Belkar's Alignment

[Fyraltari]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?

So? Deciding that someone needs killing just based on which group they were born into is wrong even if that group isn't a species.

[woweedd]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?

Yeah, despite what Fy is saying, while goblins and undead are both magic TO US, in the OOTS world, they aren't. Vampires are magic, but goblins aren't: They just exist in this world, and always have. That said, Kish does have a point, vis-a-vis why write them that way? Now, I think Rich has gone a ways to justify vampires being always Evil, vis-a-vis "becoming a vampire is not a personal transformation, but, rather, a soulless elemental hunger puppeteering your corpse and memories". Vampires in OOTS are created from you worst memories, made of pure hunger, with no such thing as a conscience. They don't have empathy. Now, granted, Kish has argued in response that such a creature could not be called truly sapient, but I fail to see why vampires can't be just that, elemental savage predators who, though they can fake human-like behavior, remain creatures of hunger, dead flesh infused with unholy energy, no more sapient then a lion. And, technically, yes, also no more Evil then a lion, But, if a lion's eating people, it should be put down, no?

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, despite what Fy is saying, while goblins and undead are both amiga TO US, in the OOTS world, they aren't.

"amiga"?

Vampires are magic, but goblins aren't: They just exist in this world, and always have. That said, Kish does have a point, vis-a-vis why write them that way? Now, I think Rich has gone a ways to justify vampires being always Evil, vis-a-vis "becoming a vampire is not a personal transformation, but, rather, a soulless elemental hunger puppeteering your corpse and memories". Vampires in OOTS are created from you worst memories, made of pure hunger, with no such thing as a conscience. They don't have empathy.

Pure hunger? I'm sorry but Durkon* has shown emotions other than hunger, a loooot of time, and if vampires don't have empathy why did Malack have for his spawns? I agree that Rich has done a wonderful job explaining why such a creature who be born evil and why it would be so extremely rare for one not to be evil, but he hasn't made a case for them never being anything else. On the contrary, as I grow tired of repeating, he has shown a vampire wth a LG soul! For one page yes, but it is there!

Now, granted, Kish has argued in response that such a creature could not be called truly sapient, btu I fail to see why that would have to be untrue.

If you can't make choices then you are not sapient.

[woweedd]

"amiga"?

Pure hunger? I'm sorry but Durkon* has shown emotions other than hunger, a loooot of time, and if vampires don't have empathy why did Malack have for his spawns? I agree that Rich has done a wonderful job explaining why such a creature who be born evil and why it would be so extremely rare for one not to be evil, but he hasn't made a case for them never being anything else. On the contrary, as I grow tired of repeating, he has shown a vampire wth a LG soul! For one page yes, but it is there!

If you can't make choices then you are not sapient.

1. Typo.
2. Poor phrasing. Basically, he does not possess true counciness.
3. It's plausible he views his spawn as extensions of himself, same way Tarquin views his offspring, in fact.
4. When?
5. And what is the problem with vampires being non-sapient?

[Fyraltari]

1. Typo.

I had guessed so, but I couldn't read through it, thank you.

2. Poor phrasing. Basically, he does not possess true counciness.

Says who?

3. It's plausible he views his spawn as extensions of himself, same way Tarquin views his offspring, in fact.

Then why did he refuse to sire more during two years?

4. When?

Last panel of #1130 to #1131.

5. And what is the problem with vampires being non-sapient?

Besides the fact that the comic and the author call them free-willed a few time? They are portrayed as rational bengs capable of decision making not mindless automatons.

[Kish]

I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going to have good real-world parallels, which can happen when you write a fantasy story.

Sure. And Rich could have said "yeah, I'm going with that, Vaarsuvius did nothing wrong" any of the times someone proposed that--just for one example which did get seriously argued--black dragon eggs start with multiple black dragon embryos in them and the one that actually hatches is the one that is instinctively vicious and aggressive enough to kill and eat the others...but he didn't. And we're still left with, "There are no vampires. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that."

[woweedd]

Sure. And Rich could have said "yeah, I'm going with that, Vaarsuvius did nothing wrong" any of the times someone proposed that--just for one example which did get seriously argued--black dragon eggs start with multiple black dragon embryos in them and the one that actually hatches is the one that is instinctively vicious and aggressive enough to kill and eat the others...but he didn't. And we're still left with, "There are no vampires. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that."

I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.

[Fyraltari]

I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

Also:

There are no evil non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

[woweedd]

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

Also:

There are no evil non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped.

[The Pilgrim]

I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic. For instance, were I a lich, I could still be on this forum, play violin, play games, do really anything that doesn't require flesh. The tradeoff is, wearing gloves to avoid harming people accidently, and not eating or drinking. Also, not needing to sleep would be amazing and totally make up for it.

There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Imagine Elan becoming a Lich: Would he become Evil? He could use the newfound powers for a lot more shenanigans, but would that make him Evil?

So someone can't taste coffee. So what?
I could imagine, given the immortality and powers of a Lich, to travel the world an help people, you know, to fight the boredom of eternal life ;-)
Unless the spell "Make a Lich" automatically makes you want to be evil......is that so?

Elan is the most emotional character of the comic. So I bet he would be the one whose alignment would be most quickly affected if he stopped feeling any emotion but pleasure when something living gets killed around him.

The coffe thing was the way the Giant exemplified to the audience that Xykon had stopped feeling any emotion. Except the pleasure of things getting hurt or dying around him. Xykon could already kill people before being a Lich. But he only started to kill his own mooks as amusement after becoming a Lich. That was stated by Right-Eye in SoD, and several bonus strips in DCF feature Xykon killing mooks or arranging them to be killed, for his leisure. In his time in Azure City, his source of entertainment was looking at O-Chul while the paladin suffered. I can't imagine the Giant could make the point that Xykon only experiences pleasure on watching things die, except openly stating it. Wait, he actually did.

So, yeah, I think that becoming an undead abobination whose only pleasure resides in the suffering of those around you, actually makes you Evil.

[Fyraltari]

Except, in this scenario, they aren't folks. They're predators, who are intent on murdering humans, and will if not stopped.

Except this one.

So, how exactly aren't they folk? What's your basis to declare that?

EDIT:

Elan is the most emotional character of the comic. So I bet he would be the one whose alignment would be most quickly affected if he stopped feeling any emotion but pleasure when something living gets killed around him.

The coffe thing was the way the Giant exemplified to the audience that Xykon had stopped feeling any emotion. Except the pleasure of things getting hurt or dying around him. Xykon could already kill people before being a Lich. But he only started to kill his own mooks as amusement after becoming a Lich. That was stated by Right-Eye in SoD, and several bonus strips in DCF feature Xykon killing mooks or arranging them to be killed, for his leisure. In his time in Azure City, his source of entertainment was looking at O-Chul while the paladin suffered. I can't imagine the Giant could make the point that Xykon only experiences pleasure on watching things die, except openly stating it. Wait, he actually did.

So, yeah, I think that becoming an undead abobination whose only pleasure resides in the suffering of those around you, actually makes you Evil.

Xykon lost his ability to enjoy coffee because he lost his taste buds. That's it. If your only sources of pleasure in life are coffee and the pain of others then you can't point to not being able to taste coffe as the reason for your evilness.

Elan wouldn't lose his ability to enjoy good stories, or music, or people.

Xykon, despite being the co-protagonist of a prequel book titled Start of Darkness, is never given any explanation for his evilness, intentionnally as explained by the author's introduction. We are, apparently, supposed to accept that he was always evil, or at least already was at age five-six, for no reason. The idea that any other character would end up like he did should they become lich is kind of weird to me to be honest.

[woweedd]

Except this one.

So, how exactly aren't they folk? What's your basis to declare that?

EDIT:


Xykon lost his ability to enjoy coffee because he lost his taste buds. That's it. If your only sources of pleasure in life are coffee and the pain of others then you can't point to not being able to taste coffe as the reason for your evilness.

Elan wouldn't lose his ability to enjoy good stories, or music, or people.

Xykon, despite being the co-protagonist of a prequel book titled Start of Darkness, is never given any explanation for his evilness, intentionnally as explained by the author's introduction. We are, apparently, supposed to accept that he was always evil, or at least already was at age five-six, for no reason. The idea that any other character would end up like he did should they become lich is kind of weird to me to be honest.

That wa sa temporary circumstance, caused by an anomalous set of circumstances.

[Kish]

I still don't see the problem with vampires being essentially non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence.

Aside from the fact that "they're non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence" has been used as a real-world excuse for genocide multiple times I could name were this conversation taking place somewhere without a no-politics rule...

...I don't really think an unAwakened dire lion would have worked as the villain of this book.

[Fyraltari]

That wa sa temporary circumstance, caused by an anomalous set of circumstances.

Again no proof that it was temporary, and what does it matter that it was an extraordinary occurence? One example is enough to negate a statement starting with "all" like, for example "all vampires are evil".

[woweedd]

Aside from the fact that "they're non-sapient animals who happen to be able to mimic intelligence" has been used as a real-world excuse for genocide multiple times I could name were this conversation taking place somewhere without a no-politics rule...

...I don't really think an unAwakened dire lion would have worked as the villain of this book.

1. That is a fair point. Grante
2. I don't see why we can't conceive of a creature who is both able to speak, have emotions, think thoughts, etc and incapable of conmcciving of altruism.

Again no proof that it was temporary, and what does it matter that it was an extraordinary occurence? One example is enough to negate a statement starting with "all" like, for example "all vampires are evil".

1. He mentioned the negative energy re-asseritng itslelf.
2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.

There are two mental representations that look like Durkon in that scene. One of them is composed entirely of negative energy. That one is the vampire spirit we usually call Greg. And he was just as much of a vampire spirit as he was before he absorbed so many of DUrkon's memories at once that he effectively became identical to Durkon, because we are the current end point of our accumulated experiences.

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will.

It's not they can't choose to do good things, it's that they don't want to, and thus are much less likely to. I don't think the indication that the possibility for change (in more ways than one) is absent in any of them though.

Wasn't that a big thing with V and the Black Dragons - sure, most of them probably were evil, but some of them might not have been or had the potential to not have been, and V had no right to snuff them out just based on statistics without knowing anything about any of them (except Mama Black Dragon) as individuals.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will

Vampires in OotS are not embodiments of a morality plane.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

1. That is a fair point. Grante
2. I don't see why we can't conceive of a creature who is both able to speak, have emotions, think thoughts, etc and incapable of conmcciving of altruism.

We can, however that is not what vampires are in this comic.

1. He mentioned the negative energy re-asseritng itslelf.

No, he mentionned the negative energy "squirming around" and that "there is no way of knowing if this will last" which is ambiguous at most. He doesn't want to take any risk (understandable considering the stakes), but that is hardly evidence of anything. His reasonning was that Durkon* would turn into his alter ego if flooded with memories because he'd have all of his life-experience and his body, and as Grey Wolf pointed out we are the sum of our experience. I don't see how the Negative energy could change that, especially since Durkon* slipping into Durkon's accent a few time and parrotting something Thirden said show that Durkon* was already being changed by the memories before the "big fight scene".

Also Durkon#1 tells Durkon#2 to "hurry" before the other mentions the squirming, so the decision to let Belkar kill him was taken before the flood.

2. By "vampire" I mean the spirit, and, for that brief instance, he wasn't the spirit, he was Durkon.

The spirit was always Durkon (or rather a copy), he just went from being a copy of a part of Durkon to a copy of the whole, that's it.

[Rrmcklin]

Vampires in OotS are not embodiments of a morality plane.

Grey Wolf

I wasn't trying to say they were, just that in this analogy putting the two together worked for other reasons.

[Kish]

I personally, don't see Vampires or Fiends being innately evil necessarily clashing with free-will anymore than Devas being innately good clashes with free-will.

Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.

[Rrmcklin]

Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.

Eh, I'd only say that if they didn't have the capacity to change, or only way to perform their "evil" or "good" or anything. As the fiends themselves said, Evil isn't one big happy family, and neither is Good.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wasn't trying to say they were, just that in this analogy putting the two together worked for other reasons.

This analogy only works for creatures that are embodiments of morality planes. So, devas and devils, yes. Vampires, no.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Eh, I'd only say that if they didn't have the capacity to change, or only way to perform their "evil" or "good" or anything. As the fiends themselves said, Evil isn't one big happy family, and neither is Good.

So wait, are you saying devas, fiends, and (of most immediate relevance) vampires have the capacity to change and stop being respectively good, evil, and evil?

[Rrmcklin]

So wait, are you saying devas, fiends, and (of most immediate relevance) vampires have the capacity to change and stop being respectively good, evil, and evil?

Don't they? I was told it was like 1,000,000 change thing but was possible. And has been mentioned before Rich didn't discount good vampires maybe existing, just that they weren't necessary for the story.

Though I guess that hasn't really come up for any fiends or devas in the story, but it does strike me as something that would be possible in this story.

Was I mistaken on some point?

[Pablo360]

Also, the reason it's okay to kill vampires is that they imprison the souls of the original owners of their bodies while pretending to be that person and/or are actively plotting to commit mass torture and murder, and any discussion of the ethics of vampire killing without acknowledging this is shifting the goalposts. We don't know what stance the party would take toward vampires who aren't part of a conspiracy to subjugate and brutalize millions, because such a vampire has not appeared.

And before someone comments about how that's just as problematic, remember that vampires are created, and with the exception of Malack and sort of Greg, all the ones we see were created to serve Hel's plan. They're not vampires because they're evil, and they're not evil because they're vampires; rather, they are in the story because they're evil. If the story could be served by showing a good vampire, that would happen. It wouldn't, though; the story isn't even really about vampires.

Because you're right. Vampires aren't real. What are real are our darkest desires, the parts of ourself that we keep in check so that we can participate in polite society or because it would be wrong to unleash on the world. That is what Greg represents —*explicitly, it's stated in the comic —*and that is why the vampires shown in this arc are valid targets. Not because they are vampires, but because they choose to do evil —*because they are fictional representations of what happens when the evil within ourselves is no longer tempered by our social conscience.

[Prinygod]

Ponchula.



I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

Yet beings created from negative energy is almost always evil as a rule. And good clerics are prevented from channelling it, unlike the other elements. So while they might not be dis facto good and evil in their respective planes, their effects on the mortal plan are not equal and opposite. After all beings created from the other elemental planes are usually TN, unlike undead.

Also If a goat feeds my cat fire, I'll cut its nipples off, too.

[Fyraltari]

Also, the reason it's okay to kill vampires is that they imprison the souls of the original owners of their bodies while pretending to be that person and/or are actively plotting to commit mass torture and murder, and any discussion of the ethics of vampire killing without acknowledging this is shifting the goalposts.

1) By 1131, the distinction between Durkon being imprisonned and Durkon being in control is purely academic.
2) Hroþila proposed that by using the spell Revive Undead, you could free the soul without destroying the vampire. No you might say that it wouldn't work but then that's just one headcanon vs another.
3) As "Ponchula" shows it is possible for host and vampire to reach a modus vivendi. Granted, this is a case of an evil vampire simply taking suggestions, but I see no reason why a good vampire couldn't agree to work as a gestalt entity only taking actions the two souls agree on.

We don't know what stance the party would take toward vampires who aren't part of a conspiracy to subjugate and brutalize millions, because such a vampire has not appeared.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion on wether it is never evil to kill a vampire. No-one has claimed the party has done anything wrong when killing Malack and his descendants.

And before someone comments about how that's just as problematic, remember that vampires are created, and with the exception of Malack and sort of Greg, all the ones we see were created to serve Hel's plan.

So? They are free-willed, Hel has no power to force them to anything, they are in on this plan because they chose to, as stated by Roy, Durkon* and the Giant.

They're not vampires because they're evil, and they're not evil because they're vampires; rather, they are in the story because they're evil. If the story could be served by showing a good vampire, that would happen. It wouldn't, though; the story isn't even really about vampires.

Again we are not discussing the story. Only the world it is taking place in.

Because you're right. Vampires aren't real. What are real are our darkest desires, the parts of ourself that we keep in check so that we can participate in polite society or because it would be wrong to unleash on the world. That is what Greg represents —*explicitly, it's stated in the comic —*and that is why the vampires shown in this arc are valid targets. Not because they are vampires, but because they choose to do evil —*because they are fictional representations of what happens when the evil within ourselves is no longer tempered by our social conscience.

And then he wasn't. So, you agree that a vampire that went through the same thing wouldn't be a valid target anymore?

[woweedd]

Sure. No more and no less. A creature which cannot make moral decisions can't actually have morality. Maybe that creature automatically helps people or maybe it automatically hurts them, but it's not a creature in any meaningful sense; it's more like an aloe vera plant or a deadly nightshade plant.

Yes. What's your issue?

[Kish]

My issue is that I'm pretty sure I'm expected to think of the current book as having a villain, not being the equivalent of a disaster film about battling a hurricane.