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

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll agree that what he did was evil.


HOWEVER, it seems in some people's points they're using real world morality to define D&D morality (often these are conflated).

This is a game about killing things and taking their stuff. If you see an orc, you kill it. Why? Because it is an orc...and orcs are evil.

Black dragons are more evil than orcs but not as evil as fiends.


"Commiting genocide" against an evil people in D&D is a good act. It is done on a small scale every day. Doing something good on a larger scale is not less good, it is MORE good. (Caveat: Doing any act for evil reasons, even if it ends up a good act/consequence is still evi).

If I can kill an orc (without knowing anything about it other than that it is an orc) and steal its property morally, then I can kill hundreds of orcs, also without reason.

If dragons are worse than orcs, then I can do the same.

If I had a spell that would wipe out every fiend in the multiverse simultaneously, would it not be a good act?


But, what V did was evil. He tried to torture the creature, and he also killed some non dragons. Those reasons, along with the creating undead, made it evil.

 

[Humanaut]

Although i voted Evil. I would have done the same thing to prevent the endless parade of "you killed my father, prepare to die" encounters that would follow.

 

[Alzrius]

Just for fun, the closest spell I've ever seen this one is the Extinction spell - a twenty-third level spell - from Eclipse: The Codex Persona, a FREE d20 supplement from Distant Horizons Games.

 

[SolitonMan]

There's an interesting default assumption running through this discussion which is touched upon but not explicitly stated. That is that destroying an evil creature ultimately and unambiguously makes the world, on the whole, a better place. More "good".

But I think that in a realistically run campaign, matters are more complicated than that. It isn't just a creature's nature that matters, it's their complete affect upon their world. While it's true that evil black dragons wreak mayhem and destruction, it's not necessarily true that their removal would result in the living community suddenly all turning into shiny happy people. In fact, their mayhem and destruction will cause their victims to act, perhaps even to work together to defeat a common enemy.

The bottom line is that so much thoughtless destruction will have unforeseen consequences as power shifts and new opportunities arise. While it's possible that this will result mostly in good, it's not definite. Simply a simple conclusion.

 

[Nivenus]

Evil, RAW. Arguing by any other moral philosophy is pointless, since that's not the question that was asked, which was, "in D&D terms was V's act evil?" The answer is yes, unambiguously.

Vengeance, as defined by the official rules, is not necessarily evil, but is definitely on the slippery slope and is nongood. After all, the gods of vengeance are often evil or neutral. Retribution is not justice. Retribution, is about feeling good about something you shouldn't feel good about (which is, namely, killing or other forms of cruelty).

Let's also not forget here that V was being deliberately cruel which is, most definitely, RAW, E-VEEL (as another put it). Deliberately inflicting pain upon others who are helpless to resist lacks in mercy, which is a quality of good, RAW. As such, the very least that can be said about V's act was that it was not good. But a detailed look at the act will define it as evil as well.

For those indicating that black dragons are all evil, the alignment rules, as placed in D&D (particularly since 3e) do not make this a universal truth. Rather, it's a strong tendency. This tendency breaks down further in settings such as Eberron, where alignment archetypes are played fast and loose. While OotS does not seem to be as radical as Eberron, it should be noted that Burlew has already played with alignment stereotypes in the past (note the goblins from StoD or Miko acting in the way a stereotypically Lawful Stupid paladin would act and as a result becoming un-paladinified). It's also pretty clear that this is supposed to be a further demonstration of V falling down the slippery slope (I mean, what good's a Faustian deal if you don't get the slippery slope)?

For those more concerned about intentions than acts (even though, RAW, acts are more important by far) - V's intentions are not good either. It's crystal clear that V's intent is not justice, nor the safety of the world but pure sadistic vengeance. V wants to make the dragon suffer in a way that it is beyond even what the dragon was going to do to his/her family. It is not his/her intention even to keep her family safe. After all, surely, somewhere down the line, there's a friend or ally who will be rather displeased at V's act? No - it's about getting back at the dragon and doing it a way that demonstrates V's superiority of power better than the dragon could ever hope to match.

Let's phrase it differently shall we... "was it evil for the dragon to threaten to kill and trap the souls of V's family, due to the fact that V had killed her son?" The answer, of course, is no. Vengeance, RAW, isn't good. Likewise, V's act, which goes beyond even what the dragon intended to do, is most definitely evil.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

For those indicating that black dragons are all evil, the alignment rules, as placed in D&D (particularly since 3e) do not make this a universal truth. Rather, it's a strong tendency.

RAW?

From here: Dragon, True :: d20srd.org

Black dragon:
Alignment: Always chaotic evil

From here: Reading The Monster Entries :: d20srd.org
Aligment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.


Black dragons are ALWAYS chaotic evil.

(Half dragon-centaurs might not be)



Contrast that with:
orcs: sometimes chaotic evil.
and
drow: usually neutral evil.


If you can kill an orc on sight, or a drow on sight, you can sure as heck be a paladin who kills a black dragon on sight.

 

[Halivar]

Retribution is not justice. Retribution, is about feeling good about something you shouldn't feel good about (which is, namely, killing or other forms of cruelty).

I'm picking this nit only because we're using pretty precise language, here.

The definition of retribution is "something justly deserved; recompense." Retribution is, in fact, justice. It has nothing to do with the motive of the individual meting out the justice.

 

[Alzrius]

RAW?

From here: Dragon, True :: d20srd.org


From here: Reading The Monster Entries :: d20srd.org
Aligment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.


Black dragons are ALWAYS chaotic evil.

(Half dragon-centaurs might not be)

Read the corresponding entry in the MM (emphasis mine):

Alignment

This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole. See the Glossary for details.

Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

 

[RefinedBean]

So you are saying, revenge against a creature that is inherently evil, has a predispotion towards evil and is raised in a society that exalts evil and therefore has far less choice in aligning itself with good or any inherent inhibition against evil acts who commited an evil act by a creature who is raised in a society that exalts choice and respect for others (as elven society supposedly does since it is CG), and chooses to exercise such revenge on an extremely disproportional scale, is justified.

I have no idea what your run-on sentence said. I see the word justified. Yes, it's justified.

Broke my family apart, physically and almost mentally. Tied up my spouse for torture. Would make sure my children suffered eternal punishment.

Where you see disproportional scale, I see an extremely high-level caster making sure his family is safe from retribution. It's not V's fault this dragon happened to be so stupid and obstinate.

It's the OotS world. Most of its characters know exactly what's going on as far as D&D tropes go. A few eggs get broken to make omelets. The only thing that might make it an evil act is V taking a wee bit too much enjoyment in it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Killing evil creatures is good!

If you came across a tribe of orcs or goblins that wasn't rampaging and murdering humans - maybe they're even trading with them - would you decide to go in and start killing indiscriminately?

If there was a black or green dragon that just sat in it's cave and never bothered the nearby town of humans, would you run in and slay it and proclaim yourselves to be paladins?

I understand that, for some people, D&D is little more then "Hey, there's an angry monster" "I kill it!" But that very clearly hasn't been the case for OotS, and trying to typecast it as such is kinda weird.

Edit: Also, no, it's not justified. The whole idea of evil is that it's the easy path. Being the good guy isn't supposed to be sunshine, flowers, and rainbows. You see some do something unquestionably evil, yes, you stop it and then. You don't then kill it's family because they might be evil too, that makes you no different then the evil bad guy you stopped. I can't think of a single game or setting that has a meter of alignment or morality that wouldn't mark you down for it.