OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread

[strijder20]

Knowledge like that would certainly change his attitudfe toward The Plan at least a little.

The Dark One doesn't know about this flaw in his Plan either, so Redcloak'd have no reason to feel deceived. Disappointed, yes.

[Eric Tolle]

Rich is the one who decides if V earns redemption, not merely because he's the one sitting in judgement of V's actions, but because he's the author WRITING those actions.

And in comic, it will probably be a being of Pure Neutrality doing the judging. Which will probably shake out to "On the one hand, you slew a bunch of evil beings and some non-evil beings, and made a deal with demons. On the other hand, you helped save the world, and you're sorry, and you are quite intelligent. It balances out. Go and do no more evil or good."

[Lordchoculla]

Oh, please no. V sitting out another 43-odd strips, twice?

Agreed! I have missed V as well.

[Scifne]

I'm wondering how to strategize around knowing you can be hauled out of action two more times! Can V make scrolls of big spells for Haley to use ?

[David Argall]

im not saying he knows, im saying its odd that he doesnt

or maybe he does, maybe theres something going on behind the scenes we dont know about

It's odd, but not really odd. Redcloak has a program [2 of them if we count making a goblin nation] and poking a scary-looking rift does not advance that agenda. All sorts of terrible things might happen, including finding out that the Snarl has untangled itself and the whole gate program is a waste of time. [Try explaining that to X, if you have any interest in surviving.] Oh, there are good things that might happen, but they are wishful thinking. As long as things are going fine, why upset things by bothering a quiet rift? It's not impossible Redcloak would make efforts to prevent anyone from doing anything to the rift.
Now I can't really see the rift remaining undisturbed, but at least for the short run at least, everybody has lives to live, and the rift can be deemed just background, and ignorable.

[gerryq]

Why do people keep calling it genocide? Killing the family of someone who wronged you is evil, but it has absolutely nothing to do with genocide.

I understood that a significant fraction of the world's black dragons were killed. If so, that constitutes genocide as commonly defined.

[Solara]

I like to think that some of those soldiers winding up in the inbox were the same ones who were recapturing and burning alive escaped slaves just a few days ago.

[warrl]

I don't know why people are disputing that killing hundreds/thousands of indiscriminately sentient creatures - no matter if they're "Evil", mass murderers or just unpleasant persons - is an EVIL act, no matter what. I can't see any common ground in the V-familicide discussion if both sides can't agree on that.

Fortunately, nobody is disputing that point.

The question at hand is whether mass resurrection would be good.

Given the specifics of the situation, it's safe to say that a large majority of those killed WERE mass murderers and other similarly fiendish criminals. Heck, even the Draketooth family are known to have harbored thieves and child-kidnappers.

Here's a parallel question for you. It's statistically likely that, in some real-world country where murderers get executed, at least one non-murderer has been executed for murder in the past five years. So, would you like to resurrect EVERYONE who has been executed for murder in the past five years AND SET THEM ALL FREE? Would this be a good act?

I believe at some point there comes a DUTY to judge, or at least a DUTY to not act without judgment.

Vaarsuvius' sin was not killing a gazillion black dragons and dragonkin; it was doing so recklessly, needlessly, and without judgment of each of the individuals targeted.

Resurrecting them recklessly, needlessly, and without judgment of each of the individuals targeted, would be another sin.

[raymundo]

Fortunately, nobody is disputing that point.

The question at hand is whether mass resurrection would be good.

Indeed it is being disputed.

Here's a parallel question for you. It's statistically likely that, in some real-world country where murderers get executed, at least one non-murderer has been executed for murder in the past five years. So, would you like to resurrect EVERYONE who has been executed for murder in the past five years AND SET THEM ALL FREE? Would this be a good act?

No, I wouldn't like to do that. Criminals being executed after a trial is a completly different thing than Familicide. I can't see how any reasonable comparison could be made. Resurrecting every victim of Familicide is a good act, regardless of the alignment of the people being resurrected.

(imho, of course)

[Reddish Mage]

No, I wouldn't like to do that. Criminals being executed after a trial is a completly different thing than Familicide. I can't see how any reasonable comparison could be made. Resurrecting every victim of Familicide is a good act, regardless of the alignment of the people being resurrected.

(imho, of course)

There's a number of points that have been made and I've seen them made over and over again. Basically there is the following arguable topics:

Can Black Dragons be labeled Chaotic Evil? If so to what extent. Note: the Monster Manual does label Black Dragons "always" CE, explicitly they are born that way. The Eberron setting has looser alignments for its creatures. The Giant has not weighed in specifically on black dragon's alignment tendencies to the best of my knowledge but has said plenty about goblins (at one point saying to save innate evil for supernatural creatures if it is used at all).

Assuming Black Dragons tend towards evil, is that knowledge actionable? The Giant will probably not touch fantasy magical creature profiling with a ten foot pole (he'd just split a ladder in two ). If that knowledge is actionable does that mean you can what? Kill the dragon, run away from it? What?

Assuming Black Dragons are evil and that's actionable would Familicide be unjustified if it ONLY hit the evil ones. You could argue Familicide is terrible because of the indiscriminate nature of the spell and/or that "evil" doesn't mean "killable."

All of these above are going to be argued about when we come upon a new topic:

Is Reverse-Familicide-Epic-Resurrection a good and proper thing?

It can similarly be argued Reverse Familicide is indiscriminate and that not everything that shouldn't have been killed should be yanked from the Abyss and resurrected. But others argue that if the initial act was evil, a reversal must necessarily be good.

I tend to think the practical effect of such an action would be a black dragon rampage (recovering all their stolen treasure and reclaiming their territory) the likes of which the world has never seen. But then, I've yet to see the inflationary effects of all that black dragon treasure flooding the global marketplace.


Basically, your arguments are going to put you in various camps above, of which no bridging have I seen, and generally, the discussion doesn't go deep enough to settle why people have that sort of opinion about that act in the first place.

[Niknokitueu]

But then, I've yet to see the inflationary effects of all that black dragon treasure flooding the global marketplace.

Ooh, I've just had a nasty vision.

V, after his death, goes up to the pearly gates and gets judged by his personal achon (or whatever).

Archon: "Ah yes, the mass killing of Black Dragons and their kin. A big weight on the downside of your alignment balance."
V: "Yes, I have accepted ownership of that act of evil, and did try to atone for murdering them."
Archon: "Oh, it's not the murdering of the dragons that earned you the black mark, if anything the balance was a net good. No, it is the economic unrest that flooding the world's gold markets incurred, and the resultant starvation and peasant misery that ensued."
V: "..."

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Kish]

That is indeed an extremely nasty vision.

Fortunately, the qualities that make it so nasty ensure Rich will not do it.

[DaggerPen]

Can Black Dragons be labeled Chaotic Evil? If so to what extent. Note: the Monster Manual does label Black Dragons "always" CE, explicitly they are born that way. The Eberron setting has looser alignments for its creatures. The Giant has not weighed in specifically on black dragon's alignment tendencies to the best of my knowledge but has said plenty about goblins (at one point saying to save innate evil for supernatural creatures if it is used at all).

Assuming Black Dragons tend towards evil, is that knowledge actionable? The Giant will probably not touch fantasy magical creature profiling with a ten foot pole (he'd just split a ladder in two ). If that knowledge is actionable does that mean you can what? Kill the dragon, run away from it? What?

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

Vaarsuvius finds him/herself at the dragon's mercy because he/she never thinks to take precautions against her, despite knowing that the dragon he/she killed shared a home with another. Vaarsuvius then repeats and amplifies this misconception when he/she casts the custom-made familicide spell, essentially speaking for all players who say, "All monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill." But hopefully when the reader sees the scale on which Vaarsuvius carries out the devastation, the error of this thinking is more obvious. If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons.
Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I felt the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much.

limitdance

[RadagastTheBrow]

Can I weigh my two cp? Eh, due to all the dragon gold that's recently flooded the market, it's worthless anyway, so why not?

"Ends" and "means" are separate things. Ends do not justify means. Ends are ends. Means are means. Saving kittens is nice. Killing people isn't. Killing people to save kittens isn't nice because it still involves killing people. It's nice that the kittens are saved. It isn't nice that people were killed.

(Side note: For purposes of this discussion, I use "Justify" as in "To do something justice," which is to treat a thing in accordance with its nature. To cook a delicious meal is to do justice towards the ingredients of that meal, because it used those ingredients well. To do justice to someone is to treat that someone in accordance with that someone's nature, which is a fancy way of saying to treat him as he ought to be treated.)

From this, I propose: V committed an Evil Act- indiscriminate slaughter of sentients- that may have Good Consequences. Good Consequences do not stop that from being an Evil Act.

Likewise, the times Elan saved Nale, it was a Good Act, because saving people is a Good Act. It promotes and preserves Life, and creates opportunities for More Life and More Goodness (and More Excessive Use of Capital Letters). Does Nale's murder of the Cliffport PD make Elan's action Evil? No. It was a Good Act with Evil Consequences.

Now, what would be more interesting, in my random, admittedly insignificant opinion (Seriously, this thread is huge), would be to explain why "evil" races are so. With a fantasy setting, every species can be considered, at least a little, "supernatural," so some inherent Good/Evil/Law/Chaos/Neutral could be explained. Especially magical beings, such as dragons.

For instance, if dragons were sentient outcroppings of the various types of magic, there'd be a good reason for a flying embodiment of Necromancy to be evil. Evil, in that case, is magically built into its very veins, and it would take an act of extreme will or very, very weird circumstance to counteract it.

If, however, dragons are just overgrown flying lizards with an uncanny knack towards levels in Sorcerer, well, that doesn't explain much and can't really be woven into a neat story, can it?

[Kish]

Assuming Black Dragons tend towards evil, is that knowledge actionable?

The Player's Handbook has the answer to that. It's Lawful Evil to judge a race rather than treating each individual member of it as...an individual.

(And no, "That race is not a race" is not a logically sound argument, or even a coherent one.)

[Reddish Mage]

limitdance quotes from the giant notably something from DStP suggesting a single dragon cannot be a being just for being killed

The post about "beings with cosmetic differences" i've referred to, that does well for humanoids, but a magical firebreathing lizard that flies and is classically a greedy monster that terrorizes villages, kidnaps princesses, and keeps massive amounts of treasurer needs to be seperately stated, and it is, in DStP.

Thank you for that Daggerpen.

[ti'esar]

Now, what would be more interesting, in my random, admittedly insignificant opinion (Seriously, this thread is huge), would be to explain why "evil" races are so. With a fantasy setting, every species can be considered, at least a little, "supernatural," so some inherent Good/Evil/Law/Chaos/Neutral could be explained. Especially magical beings, such as dragons.

For instance, if dragons were sentient outcroppings of the various types of magic, there'd be a good reason for a flying embodiment of Necromancy to be evil. Evil, in that case, is magically built into its very veins, and it would take an act of extreme will or very, very weird circumstance to counteract it.

If, however, dragons are just overgrown flying lizards with an uncanny knack towards levels in Sorcerer, well, that doesn't explain much and can't really be woven into a neat story, can it?

To paraphrase past comments by the Giant on the subject, I'm a little disturbed that finding a "reason" for an entire culture of sentient beings to be evil is considered the "neater" story here.

[Reddish Mage]

The Player's Handbook has the answer to that. It's Lawful Evil to judge a race rather than treating each individual member of it as...an individual.

(And no, "That race is not a race" is not a logically sound argument, or even a coherent one.)

Species, families, and groups further up the taxonomy scale are not races. Race I.e. sub-species is a problematic category because the differences we are dealing with are smaller and thereby harder to pin down.

Proper taxonomic classification of chromatic vs metallic dragons and the members of that grouping is tabled pending further investigation.

[Domino Quartz]

Species, families, and groups further up the taxonomy scale are not races. Race I.e. sub-species is a problematic category because the differences we are dealing with are smaller and thereby harder to pin down.

Proper taxonomic classification of chromatic vs metallic dragons and the members of that grouping is tabled pending further investigation.

That's...kind of beside the point, because we are talking about sapient creatures here.

[Kish]

Willingness to throw a thousand words at "that race is not a race" doesn't make it start to make sense. The number of people who would rather torture the English language than acknowledge genocide is unambiguously evil has always been highly disturbing.

[RadagastTheBrow]

To paraphrase past comments by the Giant on the subject, I'm a little disturbed that finding a "reason" for an entire culture of sentient beings to be evil is considered the "neater" story here.

I didn't intend to disturb. It's simpler and, well, for lack of a better term, cleaner, to treat everything, alignment-wise, like humans. Basically neutral and free to choose their destinies. There are evil empires and good kingdoms and such, but people/goblins/dragons/etc are still free and generally unaligned. I think, though I may be wrong, that's what the Giant wants.

For myself, if I'm working in a system where mechanics such as "(Almost) Always Evil" exist, well, I'd like to explore those mechanics. Give a reason for why they're there. Explain exactly what "Smite Evil" is and how it works. If I'm going to play God- which is basically what world-building is- I get to write the laws of physics and magic. For me, at least, that's pretty dang fun.

So, in a world of Magic, it seems feasible for a "cursed species" to exist. Consider the Wendigo, a cursed being brought about by people resorting to cannibalism. What would happen if you extended that a few generations? Hell, it would be a pretty fun quest to try to discover and lift that curse, redeeming entire future lines of that species.

To reject a literary or gaming mechanic entirely is one, perfectly valid, option. I just happen to think that rebuilding it is another.

[Reddish Mage]

Species, families, and groups further up the taxonomy scale are not races. Race I.e. sub-species is a problematic category because the differences we are dealing with are smaller and thereby harder to pin down.

Proper taxonomic classification of chromatic vs metallic dragons and the members of that grouping is tabled pending further investigation.

That's...kind of beside the point, because we are talking about sapient creatures here.

Actually, I was responding to Kish comment about PHB's classification of racism as lawful evil, in response to my breakout of the question of the allowability (translation goodness) of the act on classification of dragon.


Genocide of said creature, was the topic below "racism via dragons" good/neutral/evil.

[ti'esar]

To reject a literary or gaming mechanic entirely is one, perfectly valid, option. I just happen to think that rebuilding it is another.

I can agree with that in most cases, but I can't sympathize with it in the case of racial alignments.

[Doug Lampert]

it wouldnt get every human, the world was created already fully populated and most likely migration was a pretty rare occurence so if you cast it on the people in the Desert youd only kill people in the Desert

proof being that Familicide did slip into the human side of the gene pool and didnt kill that many humans (as far as we can tell)



unless the rest of the Gods decide to call the bluff, hide away unmake the world then just re-imprison the Snarl, take there time even more then last time to ensure no holes

and you really think TDO is going to settle for being equal? hes gonna ensure that Goblins stand at the top of everyone, maybe not at first but eventually hell fall to temptation

also remember, its not TE that we have to worry about its the IFCC, there plan DEFINENTLY causes all things good to be destroyed

Wrong. ONE MIGRANT from the dessert to wherever and as an ancestor of the primary target is good enough, because then a large number of the ancestral dessert people have whoever is killed as a descendant, and ALL their descendants are killed, which gets the entire modern dessert.

The SECOND STEP needs living links. The first step does not, and for the ABD the first step hit ONLY dragons, thus ONLY humans with a living link were killed, this restriction does not apply for a human primary target.

Given any reasonable mixing rate after 50+ generations, target ONE human, and you get ALL humans, in step one, no step two required at all.

[Sir_Leorik]

So, what did Sabine's dustpan do to end up in an evil afterlife?

It's probably a Fiendish Dustpan, bought in bulk by Director Lee's office from a Mercane. Mercanes, serving all of your business' office supply, siege weaponry and Spelljammer needs since 1989!

Okay, I was wrong - he technically doesn't need to be a cleric or druid. SRD is only, "Spells containing the life or heal seed are typically only available to those with 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nature)."

It is certainly possible V may have that, but unlikely. That said, I suppose if she started now it could happen in eventually.

Where "eventually" means "as soon as s/he is epic level, well before s/he has the other requirements to create the spell." All Knowledge skills are class skills for Vaarsuvius and her/his Intelligence was 18 a very long time ago.

Based on V's prior comments about Divine spells, she may not have that many ranks in Knowledge (Religion).

And in comic, it will probably be a being of Pure Neutrality doing the judging. Which will probably shake out to "On the one hand, you slew a bunch of evil beings and some non-evil beings, and made a deal with demons. On the other hand, you helped save the world, and you're sorry, and you are quite intelligent. It balances out. Go and do no more evil or good."

I think V will end up being judged by the Elven gods she worships.

Ooh, I've just had a nasty vision.

V, after his death, goes up to the pearly gates and gets judged by his personal achon (or whatever).

Archon: "Ah yes, the mass killing of Black Dragons and their kin. A big weight on the downside of your alignment balance."
V: "Yes, I have accepted ownership of that act of evil, and did try to atone for murdering them."
Archon: "Oh, it's not the murdering of the dragons that earned you the black mark, if anything the balance was a net good. No, it is the economic unrest that flooding the world's gold markets incurred, and the resultant starvation and peasant misery that ensued."
V: "..."

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

That is indeed an extremely nasty vision.

Fortunately, the qualities that make it so nasty ensure Rich will not do it.

It would be a Rilmani, not an Archon. And I find myself agreeing with Kish that that is nasty.

The post about "beings with cosmetic differences" i've referred to, that does well for humanoids, but a magical firebreathing lizard that flies and is classically a greedy monster that terrorizes villages, kidnaps princesses, and keeps massive amounts of treasurer needs to be seperately stated, and it is, in DStP.

Thank you for that Daggerpen.

You are seriously misunderstanding what the Giant wrote. The Giant was arguing that even sapient, flying, fire-breathing reptiles should not be killed just for being sapient, flying, fire-breathing reptiles. If an individual Dragon is Evil, and is killed in combat, that is one thing, but organizing a crusade to wipe out all Chromatic Dragons is just another form of genocide.

[Aquatosic]

Not so sure. They may be too high a level to get xp for killing mooks.

edit: ninja'd

aw man

[LadyEowyn]

The quote from DStP is indicates that Rich intended familicide to be taken as an obviously evil act, and to inspire thought leading to the conclusion that killing a single dragon just because it's a dragon (rather than because of its actions) is also evil.

Instead, a large portion of the people on this forum argued that killing a vast number of dragons was a Good act because the dragons were inherently Evil.

...I suspect that we scare Rich sometimes.

[E^G]

if Familicide were cast in the real world ... it wouldn't just kill all humans. It would kill EVERYTHING.

Um, no.
Familicide only kills beings linked by a *living* immediate family member (that's being generous, could just be Parent/Child).

While disastrous in the modern, highly intermarried context. It's much less damaging if you consider that for most of human history in most parts fo the world marriages were largely confined to members of a group/tribe/smaller region. Eventually there would be no living links.

It's an interesting sociological question what the linkage of modern humans is and how disastrous it would be, but it definitely wouldn't kill non-humans. There are no *living* blood relations among humans and non-humans. (This is kind of what defines "species" in the real world.)

[Forikroder]

The quote from DStP is indicates that Rich intended familicide to be taken as an obviously evil act, and to inspire thought leading to the conclusion that killing a single dragon just because it's a dragon (rather than because of its actions) is also evil.

Instead, a large portion of the people on this forum argued that killing a vast number of dragons was a Good act because the dragons were inherently Evil.

...I suspect that we scare Rich sometimes.

noone is arguing it was a "good" act (as in a morally justified act) but you can argue it is a good act (as in an alignmentlly justified act, as in a paladin would be able familicide a black dragon and conceivalby not fall)

Vs alignment did not turn evil because he cast familicide in other words

Familicide only kills beings linked by a *living* immediate family member (that's being generous, could just be Parent/Child).

step one kills everything you yourself are related to (as in everything that could trace its lineage to you) so the spell would find out that your great-

Spoiler

Show

great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great

grandparent was a monkey and start killing monkeys for instance

step 2 then kills every living relative of everyone killed in step one

and so on and so on until no more valid targets exist, thats why penelope died even though she cant trace her lineage to the ABD

[ellindsey]

Um, no.
Familicide only kills beings linked by a *living* immediate family member (that's being generous, could just be Parent/Child).

Actually, no. Familicide does not require an unbroken chain of living family members. See the following post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...0#post12856280

Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. This is a simple yes/no effect: Is a creature (the secondary target) related by blood to the original target at all, in any way? If yes, kill it. If no, move on. Number of generations or percentage of blood or direction doesn't matter.

This step does not require living intermediaries. Every creature which shares blood with the target dies.

Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1. Think of it as killing everyone descended from (or siblings to) any and all still-living ancestors of each secondary target. So if Penelope had a grandfather on one side and a great-grandmother on the other side who were still alive, every person who could trace their blood back to either of those people would be dead, because Penelope's daughter carries both of their bloods. If a person can only trace their blood through (say) Penelope's already-dead great-great-great-grandfather, then they're safe. Thus cousins and second-cousins and the like are all dead, but more distant genetic relations are not. It is possible for some cousins to survive if all older generations were already dead, yes, but Vaarsuvius wasn't really likely to take the time to make that distinction while sobbing on a dungeon hallway floor.

This step kills everyone descended from a living creature killed in step one, but also does not require living intermediaries between the creatures killed in step 2 and those killed in step 1.