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

[grimslade]

Ok. So for 16 pages we're still hung up on the killing the dragons part of the equation?
V used Create Greater Undead to not only bring back the Black Dragon but separate its soul from its mate and child in the hereafter. V has to earn some demerits for this.
V then casts an epic custom Necromancy spell Familicide to kill several dozen branches of said Dragons family tree. I don't think we are talking all of black dragon kind here, just a good small chunk.
What is V's motive for killing the family of the Black Dragon? Revenge, pure and simple. Defense did not require the creation of a greater undead to witness. Heck, witness was the least of his/her plans. The black dragon would have seen all of its relatives appear in the hereafter after familicide was cast. No V wanted the Black dragon to witness the death of its entire family and know that it will be forever separated from them. Soul trapped in the undead head while the rest go to Dragon hell/elysium/heaven. That's beyond cold. That's evil.
Really frickin' cool storyline tho.

 

[Slife]

Ok. So for 16 pages we're still hung up on the killing the dragons part of the equation?
V used Create Greater Undead to not only bring back the Black Dragon but separate its soul from its mate and child in the hereafter. V has to earn some demerits for this.
V then casts an epic custom Necromancy spell Familicide to kill several dozen branches of said Dragons family tree. I don't think we are talking all of black dragon kind here, just a good small chunk.
What is V's motive for killing the family of the Black Dragon? Revenge, pure and simple. Defense did not require the creation of a greater undead to witness. Heck, witness was the least of his/her plans. The black dragon would have seen all of its relatives appear in the hereafter after familicide was cast. No V wanted the Black dragon to witness the death of its entire family and know that it will be forever separated from them. Soul trapped in the undead head while the rest go to Dragon hell/elysium/heaven. That's beyond cold. That's evil.
Really frickin' cool storyline tho.

I was under the impression that he needed to create greater undead so he'd have a valid target for familicide. That's what it looks like, anyway.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The two words and the quote are from the west wing, and I'll eat a "mea culpa" on the ACTUAL quote being Civis Romanus Sum but I only found that out after researching the west wing quote.

The thing I find interesting about you citing this historical example in support of your "not evil" claim is that Rome is the example I most frequently use to illustrate what a Lawful Evil society might look like.

I suppose you imagine it was Good, though.

 

[Maggan]

V just accomplished 2 things 1) Lowered the number of beings that want to respond and take that risk and 2) Raised the ante high enough in this particular poker game that only the really powerful and brave can afford the buy in.

Interesting how much opinions differ. IMO, and if this showed up IMC, I'd rule it like this:

1. V radically raised the number of very powerful people/beings/deities who see her as a potential threat that needs to be contained or even controlled for greater good or evil.

2. Only the really powerful and brave (and maybe foolhardy) can buy in ... as long as V keeps being possessed by the three splices. When they leave, bye-bye V and family. So V has to stay possessed for the reminder of her life, and when that's done, there's nothing to stop ancient dragons to take their revenge on V's family. And if V should chose to be dispossessed, then suddenly the number of people who potentially can harm her increases dramatically.

/M

 

[Zimri]

And I'm sure there are plenty of such individuals - but I'm also sure they don't represent anywhere near the majority opinion.

Perhaps not but they do seem to find themselves in "key positions"

Since you seem to think that turnabout is fair play, let's turn this around: What is the virtue of an escalationary response?

1) It provides the kind of protection mentioned in my west wing quote. If you knew that should you harm one hair on the head of a citizen of country X that there was a darn good chance the full unbridled might of country X would rain down upon you and yours then you are far less likely to harm that person.

It doesn't have to be a country in the example either. If I am a Jet I know full well that should I hurt a Shark in neutral territory the rest of the Sharks are coming after me, and will probably hurt my other Jet friends that are with me at the time. Likewise I walk unmolested through neutral territory because the Sharks would rather not have me gather up a bunch of my friends and jump one of them.

This reasoning is precisely why (in my opinion) there hasn't been a nuclear war. Everyone who currently (as far as we know) has access to nuclear weapons WANTS to keep living. They comprehend that as soon as one weapon is fired in hostility that the response will end up destroying them , sure their enemies die too (and probably first) but for most people that isn't enough. It's M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction as opposed to multiple attribute dependency).

2) "proportional response" leads to exactly what Bartlett posited. They know the likely responses and a) factor them in and b) make the "assumed targets" as safe and unnecessary as possible.

I know that if I graffiti the opposing gangs freshly painted clubhouse that they will graffiti mine, but mine needs a paint job anyway then meh might as well tag them and then paint mine after they tag me back. If on the other hand I know they will up the price of poker and burn my building down if I tag theirs then I am far less likely to tag theirs.

 

[Zimri]

The thing I find interesting about you citing this historical example in support of your "not evil" claim is that Rome is the example I most frequently use to illustrate what a Lawful Evil society might look like.

I suppose you imagine it was Good, though.

I find the protection offered to their citizens to be good. I am quite likely not as well educated on the functionings of all the aspects Roman society as you are so all I will say on that matter is I find it odd that I am being chastised for predicting future action based on examples of past action but you get to freely paint an entire RL civilization as LE .

 

[I'm A Banana]

where races that are always evil really are raw malevolence given flesh, and always evil races kill off (or refuse to acknowledge as a member of their family) any of their nonevil halfbreed spawn, V is committing a good act, ridding the world of an irredeemable and dangerous menace.

It's odd; I agree with everything you say up until this point.

IMC, while negative energy doesn't necessarily mean "evil," EVIL energy DOES mean EVIL. Killing a being with the (evil) tag (as opposed to the Always Evil alignment) is almost always justified, because the thing is like a golem made of evil -- raw evil energy given form, incapable of choice or free will (it's part of the personality conflict inherent in tieflings, for one). That said, there are circumstances where the succubus is minding its own business and there are ways of killing her that would really be as evil as she is -- even the substance of the creature is no excuse for doing evil actions to it.

The Always Evil alignment is different, as is demonstrated over and over again in this thread, especially for unhatched eggs and related-but-not-always-evil kin.

Also, this, this, and this helps add to the "what V did was evil even if it was OK" pile.

IMC, there's no place for Good to have such double standards. "It's not OK for you, but it's OK for me because of what you are!" is not an acceptable Neutral outlook. That's putting your life as more important than others, which is the selfishness and egotism that is a hallmark of evil.

 

[Fenes]

"It's not OK for you, but it's OK for me because of what you are!" is not an acceptable Neutral outlook. That's putting your life as more important than others, which is the selfishness and egotism that is a hallmark of evil.

"I won't die for you, if it's you or me, then you die!" is the neutral stance. Even today, the old shipwrecked sailor example is still true: If a flaoting oar can only keep one of them afloat, they both have the right to save themselves by forcing the other to drown. Neither is expected to sacrifice himself.

 

[Krensky]

Rome.

I would not say that Rome was Evil because the real world is more complex then that; but the Republic, and even more so the Empire makes a fine template for a Lawful Evil society in D&D.

Institutional chattel slavery (which could be hereditary depending on why you were a slave), enshrining an act of mass kidnapping and forced marriage as something to be celebrated, brutal conquest and repression of it's neighbors because they were there, brutal repression of 'unacceptable' cults and religions (including Christianity and Judaism, along with a laundry list of now extinct faiths), blood sports, death sports, human sacrifice (the triumphal, and arguably what occurred in the amphitheaters and circuses). Yeah, it's a good place to mine for a template and broad outlines. It can also be used for Lawful Neutral or Good as well, depending on the time period and details you focus on.

As for Civis Romanus Sum, all of the historical reading I've done (and what I was taught in my classics courses) says that the protections you're refering to had nothing to do with those outside the Empire fearing retribution, and everything to do with the protections it afforded you within Rome. Primarily that pretty much every legal protection from actions of the state applied only to citizens. A Citizen could not be scourged or forced to confess. He had the right to be tried in Rome by judges, rather then summarily executed by the local prelate or officer, etc. Things that were legal to do against non citizens, were illegal to do to citizens. Generally speaking, Rome didn't care what happened to a citizen outside of it's borders as an individual, unless it was seen as an assault on the hegemony of Rome. If a merchant was trading independently with the Gauls before Caesar conquered them and got killed, the Roman state's opinion was that it was what he deserved for dealing with the Gauls. The exception, which I admit happened a lot, was if he was trading as a representative of Rome, and even carring a letter from a governor to his wife might trigger this, the the Legions would come down like a ton of bricks because it was an assault on Roman hegemony.

If people can provide objective history texts providing the punish all affronts against every citizen every where no matter the circumstance view, I'd be more then willing to read them.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I would not say that Rome was Evil because the real world is more complex then that; but the Republic, and even more so the Empire makes a fine template for a Lawful Evil society in D&D.

See, e.g., Calastia in the Scarred Lands. one of my favorite D&D nations of all time.