Was V's act evil? (Probable spoilers!)

[Grog]

I don't know of many situations in which the players just stumble on a dragon lair, and the dragon tells them to leave it alone because it hasn't done anything. And yes, if the players then decided to kill it anyways, it would be an evil act.

First, how many of the dragons that V just killed do you suppose fall into that category?

And second, I'll again remind you that the OotS invaded the lair of the first black dragon and killed it to get the piece of starmetal they needed to reforge Roy's sword. They were not out to stop an evil, rampaging monster - they just wanted to acquire a magic item to increase their power. Back when that strip ran, I don't remember anyone claiming that the OotS had just committed an evil act.

 

[Zimri]

Hey, that half-dragon in full armor was CLEARLY a LG paladin. So you can't make the case that "they're all evil" because you don't KNOW.

I voted not evil, then saw this post to glom on to before going much further.

V killed a black dragon who was in combat with her party. A family member of said dragon went to great ends to find her, humiliate her in battle then attack her family because it thought she was powerless to stop it.

So we know they are vengeful, resourceful, long lived, and have fantastic memories.

It is therefore not illogical to assume that unless you want to be glancing over your shoulders forever you eliminate the threat in as quick and concise a manner as you can.

Where have we seen that logic before ?

 

[dmccoy1693]

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that some people will go to any length to claim that PCs aren't allowed to commit evil actions - because apparently even when they do, it's just redefined as somehow being good.

This thread has taught me that most folks think there is a greater moral imperative to preserve the sanctity of your own soul than to save the lives of countless people.

Put one soul on one side of the balance, and an infinite number of lives on the other, and most folks here choose the soul.

1 soul > countless lives

1 innocent life > countless innocent lives

Makes for some interesting moral calculus.

Given the power (from whatever source) to kill all those evil black dragons, you guys are arguing that is it more good to use that power for the sole selfish purpose of just saving one's own family.

Riddle me this: Would you consider it a justifyible killing if your wife and kids died because your wife's father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate was evil and the killer felt that everyone that any kind of relation to them needed killing as well?

Those dragons in those eggs had no time to commit a single evil act. The half dragons may not have been evil. Why should they die because they have some distant sadistic relative?

 

[billd91]

So, killing to safeguard your family = evil.

Killing to increase your personal power and wealth = not evil.

Gotta love D&D morality.

Let's try not to reduce this into ridiculousness. Killing to safeguard your family from immediate threat = not evil. Hence, killing the dragon that's right there and attacking the family isn't evil.

Projecting that particular dragon's motivations to any number of dragons, related by blood but who may well never have encountered or even heard of the dragon in question, and then holding them accountable for the same actions, murdering them, in some cases before they have even hatched = not the same as killing to safeguard your family.

 

[Zimri]

Let's try not to reduce this into ridiculousness. Killing to safeguard your family from immediate threat = not evil. Hence, killing the dragon that's right there and attacking the family isn't evil.

Projecting that particular dragon's motivations to any number of dragons, related by blood but who may well never have encountered or even heard of the dragon in question, and then holding them accountable for the same actions, murdering them, in some cases before they have even hatched = not the same as killing to safeguard your family.

Except we already know that 1 relative of 1 black dragon that was slain in fair (enough) combat came seeking vengeance not just on the slayer (V) but on V's family. What is the best way to make sure another family member doesn't try that or worse again ?

 

[resistor]

I take issue with some of the interpretations of "Always Evil" people are espousing here. I've always viewed it that dragons, like most other creatures of the Prime Material plane, are mortals, capable of free will even if they may be strongly predisposed in certain ways. Just like orcs and gnolls tend to raid villages, red dragons tend to collect hordes and burn things. But the dragons, like the orcs and the gnolls, are free-willed. It's not impossible for a red dragon to come out good, or for a formerly evil one to be reformed. Just unlikely.

IMO, and in any campaign I run, genocide of a free-willed race is, and will always be, EVIL.

A more interesting question would be whether genociding a breed of demon or devil would be EVIL. It depends on the setting: if planar exemplar races are literally manifestations of their home planes, then they don't have free will, and literally cannot be non-evil. So genociding them would not be inherently evil (though it could be because of motivations, etc.).

Of course, a reformed demon/devil is itself a common plot point. IMC, I'd probably say that a reformed demon/devil stopped being a demon/devil when their alignment changed.

 

[resistor]

Except we already know that 1 relative of 1 black dragon that was slain in fair (enough) combat came seeking vengeance not just on the slayer (V) but on V's family. What is the best way to make sure another family member doesn't try that or worse again ?

So if two siblings were murderers, it'd be OK to kill the other three, including the baby, and murder the pregnant mother too?

 

[billd91]

Except we already know that 1 relative of 1 black dragon that was slain in fair (enough) combat came seeking vengeance not just on the slayer (V) but on V's family. What is the best way to make sure another family member doesn't try that or worse again ?

Best, as in most effective, has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It never did. There are stories throughout history of people engaging in what they thought were the best efforts, held up for moral condemnation. Think of prophecies about first born male children and programs of infanticide from both Biblical and Arthurian legends.
Moral and effective do not always align.

 

[Zimri]

So if two siblings were murderers, it'd be OK to kill the other three, including the baby, and murder the pregnant mother too?

Seriously, are you saying that if entity A kills entity B for a perfectly reasonable ummm reason and then entity B's family member entity B1 humiliates entity A and threatens with death and eternal torture (and indeed plans to carry out said threat) entity A's family (in what is clearly NOT a reasonable manner) that once entity B1 is taken care of that entity A should presume safeness from entities B2 through B12 ?

It didn't end with the first one why do we think it would end with the second ? or third ? or tenth ?

To answer your question without any pretense ... Should I kill sibling one in self defense (or say a mutually agreed upon fight) and sibling 2 then decides my untrained wife and kids are fair game while I am helpless to stop it you are darned right I don't stop at sibling 2. They bring in my family I bring in theirs. Of course I also don't think you get involved in escalating violence to "tie" you fight to win. Combat has to be as bloody and vile and distasteful as it can be made to be so that it is always and forever the last resort. I also think that if you believe in vigilante justice you should expect the same visited upon you involving others isn't kosher unless the other guy does so first.

 

[Hejdun]

I said it wasn't evil, but then again I view DnD reality has very far removed from real world morality. Such a spell would be extremely evil in the real world, but I just can't get that upset about killing Always Evil monsters in DnD.

The way I see it, DnD is about killing people and taking their stuff. If you're good aligned, that means you kill Evil people and take their stuff before they kill all the Good people and take their stuff. So it is a good creature's moral imperative to kill all the Evil people. In DnD (or at least every campaign I've played in), the world is basically a warzone already. Every day the forces of Evil raze a helpless village and drink the blood of babies. The forces of Good are always on the defensive and barely holding their own in an eternal fight to the death.

In that context, I'd view killing 3 *possibly* non-evil creatures in the process of killing off 60+ powerful, drink-the-blood-of-babies-Evil creatures as an acceptable loss. But that's because in all of the campaigns I play in, the forces of Good and Evil are in an eternal deathmatch, and the stakes are high. Those 60 black dragons could've caused immense damage to innocent people. Therefore, I'm not going to get into a tizzy just because they possible weren't, *at that moment*, killing innocents.

Again, coming from the perspective of an average person in the average DnD campaign I play in. Also, I haven't read any of this comic, so I have no idea of the context that this is taking place. I also took a narrow view of what V's "act" was--I'm thinking specifically of casting Familicide.