D&D Morality Question

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:29 pm

Okay, so you have the planes of the afterlife. Heaven, Hell, all that.

But let's also say that you have real ultimate power, too, so you decide to give the people in Hell a break by completely obliterating it. Nothing will remain of it; it'll have less existence than the emptiness of outerspace. Anything in it will just cease to exist--souls, petitioners, devils, whatever.

The only problem; to destroy one of the evil planes you have to do the exact same thing to one of the 'good' and 'morally-neutral' planes at once. There isn't any way to circumvent the exchange either. Either you destroy three or more planes at once or you do none of them. Would you do it?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:33 pm

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:40 pm

Why would you destroy the Evil plane in the first place?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 pm

Fuchs wrote:No.

Agreed.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:05 pm

It depends entirely on what "Evil" means in your setting. Frankly, in a lot of settings, "Evil" is just a political affiliation, and "Good" isn't much different. Blowing up The Abyss in such a setting would by itself be a horrible thing to do. In other settings, Evil is ll Cthuloid and world destroying and the only thing that makes Good more likable than Neutral is that they spend more time fighting Evil. In such a setting, destroying all the Good planes to get rid of the Evil planes would be a net benefit.

Meh. It's not really something you can answer a priori, because D&D alignment crap means such radically different things in different settings. I'd kill all the "Good" gods in Krynn in a fucking heartbeat - pretty much whether I got to get rid of the "Evil" gods simultaneously or not. On the flip side, a lot of D&D pantheons have "Evil" gods that are kind of fun to hang out with. Wee Jas is a reasonable god and even some of the versions of Nerull are people you'd pour some rum for if they entered a bar.

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:50 pm

Wee Jas is LN. Otherwise yes.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:08 pm

I presupposed that Lago's evil plane was evil in the legitimate, dictionary, malevolent-and-hurtful-and-selfish-and-bad sense, not in the Black T-Shirt Team or Edgy And Cool sense.

Likewise, the good plane is (presumably) legitimately benevolent and generous and helpful, not Arrogant Elitist Dicks or White T-Shirts.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:41 am

Sure. It could be funny. And at least all those fuckers would stopping screwing around with your reality and generally being dicks. Regardless of alignment, D&D outers are asshole bastards of the first class, who treat pretty much everyone like a frat boy treats a passed out freshman girl.

One question, however. By plane, do you mean the entire thing? Or Layer by Layer? Because getting rid of all of the abyss and all of the seven heavens works out. But layer, by layer, the abyss wins. You can destroy each and every layer of every other plane and still have more abyss left over.

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:05 pm

As far as it goes, I would assume that it would be possible to destroy a plane, but by doing so, you would have to fail (or rather, take out) any spells that interacted with that plane, as well as beings, gods, and perhaps (this one's just a stray thought) all people alligned with that plane, although like I said, you can probably discount that last one because you could probably have evil people without an evil plane.

Other than that, I have a question that is only moderately related, but still something I have been questioning for some time; A vampire must drink the blood of others to live. Attacking another being of your type is evil if it is not retaliation, escalation, or premeditative.
So; are vampires indubitably evil?

Before I hear your opinions, I would ask that you hear me out, as this is my reasoning:
1) Vampires require other people's blood to live
2) Humans (and most living beings) require the meat of other beings to sustain themselves (this can be argued -vegans- but please exuse it for the time being).
3) The killing and eating of a humans' prey is not considered an evil act.
4) Killing other intelligent beings (at least in 3.5) if they are not allied with you is not considered an evil act.

So: Evil? Or just a way of life?

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:45 pm

Edward wrote: So; are vampires indubitably evil?
...
So: Evil? Or just a way of life?

The answer.

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:05 pm

I do opologize, but I would prefer a straight answer... Evil or not?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:18 pm

No.

-Crissa

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:21 pm

Edward wrote:I do opologize, but I would prefer a straight answer... Evil or not?

ToN wrote:Unlike most undead, vampires are morally affected by negative energy in a perversely contrary fashion; Zombies are evil if (and only if) negative energy makes zombies evil, but the opposite is true of the vampire. If Negative energy is a hungry and malevolent force that hungers for the light of the living, the vampire is a tragic figure compelled by dark desires he cannot control. He can even just be Good, but that’s not going to stop him from taking a nip from the farmer’s daughter. If negative energy is an objective force, then being a vampire is actually an evil act since you don’t have to eat babies for eternal life… you’re just a jerk.

The answer is depends.

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:00 pm

Thanks a bunch!