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

[I'm A Banana]

"I won't die for you, if it's you or me, then you die!" is the neutral stance.

Yeah, but "I deserve to live more than you!" is an evil stance.

It's kind of the difference between killing because you have to, and killing because you want to kill things. The first is not evil. The second is.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Yeah, but "I deserve to live more than you!" is an evil stance.

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Can you elaborate?

Personally, I think the PHB explains the (G/E) Neutral position as clearly as it explains anything to do with alignment: "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him." (page 104)

Expressed that way, I find it very easy to understand the (G/E) Neutral viewpoint, but I have seen many others who apparently don't.

 

[Fenes]

Yeah, but "I deserve to live more than you!" is an evil stance.

It's kind of the difference between killing because you have to, and killing because you want to kill things. The first is not evil. The second is.

If I am saying "You need to die so I can live" I am saying exactly that - I deserve to live more than you do. And that's neutral, not evil.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Can you elaborate?

There is a difference between protecting your own survival, and condemning the survival of another.

Sometimes (often, in D&D) your survival will mandate that you kill another -- it's kill or be killed. Sometimes the survival of something you protect will mean the same thing: either this guy dies, or the orphanage is burned to the ground (or whatever). The first is mostly neutral, the second is mostly good.

The Evil thing to do is to kill it, not to ensure your survival, but to ensure its demise. Your survival is important, but you just liked killing it. You enjoy the act of murder. You actively want that thing to die. You feel good, not because you lived, but because that other guy DIDN'T.

Neutral is "I protect myself." (and also: I fluctuate between the other two views). It is "I win."
Good is "I also protect those who can't protect themselves." It is "everyone wins!"
Evil is "I have the right to kill it." It is "you lose."

It's a fine distinction, and not always obvious, but that's part of why Evil, IMC, is something the PC's always face to a certain degree in themselves. It's inevitable that normal people feel those "evil" D&D emotions -- vengeance, anger, power...but what separates the Good from the Neutral from the Evil is how you view what you kill. You kill it out of some necessity, you're probably not Evil. You kill it out of some hubris, you probably are.

So V's action wasn't protecting himself (or his family); when the dragon momma died, that was accomplished (perhaps some extra abjurations to be safe). V's action wasn't protecting the innocent -- there were no real third parties involved here. V's action was, however, demonstrating that V has power over life and death, that V had the express right to kill hundreds of beings as a simple show of power and vengeance.

If I am saying "You need to die so I can live" I am saying exactly that - I deserve to live more than you do. And that's neutral, not evil.

No, If I am saying "You need to die so I can live," I am saying that my survival depends on your death. That doesn't imply that my life is somehow more important, that they are weaker than me, that they deserve death more, or in any other way imply my superiority. Enemies in war who respect each other, hunters that honor their prey, none of these people devalue the lives of their enemies.

You have just as much right to live as I do. Luck and skill might determine who gets to survive, but your death isn't something you earned, it's something that the situation has forced on us. Maybe you caused the situation and refuse to stop it? Maybe I did? It regrettable that we can't both emerge from this, but it is a necessity.

It is Evil to think that you do not have as much right to live as I do. Even if you're a baby-eating puppy-kicker, and have shown that you never want to change, the only reason you have to die is because you're trying to eat my babies (neutral) or because I need to protect the babies (good), not because your life has less value than mine, not because you deserve to live less, or I earned it more.

It is Neutral to protect myself by killing you, because you threaten me.

It is Good to protect the helpless by killing you, because you threaten them.

It is Evil to do anything by killing you, because you are worth less.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I think I understand the difference. It's the difference between retreating to survive even if it means someone else dies, and throwing that person into the monster's path in order to cover your escape.

 

[Hussar]

Well, the conversation not-withstanding, at 83%, this has to be one of the largest consensuses (is that the right plural form?) of opinion on alignment I think I've ever seen on En World.

Sweet. We can mostly agree that V's act was evil. Much better than the bloody Belkar discussions a while back.

 

[hamishspence]

Actually, when its "you must die so I can live" an awful lot of the time, its Evil. If you go by BoVD:

"Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act."

Example:
Ship is sinking, last lifeboat is full, if you don't get on, you will die. You shoot 1 person, spring aboard, and shove the body overboard.

You and another person are shipwrecked on desert island. You have contacted civilization by radio- rescue will be here. Only- theres only enough water to keep 1 person alive over the time it will take (no other sources)
You bash the other person when he's not looking, kill him, and wait for rescuers to arrive.

Both are "its him or me" but also, both are textbook Evil, not Neutral.

 

[Zimri]

There is a difference between protecting your own survival, and condemning the survival of another.

Neutral is "I protect myself." (and also: I fluctuate between the other two views). It is "I win."
Good is "I also protect those who can't protect themselves." It is "everyone wins!"
Evil is "I have the right to kill it." It is "you lose."

It's a fine distinction, and not always obvious, but that's part of why Evil, IMC, is something the PC's always face to a certain degree in themselves. It's inevitable that normal people feel those "evil" D&D emotions -- vengeance, anger, power...but what separates the Good from the Neutral from the Evil is how you view what you kill. You kill it out of some necessity, you're probably not Evil. You kill it out of some hubris, you probably are.

So V's action wasn't protecting himself (or his family); when the dragon momma died, that was accomplished (perhaps some extra abjurations to be safe). V's action wasn't protecting the innocent -- there were no real third parties involved here. V's action was, however, demonstrating that V has power over life and death, that V had the express right to kill hundreds of beings as a simple show of power and vengeance.

Except that there was in fact necessity involved in killing the family members of the ABD. We had just had proved to us that as far as ancient black dragons go they enjoy the whole vengeance shtick and coming at their enemies through the things they care about rather than a frontal assault.

In fact V's own words were

Had you simply attacked me I would have left you dead. But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict. This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today's events will never rise again to threaten them"

So is V lying there ? We know through the comic that of all the representatives of this black dragon family at LEAST 50% of them prefer vengeance and going after family members. When dealing with your spouse and children is 50% an acceptable risk? It isn't for me.

She was protecting her family as best she could at the time given her mental state.

Protecting herself = neutral Check

Protecting the helpless ( I don't see her kids or mate fending off dragon attacks ad infinitum or being able to be "sequestered and secluded" where they can't be found) = Good check.

Do you call something you enjoy doing a task ? Does it really matter IF she enjoyed doing it or not ?

 

[Zimri]

Actually, when its "you must die so I can live" an awful lot of the time, its Evil. If you go by BoVD:

"Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act."

Example:
Ship is sinking, last lifeboat is full, if you don't get on, you will die. You shoot 1 person, spring aboard, and shove the body overboard.

You and another person are shipwrecked on desert island. You have contacted civilization by radio- rescue will be here. Only- theres only enough water to keep 1 person alive over the time it will take (no other sources)
You bash the other person when he's not looking, kill him, and wait for rescuers to arrive.

Both are "its him or me" but also, both are textbook Evil, not Neutral.

There exists an island (desert or otherwise) somewhere in the world where you can get a message to a rescuer and they can't get help to you within (number of days you have water for) + 3 days ?

 

[Maggan]

So is V lying there ?

No, she's simply explaining how she came to the conclusion that she should kill a lot of dragons.

We know through the comic that of all the representatives of this black dragon family at LEAST 50% of them prefer vengeance and going after family members.

Nope. 1 out of 60. The rest of the family that were killed by V was not going after her family members at all.

So an overwhelming majority of the black dragons depicted, most of them albeit very briefly, had chosen not to partake in the single black dragon's quest for vengeance.

She was protecting her family as best she could at the time given her mental state.

Sure, and her mental state = possessed by three supremely evil magic-users. That will factor in when V goes up for an alignment audit.

/M