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

[Umbran]

This really should be a public poll so all the namby-pambies could out themselves.

Dude, if you want to insult people who don't agree with you, do it elsewhere.

Everyone - you know the rules. Don't get personal.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Actually, generally, necromantic death magic is evil, period.

Not according to the SRD. Necromantic and [death] descriptor (but no evil descriptor or flavor text):

Finger of Death
Slay Living
Destruction
Circle of Death

EDIT: BUT it would be evil to fireball an orphanage of innocent humans in D&D (despite fireball not being an evil spell) and it would be evil to heat metal a captive to torture them (despite heat metal not being evil).

 

[WalterKovacs]

V is currently "effectively evil" in terms of having 3 unquestionably evil souls attached.

If an evil creature kills other evil creatures using an evil spell, is it a good act? That's basically what's going on.

And there is the matter that it definitely killed half-dragons, and could hyptothetically get into quarter/eight/etc ... i.e. eventually getting to sorceror's and their ilk, who are definitely not 'always evil'.

Ultimately, you either go with:

(a) All black dragons are evil, so nothing you do to them can be good. If that is the case, casting an evil spell is always evil, not matter what good comes out of doing so.

(b) Casting an evil spell isn't inherently evil, you can do it for good reasons/good effect and have it be a net good. However, if that is possible, it is equally possible for black dragons or their off springs to not all be uniformly evil.

Either way, there is at least some evil involved in V's act.

If nothing else, V isn't Ozymandius. V is hardly feeling every death, nor is V intending to make the world a better place by these actions.

Another list:

1 - Intent: Clearly evil. V made the dragon know that it's family was to be killed. It was revenge meant to one-up the dragon's escalated plan of retribution.
2 - Spell use: Two evil spells used back to back. The creation of undead is known as evil, and the new spell is almost assuredly evil since it could just as easily be cast on a good creature. (It can't be a good spell as the evil caster would be unable to do anything with it).
3 - Result: First one has to determine whether there were any non-evil targets of the spell. This depends on how far down the family line it goes (i.e. past half-dragons), whether black dragons are born evil (or even pre-born in the case of the eggs), and whether a black dragon could be made not-evil through some method. Now, even if some were non-evil (not necessarily good, but potentially neutral) there then becomes the issue of the omlette. It's ok if only a small percentage weren't evil [party's regularly kill neutral creatures, like animals or some mercenaries, etc].

One other thing: V can't make the cop out that V could not control V's actions because of being under the influence. If that were the case, than all dragons, being always evil are also under the influence of some external force that makes them evil. They aren't choosing to be evil, while V rejected an alternate plan that would have prevented the need to agreeing to become influenced by the evil souls of the other casters.

 

[billd91]

If you leave aside the possibility that somewhere in the tree of dragons and dragonspawn, there might have been something interbred with something not inherently evil, would you still feel the same way?

In other words, is the only thing that makes his act evil the fact that it might have hit an innocent bystander?

No. It was also done specifically to torment another creature. It's evil on quite a few levels and from quite a few angles.

 

[Filcher]

To OP, re: D&D morality ...

This is no different than fireballing a tribe of orcs ... on a planetary level.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Ultimately, you either go with:

(a) All black dragons are evil, so nothing you do to them can be good. If that is the case, casting an evil spell is always evil, not matter what good comes out of doing so.

(b) Casting an evil spell isn't inherently evil, you can do it for good reasons/good effect and have it be a net good. However, if that is possible, it is equally possible for black dragons or their off springs to not all be uniformly evil.

***********************

If nothing else, V isn't Ozymandius. V is hardly feeling every death, nor is V intending to make the world a better place by these actions.

Another list:

1 - Intent: Clearly evil. V made the dragon know that it's family was to be killed. It was revenge meant to one-up the dragon's escalated plan of retribution.
2 - Spell use: Two evil spells used back to back. The creation of undead is known as evil, and the new spell is almost assuredly evil since it could just as easily be cast on a good creature. (It can't be a good spell as the evil caster would be unable to do anything with it).
3 - Result: First one has to determine whether there were any non-evil targets of the spell. This depends on how far down the family line it goes (i.e. past half-dragons), whether black dragons are born evil (or even pre-born in the case of the eggs), and whether a black dragon could be made not-evil through some method. Now, even if some were non-evil (not necessarily good, but potentially neutral) there then becomes the issue of the omlette. It's ok if only a small percentage weren't evil [party's regularly kill neutral creatures, like animals or some mercenaries, etc].

I have to agree that he has done some evil, but disagree with some of your statments.

First, the biggest disagreement is that the epic spell is evil. I think we can all admit create greater undead is evil (what with the evil descriptor and all). Why is the epic spell evil? Not because it can kill innocents, that is up to the caster to be cautious of (just like fireball can kill innocents). Not because it is a death effect, the spells I listed prior to your post are all death effects and not evil. So why is the spell itself evil?

Other than animating the dead, he did two evil things: 1. He was uncautious about innocents (like if some half/quarter/one-onehundreth dragons who were innocent or good got killed). 2. He had evil intent to mentally torture the dragon. Torture is always evil.

Like I said in my prior post, it's not the spell that was evil, it was the use of it. Just like a hammer and insecticide aren't evil. If I used them on a captive to break his fingers or spray up his nose, THAT would be evil.


EDIT: One other thought, though. Either the dragon HAD to be undead to cast the spell (that WOULD make the epic spell evil because it required an evil spell component-the undead) or it did not (that would mean he raised it just to be a jerk). Either way...evil.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In one of my games (Night Below, I assume heavily modified for 3.5), our PCs were on the verge of destroying an entire generation of kuo-toan "fingerlings." In the end, we couldn't go through with it. My character, a cleric of Moradin, made the final call when we were literally on the doorstep. He was seriously conflicted about it, but just couldn't bring himself to commit the act. This occurred just last session. So this whole discussion is particularly timely for me!

The thing that I find fascinating is that I don't even think this OotS case is even close. I find it so clearly evil -- even under D&D morality -- that I'm flabbergasted that 15 percent of respondents can argue the other way, except (almost literally) as a devil's advocate. I am an I-like-alignment diehard, but I guess this definitely illustrates one of the system's shortcomings.

 

[Scribble]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this...

Even if "all Black Dragons are evil," the strip shows that not just 100% black dragons were killed. Notice the Black Dragon centaur? I think this gives support for there being a whole lot more then just "black dragons" caught in the spells grip.

Once you start getting into half/dragon and their respective children and decedents... you start getting into the V possibly killed a number of other alignments- Maybe even some lawful Good types.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I voted evil. Enough reasons for that have been put forth already.

The more interesting point, I think, is just how incredibly, astoundingly, mind-blowingly STUPID V's act was. You kill a dragon. Dragon's parent shows up to take retribution. You kill the parent & all dragons, half-dragons, & dragonspawn related to it in order to prevent the situation arising again.

Hmm. How far does the spell go? Does it kill friends? No? Then you're going to have some ticked off new enemies searching you down. Yes? Then what about their relatives who are now seeking vengeance? What about mates? Again, if it doesn't kill them, they're after you; if it does kill them, their relatives are after you.

Basically, the only way this spell could truly fulfill the purpose for which he claimed to cast it would be to utterly annihilate ALL life on EVERY plane. So, V either wasted V's time casting something that will bring even worse retribution down upon V & V's family, or V killed everyone everywhere (including Vself).

Epic FAIL.

 

[Halivar]

I vote Chaotic Kickass: an alignment heroes and villains alike can respect.

For those who think V was evil: consider the fact that no matter where you are, he can kill you. And he can scry. And perhaps even read your thoughts, if he didn't take that as an opposed school.

Now, answer the question again.