"OotS- Varsuvius Evil." Topic

Roy has missed the warning re: V.

However is (s)he actually Evil?

I contend that while (s)he knowingly took a Chaotic route, at the point she took it she believed (s)he was doing it for the greater good. And while V's actions may be considered disproportionate they hold a logical internal consistency for someone trying to do 'good'- protect family and defeat mad lich.

Remember, the "agents" who gave him the soulsplice said that there was absolutely nothing involved that made V evil. His/her actions after the soulsplice were entirely the elf's doing.

Wyatt

Also, the setting uses D&D cosmology and alignment – That objectively defines some actions as evil, regardless of intent. Anyway, I'd suggest that exterminating an entire family line of dragons was obviously evil. It's not like they were a threat to Vaarsuvius.

"Remember, the "agents" who gave him the soulsplice said that there was absolutely nothing involved that made V evil. His/her actions after the soulsplice were entirely the elf's doing."

Yeah… but would YOU trust those guys?

However is (s)he actually Evil?

Who cares? Alignment is transitory in the setting.
-Kle.

Anyway, I'd suggest that exterminating an entire family line of dragons was obviously evil.

The problem is that this is in conflict with D&D's monster alignment premise, which is that all non-humanoid monsters of a particular race/species follow one specific alignment. This is especially true of dragons. The dragons in question were all black dragons, and therefore all "lawful evil," IIRC. Killing black dragons individually— even young ones— is always a "good" act, correct? Why then would killing them en masse be an evil act? In D&D terms, Vaarsuvius simply eliminated a major evil influence on the planet, saving countless humanoid lives as a result. Furthermore, the elf's motive, while excessive, was genuine: protecting the innocent. So in D&D terms, nothing "evil" was done.

And that, of course, is the flaw with D&D alignment concepts, because such reasoning cannot be applied in the real world. In our world, this is the sort of thinking that produces the "nits make lice" atrocities we all (hopefully) abhor. I'm curious as to whether the author is going to explore this difference further.

I understood the 3rd ed Monster Manuals to use phrasing such as "usually Lawful Evil", rather than "always …" – probably because of the popularity of Drizzt .

What V's power was doing was magnifing 'good' acts to point of extremism. The party killed the original black dragon- not only a 'good' D&D thing to do, but (and I haven't looked for the strip to check) a reasonable action for them at the time. The Parent then came and threatened V's family in blood-feud. What V did is took the logical step of ending the blood feud there and then (because then it would be the mother's brother, then his off-spring etc etc). V was merely applying Bedford Forrest's maxim. If V had wiped out the whole clan one at a time then it would not be seen as evil.