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

[tsadkiel]

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.

That's . . . not actually what happened. The Order didn't set out to kill the dragon and retrieve the starmetal, they set out to retrieve the starmetal, and were attacked by a dragon, which didn't exactly give them a chance to negotiate.

 

[Zimri]

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.

But according to many fine enworlders being the "most effective you can be" is the "only goodrightfun" way to play.

It is always "good" to protect you and yours from threats both clear and present , and vague and distant (and some would argue real and imagined).

 

[catsclaw227]

This is a game about killing things and taking their stuff. If you see an orc, you kill it. Why? Because it is an orc...and orcs are evil.

This is a falsehood perpetuated on and on (in most all editions) and there is nothing supporting it in the RAW.

First, for the larger majority of the people I know, this game is about WAY more than just killing things and taking their stuff. Maybe in a lite beer and pretzels game, but not a rich campaign experience. IMC, if you just kill things and take it's stuff, you will be hunted and/or incarcerated, or simply damned. This is where alignment comes into play, as vague as it is. Just killing things and taking it's stuff would place you firmly in the Chaotic Evil department.

If I can kill an orc (without knowing anything about it other than that it is an orc) and steal its property morally, then I can kill hundreds of orcs, also without reason.

If dragons are worse than orcs, then I can do the same.

This is where we disagree. According to RAW, an orc is "Often chaotic evil". According to the glossary, often assumes a plurality (40%-50%) of individuals. Killing an orc, without knowing anything about it other than that it is an orc, would be evil. In many campaigns, it could be considered murder.

Dragons being "Always" might mean that 98%+ are evil. But just killing them for no reason (or especially because the reason is vengeance, and the added layer of "and you will watch it happen to everyone you and your offspring have spawned in the past 801-1000 years") is still an evil act. The reason can't just be "I am pretty sure that he's still evil because the odds are in my favor". Even if 99.9% are evil, the sheer number of offspring over that may years, multiplied exponentially, will still result in many, many, many more "non-evil" deaths than just 3 (to make up for his wife and two kids).

I am reminded of the old Faberge Organics shampoo commercial. "If I told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on".

 

[jeffh]

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 ?

You made that way more confusing than it needed to be, but once I get through it, I find a good argument for doing something to provide further protection. What I don't find is an argument for committing this kind of indiscriminate slaughter. This was not even remotely the only option available for seeing to his/her family's safety.

And I certainly don't find an argument that morally justifies doing it with obvious glee, in a manner deliberately calculated to make one of those beings suffer as much as possible.

Seriously people, the whole point of this strip was the utterly gratuitous cruelty with which V acted. That was screamingly obvious to me and I can't believe it seems to have slipped right by so many otherwise intelligent people. Even if you think the consequences are good, gratuitous cruelty is the definitive Evil attitude. That's not a grey area.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, no exceptions.

Dude, we both know that isn't true.
By that reasoning, casting Holy Word is good beccause it is an [Good] spell?

Say I'm in a orphanage: is it still a good act? or just aligned [Good]?

That said: it was evil because she killed possible innocent dragons.

 

[Grog]

The Order didn't set out to kill the dragon and retrieve the starmetal, they set out to retrieve the starmetal, and were attacked by a dragon,

After they invaded its lair.

 

[resistor]

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.

Wow.

Just... wow.

Glad to know that you might come murder me out of the blue for something sister (or cousins, or great-grandfather, or ...) did.

---------

I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but I can't sit here and not say it.

This is the most morally repugnant, sickening, and revolting philosophy I have ever heard an actual person profess, and I'll consider myself lucky never to meet you or anyone who thinks like you in real life.

 

[drothgery]

Killing this particular black dragon? Clearly not evil, and in fact clearly Good by D&D morality. It's attacking innocents (V's family), and even the most exalted paladin would have no trouble striking it down.

Killing an entire family of black dragons in a world where dragons are 'color coded for your convience'? Prettly clearly not evil (even if a handful of non-evil half-dragons and such are killed). Maybe not Good (depends if non-evil creatures killed were a handful of extreme outliers, or a significant percentage)

Raising a black dragon you killed as undead creature? Clearly evil (spell has an [evil] descriptor on it).

Doing so expressly so you can watch said black dragon suffer? EVIL.

So V's actions were evil under D&D morality, but I don't think wiping out the black dragon's family was. OotS doesn't take place in Eberron; black dragons are 'always evil'.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Do your players believe everything that always evil creatures tell them?

 

[Remus Lupin]

Wow.

Just... wow.

Glad to know that you might come murder me out of the blue for something sister (or cousins, or great-grandfather, or ...) did.

---------

I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but I can't sit here and not say it.

This is the most morally repugnant, sickening, and revolting philosophy I have ever heard an actual person profess, and I'll consider myself lucky never to meet you or anyone who thinks like you in real life.

Gotta say, I'm sympathetic, particularly since the previous poster specified that any and all violence must be done in the maximally horrific way, if it is to be done at all, in order (contradictorally, it seems to me) to ensure its "last resortness."