Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[zimmerwald1915]

No. D&D is a very diverse system which can accommodate many different types of fantasy stories. If you stop making the common assumptions while playing it doesn't stop being D&D, it just means your playing out a different kind of fantasy story in perhaps a different kind of fantasy world. The idea that a very common (perhaps the most common) way of playing is the only way of playing is exactly the sort of thing Rich has railed against.

This is true enough in the abstract, but D&D is a product competing for consumers with other products in a market. D&D sells itself as both a jack-of-all-trades system and as the Real McCoy high-fantasy pulp-adventure vehicle. Meanwhile, its competitors tend to sell themselves on catering primarily to other playstyles.

D&D's market share will be made up of three kinds of people: 1) people who are really into high-fantasy pulp adventure, 2) naive ingenues who believe that D&D is actually a jack of all trades system that can easily cater to any playstyle, and 3) people who are invested enough in and familiar enough with D&D that they can and are willing to kludge it into really catering to their preferred playstyle (these tend to evolve out of Type 2s).

But really, once you've figured out that D&D only does the one thing well, the more rational consumer choice if you don't want to stick to that one thing is just to play something else and leave D&D to the one kind of playstyle it's best at.

[Morty]

There's nothing about D&D's rules that force writing certain species of sapient beings as irredeemably evil by birth. That's just how the game has been written. Many writers over the years have chosen to write it this way. And the Giant's argument is that they shouldn't have.

[brian 333]

Yes, the lines drawn are arbitrary. Yes, the playstyles vary. Yes it's okay to kludge the rules to suit your campaign. Every DMG says as much in one way or another.

If your takeaway is that D&D is nothing but hack and slash, you should check out that useless section called Skills. Yes, combat rules are dominant because every high fantasy ever written involves fighting of some kind. Tolkien never wrote about the Ambassadors of the Elven Kingdoms of Middle Earth because, quite frankly, they were boring.

"My lord Thranduil sends his greetings, Lady Galadriel, and invites your comoany in a woodland feast."

Yay. What's gonna happen next?

But the rules do include Diplomacy skill, along with a host of Diplomacy feats and spells. Just because you and your players never used them isn't the fault of the designer.

In my own, more traditional campaign my high level player characters first created a truce between dwarves and elves, then fought a war with infighting on the besieged side which they were required to settle.

The paladin was offered Lord Mayor for life but turned it down. The entire political angle occurred because my players went that way.

So, diplomacy is a viable path to success if you choose to take it. The rules to do so are there.

[Lord_Drayakir]

No. D&D is a very diverse system which can accommodate many different types of fantasy stories. If you stop making the common assumptions while playing it doesn't stop being D&D, it just means your playing out a different kind of fantasy story in perhaps a different kind of fantasy world. The idea that a very common (perhaps the most common) way of playing is the only way of playing is exactly the sort of thing Rich has railed against.

Then it becomes an issue of "Evil is objective" and if Evil is objective, you should destroy it.

[HalfTangible]

Then it becomes an issue of "Evil is objective" and if Evil is objective, you should destroy it.

Objective does not mean permanent nor irredeemable.

[brian 333]

The only answer to Evil is to be evil?

One knows Good and Evil by why. As Captain Kirk once said, if you set the conditions which require a fight, don't be surprised when people fight. Instead, ask why they fight. Is it for survival and protection of others? Or is it for personal gain?

Objective Evil should be killed if you are seventeen and your players are too. Once you are old enough to see nuances other avenues begin to open up. Redemption is a greater victory than destruction, fof example, and preventing a war is a greater victory than fighting one. Opposition to irredeemable evil takes forms other than simply slaughtering every monster.

Will such attempts always suceed? Hell no. That's not the point either. The point is to try.

Example: it took Roy how many strips to realize Durkula was irredeemable? Being Good, he started with the assumption he could 'fix' Durkon, until Durkula made that an impossibility as a practical matter. But be clear here: the choice to fight was made by Durkon.

Roy's choice is to fight or to allow the world to be destroyed. On the other hand, Durkula's choice is to destroy the world and condemn millions to a horrible fate while evading any repercussions from that decision. He has placed his personal ambition above the good of any other being, including Hel.

[Lord_Drayakir]

The only answer to Evil is to be evil?

One knows Good and Evil by why. As Captain Kirk once said, if you set the conditions which require a fight, don't be surprised when people fight. Instead, ask why they fight. Is it for survival and protection of others? Or is it for personal gain?

Objective Evil should be killed if you are seventeen and your players are too. Once you are old enough to see nuances other avenues begin to open up. Redemption is a greater victory than destruction, fof example, and preventing a war is a greater victory than fighting one. Opposition to irredeemable evil takes forms other than simply slaughtering every monster.

Will such attempts always suceed? Hell no. That's not the point either. The point is to try.

Example: it took Roy how many strips to realize Durkula was irredeemable? Being Good, he started with the assumption he could 'fix' Durkon, until Durkula made that an impossibility as a practical matter. But be clear here: the choice to fight was made by Durkon.

Roy's choice is to fight or to allow the world to be destroyed. On the other hand, Durkula's choice is to destroy the world and condemn millions to a horrible fate while evading any repercussions from that decision. He has placed his personal ambition above the good of any other being, including Hel.

That's not what Objective Evil is. Objective Evil is when you can point to a thing and say "Yes, this thing is Evil." And because destroying Evil is a Good act, they should've destroyed Durkula. The scene in the afterlife showed that Roy got in trouble for associating with Belkar - so now, he put the fate of the world on the line because he associated with Evil.

[hamishspence]

"Destroying Evil is a Good Act" is highly context-sensitive. Murdering an Evil being "for personal gratification" is just as Evil as murdering a Good being "for personal gratification".

Since they did not know anything about Durkon's soul being trapped by Durkula - and since Belkar set the precedent for "Evil can be associated with, and used against worse Evil" - Roy not choosing to fight Durkula or drive him away, was reasonable at the time.

[factotum]

It's also worth noting that hindsight is 100% 20-20 vision, but there's a reason why Norton Juster's "The Phantom Tollbooth" has a creature called the Horrible Hopping Hindsight that always hops backwards, because it doesn't care where it's going so long as it can see why it shouldn't have gone where it's already been. At the time Roy chose to associate with Durkula, as far as he knew Xykon was the greatest threat to the world and Durkula was up for helping him with that. The idea that (a) the world was at risk of being destroyed by the Gods and (b) Durkula actually wanted that to happen never occurred to him, and I don't think it would have occurred to him even if he'd known from the start that Durkula wasn't really Durkon.

[Aeson]

That's not what Objective Evil is. Objective Evil is when you can point to a thing and say "Yes, this thing is Evil." And because destroying Evil is a Good act, they should've destroyed Durkula. The scene in the afterlife showed that Roy got in trouble for associating with Belkar - so now, he put the fate of the world on the line because he associated with Evil.

"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Gandalf the Grey

Destroying the vampire when it offered to join the party would have been inconvenient - the Order was fighting a giant Silicon elemental, and soon thereafter was fighting Tarquin's army and then fleeing Tarquin and company. It is permitted in time of great danger to walk with the devil until after you have crossed the bridge. Once you've crossed the bridge, so to speak, matters change, but insofar as this metaphor goes, the Order isn't certain that the vampire is the devil, and as non-Evil (or at the very least Good) people should, they are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until they have reason not to do so.

Yes, their judgement is likely compromised by their feelings for Durkon, and yes, ex post facto and out-of-character knowledge allows us to say that it would have been better had they destroyed the vampire at the first opportunity, but in my opinion doing so would not have been a Good act, except perhaps in a cosmological sense. It is not a good - or Good - act to do harm unto others without clear provocation or justification, and the collective opinion of the Order of the Stick after they escaped Tarquin et al. was that they had neither. As far as they are aware, the vampire is only a hypothetical menace. Accepting it as a traveling companion is no worse, to their knowledge, than is allowing Belkar - a proven marginally-controlled menace to those around him and to society at large - to continue in their company. Arguably, it's better - the vampire at least claims to be interested in being resurrected, whereas Belkar by and large shows little interest in being reformed.

Only those who can see all possible futures could arguably be said to be completely justified in killing a sentient being to prevent hypothetical future evil (or Evil), but as another fictitious character said, "always in motion the future is." For everyone else, the morality of an act is far less clear-cut than you make it out to be. Destroying an Evil thing is not a Good act at the personal level unless it is done for Good reasons, whether or not destroying that Evil thing is Good on a cosmological level.

It's also worth noting that hindsight is 100% 20-20 vision, but there's a reason why Norton Juster's "The Phantom Tollbooth" has a creature called the Horrible Hopping Hindsight that always hops backwards, because it doesn't care where it's going so long as it can see why it shouldn't have gone where it's already been. At the time Roy chose to associate with Durkula, as far as he knew Xykon was the greatest threat to the world and Durkula was up for helping him with that. The idea that (a) the world was at risk of being destroyed by the Gods and (b) Durkula actually wanted that to happen never occurred to him, and I don't think it would have occurred to him even if he'd known from the start that Durkula wasn't really Durkon.

Also, the Order has more immediate problems than an apparently-friendly vampire whose stated aim is to assist the Order until such time as the corpse it's possessing can be resurrected when the vampire joins the party.

I would add that any argument based on the information available to the Order that works for destroying the vampire inhabiting Durkon's corpse at the earliest convenient moment between it joining the party and it revealing its true colors at the Godsmoot likely also works for killing Belkar out of hand - and possibly works better for killing Belkar than for destroying the vampire. Belkar, after all, has previously shown himself to be a menace to those around him, whereas the vampire (to the Order's knowledge at the time) is more of a hypothetical problem.

[theNater]

That's not what Objective Evil is. Objective Evil is when you can point to a thing and say "Yes, this thing is Evil." And because destroying Evil is a Good act, they should've destroyed Durkula. The scene in the afterlife showed that Roy got in trouble for associating with Belkar - so now, he put the fate of the world on the line because he associated with Evil.

The scene in the afterlife, found here, explicitly states that Roy is not in trouble for associating with Belkar, but for the actions Belkar had taken while on Roy's personal mission under Roy's leadership. It also goes on to clearly indicate that killing Belkar just for being Evil would not be a Good act, and that attempting to redeem Evildoers is encouraged by the forces of Good.

[Lacuna Caster]

There's nothing about D&D's rules that force writing certain species of sapient beings as irredeemably evil by birth. That's just how the game has been written. Many writers over the years have chosen to write it this way. And the Giant's argument is that they shouldn't have.

Whereas my contention is that this is probably confusing cause and effect. D&D didn't actually start out as a 'slaying evil' simulator. It started out as a tactical wargame, and alignment was added afterwards, literally for the purpose of clearly demarcating who you were and weren't allowed to slaughter on the battlefield (which, at the time, often included other PCs.)

This is why very complex questions of intent, foresight, value and consequence were boiled down to a handful of simplistic labels: because evaluating those complex questions was not, in fact, the purpose of those rules. The rules were there to facilitate imaginary killing sprees. So I think D&D writers have largely been catering to the needs of the game and not vice versa.

That's not what Objective Evil is. Objective Evil is when you can point to a thing and say "Yes, this thing is Evil." And because destroying Evil is a Good act, they should've destroyed Durkula. The scene in the afterlife showed that Roy got in trouble for associating with Belkar - so now, he put the fate of the world on the line because he associated with Evil.

Objective Evil should be killed if you are seventeen and your players are too. Once you are old enough to see nuances other avenues begin to open up. Redemption is a greater victory than destruction, for example, and preventing a war is a greater victory than fighting one. Opposition to irredeemable evil takes forms other than simply slaughtering every monster.

I'm not sure tactical wargaming is necessarily a pursuit limited to 17-year-olds, but while we're talking about realism I'll say here what I've said before: Given a sufficient threshold of Evil, 'Evil => needs smiting' is actually a reasonable policy to follow. When evil folks and creatures are definitionally disposed to do horrendous awful things on a semi-regular basis, and incarceration or rehab efforts tend to be dangerous gambles, it is reasonable to execute evil creatures purely as a preventive safety measure.

Sure, there are hypothetical counter-examples- there are also hypothetical counter-examples to 'don't lie', 'don't break the law', and 'don't use poison or sneak attacks'. But paladins have agreed not to do these things as a point of principle, and it doesn't make then non-LG. It's no more arbitrary or error-prone than anything else in their code of conduct.

I'm also not sure the strip itself has made a particularly clear-cut argument in favouring of 'sparing the rod'. Belkar may have his uses, but I'm pretty sure his absence from the party would, on average, have made life dramatically easier for his teammates. It's reasonable to point out that staking Durkula ASAP could have averted an existential risk to the world. And is anyone seriously going to argue that sparing Nale's life worked out for the best?

[Lacuna Caster]

I actually have known people to propose that very solution to Middle-Earth, assuming that Orcs come from ELves (the professor flip-flopped on that too), and seeing how Elves injuries seem to heal according to their mental state (compare Maedhros' and Gwindor's recoveries after their respective captures) and the professor's comment of how WWI "made Orcs of us all" it could be that an Orc who stops being evil turns into an Elf again.

Not completely disagreeing but it's not entirely clear-cut: Melkor, Sauron, Eöl the Fëanorians (depending on who you ask) and Ar-Pharâzon are both evil and handsome (though they do tend to loose the handsomeness after a while) when the Druedain appear to be the most unflinchingly good tribe of Man and everyone think they are hideous.

I forgot about the Druedain. Ghan-buri-ghan is a stand-up fellow. Maeglin's another counter-example, now you mention it.

It makes more sense too, a society of evil people isn't really sustainable. Empathy is a (generally) naturally selected trait for a reason.

Well, from a biological perspective altruism is somewhat harder to explain than selfishness- you generally need to invoke kinship effects to account for how social instincts would develop in the first place. And there's a fitness cost to empathy as well, in that it leaves you more prone to exploitation.

But yeah, I think it's debatable whether a 'Usually Chaotic Evil' society could function at all without imploding on itself.

[Fyraltari]

I forgot about the Druedain. Ghan-buri-ghan is a stand-up fellow. Maeglin's another counter-example, now you mention it.

Yeah forgot about Maeglin. The funny thing about Tolkien's Legendarium is that it looks a lotlike a stereotypical fantasy world until you scratch the surface.

Well, from a biological perspective altruism is somewhat harder to explain than selfishness- you generally need to invoke kinship effects to account for how social instincts would develop in the first place. And there's a fitness cost to empathy as well, in that it leaves you more prone to exploitation.

But yeah, I think it's debatable whether a 'Usually Chaotic Evil' society could function at all without imploding on itself.

Well selflessness enables teamwork which kinda trumps every other survival strategy.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah forgot about Maeglin. The funny thing about Tolkien's Legendarium is that it looks a lotlike a stereotypical fantasy world until you scratch the surface..

I suspect that's because the typical fantasy world is mostly aping the surface elements of Tolkein without necessarily going deeper

[Lord_Drayakir]

The scene in the afterlife, found here, explicitly states that Roy is not in trouble for associating with Belkar, but for the actions Belkar had taken while on Roy's personal mission under Roy's leadership. It also goes on to clearly indicate that killing Belkar just for being Evil would not be a Good act, and that attempting to redeem Evildoers is encouraged by the forces of Good.

Then that opens up (and something I am not touching) whether or not Vaarsuvius should/should not get an alignment ding on the Familicide spell.

And this goes back to my original point. Alignment in D&D is a mistake, but it's not really D&D without alignment - but then alignment breaks down the moment you take a closer look at it.

[georgie_leech]

We saw them get an alignment ding by that deva. Would link but I'm on mobile. We also have repeated demonstrations and expressions of remorse by V, and the author has explicitly stated (I cast Summon Banana) that genocide is bad. Not that we should need confirmation that genocide is bad, but it's there.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well selflessness enables teamwork which kinda trumps every other survival strategy.

Arguably, but natural selection operates on individuals. If evolution just naturally converged on what was best for the species as a whole I suspect humans would have a rather different psychological profile and perhaps somewhat higher IQs. But like the story says, you don't have to outrun the bear, just the guy running next to you.

And this goes back to my original point. Alignment in D&D is a mistake, but it's not really D&D without alignment - but then alignment breaks down the moment you take a closer look at it.

Look, as far as the original question is concerned, Gobbotopia might survive or it might not, and there are two equally valid interpretations of the 'moral of the story' in each case, some of which you already pointed out.

Gobbotopia survives as an Evil city: Moral 1- being evil is totes effective. Moral 2- mistreating other species can lead to terrible outcomes.
Gobbotopia survives but reforms itself: Moral 1- only non-evil creatures deserve a civilisation. Moral 2- everyone is capable of improving.
Gobbotopia is destroyed: Moral 1- evil is ultimately self-destructive. Moral 2- lesser species should know their place.

It all depends on how it's handled. I do think there's something... strange about the author's commentary that Redcloak's invasion is some sort of 'just desserts' for the Twelve Gods and/or the Sapphire Guard, given that it's regular Azurites who had nothing to do with their ancestors' crusades that probably suffered most. I certainly hope that's not the message he intended to convey.

[Lacuna Caster]

We also have repeated demonstrations and expressions of remorse by V...

V might or might not embark on some grand quest for redemption when all this is done, but up to when I stopped reading I was not overwhelmed by his gestures of penitence. Talk is cheap.


EDIT: I dunno, unless he gave blood to a baby black dragon when I wasn't looking?
.

[Jasdoif]

....and the author has explicitly stated (I cast Summon Banana) that genocide is bad.

It is. It is an evil act. Always. Without exception. Period. Genocide is always evil, guys.

I'm going to save this thread and link to it the next time someone tells me that the themes I put in the comic are so simple and obvious that I shouldn't be bothering expressing them, because everyone already knows that you shouldn't kill people for being different than you.

Note to self: The BananaBlock variant based off of anticipate teleportation rather than dimensional anchor seems to work, though it doesn't actually block a banana....

[Kish]

I do think there's something... strange about the author's commentary that Redcloak's invasion is some sort of 'just desserts' for the Twelve Gods and/or the Sapphire Guard, given that it's regular Azurites who had nothing to do with their ancestors' crusades that probably suffered most. I certainly hope that's not the message he intended to convey.

It wasn't.

[Fyraltari]

Arguably, but natural selection operates on individuals. If evolution just naturally converged on what was best for the species as a whole I suspect humans would have a rather different psychological profile and perhaps somewhat higher IQs. But like the story says, you don't have to outrun the bear, just the guy running next to you.

What is good for the community is good for the individual. It doesn't matter how good your are at surviving, if you don't have a community to interact with and find a mate your genes won't be selected.
Also humans are by far the most cooperation prone species in existence (okay you might make a case for social insects but it's not so much cooperating as localized natural selection in action). The simple fact that mosthumans consider human are not cooperating enough is proof of that.

Look, as far as the original question is concerned, Gobbotopia might survive or it might not, and there are two equally valid interpretations of the 'moral of the story' in each case, some of which you already pointed out.

Gobbotopia survives as an Evil city: Moral 1- being evil is totes effective. Moral 2- mistreating other species can lead to terrible outcomes.
Gobbotopia survives but reforms itself: Moral 1- only non-evil creatures deserve a civilisation. Moral 2- everyone is capable of improving.
Gobbotopia is destroyed: Moral 1- evil is ultimately self-destructive. Moral 2- lesser species should know their place.

It all depends on how it's handled.

This.

I do think there's something... strange about the author's commentary that Redcloak's invasion is some sort of 'just desserts' for the Twelve Gods and/or the Sapphire Guard, given that it's regular Azurites who had nothing to do with their ancestors' crusades that probably suffered most. I certainly hope that's not the message he intended to convey.

I think it was more "Redcloak is alogial consequence of their actions and they should have seen it coming" without any moral judging. Plus when people say "Country X is responsible for thing Y" they generally mean Country X's government rather than Bob the Xan hairdresser and his bowling buddies.

V might or might not embark on some grand quest for redemption when all this is done, but up to when I stopped reading I was not overwhelmed by his gestures of penitence. Talk is cheap.


EDIT: I dunno, unless he gave blood to a baby black dragon when I wasn't looking?
.

Well there's this itsy-bitty little thing about the worldpossibly blowing up in a week or two he and his group have to deal with first.
Other than that, he has identified what he did wrong and vowed to better himself that's about step one and two of The Path to RedemptionTM covered. It isn't enough but his story isn't over yet either.

[Lacuna Caster]

It wasn't.

Cool, thanks.

Just to play devil's advocate, I am scratching my head as to how one would construe that, say, erasing all Mind Flayers from existence wouldn't be a colossal net positive for whatever universe is unfortunate enough to host them. It's a species that more-or-less intrinsically has to sustain it's existence by performing repeated and horrifying atrocities- any Mind Flayer that has moral qualms about it's actions either starves or leaves no descendants. Even vampires (the regular kind, not the OOTS kind) have more room for pacifism/redemption.

[woweedd]

Then that opens up (and something I am not touching) whether or not Vaarsuvius should/should not get an alignment ding on the Familicide spell.

And this goes back to my original point. Alignment in D&D is a mistake, but it's not really D&D without alignment - but then alignment breaks down the moment you take a closer look at it.

V DID get a very large ding for that. If they hadn't realized the magnitude of their crimes, then I, were I judging them for the Afterlife, would have no qualms chucking them into the Neutral Evil Afterlife. Even now, they'd probably end in a Neutral Evil Gatetown in the Neutral Afterlife. Thankfully, as our best source has told us, trying counts for a lot, and V has about 200 years of life left to try and make-up for it. How, i'm not sure*, but making sure that everyone isn't killed by an eldritch horror from beyond time and space is a pretty good start, i'd say.

*Personally, i'm partial to some sort of Epic Spell that would resurrect all the Non-Evil victims of V's mass murder. V was already looking for ultimate power, after all, it's just that, now, they have good reason to want it.

[Fyraltari]

*Personally, i'm partial to some sort of Epic Spell that would resurrect all the Non-Evil victims of V's mass murder. V was already looking for ultimate power, after all, it's just that, now, they have good reason to want it.

That kind of deus ex machina would be extremely underwhelming, epecially since his search for ultimate power was what lead to his divorce in the first place.
V screwed up beyond compare. It won't go away. He'll have to deal with that. He'll have to spend the rest of hislife being the best person he can ever be. No shortcuts.

[Kish]

Would it be an inappropriate shortcut if, to be practically able to cast it, Vaarsuvius needed to reduce the DC by adding the features "reduce the caster's level by N, where N-1 is Vaarsuvius' level at time of casting," "400d6 backlash damage," and, "if the caster dies from this spell, they cannot be resurrected even by True Resurrection or other epic magic"?

i.e., Vaarsuvius could trade their own life for the lives of their murder victims?

(For the benefit of anyone who doesn't have the Epic Level Handbook: When an epic spellcaster designs an epic spell, they assemble it from seeds, and add specific features that can either raise the base Spellcraft DC--such as longer duration--or lower it--such as spending XP, or backlash damage, which is a type of damage inflicted directly on the caster which cannot be reduced or prevented by any means. Then, if and only if the caster can make a Spellcraft check at the finally determined DC, they can cast the spell with one of their epic spell slots.)

Cool, thanks.

Just to play devil's advocate, I am scratching my head as to how one would construe that, say, erasing all Mind Flayers from existence wouldn't be a colossal net positive for whatever universe is unfortunate enough to host them. It's a species that more-or-less intrinsically has to sustain it's existence by performing repeated and horrifying atrocities- any Mind Flayer that has moral qualms about it's actions either starves or leaves no descendants. Even vampires (the regular kind, not the OOTS kind) have more room for pacifism/redemption.

Oh, I don't know about that. A nonevil illithid could sustain itself by being an adventurer and eating the brains of all the intelligent enemies who a good human adventurer (let's call him Roy) would simply leave to rot.

[Lacuna Caster]

Oh, I don't know about that. A nonevil illithid could sustain itself by being an adventurer and eating the brains of all the intelligent enemies who a good human adventurer (let's call him Roy) would simply leave to rot.

Well I'm sold. Order of the Stick, now with 100% more Mind Flayer. It's fanfiction that practically writes itself!

[Fyraltari]

Oh, I don't know about that. A nonevil illithid could sustain itself by being an adventurer and eating the brains of all the intelligent enemies who a good human adventurer (let's call him Roy) would simply leave to rot.

That's a good idea but it only works temporarily (or the ilithid would have to never retire), on a small scale (an entire society of adventurers sounds unsustainable) and requires bringing any newborn near combat. And you need to find an adventure a month.

Hmm... Would cloned, grown-in-jar, never conscious brains work?

[woweedd]

Would it be an inappropriate shortcut if, to be practically able to cast it, Vaarsuvius needed to reduce the DC by adding the features "reduce the caster's level by N, where N-1 is Vaarsuvius' level at time of casting," "400d6 backlash damage," and, "if the caster dies from this spell, they cannot be resurrected even by True Resurrection or other epic magic"?

i.e., Vaarsuvius could trade their own life for the lives of their murder victims?

(For the benefit of anyone who doesn't have the Epic Level Handbook: When an epic spellcaster designs an epic spell, they assemble it from seeds, and add specific features that can either raise the base Spellcraft DC--such as longer duration--or lower it--such as spending XP, or backlash damage, which is a type of damage inflicted directly on the caster which cannot be reduced or prevented by any means. Then, if and only if the caster can make a Spellcraft check at the finally determined DC, they can cast the spell with one of their epic spell slots.)


Oh, I don't know about that. A nonevil illithid could sustain itself by being an adventurer and eating the brains of all the intelligent enemies who a good human adventurer (let's call him Roy) would simply leave to rot.

Both those ideas sound really cool. WIth the first one, honestly, i'd be satisfied with just the XP Drain. The idea of V giving up their own magic in order to repair their sins, literally and figuratively starting over, sounds pretty neat.

That's a good idea but it only works temporarily (or the ilithid would have to never retire), on a small scale (an entire society of adventurers sounds unsustainable) and requires bringing any newborn near combat. And you need to find an adventure a month.

Hmm... Would cloned, grown-in-jar, never conscious brains work?

In the real world, there have actually been plans to "grow'' meat via cloning, producing, for instance, a steak that was never part of an actual cow. It's been a pretty big thing, since it could help third-world nations that don't have the resources to raise, farm, or butcher their own meat, and it means that, say,McDonald's could just grow its patties in the back-room instead of having to keep track of a thousand cows and their attached workforce.

[Lacuna Caster]

But no, guys, this is fantastic! You could have a scene where Eugene comes to visit and remarks on how proud he is now that Roy is starting to develop his magical talents and devour the brains of his enemies. Where Belkar actually has a positive wisdom score and much better table manners. Where Elan notices that most of the team are sprouting facial tentacles and chalks it up to some fashion craze. And where, most crucially, it makes almost no difference to their long-term strategic objectives or battle tactics, because hey, if the world ceases to exist, they'll have no host population to parasitise and enslave!