So, what is the pont of the battle with Calder?

[KorvinStarmast]

I’ve got it. I know what the point is.

Belkar.

Calder will dominate Belkar; Belkar will have his protection from evil clasp, which shows his alignment has changed. Belkar will then have to ride the dinosaur back into the stasis circle, dragging Calder, whereupon the magic will be restored.

Belkar draws his last breath. No more birthday cake.

As of strip 1300, not seeing it work out like that. Great idea, though.

Minrah's last name is Shaleshoe. Vaarsuvius and Elan are the ones lacking a surname.

V's last name probably has a half dozen apostrophes in it, if D&D / Elf Game naming conventions are adhered to.

[Naysmith]

Not what I was referencing. I was referencing V's freakout in the pyramid when he realized the magnitude of his crime.

I know you were referencing that. I was saying you were wrong. What V learned in the pyramid was not to be so wrathful.

Why would V be merciful to Calder? So he can make the exact opposite mistake he made with YABD? To give undeserved mercy in the hope that it lessens the crime of withholding it when it was deserved?

The point of mercy is it's not deserved, but given anyway. It wouldn't lessen the crime; it would be a showing of having learned and trying to be better.

This came from the idea that Calder would in any way or to any degree abide by any surrender agreement. Even if V "kept an eye on him," what could V do about it when he started a new mind controlled cult?

If the threat of being trounced again isn't enough, then by story's end, V will almost certainly have the allies, power, and resources to make good on that threat and stop the cult. And again, per Roy's judgment by the Deva, that will not only be on Calder's soul and not V's, but the attempt to curb and evil-doer in a way to push them towards not being evil helps.

ABD and Calder have no equivalency save their shared dragon ancestry. V cannot find redemption by granting undeserved mercy to pay for previously not granting it where it was deserved.

See: Roy's judgment, and the Deva saying saving Elan weeks after abandoning him showed he'd learned and that it was enough to let that slide. It's not a full equivalent, but it shows the metaphysics of the setting are more on my side here.

I wasn't claiming the dragon ancestry mattered. What matters is that they are both enemies who could be shown mercy. The ABD wasn't. Calder might yet be nearly defeated and/or beg for mercy, like I anticipate his personality might (I regard his personality as bully-like or at least might-makes-right given how he's been operating and talking).

[Gay Poro]

I'm so scared Bloodfeast is going to die! I had no idea I'd grown so fond of the little fella. I can't believe it's been over 10 years since we met them

[Kish]

Naysmith, I agree with the moral principles behind what you're saying strongly enough that I hate to say this...

...but Calder seems so completely and consistently evil that I could (theoretically) have believed the ancient black dragon agreeing to drop the vendetta if Vaarsuvius offered her mercy far more easily than I could believe Calder surrendering and not meaning something like "I'll wait, yet again, for another chance to reestablish my cult!"

[KorvinStarmast]

Naysmith, I agree with the moral principles behind what you're saying strongly enough that I hate to say this...

...but Calder seems so completely and consistently evil that I could (theoretically) have believed the ancient black dragon agreeing to drop the vendetta if Vaarsuvius offered her mercy far more easily than I could believe Calder surrendering and not meaning something like "I'll wait, yet again, for another chance to reestablish my cult!"

ABD and Calder both establish that dragons have a good INT score.

[gbaji]

If the threat of being trounced again isn't enough, then by story's end, V will almost certainly have the allies, power, and resources to make good on that threat and stop the cult.

And then what? What if Calder again says "I promise not to do it again. Really!". At what point do you conclude that he's an unrepentant evil creature and you just have to kill him? Your solution doesn't prevent him from harming other people, it only 'stops him" once he done it (after the harm has been done).

Threat of "being trounced again" or "stop(ing) the cult" are meaningless if you have no means to prevent him from doing those things in the first place.

Sure. If this were the real world, and we were talking about real world criminals, I'd be all for saying "arrest them, and sentence them according to the laws". But... there is no law here. There is no jurisdiction. There are no jails for putting dragons in (and Serini already tried that, and it didn't work well). At the end of the day, this is a dragon, not a person. He's a magical monsterous creature, with an alignment (and in a "non-real" world in which such a thing exists and is detectable and has measurable effects), and who is a massive walking threat to everything and everyone around him every single second he's around.

The lesson V learned from the ABD and the soul splice bit wasn't "don't assume that evil dragons should be killed". It was "don't get so caught up in pursuing personal power that you lose sight of how using that power affects other people (and yourself)". Recall that V didn't just kill the ABD, but decided to "show off" by using the familicide spell. V replaced justice with vengeance, and didn't consider the full impact those actions would have.

The correllary would be to be so arrogant in one's own power and capabilities to "make good on my threat and stop the cult", that you don't consider the costs to the people who's lives would be ended/ruined by following that course of action.

What you are proposing would actually represent V *not* learning the lesson. Learning it would be taking the impact on other's people's lives into account when deciding what to do. Saying "I'll let this evil mind controlling dragon go because I'm certain I'm powerful enough to defeat him again in the future if need be" is the opposite of learning that lesson. It's putting your own confidence in your personal power and abilities ahead of the cost and impact to other people. Which is exactly the kind of mindset that got V into trouble in the first place.

[Naysmith]

(First, regarding the point of the battle: A reminder that showing how powerful the Order is and getting Serini's trust in their power were both mentioned, I think there's more than one point, and I think it's some hybrid of "all of the above." Or below, in this case.)

Naysmith, I agree with the moral principles behind what you're saying strongly enough that I hate to say this...

...but Calder seems so completely and consistently evil that I could (theoretically) have believed the ancient black dragon agreeing to drop the vendetta if Vaarsuvius offered her mercy far more easily than I could believe Calder surrendering and not meaning something like "I'll wait, yet again, for another chance to reestablish my cult!"

I'm sorry; I did not mean to imply that Calder WILL be spared, or even that the Order will decide to spare him, or that V won't agree with others in the Order that he needs to be slain. Sometimes a combination of fatigue and other factors makes it nigh-impossible for me properly convey my exact sentiments (and often, the devil is in the details for both my thoughts and how my state of mind renders them). But between Serini taunting Calder about no paladins to spare him and the paladins likely being due to arrive soon, I think talk about sparing will happen. Yeah, Calder's an evil that needs to be stopped. But I feel that a good point of this battle would be V attempting to find a peaceful solution. Do I expect it to happen? Insert uproarious laughter. But seeking the possibility is important.

And for waiting for a chance to re-establish... after Calder surrendered to the Scribblers, he was willing to stay in one spot long enough to be put in that stasis. I did a quick google search on life expectancies of elves vs dragons... they're comparable. Dragons for longer, but Calder is already a good chunk through his. That would make the "we'll keep an eye on you" threat plausible enough that I believe it would be important to seriously consider it, making a point of the battle to be showing V trying to do better.

And then what? What if Calder again says "I promise not to do it again. Really!". At what point do you conclude that he's an unrepentant evil creature and you just have to kill him? Your solution doesn't prevent him from harming other people, it only 'stops him" once he done it (after the harm has been done).

Threat of "being trounced again" or "stop(ing) the cult" are meaningless if you have no means to prevent him from doing those things in the first place.

When he surrendered to the Scribblers, he stayed put for at least a little while. He's smart and wise enough to know when to fold.

Sure. If this were the real world, and we were talking about real world criminals, I'd be all for saying "arrest them, and sentence them according to the laws". But... there is no law here. There is no jurisdiction. There are no jails for putting dragons in (and Serini already tried that, and it didn't work well). At the end of the day, this is a dragon, not a person. He's a magical monsterous creature, with an alignment (and in a "non-real" world in which such a thing exists and is detectable and has measurable effects), and who is a massive walking threat to everything and everyone around him every single second he's around.

"a dragon, not a person." I'll just point you at Comic 866, panel 7. I deny nothing about him being a threat, though. If Calder tries to negotiate, then seeing V's stance in the negotiations will be a good view of their development.

The lesson V learned from the ABD and the soul splice bit wasn't "don't assume that evil dragons should be killed". It was "don't get so caught up in pursuing personal power that you lose sight of how using that power affects other people (and yourself)". Recall that V didn't just kill the ABD, but decided to "show off" by using the familicide spell. V replaced justice with vengeance, and didn't consider the full impact those actions would have.

I disagree; the personal power thing was the entire arc breaking V's pride. But regardless of accounting, there can be multiple lessons.
1) The book arc: not to obsess (such as over power)
2) The splice arc: power needs to be wielded correctly
3) Familicide -> pyramid: The justice with vengeance thing in your quote does apply, but also per comic 866, both panels 6 and 7... the implication is that a big lesson is, in fact, "don't assume that evil dragons should be killed". Or that same sentence minus "dragons".
Again, I don't expect Calder to survive. I think a very good point for this battle, outside of showing the Order's power (inc. to Serini) is centered on V because of some foreshadowing and the symbolic theme of ABD and Calder both being CE dragon. Emphasis on symbolic theme.

The correllary would be to be so arrogant in one's own power and capabilities to "make good on my threat and stop the cult", that you don't consider the costs to the people who's lives would be ended/ruined by following that course of action.

Well, if the party can take him once without significant preparation and then gains in power (which they do faster than a dragon does), that's not really being arrogant in their power.

Again, Calder needs to be stopped. I agree with that. But per the metaphysics of the setting, what Calder does is solely on him. That Soon didn't fall for making Serini et al. spare him indicates that accepting surrender is at the very least not evil enough for a paladin to fall.

What you are proposing would actually represent V *not* learning the lesson. Learning it would be taking the impact on other's people's lives into account when deciding what to do. Saying "I'll let this evil mind controlling dragon go because I'm certain I'm powerful enough to defeat him again in the future if need be" is the opposite of learning that lesson. It's putting your own confidence in your personal power and abilities ahead of the cost and impact to other people. Which is exactly the kind of mindset that got V into trouble in the first place.

You're arguing V's pride. That arc hit accepting Ultimate Arcane Power.
Wrath and vengefulness is why V cast Familicide and got into the need for serious redemption.
And it's not just "certain I'm powerful enough", it includes Calder knowing it, too, and knowing he'll be watched. Repeating from above, I don't expect that solution to happen; I just think it'll be seriously discussed as an option.

So, what I believe is that an important point of this battle is seeing how willing V is to try for a peaceful solution (unless I'm completely wrong and someone crits Calder before he can try and talk things out). Initiate trying to talk, be willing to talk, reluctant to talk, or not at all. The reasoning behind it will be an important point as well.

[Corian]

Really random thought about Calder's narrative significance. Many spoke of him as potentially joining TE if he survives this fight. But I also realize he's one of a rare enough kind: a high-level arcane spell caster, who RedCloak could try to coopt into casting the ritual in case either he and Xykon part ways, or Xykon is destroyed as per the order's plan. I would not bet on either scenario, but it could happen.
Now, I'm not 100% sure that Calder has high enough spell slots; and we're not even sure what spell slots the ritual requires. (Welding the rifts requires 9th level, but I don't remember the Dark One's ritual requirements being specified.)

[Ruck]

"a dragon, not a person." I'll just point you at Comic 866, panel 7.

I don't think the point of that comment is "a dragon's life does not have the same value as a human's even as a sapient being," but "Calder has capabilities far beyond anyone in the real world does, and thus there is no realistic means of containing him or ensuring he keeps the peace."

(And, as far as #866 goes, Calder has certainly fit the "ravenous killer" description so far. Nothing we've seen indicates someone who would reform given the opportunity.)

[Kish]

I think the point of that comment was exactly "a dragon's life does not have the same value as a human's." An unfortunate result of Rich having used "look it also killed a lot of mostly-humans" to trigger Vaarsuvius' moral epiphany is posters who think "don't kill a lot of mostly-humans" is that epiphany.

[gbaji]

I think the point of that comment was exactly "a dragon's life does not have the same value as a human's." An unfortunate result of Rich having used "look it also killed a lot of mostly-humans" to trigger Vaarsuvius' moral epiphany is posters who think "don't kill a lot of mostly-humans" is that epiphany.

Right. Hence my point was that the lesson was not "don't kill dragons". It's not about either one, but that does not mean that you can't make the decision to kill the being right in front of you based on an assessment of that specific being. The problem with V's use of familicide is twofold:

1. V was only tihnking in terms of immediate family. Those who would seek revenge for the death of the ABD (since that was relevant to the situation at hand). And really lettting the purpose of the moment (I"m going to kill you and everyone who might care to avenge you) cloud the larger implications of the spell.

2. V was assuming that just because this one dragon was evil and a threat, that all dragons (and dragonkind and onwards) related by blood to that dragon, must also be.


My comment about "this is a dragon, not a person" was not meant to be an absolute statement but a relative one. Everything else being equal, we are talking about a D&D setting, where there are different creatures in the monster manual, and while all (most?) of them *can* be any alignment they want, that fact is rarer among some creatures than others. "person" was referring to "sentient beings who have no speciic alignment trait based on their species" (and not the broader "person; a sentient being").

Dragons are literally color coded according to type, and their types are very very strongly tied to alignment(s). That was the distinction I was trying (perhaps unsuccesfully) to get across. A human (or hafling!) could be of one alignment, and then over time, change. It's not easy, but it does happen, presumably with some decent regularity. Dragons are vastly less likely to change over time.

And yes, in the case of Calder, I really don't think that's even on the table. He's evil. He's not going to stop being evil. Anything short of killing him, or imprisoning him somehow will come with the cost of him "doing evil" to others. The option to "kill him, then cast familicide to kill everyone/thing related to him" also isn't on the table either, so I'm not sure how V's previous experience really applies.

I suppose to address the OP, his purpose is to be a threat that must be overcome. There could certainly be some narrative aspect in terms of "what do we do with him?". And there also could certainly be some informational aspects to his presence as well. I also think it may be a last "big encounter" hurrah, which serves the narrative purpose of showing that there are threats in the dungeon, and we're not just going to have the main characters perfectly bypass them all. Also, it provides an opportunty for some last minute dingage to happen, which may help push the Order over the top in terms of being able to go toe to toe with TE.

[Precure]

ABD broke two little kids' legs and tortured their parent in front of them to get a revenge on their other parent. I wouldn't put her any less at evil from Calder the Red Dragon.

[KorvinStarmast]

ABD broke two little kids' legs and tortured their parent in front of them to get a revenge on their other parent. I wouldn't put her any less at evil from Calder the Red Dragon.

But she was mad is the excuse that will be offered, I suspect.

[Kardwill]

ABD broke two little kids' legs and tortured their parent in front of them to get a revenge on their other parent. I wouldn't put her any less at evil from Calder the Red Dragon.

Oh yeah, she may have had a legitimate beef against V, but motivated by grief or not, she crossed the "yep, totally evil" line when she decided to torture innocent kids for her vengeance. I think nobody would have objected to V simply killing her. Had they stopped at #638, some people would have commented on their callousness and obvious enjoyment of the process (and the entire "deal with the devil" of course), but not objected to the dragonslaying itself.

The problem is that V didn't stop there at #638. They killed her entire family line, including quite a lot of children, because "they're black dragons, so they're totally Ok to kill even if I don't know them, amarite?" That's the moment V crossed the line too.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, as V said themselves, it was wrong to slaughter all those dragons indiscriminately just because they were related to the ABD, irrelevant of the fallout due to the Draketooth clan. Even if somehow every single one of them deserved to die, V didn’t know and didn’t care about that.

[No good @ names]

ABD and Calder both establish that dragons have a good INT score.

Empress of Blood establishes that dragons CAN have a good INT score?

[Ionathus]

All this talk about "what do they do with Calder if he surrenders a second time" is making me think of the D&D session I just ran last month.

The party was fighting a super-powerful and devious Green Dragon. She had already lied and manipulated many people, and had bamboozled the party several times by playing on their emotions and empathy. When they finally came to blows, the party won.

She tried to surrender to the LG Oath of Devotion Paladin who always tries to redeem or capture enemies. As far as he could tell, she was being truly genuine in her surrender, and even asking him to show her a path to potential redemption. Instead he said some version of "sorry, you had your chance multiple times over" and killed her.

I actually wasn't expecting him to choose execution, but it made sense given everything she'd put them through, and how often she had preyed on peoples' empathy. It was sort of a "boy who cried wolf" situation in regards to the social contract.

All this to say -- I think if Calder tries to surrender a second time, either Roy or (more likely) Serini will put him down for good. Serini has seen what he's capable of, and Roy has learned his lesson from Durkula about pulling punches just because a clearly-dangerous combatant is saying the things you want to hear.

[KorvinStarmast]

Empress of Blood establishes that dragons CAN have a good INT score?

EoB establishes that dragons can also make INT their dump stat.
(When I check the source material like the Monster Manual or the SRD, EoB is a bit of an outlier).

[MartianInvader]

Oh no.

Given this latest development (V's Greater Dispel Magic), I don't have high hopes for Bloodfeast surviving this one. Narrativey speaking, I don't really see them walking around with a full-sized allosaurus for the rest of the comic, nor do I see them going through the awkward motions of re-hexing him.

Of course, this could kick off a big development in the Belkar arc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh no.

Given this latest development (V's Greater Dispel Magic), I don't have high hopes for Bloodfeast surviving this one. Narrativey speaking, I don't really see them walking around with a full-sized allosaurus for the rest of the comic, nor do I see them going through the awkward motions of re-hexing him.

Of course, this could kick off a big development in the Belkar arc.

Oddball Prediction follows:
MitD and Bloodfeast bond and become fast friends.
Not sure how, but that thought appeals to me.

[Synesthesy]

Oh no.

Given this latest development (V's Greater Dispel Magic), I don't have high hopes for Bloodfeast surviving this one. Narrativey speaking, I don't really see them walking around with a full-sized allosaurus for the rest of the comic, nor do I see them going through the awkward motions of re-hexing him.

Of course, this could kick off a big development in the Belkar arc.

But the face of Belkar imaging to walk around with a full-sized allosaurus for the rest of the comic, just for Bloodfeast to be polymorphed again, would be so hilarious.