Was V's act evil? (Probable spoilers!)
- Thread starter Jeff Wilder
- Start date
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
DELETED
Never mind.
Never mind.
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
I teach business ethics, and you know, you'd be ASTOUNDED at the number of people who don't actually know that. But I agree with the general point.
hamishspence
Hero
The comment about cases like these being in legal textbooks: what is the expected verdict- for killing someone in a lifeboat just before it casts off, in order to take their seat, when there are no seats left?
Second degree murder? Manslaughter? Justifiable homicide?
I'm curious, because in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness- the writer, who says there is nothing inherently good about altruism, and that self-centred behaviour is moral behaviour, also says-
initiating an attack on someone, even in a survival situation, is morally wrong "the code of the cannibal", and that the "anything done to survive is moral"idea, is wrong.
She may have odd ideas, but here, doesn't seem quite so odd.
EDIT: On the Evilness, or lack of, for V's Act, maybe we should break down the reasons.
Evil:
*Targeted non-combatants (dragon eggs)
*Killed beings with only regard for relationship with ABD- not for known crimes (not all evil beings have committed crimes that deserve death penalty
*Was motivated by revenge- family protection is only secondary
Non-evil:
*Targets were Always Evil creatures and Nearly Always Evil creatures
* was motivated by concern for others
Second degree murder? Manslaughter? Justifiable homicide?
I'm curious, because in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness- the writer, who says there is nothing inherently good about altruism, and that self-centred behaviour is moral behaviour, also says-
initiating an attack on someone, even in a survival situation, is morally wrong "the code of the cannibal", and that the "anything done to survive is moral"idea, is wrong.
She may have odd ideas, but here, doesn't seem quite so odd.
EDIT: On the Evilness, or lack of, for V's Act, maybe we should break down the reasons.
Evil:
*Targeted non-combatants (dragon eggs)
*Killed beings with only regard for relationship with ABD- not for known crimes (not all evil beings have committed crimes that deserve death penalty
*Was motivated by revenge- family protection is only secondary
Non-evil:
*Targets were Always Evil creatures and Nearly Always Evil creatures
* was motivated by concern for others
Last edited:
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
I think this is one of the things I base my judgement on. From how I read the comic, V did not slay the dragons out of concern for others. That is mere pretext for vengeance and soothing her own injured pride. It is also in large part brought on by the hubris that V has projected since forever in OotS.
So for me this equals evil.
And this might be where the line is drawn in this debate. Those who are of the opinion that V did what she did out of concern for others, and those who are of the opinion that she didn't.
Depending on what side of the line you stand on, the verdict on her actions might look very different.
/M
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
I think it could factor in, but even if I believed that V was acting totally out of concern for others, rather than revenge, I'd still argue that the act itself was inherently evil (in several respects).
Aran Thule
First Post
Well ive finally finished reading OotS and can now give my opinion on V's actions....
Epic Evil, with a good dose of stupid.
I cant see Tiamat taking kindly to someone doing that to her children, i suspect the oracle will be passing on a few messages at the very least.
If V had done this in one of the games i am playing with then they could well have killed my character who is a paladin with a black dragon bloodline. (so i might be a little biased.
In reply to an earlier question asking 'have you had a paladin fall'...
No but my cleric twice fell from favor in Ravenloft, once for being present at an evil ceremony and doing nothing to stop it and the other for vengefully killing someone that had killed a companion.
Epic Evil, with a good dose of stupid.
I cant see Tiamat taking kindly to someone doing that to her children, i suspect the oracle will be passing on a few messages at the very least.
If V had done this in one of the games i am playing with then they could well have killed my character who is a paladin with a black dragon bloodline. (so i might be a little biased.
In reply to an earlier question asking 'have you had a paladin fall'...
No but my cleric twice fell from favor in Ravenloft, once for being present at an evil ceremony and doing nothing to stop it and the other for vengefully killing someone that had killed a companion.
Then the issue should be settled, considering that there was an entire strip devoted specifically to making it completely, unambiguously clear that s/he was not motivated by concern for others. This is not a matter of opinion where both sides are equally valid. If there are people who think concern for others was on the table, they are just plain mistaken.
hamishspence
Hero
well, latest episode does cement it: phrase V uses is "this is the price of threatening my family", not "this was the only way to ensure they will be safe"
merelycompetent
First Post
IMC, extremely. Perhaps irredeemably.
See, when I start a campaign, I hand players a little handout that gives advice, lists house rules, and tries to set the expectations for the game.
One of those expectations is that the players are playing HEROES.
Heroes don't kill other intelligent beings because of their alignment. There are plenty of other reasons to kill them. One of the greatest victories a Hero can achieve is converting someone else's evil alignment to good.
Heroes sometimes (maybe often) take the dirty, pointy end of the stick in the face so that innocent bystanders (NPCs) don't have to.
Heroes don't kill other intelligent beings because of what they *might* do.
Heroes can kill other intelligent beings because of that creature's stated intentions and plans.
Heroes take prisoners.
Heroes accept surrender of their opponents.
Heroes aren't required to be idiots.
Heroes aren't required to commit pointless suicide.
V didn't just kill that dragon.
S/He brought her back as an undead dragon head to torture.
S/He brought her back to wipe out her entire family.
Only one of whom had ever expressed any hostility to him/her.
A family that contained members that were not REQUIRED to be evil by RAW (the half-dragons).
A family that contained members who were incapable of harming V in any way (the eggs).
A family that contained members who had never expressed any hostility to V, ever.
S/He made a deal with ALL THREE epitomes of absolute evil - demons, daemons, and devils - to accomplish this goal.
S/He used protecting his/her family as an excuse, where only ONE dragon, defeated and slain, had ever attacked them. A quick disintegrate + gust of wind (or even a Wish, in V's current state) would have rendered that dragon as near to absolutely unable to come back, and harm him/her in any way, as it is possible to achieve within the game system.
S/He did it after the dragon was defeated, slain, brought back as an undead, and surrendered completely.
The good guys don't kill non-threatening creatures half a world away because they *might* pose a threat in the future.
The good guys don't wipe out an entire bloodline because they *might* seek vengeance.
The good guys, their families, and loved ones have to live with some risks. (Just like the bad guys, their families, and loved ones have to live with some risks.) A "might" isn't enough risk to justify mass killing, and remain morally or ethically good within the game system.
What V did is one step short of genocide.
It should be treated as such.
IMC, the player would get several warnings - "Are you sure you want to do this? You do know that creating undead is an evil act? You do know that you have no idea if this dragon's family contains any non-evil members, like a half-dragon paladin? If your spell kills any innocent bystanders, your alignment will go evil. Innocent bystanders includes dragons still in the egg shell, because they can't threaten you or your family."
If the player's character does it, instant evil. Soul successfully tempted, doomed to the lower planes. PC is now at the #1 Most Wanted spot for many good temples... and evil temples. Heck, they'll actually work together to end the threat.
I look forward to seeing how Mr. Burlew handles this story. I'm especially looking forward to Roy's reaction, and his actions. I mean, I didn't think any of the characters could surpass Belkar for outright bloody, murderous, uncaring evil. Nothing like a little Faustian corruption to prove me wrong!
See, when I start a campaign, I hand players a little handout that gives advice, lists house rules, and tries to set the expectations for the game.
One of those expectations is that the players are playing HEROES.
Heroes don't kill other intelligent beings because of their alignment. There are plenty of other reasons to kill them. One of the greatest victories a Hero can achieve is converting someone else's evil alignment to good.
Heroes sometimes (maybe often) take the dirty, pointy end of the stick in the face so that innocent bystanders (NPCs) don't have to.
Heroes don't kill other intelligent beings because of what they *might* do.
Heroes can kill other intelligent beings because of that creature's stated intentions and plans.
Heroes take prisoners.
Heroes accept surrender of their opponents.
Heroes aren't required to be idiots.
Heroes aren't required to commit pointless suicide.
V didn't just kill that dragon.
S/He brought her back as an undead dragon head to torture.
S/He brought her back to wipe out her entire family.
Only one of whom had ever expressed any hostility to him/her.
A family that contained members that were not REQUIRED to be evil by RAW (the half-dragons).
A family that contained members who were incapable of harming V in any way (the eggs).
A family that contained members who had never expressed any hostility to V, ever.
S/He made a deal with ALL THREE epitomes of absolute evil - demons, daemons, and devils - to accomplish this goal.
S/He used protecting his/her family as an excuse, where only ONE dragon, defeated and slain, had ever attacked them. A quick disintegrate + gust of wind (or even a Wish, in V's current state) would have rendered that dragon as near to absolutely unable to come back, and harm him/her in any way, as it is possible to achieve within the game system.
S/He did it after the dragon was defeated, slain, brought back as an undead, and surrendered completely.
The good guys don't kill non-threatening creatures half a world away because they *might* pose a threat in the future.
The good guys don't wipe out an entire bloodline because they *might* seek vengeance.
The good guys, their families, and loved ones have to live with some risks. (Just like the bad guys, their families, and loved ones have to live with some risks.) A "might" isn't enough risk to justify mass killing, and remain morally or ethically good within the game system.
What V did is one step short of genocide.
It should be treated as such.
IMC, the player would get several warnings - "Are you sure you want to do this? You do know that creating undead is an evil act? You do know that you have no idea if this dragon's family contains any non-evil members, like a half-dragon paladin? If your spell kills any innocent bystanders, your alignment will go evil. Innocent bystanders includes dragons still in the egg shell, because they can't threaten you or your family."
If the player's character does it, instant evil. Soul successfully tempted, doomed to the lower planes. PC is now at the #1 Most Wanted spot for many good temples... and evil temples. Heck, they'll actually work together to end the threat.
I look forward to seeing how Mr. Burlew handles this story. I'm especially looking forward to Roy's reaction, and his actions. I mean, I didn't think any of the characters could surpass Belkar for outright bloody, murderous, uncaring evil. Nothing like a little Faustian corruption to prove me wrong!
Similar Threads
