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

[Nymrohd]

Not the lack of an [Evil] tag on black dragons, even if they're always evil (which doesn't actually mean always).

Not all black dragons are evil, and ultimately they still have the possibility of being different. They're mortal, and have some (albeit rare) chance of being something other than their racial norm. They're not fiends. They aren't physically made of EVIL. They don't exist as manifestations of abstract malevolence.

An act of genocide strips each and every member of that black dragon race of the possibility of redemption. Even if 99% of them are evil, it's an overwhelmingly, grossly, and yes irredeemably evil action.

In 3E you can even redeem creatures with the evil descriptor. Heck if you tried hard enough you could even redeem a crossdressing arcanoloth.

 

[catsclaw227]

Irredeemably, like a black dragon? Like always evil?

Or is there a new definition of irredeemably to go along with the new definition of always?

I am still looking and I cannot find any rule text stating that black dragons are irredeemably evil. Can you point me in the direction where you are getting your facts?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In 3E you can even redeem creatures with the evil descriptor. Heck if you tried hard enough you could even redeem a crossdressing arcanoloth.

Which is exactly why nothing evil should EVER be killed by good characters in D&D.


Why, that would be monstrous! Are good characters to stoop to the level of killing? Then they're just as evil as the "always evil" creatures they're supposed to redeem!

 

[Grog]

V was done safeguarding her family after she slew the dragon.

The fact that this dragon targeted V's family for revenge after one of its own family members was killed proves you wrong on this point.

Also, I still have to note that no one seems to think that killing the first black dragon was evil. So we're back to, it's okay to kill things to become rich and powerful, but not okay to kill things to protect your family members. That's a heck of a twisted moral code.

 

[Nymrohd]

"Raises hand" I think killing the first black dragon, in the way it was killed at least was borderline evil. There was no element of self-defense anymore, at that point they had simply intruded on a creature's lair and instead of running away, which they had both the time and opportunity to do, decided to kill it and take its stuff. Moreover the ease with which V killed that dragon pretty much proved the point that if he/she wanted to, V could have subdued the dragon instead of killing it.

As for whether V's priority was to protect his/her family, read the previous posts. V did not actually do anything to protect her/his family until now. At best V removed the stakes with which her/his spouse was impaled (and for all we know said spouse may be bleeding more profusely now because of it). V prioritised revenge instead of getting his/her family healed.

 

[Maggan]

The fact that this dragon targeted V's family for revenge after one of its own family members was killed proves you wrong on this point.

How would this dragon still be a threat to V's family after it being killed? I'm so not following your line of reasoning here.

/M

 

[catsclaw227]

Also, I still have to note that no one seems to think that killing the first black dragon was evil. So we're back to, it's okay to kill things to become rich and powerful, but not okay to kill things to protect your family members. That's a heck of a twisted moral code.

Wait... who said that it's OK to kill things to become rich and powerful? It certainly isn't Good, and the D&D alignment system would agree.

I haven't seen many posts that state that killing things to become rich and powerful is a trait of Good characters. It's even questionable for neutral PCs.

 

[Ripzerai]

Note that many of the creatures Vaarsuvius killed were half-dragons (judging from the illustration). Even if there are no non-evil black dragons, does this extend to their half-humanoid kin?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you're playing the Dungeons and Dragons where the goal of your PC is to fastidiously avoid the accumulation of wealth and power in your pursuit to redeem the souls of evil creatures through... I don't know, tough love or something-- then you have deviated just a teensy bit from the core experience of seeking out evil creatures, slaying them righteously, and accumulating wealth and power so that you can slay ever more powerful evil creatures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Which is exactly why nothing evil should EVER be killed by good characters in D&D.

What's wrong with killing things that aren't evil?

Self-defense and defense of others don't just fly out the window because it's not evil. If my PC's were attacked by a crusading angel of goodness and light who attempted to burn them to ash for some vendetta the creature had, they wouldn't shift to evil for killing it. If my PC's were attacked by a troop of evil orphans, clearing out their evil orphanage wouldn't be evil.

"Being evil" isn't a reason to kill something any more than "being an orc" or "being over the age of 50" or "being a person with green eyes." Similarly, "not being evil" isn't a reason to stay your hand, any more than "not being a person with green eyes" isn't a reason to spare their life.

It's about what they do, not what they are.

If you're playing the Dungeons and Dragons where the goal of your PC is to fastidiously avoid the accumulation of wealth and power in your pursuit to redeem the souls of evil creatures through... I don't know, tough love or something-- then you have deviated just a teensy bit from the core experience of seeking out evil creatures, slaying them righteously, and accumulating wealth and power so that you can slay ever more powerful evil creatures.

I think you misapprehend the core experience. The core experience isn't to seek out evil creatures, slay them, and repeat on an escalating scale. The experience is to stop evil, then stop greater evil.

The difference is that you're not seeking out evil creatures to slay, you're just stoping evil acts from being done (by evil creatures, by good creatures, by neutral creatures). If the neutral thief is murdering neutral citizens in the neutral street, you don't ignore him and go fight the evil goblin five kingdoms away just because he's not evil and the goblin is.