Tweet
I meant that killing a neutral isn't just inherently evil, but it can be evil. Probably depends more on circumstance. If the guy attacks you, and you kill him, it's not evil. But it's not good either.
-
-
Meh, if a good aligned person attacks you and you kill him it isn't really an inherently evil act.
Killing neutral folks for no reason is probably as evil shift gaining as killing good folk.It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little - Do what you can.
Sydney Smith.Comment
-
Possibly! But then, how would a good aligned person be good aligned if they are just randomly attacking you?
That's partly why I don't like the 0-100 points for good/evil, law/chaos. You don't have points in P&P, GM just decides to shift you to that alignment.
If a good person just randomly decides to attack someone, they are probably going to be shifted on the spot to neutral if I was running stuff.Comment
-
-
Bad day, mind control, drunkeness, mistaken identity, religious dispute, international dispute, commercial, sports or familial rivalry.Originally posted by GodBeastXIt is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little - Do what you can.
Sydney Smith.Comment
-
Alignment isn't a straightjacket. Not everyone is a paladin who must always act as a paragon of good and justice.
Then again, all this talk about things that are inherently evil doesn't make much sense. Especially because if there are inherently evil acts, then there must also be inherently good acts. And then it starts losing all common sense.
Oh wait, but it's fantasy. Even then, the setting itself is laughably filled with ever so many inconsistencies, especially for the reason that you cannot expect to reduce the complex feelings and motivations of sentient beings like humans to just inherently good or evil. It just doesn't work, no really. It's easy to reduce some acts to that, let's say a paladin went insane and killed an innocent bystanter because of pure bloodlust, yeah that's pretty evil. But as soon as the motivations and reasonings become more complex, you start having to read behind them.SarethComment
-
Fun fact, nothing you listed there would make a good person stay goodOriginally posted by Doubtful View Post
Comment
-
This isn't true.Originally posted by FriendlyNecromancer View Post
My point wasn't your motivations behind the killing to decide if it's good or evil. My point was if two good people square off, chances are someone isn't going to be good anymore afterwards (Depending on the situation). Of course, attacking people is different than killing people. If a good person punches another in the face, that's just punching people, and doesn't do anything on the cosmic good/evil scale. A paladin can tell somebody "Fuck off, asshole!" and not shift.
But chance are if someone dies, someone won't be good afterwards.
And good only matters for classes and some spells, otherwise it's utterly meaningless in the world. Which is why sometimes the RP drives me nuts around the alignments.
"YOU SHOULD TRUST THIS PERSON, I DETECTED EVIL AND THEY AREN'T EVIL!"
Even neutral people may have done evil in their life, they might just be doing good too
Comment
-
To be fair, the Evil descriptor follows the same rules as the Good one, as far as 3.5 is concerned, I believe. I can't really find a place that says anything with the Evil decriptor is supposed to actually be inherently evil or something, just that it's supposed to matter mechanically as in classes and spells like you said.
Then again, this is considering we aren't reading the dreaded *gasp* Book of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, which would have even drinking be considered evil.
But oh well, some settings of D&D just aren't for me in the end, maybe I should just planeshift to sweet, sweet Sigil.SarethComment
-
Best get all the paladins out of the Legion then!
I've always seen alignment as more of a general thing, a bookmark to a characters personality rather than an instantly reactive needle on a guage. That's not to say it can't be instantly reactive if events merit it of course.
Random murdering people of any alignment would of course suggest a non good alignment, but contrarily I also see no issue with having good aligned soldiers, mercenaries and so on. If it was a much more mediaeval setting I could go for the notion of all forms of combat and killing being inherently evil with soldiers and knights alike paying armies of monks to pray for their souls, but not in GR.It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little - Do what you can.
Sydney Smith.Comment
-
Alright, I'll solve this in one sentence so we never have to discuss it again.
This is Sundren, not D&D.
Therefore we shift alignments based on Sundren policy which is "Whatever the DMs feel should shift it."
K
Moving on!Comment
-
Sounds like a great suggestion to me
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little - Do what you can.
Sydney Smith.Comment
-
Not to say we're tyrants about it. We are always talking to people about alignment changes. I'm just saying D&D is great and all, but we'll do what works for our community.Originally posted by GodBeastX View PostAlright, I'll solve this in one sentence so we never have to discuss it again.
This is Sundren, not D&D.
Therefore we shift alignments based on Sundren policy which is "Whatever the DMs feel should shift it."
K
Moving on!Comment
-
Can I have this God? Because I totes want the FeastBringer as a God.Originally posted by GodBeastX View PostRiver Swift
"Timing is the main difference between being a hero, and being an asshole" -River
"Nothing says "I matter" quite like having a price on your head" -Sandro
Comment
-
Comment