't interested in "having an evil impact". He shows no sign of giving a damn' about what effect he has on the world. Haflings just wanna have fun.

1. 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.

The assumption that "good creatures" died in the familicide is based on very flimsy estimates and dodgy mathematical assumptions, but it's not relevant anyway. The morality of a crime, as I've been trying to argue, has nothing to do with the alignment of the victim. What matters is why you did it, not to whom.

Having said that: in the OOTS, our information suggests, monsters were created and put into the world for the purpose of being killed. In those circumstances, for the OOTS gods to condemn someone for killing them - by any means - would be the height of hypocrisy.

[lio45]

1. Which is why good and evil, when taken as objective things, cannot be right and wrong. They have to be different. What makes someone evil? Is it their hair color? Their skin color? Their country?

No, it's a lot easier than that. It's the fact there's "Evil" written somewhere to the right of "Alignment:" on their character sheet.

No, it is their actions or the actions they would/intend to commit for evil purposes. Since a baby Black Dragon has never done any evil acts or had any intent to do an evil act, it is literally impossible for it to be philosophically evil.

That's just not how the system works...

If evil is just an energy or force seperate from good and evil, then things can be born good and evil. That does not mean they are born right and wrong. Besides- why do you expect Black Dragons to follow a human code of ethics? Do you condemn lions for killing their fathers when their fathers get too weak and say we must now make lions go extinct?

Yes, Good == Right and Evil == Wrong. By definition.

Black Dragons have an Alignment, so they follow the system's code of ethics like all other creatures.

Don't bring real world animals into it.

B. Sorry, D&D can't say 'I am the creator of D&D so all Black Dragons regardless of their actions are evil' any more than it can say 'all Jews are evil inside my campaign world regardless of their actions.' or '1 and 1 is 3.' You have to examine the campaign world by its own merits.

The campaign world is a typical D&D world in which the PCs are aware of the system's rules AND shortcomings... it's part of the humor. Honestly, we have no reason to think the Giant is using non-standard D&D Black Dragons. FWIW, they have Tiamat as deity, if you needed another element of evidence. And then Director Lee had to promise they'd kill five Good dragons for every black one that died today (essentially confirming black ones are Evil).

C. Even allowing that Black Dragons are all 'philisophically' evil, (which is senseless IMO,)

We agree the system is senseless. That incidentally is why the Giant is poking fun at it from time to time in the strip.

my analogy doesn't need to be altered since V willingly and knowingly killed people who probably weren't evil and he wanted even thos non-evil ones to die.

Yes, and it's part of why the act is Evil.

It's just not as Evil as doing the same thing on Good people. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

D. Really? Even if only a couple of them slighted you?

They're Evil, so yes, really.

(Disclaimer: that opinion of mine obviously applies only in a D&D world...)

E. What if you destroyed the town and murdered the people for no good reason? (An evil one, actually.)

Are you talking about the Evil town or the Good/Neutral one?

I say there's a difference as long as the killer is aware of the target(s)' Alignment.

If you press the "Destroy Random City" button, you're a monster of Xykon's caliber, EVEN if the act (by pure chance that time) happens to destroy a cesspool of Evil.

If you press the "Destroy Cesspool of Evil" button and you KNEW what you were destroying, then it's not as Evil, even if you did it for the wrong reasons, because you were fully aware that your target was way out there on the Evil side of the field (on average).

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

F. Miko was delusional and had been brainwashed, (or brainwashed herself, as the case may be,) about the results of her actions. V knew exactly what he was doing.

That's no excuse. Miko fell when she did something very wrong, brainwashed or not. It follows that whatever she did during the rest of her life didn't move her alignment away from "Good", and that being brainwashed isn't an excuse that works.

G. Belkar hasn't had much of an evil impact on the whole world. He is very evil but he doesn't hve much power. If someone with extreme evil was manager at Starbucks and someone with moderate evil was dictator of a country, who would have a more evil impact? You don't have to be more evil to have a greater evil impact.

I'm not sure how the exactly the Alignment system works with that, but I'd think the impact isn't the only thing being considered.

In other words, Belkar would still go straight down for his afterlife, even though thanks to Roy he didn't have too much of an Evil impact on the world during his life.

H. Killing possible good people for fun/revenge is a good reason?

Revenge is still a better reason than, say, wanting to get someone's candy.

Anyway, most of my points weren't addressed. That's fine, you had a lot of people to answer to. So here, I'll number the points of my previous post for convenience and clarity.

If there's anything you consider "core" to your point that I haven't addressed, just bring it back up. I think we should start paring down our arguments to their basics.




Edited to add:

The morality of a crime, as I've been trying to argue, has nothing to do with the alignment of the victim. What matters is why you did it, not to whom.

I agree with everything you said except this.

I think that in a binary Good/Evil world, the alignment of the victim is ALSO a factor to consider when trying to judge the morality of a crime. (Provided of course that we know the perpetrator was aware of the victim's alignment.)

[SowZ]

No, it's a lot easier than that. It's the fact there's "Evil" written somewhere to the right of "Alignment:" on their character sheet.



That's just not how the system works...





Yes, Good == Right and Evil == Wrong. By definition.

Black Dragons have an Alignment, so they follow the system's code of ethics like all other creatures.

Don't bring real world animals into it.





The campaign world is a typical D&D world in which the PCs are aware of the system's rules AND shortcomings... it's part of the humor. Honestly, we have no reason to think the Giant is using non-standard D&D Black Dragons. FWIW, they have Tiamat as deity, if you needed another element of evidence. And then Director Lee had to promise they'd kill five Good dragons for every black one that died today (essentially confirming black ones are Evil).




We agree the system is senseless. That incidentally is why the Giant is poking fun at it from time to time in the strip.




Yes, and it's part of why the act is Evil.

It's just not as Evil as doing the same thing on Good people. We'll have to agree to disagree there.




They're Evil, so yes, really.

(Disclaimer: that opinion of mine obviously applies only in a D&D world...)




Are you talking about the Evil town or the Good/Neutral one?

I say there's a difference as long as the killer is aware of the target(s)' Alignment.

If you press the "Destroy Random City" button, you're a monster of Xykon's caliber, EVEN if the act (by pure chance that time) happens to destroy a cesspool of Evil.

If you press the "Destroy Cesspool of Evil" button and you KNEW what you were destroying, then it's not as Evil, even if you did it for the wrong reasons, because you were fully aware that your target was way out there on the Evil side of the field (on average).

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.




That's no excuse. Miko fell when she did something very wrong, brainwashed or not. It follows that whatever she did during the rest of her life didn't move her alignment away from "Good", and that being brainwashed isn't an excuse that works.





I'm not sure how the exactly the Alignment system works with that, but I'd think the impact isn't the only thing being considered.

In other words, Belkar would still go straight down for his afterlife, even though thanks to Roy he didn't have too much of an Evil impact on the world during his life.



Revenge is still a better reason than, say, wanting to get someone's candy.



If there's anything you consider "core" to your point that I haven't addressed, just bring it back up. I think we should start paring down our arguments to their basics.




Edited to add:


I agree with everything you said except this.

I think that in a binary Good/Evil world, the alignment of the victim is ALSO a factor to consider when trying to judge the morality of a crime. (Provided of course that we know the perpetrator was aware of the victim's alignment.)

I'll just jump to the core of my beliefs on the Alignment system and how it actually works in D&D worlds, (not my homebrewed version of it,) though even within the common/arbitrary interpretation of alignment V is still evil, IMO. Anyway, the very definition of right and wrong keeps things from being right and wrong soley because 'that's the way it is.' To be moral or immoral, by the definition of morality, there has to be standards being followed. To say otherwise the creators may as well say 1+1=3 in D&D. This doesn't work either. So D&D cannot say that what is right and wrong is a certain by way by creator fiat because they then create ambiguity in their own world with the is-ought problem. "Just because something is a certain way does not mean that they should be." That's Hume. This problem would exist within the world of D&D and so BY making morality objective they are forcing right and wrong to be subjective and gray within their own world. The is-ought problem.

Further, what makes something right and wrong is the correctness of it and the only way we have to measure that is through logic. If the alignment system as presented is illogical, (I think there is flexibility in the system even within the rules, but we will pretend that is not the case for this statement,) the system is inherently wrong by virtue of being illogical. So there is still no right-wrong association with good-evil and good-evil cease to be what they are supposed to be and become something else entirely... Arbitrary labels.

[VanBuren]

I'd like to quote a relevant excerpt from the BoED.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily
good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil
already committed).

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless. Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good.

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

[Holy_Knight]

SowZ, maybe this is the way to look at it. You're objecting to the idea that creatures can be considered good or evil simply by fiat--fair enough. But if we take alignments as descriptors of character and behavior, rather than determinants of it, then that problem should go away. So, an entry like:

Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil

would translate to something such as:

"Adult members of this species typically embody and act on values which express disdain for life, cruelty, lack of respect for the well-being of others, selfishness, and a willingness to intentionally cause harm to innocent creatures."

This would be consistent with:

--an objective morality based in actual character and choices
--tendencies among creature types while allowing for exceptions
--the innocence of young members as well as others who haven't actually done anything wrong
--The wrongness of killing a creature based solely on its stated alignment
--An in-universe place for both nature and nurture in influencing a creature's alignment
--"Good" and "Evil" as non-arbitrary labels of beings based on their commitment to various ideals and kinds of conduct

and so on. I think this would be a common sense way of approaching alignments which would solve a lot of the problems you're raising.

[hamishspence]

(What, you want me to spare the young? Can you promise to look after them and feed them properly and train/condition them so that they won't do what the parent did? Promise promise? Remember, if they do eat someone, that'll be blood on your hands.

That's not really a valid argument. If that was used to a psychiatrist who'd identified a child as sociopathic- he'd point out that it is unjust (and possibly murder) to kill someone based on what they might do- and failure to reform someone, does not make the would-be reformers responsible for the person's deeds.

[VanBuren]

That's not really a valid argument. If that was used to a psychiatrist who'd identified a child as sociopathic- he'd point out that it is unjust (and possibly murder) to kill someone based on what they might do- and failure to reform someone, does not make the would-be reformers responsible for the person's deeds.

After all, precrime really isn't crime at all.

Seriously. What an ethical landslide that concept would be.

[Kish]

Yes, I do.
However, according to the Monster Manual,

According to the Player's Handbook, one of the defining qualities of the Lawful Evil alignment include judging by race instead of individuals. So...no, "The destruction of evil," in the form of the murder of a number of black dragons for being black dragons, is not somehow better (less evil, more good--though it probably is more Lawful and less Chaotic) than the destruction of an equal number of entities chosen completely randomly.

Moveover, the kind of thinking you're exhibiting here is likely to be Vaarsuvius' biggest impediment to being genuinely remorseful, because you're trying to have it both ways--s/he can repent because what s/he did wasn't actually that bad. No, as long as Vaarsuvius thinks it wasn't actually that bad, s/he lacks sincere repentance; that's kind of what the word means.

[hamishspence]

While bigotry is a LE trait, not all bigoted characters in D&D fiction, or splatbooks, are Evil- some are neutral or good.

So, in some cases it may be mild enough, or coexist with enough other traits, to not guarantee a LE alignment.

[SowZ]

SowZ, maybe this is the way to look at it. You're objecting to the idea that creatures can be considered good or evil simply by fiat--fair enough. But if we take alignments as descriptors of character and behavior, rather than determinants of it, then that problem should go away. So, an entry like:

Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil

would translate to something such as:

"Adult members of this species typically embody and act on values which express disdain for life, cruelty, lack of respect for the well-being of others, selfishness, and a willingness to intentionally cause harm to innocent creatures."

This would be consistent with:

1.--an objective morality based in actual character and choices
2.--tendencies among creature types while allowing for exceptions
3.--the innocence of young members as well as others who haven't actually done anything wrong
4.--The wrongness of killing a creature based solely on its stated alignment
5.--An in-universe place for both nature and nurture in influencing a creature's alignment
6.--"Good" and "Evil" as non-arbitrary labels of beings based on their commitment to various ideals and kinds of conduct

and so on. I think this would be a common sense way of approaching alignments which would solve a lot of the problems you're raising.

1. But your morality would still be based on what you do or think. So all creatures not born mature would also be born true neutral. I think this is a more sensible way to approach alignment, but in D&D things are born with an alignment and spells are not good or evil based on intent/result but based on labels. So in D&D, it is either a self-defeating system of morals or two universal energies that are labeled good and evil based on bias. The system you are laying out isn't standard in D&D.
2. Sure.
3. Okay, so we agree there.
4. Yep. Just like someone who hates people and would like to see humanity all dead but lives a normal life cannot be executed for it... Yeah.
5. Okay.
6. Good/Evil still wouldn't be synonomous to right and wrong, though, since it is silly to apply human morals to all species equally. Just as a Lion and a human have different social constructs Black Dragons will have different social constructs and different ethical evolutions will apply. And then some individuals within a species will not act according to malice or selfishness but will still be considered evil by members of their own race because their personal code deviates significantly from their races norm. (So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature.

As to what was said earlier about Black Dragons being a threat to humans and being an enemy regardless of if they are truly evil or not, so humans are justified in killing them... Totally agree. If a Black Dragon has shown agression to humans without being provoked or has shown agression to humans that did not provoke it or showed unproportionate, (probably lethal,) agression to humans then humans can fight back and kill it for their own safety. In a war, if another nation tries to conquer mine that doesn't mean the soldiers are evil. But I am still justified in killing the attacking soldiers to defend my homeland. What is not justified is then going back and conquering that nation only to slaughter all of it's women and children because they may one day be a threat to my people.

After all, precrime really isn't crime at all.

Seriously. What an ethical landslide that concept would be.

Timecop 3: Killing Baby Hitler

[legomaster00156]

Most likely True Neutral, leaning on Neutral Good (although during a certain event, s/he was leaning on NE instead). However, s/he also shows shades of Lawful behavior, what with hir absolute devotion to Roy and the overall plan.

[lio45]

(...) Arbitrary labels.

The only "grey zone" is in the middle... for example, things like Haley's cold-blooded murder of Crystal. (No, Haley isn't Evil.)

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

Considering that, I say the D&D system does a good job at clearly defining both sides, i.e. everything that isn't in that "grey zone".

I'd like to quote a relevant excerpt from the BoED.

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.

So...no, "The destruction of evil," in the form of the murder of a number of black dragons for being black dragons, is not somehow better (less evil, more good--though it probably is more Lawful and less Chaotic) than the destruction of an equal number of entities chosen completely randomly.

(So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature.

The way it works, the betraying Devil working with the celestials would be "Good", gain "rightness" (or lose "wrongness", if you prefer), and the other Devils would definitely not approve of it.

As to what was said earlier about Black Dragons being a threat to humans and being an enemy regardless of if they are truly evil or not, so humans are justified in killing them... Totally agree. If a Black Dragon has shown agression to humans without being provoked or has shown agression to humans that did not provoke it or showed unproportionate, (probably lethal,) agression to humans then humans can fight back and kill it for their own safety. In a war, if another nation tries to conquer mine that doesn't mean the soldiers are evil. But I am still justified in killing the attacking soldiers to defend my homeland. What is not justified is then going back and conquering that nation only to slaughter all of it's women and children because they may one day be a threat to my people.

We agree there...

Timecop 3: Killing Baby Hitler

Wouldn't change anything if you didn't also loosen up the post-WWI conditions imposed on Germany.

[hamishspence]

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

BoVD points out that, no matter how black-and-white the alignment system is interpreted, there will always be grey areas.

[SowZ]

The only "grey zone" is in the middle... for example, things like Haley's cold-blooded murder of Crystal. (No, Haley isn't Evil.)

But regardless of the morality system, you will never be able to avoid the fact that it's possible to think of some acts that will be morally ambiguous under your guidelines for right and wrong.

Considering that, I say the D&D system does a good job at clearly defining both sides, i.e. everything that isn't in that "grey zone".






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.









The way it works, the betraying Devil working with the celestials would be "Good", gain "rightness" (or lose "wrongness", if you prefer), and the other Devils would definitely not approve of it.






We agree there...




Wouldn't change anything if you didn't also loosen up the post-WWI conditions imposed on Germany.

A moral framework has to have a value system and to avoid being a failed moral framework it has to be consistent with those values and in order for it to stand as a valid moral system it has to be based around logic. That is how philosophy works. The idea of saying something is wrong because it is defeats itself by proving itself wrong. It is literally impossible, by the definition of morality and rightness/wrongness, for the Good/Evil alignment system to be an objective moral/right and wrong system as it proves itself inherently wrong when it tries to do so.

[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. The fact that she is a Wizard (or Witch, if you want to be gender-correct) , and how she sticks by Haley and does what Roy tells her to do (usually) suggests that she would be fully lawful; the fact that she is Elven and her I prepared explosive runes prank on unsuspecting people would lead toward a Chaotic alignment.

[Callista]

So if a paladin of the Sapphire Guard happens to find an egg in the woods which they know with absolute certainty is from an Always Evil species, and destroys it, even though that egg clearly wasn't tormenting anyone, they're not Lawful Good any more?

They'd still be LG; but they wouldn't be a paladin. Killing a defenseless person who has not done anything evil is an evil act, even if the defenseless person happens to be evil. But you don't have to leave the egg there and let it grow up into an evil dragon.

There are other options dealing with an egg like that. If I were playing that paladin (and weren't playing a character with the sort of personality flaws that WOULD lead them to destroy the egg), I would probably take the egg, and find an allied metallic dragon willing to mentor the young dragon. While it's difficult, it's entirely possible for someone with high Charisma and Diplomacy (which many metallic dragons have) to slowly change the alignment of even a dragon. The resulting hatchling would eventually become one of the few exceptions to the Always Evil rule.

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*

[Holy_Knight]

1. But your morality would still be based on what you do or think. So all creatures not born mature would also be born true neutral. I think this is a more sensible way to approach alignment, but in D&D things are born with an alignment and spells are not good or evil based on intent/result but based on labels. ... The system you are laying out isn't standard in D&D.

Right, I phrased it in that way on purpose. I'm actually unsure whether it's standard in D&D for a newborn creature to register as a particular alignment, but I think we're in agreement that it should work along a spectrum, where alignment has to grow organically within a creature, as it were.

6. Good/Evil still wouldn't be synonomous to right and wrong, though, since it is silly to apply human morals to all species equally. Just as a Lion and a human have different social constructs Black Dragons will have different social constructs and different ethical evolutions will apply. And then some individuals within a species will not act according to malice or selfishness but will still be considered evil by members of their own race because their personal code deviates significantly from their races norm. (So according the the ethics of a Devil, it may be 'Evil' whereas evil means wrong to betray ones own kind and help the celestial beings.) Good and Evil as ways to label certain types of behavior works, sure, but it still wouldn't indicate the rightness or wrongness of a creature...

This is a poor analogy though, because lions and other animals don't have moral sentiments in the first place. Black dragons and many other fantasy creatures, on the other hand, are depicted as having advanced intellects, self-awareness and the capability for moral reasoning, which means it does make sense to apply what we think of as "human" morals to them. It's not being human that matters; it's having the right kind of mental capabilities.