If it didn’t die, maybe it wasn’t a relative. Maybe it had just hooked up with a relative.
And now I’m starting to think of it as the Family Reunion Spell. Bad mind. No muffin for you.
I thought V said the undead part was temporary implying that she’d be undead just long enough to take out any other relatives that might come after V’s family.
I guess I’ll have to read it again.
Vaarsuvius said that the dragon would be rejoining them soon so presumably V’s plan at that moment was to release the spirit again. Of course I think burying the head in a two hundred foot deep hole in the middle of the forest would be a better idea as long as you’re going all the way for evil. We’ll have to see which way V swings.
I had the impression that only black dragons were going to be affected.
Dunno if that changes the implications any.
I’m just looking at the 3.5 Player’s Handbook here, and the description of “Neutral” doesn’t really appear to jibe with that take. It’s all about avoiding extremes and not allowing yourself to become too committed either way. Epic-level preemptive massacres don’t seem especially in keeping with that idiom.
Your justification sounds closer to Lawful Evil. “Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it), or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.”
I don’t think the devils who gave V this power are likely to be displeased by its use in such a manner, do you? “Blast! Annihilating entire families indiscriminately is merely in keeping with the elf’s strict Neutrality! We could have sworn that casting “Familicide” would prompt a shift toward evil alignment, but apparently not. Looks like we outsmarted ourselves on this one.”
How is casting a spell that kills all of someone’s family members because you’re upset with them not evil? If somebody slaughtered your family, would you say, “Well, at least he’s not evil. He didn’t torture them or something.”
Yup. “I assure you you will see your kin again shortly.”
I’m assuming that the head died along with all of the kin. We won’t know for sure until next update.
Oh, and I couldn’t find any dragons with no XX over their eyes. At least not any of the ones that weren’t too small to tell.
Perhaps something like :
Dragon head : “You said I’d see my kin again soon !”
Vaarsuvius : “I lied. Your soul is in fact bound to that unliving head for all eternity. Rather like what you threatened to do to my adopted offspring.”
** Drops head in two hundred foot deep hole in the middle of the forest **
Vaarsuvius : “Transmute Rock to Mud. Transmute Mud To Rock.”
** The mouth of the hole collapses into mud, then soldifies into a solid stone seal **
Firstly, he didn’t do it just because he was upset. He did it to totally put paid to the recurrence of the family vendetta. A logical extension of the premise, which he can now accomplish given his near-absolute power. It’s pre-emptive defence. I don’t agree with the logic, but I understand it.
Secondly, black dragons are chaotic evil by definition. While Rich may lampshade the alignment rules, he doesn’t seem to break them at all, so I assume that still goes. By that reading, every black dragon is a cruel, vicious monster the world would be better off without, bar none. Removing them is a good act in itself, within the rather B&W morality of an alignment system like D’nD’s.
I don’t know, unfortunately. I only know of it second-hand, via Internet word of mouth. I could attempt to dig it up, but the most likely place I heard of it was probably the GiantITP fora, which I’m reasonably certain are going to spend more time “temporarily offline” than on this weekend.
EDIT:
Durkon, apparently Lawful, worships Thor, apparently Chaotic, and Sabine, now confirmed to be a demon, sure doesn’t seem Chaotic to me. So he does indeed bend the alignment rules at least some.
Which gets into the ugly mess that is D&D morality. It’s not black & white, it’s some kind of day-glo paisley & pastel stripes. Trying to define when and how killing creatures of the wrong alignment is perfectly justifiable is one of those particularly sticky areas. I have to say that “indiscriminately because they’re blood relations with someone who has pissed me off” is pretty hard to justify even under D&D’s strange morality.
Where does it say Durkon is LG? And where does it say the alignment of the worshipper has to exactly match that of the god?
Succubi are devils, not demons. At least, they are now, under 4th Ed rules. I’m not sure if that makes them LE now, though.
Not LG; Lawful. It’s in “Origin of PCs” and in the game, IIRC.
A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s.
But some of those killed were only part-dragons apparently. What would the alignment of a dragon-centaur cross be ?
The half-dragon template applies the same alignment to the half-dragon creature as the dragon variety it is related to. So… CE.
The strip is still primarily 3rd edition, and Sabine first showed up before 4e was even announced. Besides which, there isn’t even any such thing as Lawful Evil in 4e rules.
Something can be logical and effective and still be morally wrong. As to the second point, that argument is like the hypothetical of the paladin wandering through town detecting evil and then killing everyone who shows up as evil. It’s not a good act. Even if every black dragon is a cruel vicious monster the world would be better off without, it still has the same right to live unmolested as everybody else does.
As a side note, btw, not relevant to the strip, 4th edition has gotten rid of the “chromatic dragons are always evil/metallic dragons are always good”. Now, chromatic dragons are “usually” evil, and metallics are “usually” good.
But isn’t that what PCs in D&D do? Replace “town” with “goblin village,” and you have about 75% of every D&D adventure ever played. Is it only an evil act if the population is primarily human?
I see your Rings of Nit-Picking give you two a +12 immunity to all humor-based attacks.