On dragons and the killing thereof

[Reverent-One]

We're officially going in circles. Because I've already explained that what happened in the initial moments of the encounter has little bearing on V's decision to shoot it twice in the face hours later. So I'm not going to argue whether or not the black dragon was interested in fighting when they walked into its home, because it doesn't change what happens later.

Yes it does! To use the earlier analogy, if an action makes "you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone" then that action certainly is important when attempting to justify your own action toward said black belt person later.

[SPoD]

Yes it does! To use the earlier analogy, if an action makes "you have reason to think this person with black belt skills is going to become untied and then go around killing others if you simply leave them alone" then that action certain is important when attempting to justify your own action toward said black belt person later.

No, it doesn't, because there is no proof of "going around" and killing people. Just killing people who invade your home with weapons visibly strapped to their back when your father was killed by just such people.

No one in the town or the bandit camp warned the OOTS about a mean black dragon in the area, did they? Even when they provided a map of the exact area the dragon lived! So why do we assume it was going to leave its lair and suddenly start killing innocent humans if the OOTS didn't do something?

Oh, right, because a sourcebook told us it would.

[Reverent-One]

No, it doesn't, because there is no proof of "going around" and killing people. Just killing people who invade your home with weapons visibly strapped to their back when your father was killed by just such people.

There's no proof it wouldn't either. And again, they walked into an unmarked cave, they did not "invade the dragon's home".

No one in the town or the bandit camp warned the OOTS about a mean black dragon in the area, did they? So why do we assume it was going to leave its lair and suddenly start killing innocent humans if the OOTS didn't do something?

Oh, right, because a sourcebook told us it would.

Why a sourcebook? This is one of those things that V and the party would know that we can't. Are black dragon's virtually always murderers and pillagers in the OotS world? You're right we have no idea, but that doesn't mean we should assume the answer is no, and if the answer isn't no, that makes a difference. If they are, the Order would know, whether we do or not.

[SPoD]

Why a sourcebook? This is one of those things that V and the party would know that we can't. Are black dragon's virtually always murderers and pillagers in the OotS world? You're right we have no idea, but that doesn't mean we should assume the answer is no, and if the answer isn't no, that makes a difference. If they are, the Order would know, whether we do or not.

The OOTS may well have known that black dragons are VIRTUALLY always murderers and pillagers, but they did not know that they were ALWAYS murderers and pillagers, and they certainly did not know THIS dragon was a murderer and pillager. So we're right back to judging an individual based on its race.

You seem to think it's OK to kill someone if there's a 90% chance of them having done something at some point that was bad, even if we don't know what it is, because other people of their race have done a lot of bad things. I personally only think it's OK to kill someone when there's a 100% chance of them having done something specific that we know about that was bad, and that race shouldn't even enter into the equation. Which one of us do you think the law agrees with?

[Reverent-One]

The OOTS may well have known that black dragons are VIRTUALLY always murderers and pillagers, but they did not know that they were ALWAYS murderers and pillagers, and they certainly did not know THIS dragon was a murderer and pillager. So we're right back to judging an individual based on its race.

Except for the possibly of it luring them into a trap and ambushing them, despite your claims that it has "little bearing" on anything.

[SPoD]

Except for the possibly of it luring them into a trap and ambushing them, despite your claims that it has "little bearing" on anything.

A trap inside its own home. Yes. It still does not tell us anything about this dragon beyond the fact that it understands basic tactics and is willing to use them to defend itself. It certainly does not tell us that the dragon deserves to die unequivocally.

[Reverent-One]

A trap inside its own home. Yes. It still does not tell us anything about this dragon beyond the fact that it understands basic tactics and is willing to use them to defend itself.

Really? A area of random blackness, a defense mechanism? Looks more like a method to get tasty snacks closer to where they can be more easily caught. If the dragon shouted something like "Leave my home or be consumed/destroyed/obliterated!" or anything while they were in it, then I could agree on it being a reasonable defense mechanism, but if I were an adventurer living in a world in which black dragons are virtually always evil murderers, I'd see it as a attempt to kill me.

[veti]

You mean, other than that the dragon had already stated unequivocally that Vaarsuvius had told him to eat anyone who tried to leave?

I'm not accusing Roy of failing to try to leave. I'm accusing him of failing to try to talk Vaarsuvius into a different course of action. Failing even to think about trying to talk to Vaarsuvius. If he had any reservations about what V might do to the dragon when she was restored, he had every opportunity to say so. He even had a motive to say so, since it would have got him out of playing 'I Spy' with Elan for a few minutes.

But he didn't.

So once again: if V is Evil here, then so is Roy.

[derfenrirwolv]

We don't know that roy was doing with his 24 hours. My guess is he was still letting his brain recover from the absurdity of the situation.

[Kish]

Kish, I have great respect for you, but please read what I wrote again.

I'm not accusing Roy of failing to try to leave. I'm accusing him of failing to try to talk Vaarsuvius into a different course of action. Failing even to think about trying to talk to Vaarsuvius. If he had any reservations about what V might do to the dragon when she was restored, he had every opportunity to say so. He even had a motive to say so, since it would have got him out of playing 'I Spy' with Elan for a few minutes.

But he didn't.

So once again: if V is Evil here, then so is Roy.

As SPoD said, Roy may have expected that they would discuss what they were going to do with their prisoner. Or he may simply have believed that it was pointless to attempt to argue with someone who had had the dragon threaten to eat anyone who disobeyed him/her. Or he may have never thought to care what happened to the dragon. In any case.

You're making multiple assumptions I won't grant. That Roy knew the duration of Vaarsuvius' Suggestion spell (he was shocked when Vaarsuvius said it was about to expire). That he knew Vaarsuvius planned to kill the dragon any time sooner than Vaarsuvius doing so. That he could actually have any sort of conversation with Vaarsuvius, bearing in mind that the dragon would have had to translate for Vaarsuvius, and that the dragon might well have broken free of the Suggestion had Vaarsuvius said that s/he intended to kill him. That, if Roy could have had a conversation with Vaarsuvius, his not doing so is indicative of a choice not to oppose Vaarsuvius killing the dragon, and not him stupidly not putting the "I can talk to the party member I've been ignoring ever since he got Baleful Polymorphed now" together. Any of those might be true. Any of them might be untrue. I am certainly not willing to take them all for granted.

I suspect you might have a vested interest in reaching a "no member of the Order thought it was wrong to kill monsters at that time" conclusion.

[veti]

Or he may have never thought to care what happened to the dragon.

My point exactly.

You're making multiple assumptions I won't grant. That Roy knew the duration of Vaarsuvius' Suggestion spell (he was shocked when Vaarsuvius said it was about to expire).

He knew it would have a finite duration. He's an intelligent guy. Is it that unreasonable to assume it might have occurred to him, during eight hours of nigh-terminal boredom, that a more long-term solution would be needed at some point? And having thought that far...

That he knew Vaarsuvius planned to kill the dragon any time sooner than Vaarsuvius doing so.

See above. What do you imagine he thought Vaarsuvius was planning to do when she was restored? Loot the dragon's hoard and walk away, leaving its righteous vengeance contained only by a spell that was just about to run out?

That he could actually have any sort of conversation with Vaarsuvius, bearing in mind that the dragon would have had to translate for Vaarsuvius, and that the dragon might well have broken free of the Suggestion had Vaarsuvius said that s/he intended to kill him.

He could talk to Vaarsuvius just fine - the dragon would only have to translate V's replies. And for Roy to reason that "the dragon might break free of the suggestion if V mentions that she intends to kill him" - would require Roy to suspect that V, in fact, did intend to kill him. As well as assuming that V was incapable of communicating with him without cluing in the dragon.
"What are we going to do about the dragon?"
"I was thinking along the lines of what Elan did with Dorukan's dungeon."

That, if Roy could have had a conversation with Vaarsuvius, his not doing so is indicative of a choice not to oppose Vaarsuvius killing the dragon, and not him stupidly not putting the "I can talk to the party member I've been ignoring ever since he got Baleful Polymorphed now" together.

This one, I have to grant you. But it just brings us back to proposition 1: that Roy didn't really care what happened to the dragon, so long as the OOTS weren't on its menu.

I suspect you might have a vested interest in reaching a "no member of the Order thought it was wrong to kill monsters at that time" conclusion.

And I suspect you have a vested interest in reaching a "Vaarsuvius's instinctive alignment is Thoughtless Evil" conclusion. But even if we were both right - what difference would that make?

[Kish]

And I suspect you have a vested interest in reaching a "Vaarsuvius's instinctive alignment is Thoughtless Evil" conclusion.

Oh, make no mistake--that's a starting point at the time this thread went up, not a conclusion. Even if I granted your arguments about Roy (and while I don't, I do think it says something negative about him that his answer to Miko was "its scales weren't all shiny," and not anything about the dragon attacking them), it would only lead me to "and Roy acted nearly as badly in the cave," not anything positive about Vaarsuvius.

[Garwain]

... if there is a dragon living in an area, they have as a matter of course been tormenting everything and everyone in their territory- which happens to be "wherever they feel like."

Nah, they are just top predators, bored to death. I think they actually enjoy a bunch of heros from time to time.

[hamishspence]

In Races of the Dragon- it states that kobolds mine lots of treasure- and donate it to dragons, in return for alliance with the dragons.

So "It was all stolen by the dragon" isn't necessarily a valid assumption.

[Forum Staff]

At this time, we have a moratorium on threads whose sole discussion point is whether a certain character was "morally justified" in taking a certain action in the comic. Please do not start new topics to discuss such issues.