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

[Aberzanzorax]

In a game of killing things and taking their stuff, V has commited the ultimate sin.




He killed things....


....but then DIDN'T TAKE THEIR STUFF!

 

[WalterKovacs]

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.

Killing an entire bloodline compared to killing the immediate family is "in kind"?

There is a definite escalation between killing a spouse and two children, and the sheer number of dragons killed. There were generations there, not just the children/spouses of that dragon.

If the dragon went to the Nth degree (which was going from a child killed to a pair of children and a spouce killed), then V went exponentially higher up the degree scale.

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.

However, while the dragon was in a blood feud, it was only able to act because of a number of mistakes on V's part. Because V:

(a) was split from the party
(b) was unable to teleport
(c) was not resting (and thus missed a touch attack against a black dragon)
(d) was wasting spells on a minor nuisance

The dragon had an opportunity to strike, and V's family was put at risk. Knowing that there was/would be a dragon coming after then would have made things a lot easier to protect them. It would be nearly impossible for the same situation to occur unless the dragon relative was even higher level than the dragon in this instance.

The argument that this will prevent a powerful creature from seeking revenge seems unlikely. If anything it will definitely call the attention of something like say ... Tiamat, or perhaps a dragon that is high level enough to survive the spell, or just relatives that aren't directly related. More deaths makes it more likely that someone will notice.

 

[Mikaze]

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

Yep, the frequency isn't a definite, but the alignment segment is. Though the degree to which one is evil can vary. Bubba Cowbotherer is going to be less evil than Xanthos Souleater, but that doesn't make him not evil. Then there are the whys and wherefores of their evilness, which could, and sometimes should, weigh on whether it's justifiable to shank 'em.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I view it as a Vile act, not just an Evil act.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Exterminating a family of living, thinking beings, while gloating about it to their parent, whom you force to watch, is evil.

The act. Not the intention. The act.

Note that the alignment of the things you kill doesn't figure into it. If I somehow had a succubus in a cage and I made her watch as I summarily killed every one of her half-satanic bastard-children, that would be evil.

I don't really see how that could NOT be evil.

I mean, this is the basic ACT:

I make you watch while I kill your sons and daughters and grandchildren.

There isn't a mitigating factor of "intent to help the world by killing black dragons."

There is only the action itself.

And the complete disregard for life and mercy that it showed.

V went the extra step to ENSURE that suffering would come to the mother.

Inflicting suffering, devaluing life, murder, murder, murder.....evil, evil, evil.

Not that it wasn't also AWESOME.

 

[Halivar]

Yep, the frequency isn't a definite, but the alignment segment is. Though the degree to which one is evil can vary. Bubba Cowbotherer is going to be less evil than Xanthos Souleater, but that doesn't make him not evil. Then there are the whys and wherefores of their evilness, which could, and sometimes should, weigh on whether it's justifiable to shank 'em.

Ah! Now Dungeons and Dragons meets Calvin and Rousseau. There are merits to the argument that no one in D&D is ever not evil. Just less evil.

Except maybe the Apostle of Peace from BoED; but then, I don't know anyone that ever played one.

 

[Leatherhead]

I would like to point out this is not a case of indiscriminately killing, it is quite discriminatory in fact, by any definition of the word I have come across.

 

[mlund]

Exterminating a family of living, thinking beings, while gloating about it to their parent, whom you force to watch, is evil.

The act. Not the intention. The act.

Note that the alignment of the things you kill doesn't figure into it. If I somehow had a succubus in a cage and I made her watch as I summarily killed every one of her half-satanic bastard-children, that would be evil.

I don't really see how that could NOT be evil.

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.

Our perceptions of mothers, children, and family that are shaped by basically decent people - rather than (literally) inhuman monsters - shape a lot of our sympathies.

The real evil stems from the fact that the killings are directed based on bloodlines, not culpability.

And the complete disregard for life and mercy that it showed.

Neutral characters don't really have to show regard for mercy, nor do good characters need to show much regard for malicious and evil life-forms.

V went the extra step to ENSURE that suffering would come to the mother.

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.

Again, V's act was evil not because of the amount of killing involved, but the indiscriminate nature of said killing. Oh, and probably because the spell came with the [EVIL] descriptor embossed in gold letters ... with 30 pt. font.

I would like to point out this is not a case of indiscriminately killing, it is quite discriminatory in fact, by any definition of the word I have come across.

Actually, it can easily be both at once. The meaning of "indiscriminately" in a sentence depends on context. "Indiscriminately killing black dragons," is not an oxymoron despite the fact that killing black dragons instead of blue dragons is discriminating.

Within this dragon's family it definitely kills the good with the evil, the malicious with the benign, and the guilty alongside the innocent. That's killing indiscriminately among a pre-determined population.

To argue otherwise is to say that killing persons at random isn't "indiscriminate killing" because the murderer isn't also targeting ants, trees, and stray dogs.

The meaning depends on the context.

- Marty Lund

 

[mlund]

Whoops. Double post.

 

[resistor]

I am... honestly, kind of sickened that anyone can possibly say it's not evil.