Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raloc" data-source="post: 3290844" data-attributes="member: 28093">The problem with this that I see is that the first test definitely can't be conclusive.  A good character might not react with enough reflexes to push the other away, and similarly an evil character might instinctively react (such as when something falls, and you attempt to catch it reflexively), committing a good act.  In this case, such an act doesn't make the character good (the intention to do good wasn't there, for one thing) although it might shift the alignment slightly.  Similarly, would you say any good character stuck in that situation that did NOT save the other is evil?  Or could be considered to commit an evil act?  IMO, no.  If the character had willfully not acted to save the other when they could have, it would be an evil act.  However, if you attributed every evil act to any character solely due to ignorance or inaction, everyone would be "evil" by default solely by not being able to be omnipresent to take good action in every case.Edit: Although, for some campaigns, this might be a good test (those that consider law/chaos evil/good to be absolutes, with no grey area overlapping).  But in those cases, usually the call is fairly easy to make (if not necessarily logical).  In my own games, I stress the greyness of actions much of the time, so this definitely wouldn't work for me.</blockquote>