Wait a minute, why did the ABD care that V killed her son?

[runeghost]

Isn't Forgotten Realms supposed to be a bit odd even by D&D standards? The whole thing of every barkeep in remote villagers being a retired level 9 fighter, for instance.

In the long-ago days of The City-State of the Invincible Overlord and the Judges Guild, when D&D was three (or more) small paperbacks and AD&D was just something Gary talked about, this was actually par for the course. And that is when Forgotten Realms creator Ed Greenwood started playing.

[Goblin_Priest]

You clearly didn't know this Barbarian. When the party was asked to wait to see the guard captain to take a job, said barbarian decided to single handedly storm the castle. And got pretty far into it. Thinking about it, I probably should've just let him crush jewelled thrones beneath his sandled feet.

I don't know what kind of games you guys run, but randomly charging a castle solo would almost certainly end with "ok, roll up a new character" in ours. And probably fairly quickly, too. Along with many glares from the GM and fellow players, if not a smack behind the head. Castles are meant to keep armies at bay. If they struggle with a mere individual, they're doing it wrong.

I have a hard time imagining how that kind of behavior can be productive and justified.

[paladinofshojo]

Apologies if I've missed something, but the only concrete example I recall seeing was the Forgotten Realms one which, while valid, still does not indicate some sort of larger pattern. What exactly are you referring to when you say "D&D Black Dragons"?

Well, outside of FR, there is very little information on dragon ecology, let alone anything that contradicts the FR lore on how black dragons nurture and rear their young.

[Morty]

This post and this one do contradict what you've been claiming but failed to back up in any way. One of them quotes the Forgotten Realms wiki, even.

[facw]

Castles are meant to keep armies at bay. If they struggle with a mere individual, they're doing it wrong.

Armies of "normal" soldiers, who in D&D are mostly low-level fighters. A high, or even mid-level D&D adventurer (even from a class normally considered low-tier) is way more powerful than most normal individuals in the game world. Instead of single man storming the castle, it's probably better to look at it as a super hero (or villain) attacking.

[paladinofshojo]

This post and this one do contradict what you've been claiming but failed to back up in any way. One of them quotes the Forgotten Realms wiki, even.

Okay if we’re talking about Forgotten Realms wiki, this is what they say about black dragon
child rearing:

“Black dragons were not noted as good parents, relying more upon disguise and hiding to protect their eggs than upon guarding them personally. Black dragon eggs must be submerged in strong acid while growing, which helped protect the dragon as well.[citation needed] Black dragons would only protect their young so long as that responsibility didn't threaten their own life. If they had to choose between saving their own life or those of their clutch or spawn, they would most certainly choose the former; though they would assuredly seek revenge afterwards.”

I get why an evil black dragon would seek revenge against anyone who killed their progeny. It gives them an excuse to kill and torment another creature.

That is not something I’m questioning, however she knew that doing this plan would come at some risk to herself. She had scryed Vaarsuvius for months and had to wait for him/her to be alone. This was a big IF on her part seeing as Vaarsuvius’s own arrogance was the reason why the elf was on that island. She even expressed surprise about it.

As such, I am confused as to why she would even consider taking such risks on her own life? Since as a black dragon, she should value her own life much more than her child’s.

Furthermore, she seems to actually be in pain and distraught by her son’s death. She doesn’t strike me as having revenge for lawful evil dragon motivations, such as say “you’re nothing more but a bipedal ape, how dare you forget your place in the food chain and kill one of my children!” or some sort of dragon superiority rhetoric on why it enrages her that her son is killed by what amount to lower lifeforms in her eyes. She seems to be taking the whole revenge very.... personally. It was less of “you, ELF!!! you killed my son!” And moreso “you, elf!!! YOU KILLED MY SON!”.

I feel like she actually loved her son enough that she would have avenged him regardless of who his murderer was, be it Xykon or a hungry tarrasque or another monster on another league above a black dragon.

[hamishspence]

What the wiki says that, if the parental dragon is forced to choose between saving their own life and saving their offspring's life, they'll save their own life.

But it also says they will seek revenge afterward, on the cause of their offspring's death. And it doesn't place a cap on how much they will risk themselves to get revenge.

There's plenty of room for "will take great personal risks for revenge" - even for typical black dragons.

[GrayGriffin]

I mean, that quote technically doesn't say anything about not risking their life for their revenge. Furthermore, she had already prepared anti-magic against Vaarsuvius, and probably knew they couldn't teleport while she could, so it seems like it wasn't that big a risk. "Three gentlemen from the lower planes offer the elf a deal to become supremely powerful" really seems like something she couldn't have foreseen. At all.

[Rodin]

Furthermore, she seems to actually be in pain and distraught by her son’s death. She doesn’t strike me as having revenge for lawful evil dragon motivations, such as say “you’re nothing more but a bipedal ape, how dare you forget your place in the food chain and kill one of my children!” or some sort of dragon superiority rhetoric on why it enrages her that her son is killed by what amount to lower lifeforms in her eyes. She seems to be taking the whole revenge very.... personally. It was less of “you, ELF!!! you killed my son!” And moreso “you, elf!!! YOU KILLED MY SON!”.

I feel like she actually loved her son enough that she would have avenged him regardless of who his murderer was, be it Xykon or a hungry tarrasque or another monster on another league above a black dragon.

This is an accurate depiction of how she felt. So I'm not sure why you're confused on what her motivations were.

Again, as repeatedly stated, this story is not D&D. It's not Forgotten Realms, or [insert D&D setting here]. It resembles Dungeons and Dragons unless otherwise stated.. And this case, the statement is made by the actions of the ABD. She cared about her son very much and would do literally anything to avenge him. And if you showed her the Monster Manual and tried to explain to her why she shouldn't love her son, she'd bite your head off.

[Morty]

The "This isn't D&D" argument, while accurate, isn't necessary here. Jasdoif quoted information from Monster Manual and Draconomicon that either makes no statements about black dragons being selfish or outright calls them protective. Paladinofshojo just chose to ignore it, instead focusing on picking sentences from the FR material to support their claim.

[Fyraltari]

Even if paladinofshojo is right about black dragons in D&D (which I'm not convinced of), this kind of idea "black dragon implies unable to care about her young" is exactly the kind of idea The Giant sets out to criticize with these sequences.

So the answer is

A) This is not how it works,

and

B) If it is, then it ought no to!

[Peelee]

As such, I am confused as to why she would even consider taking such risks on her own life? Since as a black dragon, she should value her own life much more than her child’s.

Furthermore, she seems to actually be in pain and distraught by her son’s death.

Wheeeeeee!

... You're asking "how come a mother loves her child?". There are moments where you really ought to stop and think about what you're doing.

[Borris]

She doesn’t strike me as having revenge for lawful evil dragon motivations.

Black dragons are noted as "always chaotic evil".

Besides, waiting for Varsivius to be alone before striking makes it seem like the ABD was not taking any risk. Especially with antimagic prepared. Without the soul splice thingy, the plan would have succeeded quite easily.

[factotum]

Besides, waiting for Varsivius to be alone before striking makes it seem like the ABD was not taking any risk.

She didn't just wait until he was alone, she also waited until he'd burned all his high-level spells as well...she was cautious almost to the point of cowardice, frankly. An Ancient Black Dragon is CR 19, so they ought to be a reasonable challenge for an entire party of level 19 adventurers, much less a single level 15-16 mage.

[zimmerwald1915]

An Ancient Black Dragon is CR 19, so they ought to be a reasonable challenge for an entire party of level 19 adventurers, much less a single level 15-16 mage.

A single level 14 mage, at that time.

I'm vaguely troubled by the fact that people are taking away from The Order of the Stick the idea that it is always morally wrong not to anthropomorphize non-humans. It strikes me as arrogant, and dangerous going into the ASI-enabled future.

[Rodin]

A single level 14 mage, at that time.

I'm vaguely troubled by the fact that people are taking away from The Order of the Stick the idea that it is always morally wrong not to anthropomorphize non-humans. It strikes me as arrogant, and dangerous going into the ASI-enabled future.

It's not anthropomorphizing non-humans, it's analyzing the actions of a sentient being. The ABD is a highly intelligent creature that both thinks and feels on the same level (or greater) than humans do.

As such, we absolutely can criticize lumping an entire species of creature into a specific bucket. To say otherwise gets offensive really quickly, which could easily be demonstrated by using real-world examples that I absolutely will not bring up. Suffice to say, stating "People from region X or culture Y do not care about their children" would result in an immediate firestorm, and arguing that about any non-human sentient is exactly the same.

Now, if dragons were just giant lizards that reacted purely on instinct you could make an argument. If a fish that lays eggs and then swims off without caring suddenly comes back to defend the brood, that is something worth commenting on. Once you introduce human intelligence and sentience, however, all bets are off. Maybe 99 out of 100 Black Dragons in OOTS world don't care about their kids. This one did, as amply demonstrated during the story.

I would also say that AI is a whole different kettle of fish, and one not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. An AI operates on such a different standard to organic life that it's impossible for us to imagine how it would value things.

[hroþila]

It's not anthropomorphizing non-humans, it's analyzing the actions of a sentient being. The ABD is a highly intelligent creature that both thinks and feels on the same level (or greater) than humans do.

I don't think that's the point, though. Of course the ABD was written this way and there's every indication that she was an absolutely standard black dragon in this regard as far as the OOTS world is concerned. However, the point is that it would be legitimate for dragons to work differently for biological reasons (as they apparently do in some settings), and it would be wrong to judge their alignment on that basis if that were the case. It doesn't have to be a matter of whether the dragon is sentient or operates purely on instinct. Forcing our own standards on other species is definitely anthropomorphizing them.

[Peelee]

I don't think that's the point, though. Of course the ABD was written this way and there's every indication that she was an absolutely standard black dragon in this regard as far as the OOTS world is concerned. However, the point is that it would be legitimate for dragons to work differently for biological reasons (as they apparently do in some settings), and it would be wrong to judge their alignment on that basis if that were the case. It doesn't have to be a matter of whether the dragon is sentient or operates purely on instinct. Forcing our own standards on other species is definitely anthropomorphizing them.

Wheeeeeee!

no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

[hamishspence]

She didn't just wait until he was alone, she also waited until he'd burned all his high-level spells as well...she was cautious almost to the point of cowardice, frankly. An Ancient Black Dragon is CR 19, so they ought to be a reasonable challenge for an entire party of level 19 adventurers, much less a single level 15-16 mage.

She probably has a minimum of 1 level of sorcerer to grant her the ability to cast Antimagic Field (requires a 12th level sorcerer to cast, ancient black dragons are effectively 11th level sorcerers). She does say that her passion for the arcane arts exceeds what's typical of her kind, after all.

Since Sorcerer is an Associated Class for dragons, that would put her CR as 20 minimum.

[hroþila]

Wheeeeeee!

Since I've been very clear about the way dragons work in the OOTS world, I don't think that quote is that relevant, because I don't need to agree with The Giant about whether or not exploring other hypothetical sentient biologies would be a worthy endeavour in itself, independently from OOTS. And at any rate, as zimmer alluded to, there are also real-world societal evils that can come from anthropomorphizing non-human species.

I'm not saying it's bad that OOTS black dragons work much like humans. I'm saying it's bad to judge non-human species only on the basis of how similar they are to us.

[Peelee]

Since I've been very clear about the way dragons work in the OOTS world, I don't think that quote is that relevant, because I don't need to agree with The Giant about whether or not exploring other hypothetical sentient biologies would be a worthy endeavour in itself, independently from OOTS. And at any rate, as zimmer alluded to, there are also real-world societal evils that can come from anthropomorphizing non-human species.

I'm not saying it's bad that OOTS black dragons work much like humans. I'm saying it's bad to judge non-human species only on the basis of how similar they are to us.

A.) regardless of whether you agree with someone on the value of exploring something, if the author writes a story about it, then it's clearly an exploration of that.
2.) there are no real-world non-human species that are fully sapient like humans, so dragons are very obviously much more analogous to humans than any other real-world non-human species.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not saying it's bad that OOTS black dragons work much like humans. I'm saying it's bad to judge non-human species only on the basis of how similar they are to us.

Precisely. The Order of the Stick is a story in large part about racism, and one of the ways it explores that theme is by criticizing the impacts of the way D&D, and fantasy more broadly, creates monsters - by exaggerating the way we racialize other humans - on players. Anthropomorphizing every D&D monster under the sun is part and parcel of its theme.

There is another tradition in speculative fiction - typically associated with science fiction rather than fantasy - that explores the alien as much as it can be conceived, and tries to avoid anthropomorphization. That The Order of the Stick does not fall within that tradition does not make it invalid or not useful.

[zimmerwald1915]

2.) there are no real-world non-human species that are fully sapient like humans, so dragons are very obviously much more analogous to humans than any other real-world non-human species.

This is arrogant presumption. There are no other species that create the kind of complex societies that look like human societies, and no other species where labor has played the role that it has in human biological and social evolution. That does not mean that there are no existing sapient species, or that such species cannot be created, contact humanity, or come to exist in the future.

[Peelee]

This is arrogant presumption. There are no other species that create the kind of complex societies that look like human societies, and no other species where labor has played the role that it has in human biological and social evolution. That does not mean that there are no existing sapient species, or that such species cannot be created, contact humanity, or come to exist in the future.

And when we find any such species I'll agree. Until then, though, no use tossing a method trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist when we can apply that method to a problem that does exist.

[Aveline]

2.) there are no real-world non-human species that are fully sapient like humans [...]

Dubious, if not outright solipsistic.

I am fond of the Hofstadter story where the tortoise visits the anteater, who is currently entertaining an ant colony with whom she is friends. The ant colony forms words with the ants, and occasionally offers ants to the anteater, who eats them. The anteater and the ant colony explain to the tortoise that the ant colony, which is intelligent, is distinct from the ants, which are not. (Ultimately the story was about the complementarity of holism and reductionism, and it remains a story, but still.)

[Fyraltari]

What is ASI ?

This is arrogant presumption. There are no other species that create the kind of complex societies that look like human societies, and no other species where labor has played the role that it has in human biological and social evolution. That does not mean that there are no existing sapient species, or that such species cannot be created, contact humanity, or come to exist in the future.

*coughs*socialinsects*coughs*

[zimmerwald1915]

What is ASI ?

Artificial super-intelligence.

*coughs*socialinsects*coughs*

They were one of the things I was alluding to, yes. Inasmuch as their societies do not "look like human societies" and yet exist, and that labor played a role in their evolution yet not "the role that it has [played] in human. . . evolution."

[hroþila]

A.) regardless of whether you agree with someone on the value of exploring something, if the author writes a story about it, then it's clearly an exploration of that.
2.) there are no real-world non-human species that are fully sapient like humans, so dragons are very obviously much more analogous to humans than any other real-world non-human species.

The way I see it, this discussion is almost entirely out of the realm of OOTS. OOTS black dragons are basically real-world humans, which has been acknowledged by everyone in this thread (save for paladinofshojo). The discussion about black dragons with different biologically-dictated behaviours in other stories therefore is not about OOTS, and thus the author is not particularly authoritative. So A doesn't apply. As for #2, an element that is very obviously central to OOTS (that of treating fellow sapient beings as fellow sapient beings) won't be diminished by pointing out societal evils that aren't part of the narrative and which are very often not acknowledged as evils at all. They're not incompatible, anyways.

If the ABD had been treated as just a monster in the comic, that would have been bad. And that would still have been bad if for whatever reason OOTS black dragons had happened to be wired differently so that their young were left to fend for themselves.

[woweedd]

Artificial super-intelligence.


They were one of the things I was alluding to, yes. Inasmuch as their societies do not "look like human societies" and yet exist, and that labor played a role in their evolution yet not "the role that it has [played] in human. . . evolution."

ASI?...I have an idea....*ahem* ROKO'S BASILISK. Are you familiar with that one?

[Peelee]

Dubious, if not outright solipsistic.

No known. Better?