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

[Remus Lupin]

I think this is a fine solution, but it assumes that the God's are above alignment. In standard D&D, the God's are also subject to alignment, so a LG God would praise things that conform to LG behavior, and a NE Goddess would praise things that conform to NE behavior. So, these things are certainly consistent with your appraoch, but begin from what I think is the standard assumption in D&D, which is that alignment is absolute, not subjective, even if the subject is a God.

This, of course, is why there are so many contentious alignment threads.

 

[Zimri]

Actually, it's Civis Romanus Sum. "I am a Roman Citizen".

And it looks like you watch West Wing with the question.

Anyways..... in V's case, are you saying that his response was proportional? A proportional response is one where the punishment matches the crime. V laid down punishment far, far, far beyond the crime.

The two words and the quote are from the west wing, and I'll eat a "mea culpa" on the ACTUAL quote being Civis Romanus Sum but I only found that out after researching the west wing quote.

Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the Earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words civis Romanus -- I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens

And no I am not saying V's response was proportional not in the slightest

I don't know how close to the line I'll be skating for quoting a fictional government I'll just hope it isn't over it.

Bartlet: What's the virtue of the proportional response?
Admiral Fitzwallace: I'm sorry?
Bartlet: What is the virtue of a proportional response? Why's it good? They hit an airplane, so we hit a transmitter, right? That's a proportional response. They hit a barracks, so we hit two transmitters.
Admiral Fitzwallace: Yes, that's roughly it, sir.
Bartlet: This is what we do. I mean, this is what we do.
Leo: Yes sir, it's what we do. It's what we've always done.
Bartlet: Well, if it's what we do, if it's what we've always done, don't they know we're going to do it? I ask again, what is the virtue of a Proportional Response?
Admiral Fitzwallace: It isn't virtuous, Mr. President. It's all there is, sir.
Bartlet: It is not all there is.
Admiral Fitzwallace: Just what else is there?
Bartlet: The disproportional response. Let the word ring forth, from this time and this place, gentlemen, you kill an American, any American, we don't come back with a proportional response. We come back with total disaster! [He bangs the table]
General: Are you suggesting that we carpet-bomb Damascus?
Bartlet: I am suggesting, General, that you, and Admiral Fitzwallace, and Secretary Hutchinson, and the rest of the National Security Team take the next sixty minutes and put together an American response scenario that doesn't make me think we're just docking somebody's damn allowance!

 

[Alzrius]

The two words and the quote are from the west wing, and I'll eat a "mea culpa" on the ACTUAL quote being Civis Romanus Sum but I only found that out after researching the west wing quote.



And no I am not saying V's response was proportional not in the slightest

I don't know how close to the line I'll be skating for quoting a fictional government I'll just hope it isn't over it.

It's worth noting that by the end of that episode, the President had been convinced that a proportional response was the right one, both after the Generals and the National Security Team had shown him that they could bomb Hassan Airport and cripple the distribution of water and medicine to the region (Sudan, I think), and after Leo talked to him about how (I'm paraphrasing here) a proportional response is one that doesn't ratchet up the body count.

The virtue of a proportional response is that it's proportional - it doesn't start a war. Escalation means that when it's the other guy's turn to respond - and make no mistake, there's always someone who'll respond - their response will be that much worse than yours.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Remember that, if Roy's experience is any indicator, the good/evil of V's action will be determined when he sits down with a celestial bureaucrat (of whatever alignment) and defends his actions and decisions face to face.

It's not going to be "cosmic" or "subjective" at that point.

 

[Zimri]

It's worth noting that by the end of that episode, the President had been convinced that a proportional response was the right one, both after the Generals and the National Security Team had shown him that they could bomb Hassan Airport and cripple the distribution of water and medicine to the region (Sudan, I think), and after Leo talked to him about how (I'm paraphrasing here) a proportional response is one that doesn't ratchet up the body count.

The virtue of a proportional response is that it's proportional - it doesn't start a war. Escalation means that when it's the other guy's turn to respond - and make no mistake, there's always someone who'll respond - their response will be that much worse than yours.

And I submit to you and others that in the Case of "V Vs Black Dragon Clan" there was already escalation taking place the ABD went after V's family instead of V. I suppose V just should have rolled over and played dead, not bothered saving her family at all, because even had she stopped there someone bigger and badder would come for worse vengeance against her and her family for killing the ABD . You said yourself "there is "ALWAYS" a response." V just accomplished 2 things 1) Lowered the number of beings that want to respond and take that risk and 2) Raised the ante high enough in this particular poker game that only the really powerful and brave can afford the buy in.

 

[Remus Lupin]

The virtue of a proportional response, in addition to what others have said, is that it forces us to view war (or any violent conflict) as a rule-governed activity, in which only those parties who are directly involved are subject to attack. It says, "even in war, there are moral limits." In short, it situates us as members of a moral world.

As for escalation, you are right, sort of: V killed the dragon's offspring. Therefore, the dragon's action was, up to a point, "proportional." The additional torture and subjecting their souls to torment was *not* however proportional and amounted to escalation.

But V's escalation was of a much more basic type: He changed a conflict between individuals, or at worst, between families, to a conflict between SPECIES. Even if V hasn't wiped out every black dragon, he has now become an existential threat to all dragon-kind, and thus he is now subject to a *genuinely* proportional response: One that eliminates him as a threat, but not one that subjects all elvenkind.

The best way to carry this out: Let the elves condemn him, thus demonstrating to the dragons that this was not an action taken on behalf of all elves.

 

[Alzrius]

And I submit to you and others that in the Case of "V Vs Black Dragon Clan" there was already escalation taking place the ABD went after V's family instead of V.

Each person involved in a conflict can choose whether or not to escalate it when they take action. The fact that the dragon did doesn't mean that V had to then escalate things even further.

I suppose V just should have rolled over and played dead, not bothered saving her family at all, because even had she stopped there someone bigger and badder would come for worse vengeance against her and her family for killing the ABD.

Had she killed the dragon, there may have been someone who came after her for that. Killing an entire species, however, is much more likely to draw unfavorable attention to her and hers (see below).

You said yourself "there is "ALWAYS" a response." V just accomplished 2 things 1) Lowered the number of beings that want to respond and take that risk

I doubt that. In addition to the friends/associates/gods etc. of all the dragons V killed, that was a highly visible display of power. Now there's also going to be groups that want to destroy that power, or possess it, or something else, that will also be involved.

and 2) Raised the ante high enough in this particular poker game that only the really powerful and brave can afford the buy in.

This isn't a poker game - there is no "buy in" to getting involved; where power is concerned, people become fearful and/or greedy, usually in direct proportion to the amount of power displayed, prompting those people who were previously uninvolved to take action. V made things worse, not better - that's the problem with escalation; it makes things escalate.

 

[MarkB]

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

And I'm sure there are plenty of such individuals - but I'm also sure they don't represent anywhere near the majority opinion.

That's the whole point about stereotyping - you can't just find a few supporting examples, and then just assume they represent everybody else's opinion on the subject, because even within a particular group there will be a myriad of different viewpoints.

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 ?

Well, for one thing it doesn't lead to wasted innocent lives. Escalation, by its very nature, sucks more and yet more people into the conflict until it eventually becomes all-encompassing.

Since you seem to think that turnabout is fair play, let's turn this around: What is the virtue of an escalationary response?

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as I am concerned, detect evil is the gods' way of saying, "Needs killin'."

I don't make that particular leap. For my milage, "detect evil" is the gods' way of saying "This is on MY side." It's the rules' way of saying "SHAPECHANGED SUCCUBUS!" or "The king is a doppelganger!" or "The portal to Hell is probably behind Door #3." In other words, it reveals the truth about something hidden.

Whether or not that thing needs killin' isn't based on its alignment, but on the character's motives and the thing's actions. There is no "free pass" for killing; rather, each death needs to be considered on its own terms.

Violence is probably the most common solution in my games, but it is not always the best solution, and it is rarely the only solution. Fighting evil doesn't always mean killing things that are evil.

 

[Slife]

Detect evil IMC is houseruled so it's a little less stupid.

As is, the LG ghost of a level 20 paladin detects the same as a bone devil.

The paladin ability is altered as well - it's essentially "detect divine enemy". If someone pings, the question isn't "should I smite them", but "when and how should I smite them?". Magic can prevent you from pinging, but can't create false pings.

You don't get an alignment unless you're actively committed to and pursuing it. The merchant that routinely shortchanges customers? Neutral. The town guard who secretly hates elves? Neutral. Grunt #57? Neutral. The guy who works in the animal shelter all day helping sick puppies? Still neutral.

I'm also ignoring facepalm-worthy supplemental books like the BoED (Ravages? Really?) and the BoVD for alignment purposes.

I also ignore alignment-based class prerequisites. If you wanted, you could have a Paladin10/BabyEatingPuppyKicker10. As long as you didn't actually eat babies, you wouldn't lose your paladinhood, even if the flavor text on abilities is stuff like:
Depraved Hunger (Ex) "Your insatiable lust for delicious humanoid veal gives you the foul sight of unlife. As such, you can detect the location and condition of babies within a 50' radius."
On the other hand, if you actually used the class abilities in an evil way, like, well, pretty much any usage of
Baby Consumption (Su) "Every live baby humanoid you consume gives you a +1 morale bonus to all rolls for the rest of the day, up to your levels in Baby Eating Puppy Kicker",
you'd be an ex-paladin in nothing flat.

So, in my campaign, where negative energy is just as neutral as fire or earth, where races that are always evil really are raw malevolence given flesh, and always evil races kill off (or refuse to acknowledge as a member of their family) any of their nonevil halfbreed spawn, V is committing a good act, ridding the world of an irredeemable and dangerous menace.