Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EP" data-source="post: 3669180" data-attributes="member: 41744">There is an easier way to handle this in a game: just see what your specific religion or kingdom says is right and which is wrong.&nbsp; In the case of the paladin killing the imp, I'm sure there's a specific code of honour laid down by his order detailing that it is perfectly honourable to slay an imp (or evil fiend, to be more general) no matter the details.&nbsp; Knowingly or unknowingly assisting an evil creature can cost the paladin his paladinness-ship - it seems like the only valid response allowed in his order is to slay the imp and prove the higher powers and his masters (if his order works this way) that he took action once he found out.Without belonging to a specific religion or society in the game, alignment seems to take on the form of a very vague morality check rather than a code.&nbsp; It tells us where our characters fall based on the actions they perform and, as a result, where we will go when we die.&nbsp; It's fairly simple to play D&amp;D without an exact alignment telling you what to do - just look for the wizard with a unibrow, gold dome on his head, and an army of twisted warriors sacking a village and burning it to the ground.&nbsp; And make sure he's cackling when they do it.What's odd to me is that so many good character define themselves by what they do against evil.&nbsp; Proving their worth by demonstrating how many evil characters they've slain seems to be the norm rather than listing how much good they've done without consideration for whether or not it stops evil.&nbsp; Evil, on the other hand, lists its evil plots as they are and not how they stuck it to the good guys.&nbsp; Weird, huh?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EP, post: 3669180, member: 41744"] There is an easier way to handle this in a game: just see what your specific religion or kingdom says is right and which is wrong. In the case of the paladin killing the imp, I'm sure there's a specific code of honour laid down by his order detailing that it is perfectly honourable to slay an imp (or evil fiend, to be more general) no matter the details. Knowingly or unknowingly assisting an evil creature can cost the paladin his paladinness-ship - it seems like the only valid response allowed in his order is to slay the imp and prove the higher powers and his masters (if his order works this way) that he took action once he found out. Without belonging to a specific religion or society in the game, alignment seems to take on the form of a very vague morality check rather than a code. It tells us where our characters fall based on the actions they perform and, as a result, where we will go when we die. It's fairly simple to play D&D without an exact alignment telling you what to do - just look for the wizard with a unibrow, gold dome on his head, and an army of twisted warriors sacking a village and burning it to the ground. And make sure he's cackling when they do it. What's odd to me is that so many good character define themselves by what they do against evil. Proving their worth by demonstrating how many evil characters they've slain seems to be the norm rather than listing how much good they've done without consideration for whether or not it stops evil. Evil, on the other hand, lists its evil plots as they are and not how they stuck it to the good guys. Weird, huh? [/QUOTE]

Verification