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

[Thasmodious]

Of course it was evil. He indiscriminately killed a great number of beings without regard to their own guilt or innocence. If you want to argue that all black dragons are evil, that's fine (despite the note about always), but half-dragons and other dragonspawn are not, so some of the progeny could well have not been evil themselves. You even see one half dragon biting the dust.

Another sign it was evil - the three most evil and powerful wizards of all time thought it was awesome and one of them invented the spell, which was certainly [Evil].

Casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, no exceptions.

Another note - killing evil is not always good. A devil does not commit a good act when he kills a demon. V was certainly consumed by evil when he fought the dragon.

Raising the dragon as an undead - evil

Doing it just to torture him further - extra evil

This was the no going back type of evil.

 

[Cadfan]

There seems to be a reasoning that if there are irredeemably evil beings then there can be no irredeemable actions taken against them.

Not necessarily. That characterization is coming from the people who voted "evil." The people who voted "not evil" tend to take a little less extreme position: that if there are inherently, irredeemably evil beings, then its ok to kill them. I'm sure we could come up with something worse than killing if we tried.

I voted "not evil," but I also think that classical D&D morality is incomprehensible and inconsistent. You just can't have "this race of beings is always evil" and redeemed succubi in the same moral system, unless you define "always" to mean "mostly," and "race" to mean "its really about the individual."

Which just doesn't make sense.

 

[Uzzy]

Indiscriminately slaughtering huge numbers of sentient beings for the sole purpose of making one suffer even more? (See the 6th panel) That is horrifically evil, and I hardly think V is going to stop there. I would not be surprised to see V keep the undead dragon head around, or just bind her soul.

I'm also thinking this is an even more evil act then Xykon's bouncy ball. There was at least a legitimate reason behind Xykon's actions, namely his desire to get to the gem containing the tare in the fabric of reality. The only reason behind V's actions here are to cause the Dragon to suffer more. (His excuse that it's to protect his family is nonsense, given V's disregard to his family's welfare earlier in the strip)

 

[Thasmodious]

I'm sure we could come up with something worse than killing if we tried.

Like killing, then raising it from the dead so it can be destroyed with the knowledge that every single living relative is dying with it? Yeah, I'm sure we can think of something...

It's hard to get past that the spell itself is clearly [Evil] and casting [Evil] spells is evil, period.

 

[Cadfan]

Like killing, then raising it from the dead so it can be destroyed with the knowledge that every single living relative is dying with it? Yeah, I'm sure we can think of something...

It's hard to get past that the spell itself is clearly [Evil] and casting [Evil] spells is evil, period.

If I awoke to find that I lived in a multiverse where a being who's entire race was objectively "always evil" wasn't necessarily evil itself, yet where casting a spell with the "evil" descriptor WAS always evil regardless of the effects of the spell, I would picket outside god's house until this obvious error was resolved.

 

[Nymrohd]

There seems to be a reasoning that if there are irredeemably evil beings then there can be no irredeemable actions taken against them. If dragons exterminate elves, it's evil, but if elves exterminate dragons, it's not, because dragons are evil. What actions are being taken becomes almost meaningless- what matters is who you are doing it to. Any action that results in less evil in the world is by definition good.

I wouldn't subscribe to this in my game, but if that's what's meant by 'always evil' then V's action can't be called evil and indeed, if he focuses exclusively on evil beings, he could do far 'worse; and still come out fine.

--Z

But there is no irredeemably evil creature in D&D. By the RAW you could sanctify Pale Night and she'd become lawful good. You could probably do it to Tharizdun if you could beat his Will save!

 

[Savage Wombat]

Hey, that half-dragon in full armor was CLEARLY a LG paladin. So you can't make the case that "they're all evil" because you don't KNOW.

There's a spell somewhere in the core 3.5 rules that kills a creature's nearest living relative - I'm pretty sure it had the EVIL descriptor. This spell is a gajillion times worse.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Possible spoilers.

Let's rephrase the question.

Would killing a line of mosquitos be evil? Probably not, or we have some wicked, wicked exterminators in the real world.

Would killing a whole horde of illithid be evil? Aberrant, brain-sucking monsters? What if one of them was a vegetarian (ate the brains of Treants, maybe)? I suspect a LOT more people would say "not evil."

Miko, the pala-monk of questionable sanity, was perfectly fine with slaying the baby dragon because "its scales weren't all shiny." Roy had a run-in in the prequel books with a "good" party that was perfectly fine slaughtering orcs who were just waiting in line for concert tickets.

In the real world, up until relatively recently, you were considered good if you killed other humans who weren't of your tribe/religion/ethnicity/book club.

The only "correct" answer is that V's acts are evil if Rich Burlew defines them as such, since he is in fact the Dungeon Master of his world. Any other answer is arguable.

 

[FireLance]

I vote for evil.

First off, assuming that V was motivated by a desire to keep his family safe, could he have achieved the same objective without killing so many creatures? With all the magical power at his fingertips, I'm fairly sure that he could have. At the very least, he could have teleported his mate and children to Hinjo and Durkon, who would be able to afford them some degree of protection. The fact that this action was his first resort is one strike against him.

Next, I am not so sure that his motives were that pure in the first place. Even if he felt it was necessary to kill all black dragons in the world, why did he animate the dead dragon and tell her what he was about to do first? Unless that was a necessary element of the spell, that would imply he was motivated more by revenge and the need to make the dragon suffer mentally instead of simply wanting to keep his family safe. That's a second strike against him.

Of course, none of the above matters if you accept that killing every single black dragon in the world, including children and eggs, is not an evil act. I personally think that it is at the very least unjust to kill a creature simply because it is likely to commit evil, and the scale and extent of the killing pushes it into definitely evil territory for me. That's strike three against V.

Quite frankly, I am now waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm fairly sure that you don't use a spell named familicide without some kind of karmic backlash. Or, given that it's an epic spell, some literal backlash, and not necessarily against the caster.

 

[Tarau]

If Rich taught us something, it's that the world of OotS is not as morally objective as the classic D&D world. However, we also know that usually evil and always evil don't usually apply (except for fiends and angels, I presume). I would be surprised if all the black dragons of the 'verse were evil. Killing one, and only one innocent dragon/half-dragon simply because he or she is related to the mother, is obviously an evil act. Also, this is clearly an act of vengeance. I believe that in D&D, the intention is as much important as the act itself.

That's not even considering the fact this spell probably has the Evil descriptor.