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

[Zimri]

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

Really ? I posit that if the dragons stopped coming after you killed one then THIS fight never would have taken place. If black dragon's didn't come seeking revenge (and upping the price of poker along the way) then this black dragon wouldn't have come seeking revenge against V's family for V killing her son. Seeing as how she DID come seeking revenge and revenge against innocent people at that what leads you to believe something else wouldn't have come after the ABD was dead.

 

[MarkB]

How , precisely, does the frame of mind or emotional response of the killer change the results of the action ? Grandma or 64 dragon's are no less or no more dead than they otherwise would have been had the killer been angry or morose instead of gleeful.

D&D alignment cares more about motivation than results. Killing someone with regret and remorse is a lot less evil than taking pleasure in the act of slaughter.

Really ? I posit that if the dragons stopped coming after you killed one then THIS fight never would have taken place. If black dragon's didn't come seeking revenge (and upping the price of poker along the way) then this black dragon wouldn't have come seeking revenge against V's family for V killing her son. Seeing as how she DID come seeking revenge and revenge against innocent people at that what leads you to believe something else wouldn't have come after the ABD was dead.

Extrapolating the behaviour of an entire race from the actions of one person is the worst kind of stereotyping, and not even vaguely realistic.

 

[Maggan]

If black dragon's didn't come seeking revenge (and upping the price of poker along the way)

And all black dragons do that?

Irrespective, what V did was display a power that will have profound and long-term consequences to the safety of her family; thus the action puts them into further jeopardy.

/M

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You know, I think I found one of the issues with this thread.

I'm going to throw this out there.

You can do something evil and, through it, achieve something good. But what you did is still evil.

V's actions might - might - result in something good. Or they might not. But the end result does not matter; both the action itself and the reasons FOR the action are evil. Both of them. The "It's totally not evil" people have yet to talk about HER DOING IT SPECIFICALLY TO TORTURE SOMEONE SHE JUST RAISED FORM THE DEAD. That's a bit of an important thing to note.

 

[Starfox]

Irredeemably evil

However he justifies it to himself, those dragons had done nothing to him, nor were most of them threatening to. Removing their right to choose is an evil act however you look at it.

It can be excused from a lawful point of view. "I do this to save my people, sacrificing my own immortal soul so that generations of my friends and their children can live safely." Still evil, you still go to hell (if you subscribe to hell), but maybe worth it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The "It's totally not evil" people have yet to talk about HER DOING IT SPECIFICALLY TO TORTURE SOMEONE SHE JUST RAISED FORM THE DEAD. That's a bit of an important thing to note.

My bad. I've been operating under the assumption that the "act" referenced in the thread title was the overwhelmingly salient point-- casting Familicide. In that light I kind of overlooked the unsportsmanlike conduct charge.

So, good catch.

V also seemed kinda cold and distant to the spouse and kids and couple of panels back, let's not forget that. That's got to be weighed against his actions, too.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Irredeemably evil.

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?

 

[Fenes]

One thing many are not considering is that in "olden times" (and unfortunately, in many lands today) you are expected to avenge a killed family/clan member - no matter why he was killed. Even if he was killed to avenge someone he killed. See where this goes?

The acepted good/honorable/lawful behaviour for many human societies was and in a few cases still is to have bloodfeuds. One cousin of yours tries to rob your neighbor, and is killed in self defense. You are obligated to kill one of your neighbours (male) family in response. And they are obligated to kill one of yours, should you succeed, in return.

Now, call me cowardly, evil or whatever, but if I was living in a world where I'd have to expect such acts of vengeance even and especially from good and honorable people then I would see "familicide" as just anotehr form of self defense, sparing me the untold suffering such a blood feud would bring on my family.

Given to what length that evil dragon went to make V suffer, and how important family was to her, I'd guess that most of her brood share her views, and I'd assume that even the non-evil of her brood would most likely feel compelled to enact some revenge after the first wave of dragons trying to avenge their ancestor were killed.

 

[Fenes]

Also, not to nitpick, but I saw the raising of the dragon as a needed part to be able to center the spell - it goes out from the undead head. It may not have worked with a corpse as initial target.

 

[MarkChevallier]

And I'll consider myself lucky to never meet anyone who thinks it's fine and dandy to want to kill my wife and kids because their brother and I got in a bar fight.

Is that what you're suggesting resistor's saying? Because that doesn't follow at all from anything they've said.

If instead you are saying "thank god I will never be in a position to have to make this tremendous decision to wipe out someone's entire family", well, somehow I doubt you actually would get around to doing that. More likely, you wouldn't, given that we live in civilised society where professionals take on the tough job of providing justice and protection so that you don't have to commit abhorrent, repellant and disgusting mass-murder so that you can pretend to provide it.

In many moral debates that take place in someone's comfy front room (or the electronic equivalent), there are different kinds of people who engage in debate. Some people are sincere and try to engage in the debate, thinking not only "what would I do?" but also "what would be the right thing to do?"

Some people stop at the "what would I do?" question, and once they've ascertained that, they rationalise their proposed actions with a moral justification. This is still sincere, if not very reflective or thoughtful.

Some people say instead "what would I want to do?" And the whole issue becomes a form of fantasy for them; if I was attacked, I'd totally kill the attacker. If my family was attacked, I'd totally kill their family. If my nation was attacked, I'd nuke them from orbit. This is insincere, in my opinion, because they're not actually debating morality. They're fantasising about revenge. In this personal fantasy, morality is irrelevant and only the weakest of all possible "eye for an eye" moral arguments are deployed.

But it's fine: these are armchair morality debates. I've discussed things with people who claim to hold a variety of repugnant views, but I'm not particularly worried about them: someone can claim to hold a view that they would discard in a second if face with the reality of the situation. Like a professed white racist, who if he actually meets a black guy in a social context, may behave well enough due to social mores until he learns that, actually, he quite likes the guy.

There is always a danger that you're dealing with an armchair moralist who actually takes the issue seriously. But many people who claim to hold repugnant views actually would never put them into practise if they had to be ones to do it. Some do. But I'm hoping no-one like that is here.

Apologies for the digression.