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

[Quartz]

Guys! I think a large number of posters are missing that in D&D 'Not Good' is not the same as 'Evil'. In D&D there is the third, Neutral, way. V's act is clearly not Good, but it is not Evil. The dragon's descendants that died are simply dead. Not tortured. And note that some of them survived - not all have Xs for eyes - like the dragon next to the eggs and the flying dragon in the middle of the 3rd from bottom row.

 

[hamishspence]

half-dragons

Yes- while the template says "alignment- same as base creature" the actual sample half-human half black dragon is "Often Chaotic Evil."

BoED is the only source which goes into issue of killing evil beings in depth.

According to it: killing beings that detect as evil, in the absence of specific wrongdoing, is an evil act. "Violence must have just cause."

Heroes of Horror says something pretty similar- that not all evil beings are lawbreakers, and "just killing" the townsman that detects as evil, will lead to murder charges for the killer.

Fiendish Codex 2: Murder- 5 pt corrupt acts- where corrupt acts are Evil acts that have a strong effect on your afterlife destination in enough amounts. Even if your alignment is Good.

I'd say, killing something with absolutely no evidence of crimes committed, no issue of self-defence or defence of others, etc, is murder- every half dragon, and possibly every dragon, if Rich Burlew treats them as more Usually Evil than Always Evil, has been murdered.

 

[Relique du Madde]

And note that some of them survived - not all have Xs for eyes - .

Sorry to break it to you, but according to window's "magnify.exe" those are x's.

 

[Krensky]

And note that some of them survived - not all have Xs for eyes - like the dragon next to the eggs and the flying dragon in the middle of the 3rd from bottom row.

Zoom in close. All Xs. All dead.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Anyone who has ever shot a kobold brigand (or, heck a human brigand) in the back while they are running away from their botched highway robbery should appreciate that the morals in D&D are a bit different than in our world.

Except of course this isn't even comparable. This isn't shooting someone in the back that is fleeing the seem of a crime. None of the dragons "saw it coming", they did not have the option of surrender, some of them, like the dragon eggs had yet to commit an evil act.

While it can be morally ok to kill neutral creatures, that doesn't mean it is always ok to do so. If the bartender in town is not good, a paladin can murder that guy in his sleep and not fall? It's not evil right?

Murdering neutral creatures that pose absolutely no threat to you nor anyone else (at the moment) is hardly a neutral act. If the brigand in the original question is neutral, is not commiting a crime, and in fact has yet to commit a crime (it's possible in the future that it may) then shooting them in the back while they are sitting at the bar ... is a more accurate comparison.

 

[Mikaze]

From Rich Burlew's "Order of the Stick" ongoing web-comic, strip 639:

Under your D&D's alignment system, was V's act evil?

Evil.

Undeniably evil.

Satan-ramping-a-motorcycle-over-twenty-Hitlers-EVIL.

Using a creature's alignment alone as an excuse to kill it is never justified. "Always _____" does not mean ALWAYS ______, even with angels and fiends(canon examples abound).

V's action itself and his/her intent were both solid platinum evil. Put them together and you get double-fudge evil, with no milk to wash it down.

 

[Halivar]

Ah! But here's a twist! If the "always" in "always evil" isn't always "always", is the evil in "always evil" always "evil"?

Let that cook your noodle. Then cover and simmer.

 

[Friadoc]

Given the situation, while the root action that V took was evil (it's a necromancy spell that I bet has an Evil tag on it), I can totally see the how and why of the action and, even though it is evil, it's justifiable, in my book. The dragon took it to the Nth degree, V had little choice, save to follow and return, in kind, what was being given.

Evil?

Yes, at its root the spell is evil, thus the act was evil, but it's a justifiable evil and, as a DM, while I would enforce a penalty for V's action, which is obvious from the deal that was made to gain such power, not all of it was evil. While I'm sure some may disagree, in and out of game, I've been of the opinion that sometimes bad things have to happen, in order to protect the greater good.

The dragon obviously had a blood feud, one that would have continued, so V, caught in parental rage, did what had to be done, sadly I'm sure that V's family is going to be, understandably, disconnect for some time, though.

 

[Krensky]

Given the situation, while the root action that V took was evil (it's a necromancy spell that I bet has an Evil tag on it), I can totally see the how and why of the action and, even though it is evil, it's justifiable, in my book. The dragon took it to the Nth degree, V had little choice, save to follow and return, in kind, what was being given.

Evil?

Yes, at its root the spell is evil, thus the act was evil, but it's a justifiable evil and, as a DM, while I would enforce a penalty for V's action, which is obvious from the deal that was made to gain such power, not all of it was evil. While I'm sure some may disagree, in and out of game, I've been of the opinion that sometimes bad things have to happen, in order to protect the greater good.

The dragon obviously had a blood feud, one that would have continued, so V, caught in parental rage, did what had to be done, sadly I'm sure that V's family is going to be, understandably, disconnect for some time, though.

V had two choices. The head delivered by Imp thing. V also could have, you know, not have ethnically cleansed the dragon's relatives. It's all evil, all the time, regardless of intentions. This wasn't eye for an eye (which tends to leave everyone blind, one of it's main problems) this was a head for an eye (which is the other main problem). If someone kills you family, you don't get to go out and kill them. If someone kills threatens and tries to kill your family, you don't get to kill their entire lineage.

 

[mlund]

Well, wiping out an entire species or family isn't evil in and of itself. Vaporizing all those darn face-huggers of "Aliens" fame, for example, wouldn't be an act of evil. Wiping out a strain of bacteria wouldn't be either.

We're talking about sapient creatures here, though. One could argue that there are some races or classifications of sapient creatures that don't really have free-will: that they are always and automatically forces of malice and evil. Wiping them out wholesale could likewise be argued as not evil in and of itself.

What make's V's act evil in D&D is its indiscriminate nature. It could very well kill Good and Neutral creatures who would never think to V or V's family. Though collateral damage is an ugly fact of life when major have a conflict around bystanders, this was no such exchange.

This was akin to executing everyone around the battlefield so that no potential enemy combatant could escape. The possibility of catching a few innocents in your net is the reason why non-Evil folks would take prisoners in such circumstance rather than resort to indiscriminate mass-killings.

- Marty Lund