Narrated D&D Story: A Gentleman Lizard-Folk's Epic Roleplaying Makes The Party Question Their Morals 

Yes he was especially good at hiding blemishes and adding color to women's cheeks. Lol

The best lie is truth.

don't you love how most people cannot spell Rogue and change it for the color Rouge?... anyway, gentleman thieves/assassins are the best kind of both.

I was never really on your side

I mean, its kinda impossible not to know given the mechanics of the game. It a good story but highly unlikely that it happened in real life.

It was too sneaky for them so see .

So... A sneaky sneak attack?

@@t1czer The sneaky-deekiest of sneak attacks

Yeah I understand no one knowing he’s a rouge, but how the hell did the logistics of that work and the mechanics with keeping that secret lol

@@legendaryseph9406 *rogue "What class are you?" "Class? Well, clearly, I'm very high-class; I make myself impeccable in dress, manner, and attitude. Which is far more than I can say for you. Can I offer some fashion tips for you?" In other words, either no one asked, or he deflected expertly. I doubt this party rolled checks between each other, since that's more of a roleplay thing than a PC vs NPC thing.

Am I wrong, or is this the exchange between Dredd and Rico in the original Judge Dredd movie?

@@KZBluCaesar3 You are correct, sir!

@@SaltpeterTaffy I knew that I knew those lines!!! And so fitting!!!!

Of all the 21st century remakes of 20th century cheesey r- rated movies, Judge Dredd had an r-rating

@@hunterv9983 Of all the 21st century remakes of 20th century movies, Dredd was also a vast improvement.

You did see the "Assasins makes Paladin doubt his righteousness with a single phrase"? It's simmilar in terms of the question it brings up.

That I did. Was another great vid.

Honestly that becomes its own cliche.

@@ArcCaravan well, everything good eventually becomes a cliche, that’s why I value quality over originality

I belive the story of the Grey necromancer had a simular feel to it and it's such a good three or four parter as well.

Absolutely! Regardless of race or class!

Personally I’m a fans of suave sadists

Gentleman rogues are the greatest

I tried one for my first character ever, and immediately broke the DMs game so badly that it ended the game. He honestly didn’t know how to deal with my character.

While well crafted I still feel it was heavy handed and edgy

Given the kind of characters i tend to play, and my own rigid moral compass, i likely would have joined Veetor. When you've tried everything else and the corrupt still walk free, sometimes the only way out is for them to die.... and waiting for the natural way almost always results in years of horrific bloodshed at their hand. Sometimes.... sometimes a killer is the only way to save millions. (this does not reflect my personal irl choices in the same scenarios, i would have let him go and told him to be more like Marvel's Daredevil and try prosecution first, leave killing as a last resort. murder is almost always avoidable irl, imo)

@@OriginalCreatorSama Imparting death unto others deserving is a facet of life we cannot avoid, in terms of DnD and in life. When we no longer need armies, or weapons, or a need to defend ourselves from our own kind, we can claim to have reached a higher understanding of existence. Until then... I say deal out the cards to those who decide to call.

@@blackstag9366 Agreed, but all life is important and irreplaceable. We should make damn sure they can't change for the better before we decide death is necessary. It should always be the last resort, not the first.

@@OriginalCreatorSama although what you just said should be held true, it is an hypocrisy to only use that argument to protect the rich and powerful or your friends but kill with abandon others like the party did. As most d&d parties do.

@@LeonardoPostacchini Agreed. irl i use that for everything and everyone, in dnd i am not myself and therefore act accordingly, but my own morals are somewhat infused in my characters because mine are so rigid it is actually painful to even pretend to go against some of them.

Off with the tyranids heads

Murder is justice?

@@corksucker No. But you need a contexts.

@@Kapuchinik can you explain your reasoning further for me

@@corksucker ever heard of "eating the rich"

An actual Order vs Freedom struggle would get in the way of the history and conspiracy theory jerking off.

good thing he didnt say "no bro this is only good thing"

How you worded this reminded me of Epsileon from Megaman X Command Mission. Yes he took over Giga City, but he forced the humans off peacefully rather than slaughtering them. Wild Jango, Silver Horn and Botos were pieces of shit that deserved what they got and I feel no remorse for putting them down. Though Scarface, Pheram, to some extent Dr. Psyche and naturally Epsilon himself I didn't feel so good fighting them, especially after Scarface heroically sacrificed himself to buy time for Epsilon to escape, but he refuses. After beating him he said a line that haunts me to this day nearly 20 years later. "Power, without power our ideals would be ignored. What other choice did we have?!" X's feeble bargaining of there could have been a better way...probably reminded him too much of the Repliforce incident. After the ending I felt an extreme sense of revulsion after Epsiolon was "deferred" after his death when the matter as far as that government was concerned settled. After all can't have another Repolid preaching about independence after Sigma after all. I was honestly kind of hoping that Sigma was behind it again, not unlike the players. I hadn't beaten X8 yet so the revelation from THAT ending wasn't known to me yet. After running the boss gauntlet and getting to the final boss I found out that no. No Sigma being the puppetier, it was just greed from someone pure and simple. It was one of the first instances in a game that i felt used and I put the final boss down in a rage I hadn't felt towards a piece of media before. Hell the ending theme for Command Mission "O-Parts" doesn't even feel like a triumph symphony after "saving" the world. It just feels sad and meloncholic and it just made me think "Did we really do any good back there?" It stuck with me a really long time and its difficult for me to go back to that game despite it being one of my favorite X games. It kind of recontexualizes a lot of the X series in a lot of ways for me. How much was X doing good stopping Sigma and how much as Veetor saw it "Keeping the world compliant?" The Repliforce Incident, The Nightmare Investigators and Red Alert all kind of shook me after Command Mission and when I did beat X8 Lumine hit me with something else that sticks to me. "Was Sigma really crazy?" Sigma was a monster no doubt, especially by the latter games. At the same time it always made me wonder. Did Sigma simply *choose* to go rogue in the original X game and was later warped by the original Maverick Virus. After all he doesn't achieve his viral form until the second game. The other is did he go crazy the moment his resistance was broken by the virus? If anything after Command Mission it has made a certain variety of games difficult to play despite my massive enjoyment of them. It also makes me internally flinch whenever I hear friends casually belittle characters after their defeat or death. Whew alright didn't mean to spill my soul out, but I get like this whenever I'm tired. Anyway ya'll have a good saturday.

Ora’s got the backstory of a bbeg at this point

Part of me wants to take that seriously, while another part wants to mention the wizard who always casts fireball on everything.

@@andyknightwarden9746 Why both both? Sometimes it seems like those without magic see the devastation and want to ask, but the casters don't give two shoots

@@saitouhajime3 that is because nothing is more important than fireball! FOR FIREBALL!!!!

@@saitouhajime3 Heck in our second ever DnD game. Went to the bathroom, and in that time: *Vampire Lord* (Chaotic Evil PC) cut of our hands and hand them strangle our PC (Chaotic Neutral, who's only combat action was killing a goblin horde in the backlines.) to death. *Lich* raised our corpse to be his slave. *VL* blew up our corpse. Came out of the bathroom 5 mins later, asked the *Lawful Good Paladin*, why he let our PC die to Chaotic Evil Characters. Looks us dead in the eyes, and in all seriousness said. "You weren't a lawful aligned character, so I'm not obligated to help you." So yeah. The Paladin being all "Yeah, it's okay to kill off a random innocent who isn't my alignment. What are you getting at?" is relatable. ---- Although tbh, that was better than our first DnD game where our DM kill us off to make a rape joke. (Killed by a Barbarian Skeleton without allowed to do a saving throw so the DM could yell out loud "You were killed by a raging boner.")

@@ashannahensley3288 You need to find a better group.

I don't think their Wis score had to be very low, I rather think it was simply their character.

@Adventurer Or the player chooses to 'lean into' the character stats.

@Adventurer Which is how you get characters who are supposed to be dumber than rocks doing complex strategic planning because the player ignores it and the GM can't enforce it without blowback.

@Adventurer See, that block of text is why I'm not actually going to take this conversation any further. Stay safe, neighbor, it's been a pleasure!

Actually... I think the problem is with the DM. Yes, you read that correct. Let me explain. Veetor sounds great on paper but he and the predicaments around him suffer from some oversimplification of real world events and motivations. Veetor in particular is described as faultless. Perfect and pure in every respect. And this annoys me slightly because even gods in D&D aren't as faultless as Veetor is depicted. Everything Veetor does turns out successfully. Exactly as he planned. None of his kills are unintended. All of his plans go off without a hitch. Everyone loves everything he does. For better and for worse, this is not how the world works at all... Consider a population where perhaps they are actually too uneducated to see the bad conditions they are in and love their king. Or perhaps someone behind the scenes with lots of political influence was making awful selfish decisions but was using another noble/general/etc. as a patsy for their selfish acts and Veetor slays the scapegoat instead of the real perpetrator. Or maybe Veetor slays all the right people, but the nobility concoct a plan to spread propaganda, blaming him for all the horrible conditions and painting him as a mindless psycho, deserving of being put down and little else. Or maybe Veetor slays all the right people and the people all agree with him, but are too scared and run down by the ruling class to actually get up and fight, making his killings almost pointless. Or maybe the majority of the lower class are just as bad as the ruling class, and the two classes actually deserve each other. The DM doesn't present any of these circumstances though nor brings up the possibility of them. Now, to be fair, the players didn't either, but I feel like they felt something was wrong with this whole setup, but for whatever reason, they just couldn't put their finger on what exactly was wrong, so they couldn't tell Veetor off and were left just standing there awkwardly.

here's a quote that i came up with "there's no good or evil power, just the way it is used"

Heroes come in many forms...

Yes.

Especially when the dm tells the story that way!

Dracula Untold quote?

No wonder even the hidebound good guys were so compelling and relatable! You lot are a dream team together that's for sure. Kudos on "accidentally-ing" a masterpiece short story into existence, at least in my book.

@Rubedo Alaberti The hidden character sheets was a real fun touch XD highly recommend. Man that's a tough one. I think Veetor would disagree with Thanos but ultimately accept it since he's not picking and choosing, he's just letting random chance balance everything. Hope that helps XD

@Rubedo Alaberti I mean... Thanos objectively did a LOT wrong,no matter what system of morality you subject yourself to because he was *dumb*.

Man, this was damn good. I can't find any fault in Veetor's logic, which makes it so more compelling. He is basically the poster for Well-Intentioned Extremist, and the kicker is that it's demonstrably effective. He even seemed to intentionally be as brutal as possible so maybe those nobles with some self-preservation instincts would clean up their act and reduce his 'necessary' body count (after all, part of politics relies on knowing others' dirty laundry and hiding your own as best as possible). Was there any success there? Secondly, what alignment was Ora, and did she suffer a change when she murdered Veetor? I'd really hope so.

@@budgetcoinhunter Yes actually. So Ora's player (who is a good friend of mine) learned what an oath breaker was after that. We were all noobs and teenagers so even after two years we were quite literally still asking dumb questions. So She (the player) has Ora become an oath breaker and true neutral. In that she abandoned any faith in the law and any faith in people. She didn't want to hurt others so she just kinda..... did nothing after that lol.

Lol if you think about it the only difference between the BBEG and the players is their differences

And the actions they take, the reasons behind their decisions and the process they go through to reach their goals.

@@jonsimpson6240 That's kind of what I was trying to say. There aren't a lot, if any, differences between how your stereotypical Paladin behaves in comparison to your classic BBEG. Their reasoning is more often then not the same line of thought as well. It's the notion that most people are the heroes of their own story. The litch might have a reason for draining all life from the land and building an army of the undead. Doesn't mean what they are doing isn't wrong, but that doesn't mean that marching up to its tower and brutally butchering it before ransacking the place for valuables is right either. From what I have seen, Paladins and BBEGs have the same rational and methods in getting what they want. The differences are all superficial. What side of an imaginary line you are on, whether those who fight beside you would be welcome in a civilized bar afterwards.

@@johnballard3403 If nobody is wrong, nobody can be criticized.

@@corksucker Nice.

Ignorant Evil was the party's alignment.

Villified good. His motives were unquestionably good, its his methods that the party had a problem with (and who he was targeting, that the corrupt nobles had a problem with)

Chaotic good

Beyond a shadow of a doubt the guy was Chaotic Good, though, arguably, lawful good (adhering to a strict moral code and all that). Either way, definitely a good aligned character.

@@aharreld2340 I didn’t consider that he could be lawful good until reading this, I fell into the trope again

whats that from?

Im going to use this line when one of my players gets kill happy.

@@collinpannell6831, didn’t lift it from anything, it’s my own little quote.

_"Yama yama, tani tani."_ -Oda Nobunaga, on the destruction of the Ikko Ikki sect

How very poetic. It's well written, bleak and dark yet, it reads like silk.

What is this quote from?

Nice

@@dylanpino3359 Tactical dot.

@@dylanpino3359 The Greatest Necromancer of all

Lawful evil vs lawful stupid.

@@Orinslayer Not to be 2edgy4you, but if Veetor is lawful evil for killing tyrants then there probably isn't a single DnD player character who is not also lawful evil. The rest of the party seemed like murder hobos compared to Veetor. The only difference is that they killed as a group instead of alone.

@@WhamBamTySam Veetor is the good guy no doubts

@@Orinslayer But with very cruel method

@@lamihadamshareef5270 where is the cruelty? Nowhere is said he tortured the victims, no where is said he imparted extra suffering on them, as far as i see he did a clean kill and then butchered the body, you can argue that it is disgusting, not cruel, from the definition: Cruel: willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it. One can argue that he did care about the suffering, there is no sign that he did enjoy the killing. “Felling no concern about the suffering “ seem to fit the party when killing the bandits, the kobolds, etc. In fact, the only one that cared was Veetor.

But what is right ? Morality has no basis except for what the majority think. Murder may be wrong in one mans eyes but in another it may be the right thing to do. Morality is a teo faced coin so it's not possible to say what is right.

​@@soupryu D&D has it's own morality system, from LG to CE, and in no way would murder be 'right' or 'good' But even in the real world, morality is the distinction between right and wrong. What you are saying is that there is no distinction because it comes down to perspective...which means morality doesn't exist because there is no distinction between the two....this is incorrect on many levels. Not just the fact that no first world legal system condones murder, but we as humans have an innate morality, we know when what we are doing is wrong, or right. Deep down we know what feels right and what feels wrong, that is how morality came to be, that sick guilty feeling you get when you know you did wrong to someone. So no, I don't agree, morality exists in society and it exists in all of us, I don't care if a handful of people out the the vast majority deny it.

Here's the problem with the Tywin explanation though. Yes it is more pragmatic to kill a dozen at dinner, than 10'000 men in a battle. But when you, as one of the most powerful men in the kingdom, breaks a rule that everyone holds to, it lessens the character of the entire land. The rule of guest right was something that the entire land believed in, it was a universal standard that everyone lived by. And with a dozen deaths at a dinner, the entire nation could no longer trust each other.

Yet morality changes immensely with a few actions. Legality and morality are different, I would like to leave them out in this discussion. Also, I would like to say that I subscribe to the common morality to be kind to others. Anyway, as I said morality change over time. Some 200 years ago slavery was a common practice. The majority thought it was fine. From egypt to america slaves were used and many owners wouldn't give a second thought. They were the majority so does that mean they were right ? Furthermore the death penalty still exists. It's just in this case Veetor took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner. He had fair means to do it and for the public his actions were righteous so does that make them right ? I am just saying that morality is much more than right or wrong. You can't say murdering a murderer is wrong but you can't necessarily say it's right either. I don't believe in a innate system of morality as everyone is different. Different cultures, social standings, beliefs. Someone may find it morally acceptable to waste food because they can buy more whenever. While others may try not to waste anything as people are starving in othe parts of the world.

I've seen "psychopathic" and "pragmatic" be defined synonymously before. The most commonly defined trait of psychopathy is a lack of emotion and acting purely on efficiency for their interests. If veetor's nature as a lizardfolk, and his lack of emotion are anything to go off of, it would be possible to say that the actions were taken not from felt emotion, but from a sense of purpose in the acts. But, definitions of psychopathy and sociopathy that I've seen have countless inconsistencies. Which makes sense considering most psychologists won't be getting to evaluate somebody that is under the impression that the world will turn on them, if they are suspected of such conditions. So, the research pool is slim.

Except he never went public.

@@ArcCaravan Now that you mentioned. I think that even if they managed to bring Veetor alive to rulers of country, they probably would all be punished & maybe even potentially TPKlled "for bringing this disaster for monarchy"

... “history is written by the victors” -somewhere/someone I admittedly forgot

@@ArcCaravan Ah, but there is always unseen witnesses, the homeless beggar, the kid running an errand, the servant girl emptying her abusive masters chamber pot... All people who might not have reported the crimes for fear of beeing falsely accused of the crimes comitted by and to people of visibly higher standing... But when the lizard gentleman was slain, and accounts of the circumstances, nature and motives of his acts spread, those witnesses will add their accounts to the story and spread it. All it takes, is for someone to formulate a better alternative of organising a community, a region, a country, and spreading it alongside this story of martyrdom of attempted justice in the face of authoritarian feudal corruption and the revolution will only be possible to prevent through proactive democratic reform. The latter is what IRL prevented a Swedish socialist revolution inspired by the Russian October revolution in 1917. The King, the house of knights, the conservative party and the church all surrendered their veto privilieges and sat down with the representatives of the democratic socialist party founded by the national assembly of Labour Unions, and negotiated a new, mostly democratic, constitution and legal system that over time and further negotiations resulted in a representative democracy with the king left as a mostly ceremonial head of state. It is, however, not a done deal. Rights has to be defended, and they are very much under attack now more than ever in living memory.

What's so "losing" about this battle? If the party didn't act like a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites, he would've won.

Technically the BBEG here would be Veetor or the nobles/royals the others served. The rest of the PCs would be pawns in the middle.

Good and evil are subjective,I remember our teachers telling us that in school. What you find to be evil or good could be the opposite for someone else,that morals mean little in the face of survival and war,that sometimes you have to make a tough decision that will label you as evil or bad,but that's because folks are often blinded by the truth and morality of life. I have never forgotten those words and live by that, because I honestly agree with it,good,evil,morals,all of that is subjective and matters little on the face of survival. It's hard for a person to look at it from someone else's perspective,to understand why they did what they did.

Naa man. Subjective just means the person is using a unreliable metric to measure against. themselves. the interactions between the subject and other people, society, and the environment can all be measured. The metric I use pulls from that data.

a good example. a doctor giving a young child a shot. The doctor is doing an objectively good thing. preventing a future disease from killing the child. the child just knows this man in white put a sharp think into his arm and it hurt lots so the man must be evil. my point is there is an Objective answer to a subjective experience.

Based on the very definition of "objective" and "subjective", you would be wrong. Objectively the doctor potentially saved the kids life. But subjectively believes he is doing the right thing by doing so. Objectively the kid is hurt by the needle and is unknowingly protected. The kid subjectively and naively hates the doctor for causing him pain. Did I really save the kid? What does it mean to save someone? Is it to make the child feel better or myself? The child might still die despite my work? All I know is that I prevented one cause of death by doing what I can. Does the kid really hate the doctor directly or is it just a dislike of the moment? What does it mean to truly hate someone? Was the kid simply exaggerating how much it hurt but stubbornly persisted? That needle really hurt though. Emotions are always subjective as their is no way to measure them or even prove if they are the true feelings of the person.

nice

Which is funny, Veetor operates very similarly to Eilistraee, the only good Drow deity. I think anyone that follows her would be a comrade to Veetor.

Yeah, that sounds fun.

“Sometimes you need to do things even if it’s against the rules and there are things you should never do even if there’s no rule against it” - *FUCKING KIRITO FROM SAO*

@@thealchemistking4063 bruh kirito said that? lol its true though

@@JaeshaunDT yeah, he did. You wouldnt expect it from an oh so often generic protagonist.

meh, not really. They are just the most stereo-typically at odds with each other that people feel the need to use them as personifications of the moral spectrum. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of the stories are made up and simply used in the same sense as folk tales are to present a "moral to the story" to the audience. The vast majority of interesting moral conflicts in my own experience has been between players and NPC's created by the DM. It's far easier for the DM to have an outside perspective of player characters while the players themselves get lost in the character they THINK they've created. Sort of like irl people are often perceived differently than they perceive themselves. So it's a lot easier for the DM to take the values of PC's and create an NPC that can convincingly challenge the ideas of the party in a way that the player behind the characters can relate to.

We believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history. 🎵 A man’s called a traitor, or liberator. A rich man’s a thief, or philanthropist. Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader? It’s all in which label is able to persist.

Tell me the story of Dahmer in which he is the good guy.

Technically speaking, given that this is a DnD where Gods exist and represent Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, the idea that there is this massive logical grey area like Veetor suggest is actually kind of unrealistic.

As it's said: "history is written by the victors"

@@triggerbot3284 Is neutral not also a placement? Those who make choices for their own whim? While it’s certain the gods would see Veetor as they will- those opinions would differ, likely. There is an ever existing gray area in all places, it’s simply a matter of finding it, hm? Perspectives shift, ideas grow, and fate fades.

True that! Specially if history ended up distorting past facts, as players could do nothing but to live a time of lies, seeking fragments of truth in ancient artifacts or oral cultures.

The main colour is red

Ok frate da cine te-a intrebat?

While yes, the shades do exist, so do a great many others in between and besides them

@@TheAsylumCat your right , and that's what makes life so great

Ironically, to claim that there is no black and white in the world is a black and white claim. It's like saying that absolutes are evil.

Same.

Not gonna lie, if my character was in the group, he'd be rolling initiative for that. Even if it meant taking on the rest of the party.

Not everyone makes the right choice. Especially after finding out one of your closest companions was opposed to everything you knew and stood for.

yeah, should have at least taken to stand trial. even if the trial would be corrupt... it could have given just enough time to spark a jacksparrow save... or not.

It's unsatisfying to just kill him like that because he wouldn't feel anything. It would be more impactful bring him back to the close ones of his victims and show him what he had done, and let them deal with him. Also that would allow for some more meaningful "you were a good person... It won't be the same without you" kind of roleplay, just saying.

At least Ora showed regret

Agree to disagree. "Change" is not inherently good or bad, so claiming change as a desirable result is, in itself, flawed reasoning. But even assuming change is for the better, it doesn't take a villain to drive humanity to better itself. Some of histories greatest people with regards to science and philosophy strove to advance humanity without having an adversary. The very goal of advancing humanity was it's own motivation. If requiring a villain is the only way to make a person "change", than that person is their own adversary.

@@Warrior_Culture actually, I just forgot to put "Some Times" at the start. Doesn't invalidate your point, your absolutely right.

@@railbaron1 Im that case, agreed.

The world is often gray and sometimes these things become necessary but require a gentle touch to prevent the system from turning on itself.

One thing I REALLY don't get about the guy. He tells the party that war can result in poverty and Desperate actions out of those people, yet he starts a war himself. GOOD JOB MAN! YOU HAPPY NOW?!?

@@liamdalemon1525 I think he intended a war to end the nobility.

@@liamdalemon1525 I think the war was happening with or without him, Ora just hoped it could be his fault, that there was an objective central cause to what was the inevitable conflict between factions all itching to gain more resources and territory. Countries don't fight each other because there's a serial killer on the loose. There was no BBEG to be had, only the delusion that there must be one somewhere to be found.

No! Veector and The grey necromancy need to meet and become allies in some way.

Veetor; I'm with HIM. That's all I have to say.

Veetor because he had the most powerful argument

It's hard to say in Veetor's words War tells tales of many things of both hope and desperation.

What Veetor did was cruel, but he was not himself cruel. I can not condone the artistic flourish he put into his kills, but I can respect a Lizardfolk from a tribe of pacifists knowingly killing a man believing that the result would be his own death. In the words of a slightly less reasonable mass murderer, the lives of the nobles he killed were "A small price to pay for salvation."

A bit of both to be honest. I think Veetor wanted to die. Bcz the only living unjust person left was himself and those left to remember would go after him. So he created chaos to break society and then break chaos itself with his death. Veetor lied to the very end for a brighter future

Not unlike the enemies killing for their favorable outcome.

Sun Tsu equated a person to a piece of timber; once warped only time and great pressure can undo what carelessness, such as leaving it in the rain, caused.

My OC could be an ally with him, even though he was Chamberlain of Höllenwald. Just a summary of the backstory, which is long. As a young man, he killed bandits, werewolves and some vampires, then became a soldier in a call to arms. As a Ranger, primarily, he's the scout. Like a Rogue, he slits certain officers' throats (a lot) to end wars quickly. Then retirement as Colonel. Became Chamberlain of a Duchy. The family not corrupt unlike some, with more charity work than normal. Then cultist shenanigans, and Duke and Duchess are dead. Taught the heirs, twin brother and sister, about many important things while beind de facto Duke and military "father". Then leave again when heirs grew up. Reason for leaving? Heresy. Corruption. Still visit the Duchy ever now and then, and to check on their behavior. Class? Ranger (Hunter), Fighter (Critical Role Gunslinger), Paladin.

He is probably more of chaotic nuteral played right

It means that they were excessive.

Least he put the knife in his killer's hand, taunted them, and led the others to let themselves fade away with a whimper. The Paladin killed a dead man. The Rogue killed the spirits of heroes.

@@ArcCaravan You sound like a Psycho. There's nothing good about the end of that story. Veetor lived life to the fullest with purpose, and loved his party. Not a win for him. Not a win for them.

@@tholgrimstonebeard5943 I simply enjoyed a tragic ending while viewing Veetor as having a final moral victory.

@@ArcCaravan Fair enough. Somehow, I don't think he would see it that way.

@@tholgrimstonebeard5943 His dying words made me think he could accept it with grace.

What's funny is that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good are sometimes very similar if you look into it with broad insight. Both alignments aim to commit to doing acts that test the limits of laws and parties against other parties with the opposite alignment are often the best rivals.

Assassinating dozens of people isn't lawful, nor is it evil to kill as few evil people as possible to reduce as much suffering as possible in the world. By the logic that "killing sentient beings makes one an evildoer," almost every single D&D character to ever exist is automatically evil - which is an extraordinarily narrow-minded viewpoint to take, one which spits in the face of all context and critical thought. If anything, he wasn't lawful evil: he was chaotic good.

@@tomboy_kisser Assassinating for a cause, however, IS a lawful act. It is the following of a code, or law. The brutality is the evil. It is just as arguably Lawful Evil.

@@Slashthekitsune Yep, He had a method, strict ethics about his choice of targets, and was not doing it just to be eeeevil or for giggles. But he also brutally tortured and murdered people who might have been innocent in the end of his run (Whole households and the aftermath being a thing) and in the end only cared about his personal ethical frame and end goals. as noted a chaotic good person will do what is right no matter the cost and a lawful evil person will do what is within their code or laws no matter the method.

@@shikatsu the good party slaughtered bandits and cultists with the same abandon, only Veetor listened to them in the end. How is that different? How is it different going through and slaughtering a whole bunch of 'monsters' because it was requested by nobility and for no other reason? The end goal of the torture and murder was to, very specifically, terrorize people who were murdering with abandon and to make it so that they were less inclined to do evil deeds. If anything I'd argue Ora was Lawful Evil (or should've suffered an alignment shift after killing Veetor). Honestly, if your good aligned character is willing to allow people to suffer and die because you might have to get your hands dirty and piss off the nobility, you're not really playing a good aligned character. Simultaneously, if your 'evil' character is murdering and killing specifically to end unnecessary deaths, improve conditions, and to allow people to lead better lives, they're not an evil character.

I'm unconvinced he's not Lawful Good. Lawful since he followed a strict code to never kill the innocent, and always carefully determine guilt. Good since he believed his actions are for the greater good, and is willing to sacrifice himself for them. A lawful good character can kill a thieving bandit or rampaging monster for the greater good, so why can't a lawful-good thief who steals from the rich do the same?

Veetor is definitely chaotic good since he only slaughtered lawful evil people. His methods are questionable, though, even if I am aware it is just to make a clear message.

And this is why alignments are bullshit, everyone has different answer. I personally would call him VERY pragmatic sociopath.

@@callumunga5253 But he's not Lawful Good because at the end he started killing innocents. He went from burning Noble's houses to their districts. A Noble's child isn't going to be guilty of any of the things Veetor is trying to kill their parent for. The moment the demons/deities stopped providing him transportation to make his selective killings possible he broke his code for convenience sake.

@@callumunga5253 to me lawful good is when a character fights for a noble cause but doesn't fight in a hideous way They fight for genuine change from those who abuse the people They fight to show themselves as a Ray of hope. A necessary good that must exist for balance out the evil of the world. They may not be lawful good in terms of following the laws of the world but they are lawful good in terms of following a moral compass. To help the needy and the poor. To help those who have been abused by the people in power. To help those who want to feel a sense of happiness in a cruel world.

Not only would keeping Veetor alive to hand to the authorities have resolved a lot of issues (hopefully) but it would have personally been way more satisfying... Also they would get paid... Not sure it mattered at that point but still

​@@liamdalemon1525 It would have caused more, especially for the party since he was one of them.

@@generalgarchomp333 come to think of it, if they arrested him he would probably have just teleported away again and continued his killing spree. Killing him might have been the best option

Wasn’t one of those actions made by his allies was the overthrow of a corrupt government that led to an even more corrupt government.

He wasn't killing nobles at random, just those he knew were doing terrible things. Presumably the noble who ruled justly and treated his people with dignity would be left alone while the noble who raped peasant girls as his hobby would be found in a bloody mess.

Same

I believe this is made up, it never happen

Lol honestly it was a mix of bad rolls and their personal choice. Everyone was like "You know I.... I don't want to be memorialized...." they were true to playing the characters tho, and also great friends irl lol.

I feel like they are players with low amounts of RPG experience, although they also seem quite good at roleplaying. What I mean is the story makes me feel that they roleplayed exceptionally well and did not let the meta affect their game.

Sometimes you gotta make stupid choices to stay in character.

Instrumental Evil? What is this? Something above Lawful Evil?

*Evil?*

Instrumental evil is when a character does evil acts, the character knows its doings are evil and do not enjoy it, the evil acts are just the only or the easiest way to get their ultimate goal, the character avoids doing further evil that does not get him towards his goal. Ozymandias from watchmen is a good example. EVIL as a TOOL with an specific purpose.

yes, killing people and disposing in such way their corpses to "send" a message, no matter how evil was the victim, its evil.

@@---tr8fx Under that logic all parties are evil.

True but if he lived any longer he would have either died of exhaustion or become an evil warlord. Society mangles its people to it needs and it needed to be reformed. Seetor was that key. I believe that he wanted this. The only way to have a peaceful times is through reforms. There's only peace when everything is in the ground.

Cool

It'a generally hard to feel serial killers have greater morality.

I wouldn't call "running around trying to prevent war from spilling out everywhere" nothing.

@@ArcCaravan he often killed nobility and focused on individuals who abused their power, seems like he wanted to send a message rather than sadistically enjoy murdering them.

@@ghuttsmckenzie4269 A mission based serial killer is still a serial killer. Gives reason to distrust him, especially when any justification is withheld until it's too late.

@@danj9580 if you successfully prevent/stop a war, then I will accept, learn and apply your method. But only if you actually prevent/stop the war, if you don't, then it is a waste of time, and remember, the more time it takes, more people are going to die/suffer

Yep

And everyone agrees with that, expecially when there's a fancy revolution cheering on for your every deed, because hey, we like to raid and loot too.

Just think of what would happen if society didn't have any politics for a minute.

Well said

Oh we have a beanie fan over here 😂😆🤣

@@kardoxfabricanus7590 "Unlike you, I get my news from a credible source." **posts screenshot from Roblox newsroom RP**

@@fang4223 i will agree that mainstream news is horrendous Don't take my arguments incorrectly. The establishment is unironically evil etc. Just make sure you don't fall down pipelines.

@@kardoxfabricanus7590 I look to more then just Tim and form my own opinions from a diverse range of sources, no worries. Glad it sounds like someone else does the same.

Yes and no. In my opinion at least the artistry to the kills is what started causing some of the more positive changes, essentially letting the common folk know they had a champion and the wealthy know that they were being hunted, assassinations in high politics at least in the setting of dnd would seem common place between political rivals and enemy kingdoms the only thing that would catch attention for a regular assassination would just be that they increased. Leaving a calling card let the nobility and commoners know what to expect from this one and judging by some of the art described exactly why it was happening.

@@wildhunter939 yeahbut, a calling card can be as simple as a small card with a skull stamped on it. He didnt need to strew their guts across whole ass rooms . That's what got him killed really. he could've been accepted by his party much better and not been killed when he still had so much work to do.

I gotta say most of the US is corrupt to the core, most people who have money can buy their way through all of their troubles or never have them to begin with. What we call justice is often sadistic and unhelpful as we focus on punishment and never focus on what happens after that.