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

[Leatherhead]

I don't know why we are arguing over this to be honest. Sometime in the future Rich will reveal that V killed some innocent sorcerer kid and/or a converted saint half-dragon (or something equally good), and/or just let everyone know the spell was [evil] if he wants it to be know that V did an evil act. Otherwise it will be written off as acting under the influence of evil just as fast.

 

[Nivenus]

For those of you are saying, "would it be wrong to kill a few good people to destroy several thousand evil ones" - you're missing the point.

This is not about your own personal morality. The question was, in D&D terms, was V's act evil. You might believe intention/ends justify the means but D&D rules do not follow such a moral philosophy. Acts, with a wee bit of mindframe, are the determinator of alignment in the D&D rules. A creature is chaotic evil not because they maliciously intend to destroy everything sight but rather because they act in such a way thats results in said widespread destruction.

Similarly, a good character is defined by their qualities of mercy, generosity, and benevolence, by acts that benefit others. It is not intent that matters, at least not primarily.

Also, take a quick look at the comic. It's clear from the images portrayed that not all of the dragons are malevolent monsters. Some aren't even born yet (hence, being incapable of acquiring evil karma) and others appear to be adventurers (perhaps half-dragons?). It seems clear that Burlew at least doesn't look at this as a good act.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know. Making [insert vile dictator here] watch while his rule was demolished and his most loyal rapists and butchers were executed probably wouldn't elicit that same sort of response.

Making Calligula watch while Rome burned and all of his favorite minions were killed would be evil.

Not that it wouldn't be awesome. Not that it wouldn't be totally understandable. Not that Calligula would really care. But it would still be evil.

The act is evil.

Doing to something that is ALSO evil doesn't mitigate that fact. Cosmic Evil like D&D Evil isn't just "evil under certain conditions." It is what it is -- it likes it when you try to make things suffer. It doesn't really care WHAT you make suffer. Clearly, V is trying to make the dragon-momma suffer.

Generally any punishment for a crime short of execution is designed to ensure suffering on the part of the criminal. That's the core value of punishment - deterrence.

Actually, no, a Just punishment is specifically designed to make sure the criminal does NOT suffer.

I mean, that's the philosophy behind jail and even execution. It's not there to make the people experiencing it suffer, it is there to isolate those who cannot function in society without being a risk to others (and to remove them when isolation isn't enough).

It's true that that's not the way they usually get applied, but most people aren't Good or Just. Most people are unaligned (or neutral, if you prefer). Most people are emotional and are quite fond of bloody spectacle, and want to see those who are guilty punished. But just because most people want to see the guilty suffer doesn't mean it's good for the guilty to suffer. Good doesn't want suffering. Good wants to stop suffering. Adding suffering -- specifically, going out of your way to add suffering to the world -- is pretty freakin' evil.

 

[aurance]

There are are almost as many definitions of "D&D Morality" as D&D players, so this is not an easy one to answer.

Heck, even for myself it could be evil OR good, depending on what style of campaign I was running.

 

[Leatherhead]

Making Calligula watch while Rome burned and all of his favorite minions were killed would be evil.

I thought that was Nero?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, Calligula was slightly more infamous for being totally depraved, but Nero works, too.

The overall point being: Who you do an act to does not change whether or not that act is evil or not. If you do bad things to bad people, even if it's deeply satisfying, it's still bad -- it just makes EVERYONE bad. Evil wins, in that case.

I play my D&D games usually with alignment, and also with a lot of moral ambiguity, and this is part of the reason: it's totally possible to be Evil just by doing bad things, even if you're doing them to bad people for good reasons. The mayor who wants to torture the evil orcs isn't any less evil because the orcs in his torture chamber are ALSO evil. Just because a mind flayer only preys on rapists does not make the mind flayer a good (or even neutral) character.

 

[Nivenus]

There are are almost as many definitions of "D&D Morality" as D&D players, so this is not an easy one to answer.

Not really.

I mean, yeah, players and DMs usually interpret D&D alignment how they want to, but the definition of the alignments is written down, plan and simple, in several sources. And while 4e simplified alignment, it doesn't seem to have changed the overall difference between good and evil in D&D-style ethics.

So, no, there's the correct definition and then there's the ones that players and DMs who don't know any better (or more likely don't care) use. But there is a canon, official definition.

 

[grimslade]

Evil going into Vile

Killing every Black Dragon with a drop of the original Black Dragon's blood. evil
Creating an Intelligent Undead from the reanimated head of your foe for the express purpose of showing said foe the eradication of its entire family. Mega-evil. Mephistopheles would think V went a little too far.
I am not sure there is anything else left to do to the dragon at this point other than use the reanimated head as a commode.

Evil killing evil is not good. It is business as usual. There are half dragons, dracotaurs and probably kobolds also slain who may not be evil. So casting familicide is an evil act. Epic evil even.
Reanimating a fallen foe. Channelling Negative energy. Separating her from her mate and child in the hereafter is definitely evil.
There is not enough extenuating circumstances for V not to be damned after this.

 

[mlund]

Making Calligula watch while Rome burned and all of his favorite minions were killed would be evil.

Actually, I think the whole "burning Rome where all these innocent bystanders live, work, and raise their children," would be the evil part, not making Calligula watch.

Making Calligula watch would be rather ineffectual for the reason you already noted.

Doing to something that is ALSO evil doesn't mitigate that fact. Cosmic Evil like D&D Evil isn't just "evil under certain conditions." It is what it is -- it likes it when you try to make things suffer. It doesn't really care WHAT you make suffer. Clearly, V is trying to make the dragon-momma suffer.

Um ... not really. The idea that Suffering == Bad or that causing someone else's suffering is automatically evil is rather unfounded.

Heck, putting someone through the DTs is some of the most painful suffering you can inflict on another human being. Relieving that suffering by feeding their addiction, however, is immoral.

Suffering isn't morally charged. Why suffering is caused gives the act its moral onus. Making someone suffer to make yourself feel better is typically textbook cliched villainy Evil.

Actually, no, a Just punishment is specifically designed to make sure the criminal does NOT suffer.

Um, that's your opinion, I suppose. D&D takes place in a setting where "Just punishment" for thievery and vandalism is typically corporal punishment - inflicted suffering to deter the offender from further transgression. Pain and loss are natural teaching tools that can help positively shape an animal's behavior (humans included) or they can be abused to negatively shape that behavior.

I mean, that's the philosophy behind jail and even execution. It's not there to make the people experiencing it suffer, it is there to isolate those who cannot function in society without being a risk to others (and to remove them when isolation isn't enough).

Actually, the philosophy of non-corporal punishments such as imprisonment and fines stems from the idea that hurting a man's livelihood and liberty is more effective way of getting what society wants than simply hurting his body.

- Marty Lund

 

[Tiew]

Sure, it was an evil act, but the awesome kind of evil.

A question for the people who don't like killing a bunch of things just because they're evil. What if we rephrase and say we're killing a bunch of dragons because they're dangerous? I can see killing a bunch of retired outlaws or super evil hamsters who can't hurt anyone being a bit questionable. Killing a bunch of dragons who will probably kill many hundreds of people each over the course of their lives seems pragmatic. It almost seems evil not to do it if you have the chance. Think of the lives you'd be saving.