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

[Fenes]

This is incredibly fascinating.

For those of you who continue to say "not evil," may I ask:

If a paladin in your game performed the act of slaying the dragon and all of its kin to the Nth generation, said paladin would not fall? Is that right?

"Not fall" is the logical result if you believe the act is "not evil," but I just want to make sure.

In my games, gods and characters do not follow our modern values, but fantasy/medieval ones. The paladin would not fall for killing black dragons, just as she doesn't fall for killing evil people.

Also, in my games, revenge is usually a common motivation, and honor and customs being as they are, you have to expect that if you kill someone, their relatives will take revenge. The son that does not want to avenge his father is the exception, not the norm.

And finally, in my game, my NPCs - especially my evil ones - are not suicidal. After such a spell, just about everyone would think twice about messing with such a power. Some fanatic priest of Tiamat might - might, if Tiamat did not simply write this off as the ABD making a fatal mistake - want to take revenge, but almost all dragons, for example, would simply write a memo to themselves "Do not mess with that elf, ever!".

To borrow some old image: If I don't expect level 1 PCs to go after the ancient red dragon they hear about, I don't have dragons going after the "epic dragonbane mage" they hear about. Not unless those dragons have some very low intelligence and wisdom.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In my games, gods and characters do not follow our modern values, but fantasy/medieval ones. The paladin would not fall for killing black dragons, just as she doesn't fall for killing evil people.

The act did not kill only black dragons. Nor are all black dragons evil.

Also, in my games, revenge is usually a common motivation, and honor and customs being as they are, you have to expect that if you kill someone, their relatives will take revenge. The son that does not want to avenge his father is the exception, not the norm.

So in your games, paladins aren't help to any higher standard than "common motivations" in terms of morality? And, by extension, in your games "taking revenge" by killing someone who had nothing to do with the act for which you're taking revenge is also okay for paladins?

Like I said, incredibly fascinating.

 

[Fenes]

The act did not kill only black dragons. Nor are all black dragons evil.

So in your games, paladins aren't help to any higher standard than "common motivations" in terms of morality? And, by extension, in your games "taking revenge" by killing someone who had nothing to do with the act for which you're taking revenge is also okay for paladins?

Like I said, incredibly fascinating.

As I said: In my games, tribal and clan loyality is a given.

As an example: My game contains a barbarian. If his clan is in a bloodfeud with another clan, then killing any warrior of said clan, no matter if they are attacking him or not, no matter their alignment, is not an evil act.

Yes, paladins are held to a higher standard. But that doesn't mean they are held to a modern standard. They have to act honorable, and their honor allows, in many cases demands that they kill people who insulted them. If the insult came form a noble, that would mean in a duel, if the insult came from a commoner, that would mean on the spot.

As an example, if a peasant would throw "You filthy arrogant orc-loving child-out-of-wedlock" at a paladin, most of my paladins would have to kill the peasant or they'd fall for violating their code.
Of course in my campaign paladins are widely known as champions of their god, on missions with a divine mandate, and peasants would not insult them anyway. And if a paladin would receive the option to use such a familycide spell, I'd make sure the paladin would also know his or her god's stance on it.

As a more specific example, if a paladin of mine would get the option to kill every priest and follower of say Shar, she could use that option without falling - I'd most likely rule that she would risk falling if she did not take it, and allowed those people to continue spreading harm and misery.

 

[Zimri]

Well, extrapolating a large group's behaviour from a single sample is, essentially, the definition of stereotyping. And applying that process to an ethnic group would be racial stereotyping, which is, to my knowledge, widely considered to be one of its worst forms.

So yeah, I'm pretty certain about it. And I don't have to speak for others, regardless of intellect - they can, and have, spoken for themselves on this subject.

Since I am prohibited from using some excellent modern examples of people who have some nicely framed pieces of paper from highly touted educational institutions who have acted counter to what it is you are saying I will instead give you two words and ask you a question.

the two words Civis Romanus

The question What is the virtue of a proportional response ?

 

[Zimri]

This is incredibly fascinating.

For those of you who continue to say "not evil," may I ask:

If a paladin in your game performed the act of slaying the dragon and all of its kin to the Nth generation, said paladin would not fall? Is that right?

"Not fall" is the logical result if you believe the act is "not evil," but I just want to make sure.

What is the difference between doing it one at a time with a sword, or all at once with a spell. They dragons are still just as dead, one way takes longer. Which is better motivation "my deity said go forth and rid the world of all things distasteful to me " or "my mate and children whom I love were in peril"

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm INTENSELY glad Jeff brought up paladins, because I was trying to skirt around this, but here goes:

People who are saying not evil, have you ever had a paladin fall in your games?

 

[Zimri]

I'm INTENSELY glad Jeff brought up paladins, because I was trying to skirt around this, but here goes:

People who are saying not evil, have you ever had a paladin fall in your games?

Yup he (I) helped and ummmmm "associated" with a succubus.

 

[Fenes]

I'm INTENSELY glad Jeff brought up paladins, because I was trying to skirt around this, but here goes:

People who are saying not evil, have you ever had a paladin fall in your games?

No. Paladins in my game only fall if the player wishes it so - and I never put them in front of choices where they can only pick the lesser of two evils - they always have at least one or more non-evil options open, and at least the player, but usually the character as well know what those options are.

 

[Remus Lupin]

There is an underlying assumption in many of the replies that, generally speaking, killing a black dragon who is not a current or imminent threat is considered "good" or at least "not evil," and therefore, the mass murder of potentially hundreds of them falls into the same category.

However, I want to call that assumption into question.

A party of adventurers entering a town are told "there's a black dragon living in the swamp a few miles away, but he hasn't harmed any villagers in hundreds of years, and as long as the alligator population stays high, he doesn't bother the livestock. You see, the local cleric brokered an agreement between the village and the dragon long ago, which the dragon has complied with for all of these years."

Under such circumstances, if the party of adventurers sought out the dragon in order to kill it, I would consider that an evil act. They would be justified in killing the dragon only to the degree that the dragon represents a direct threat. Same with goblins, orcs, and kobolds.

In the case of OotS, the original black dragon slaying took place, they blundered into the dragon and were immediately attacked. Arguably, they could have attempted to escape, prepare spells, and then reassess, instead of staying put and doing so, leading to the "disintegrate" moment, but it was nevertheless a situation where the dragon was hostile to them, attacking them, and representing a threat. That is what made the dragon killable, not "being a black dragon."

 

[Piratecat]

Ah, who doesn't love threads about alignment?

Oh, yeah. Me.

Everyone, please take a second before posting and make sure you're not insulting the people who disagree with you. It's fine to have a differing opinion; it's not okay to take a cheap shot at other people. If you can't do this, our vengeance will be closer to suspension than familicide, but we'll still start a thread discussing whether or not Piratecat's action was evil.

Thanks!