Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3289837" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, perhaps I stated my point too strongly, but, OTOH, I've seen far too many characters getting a free pass because they meant to do good.Take the example above of the doctor killing a patient he was trying to cure.  Now, assuming that the doctor didn't actually do something like cut the patient's head off, and that the death was the result of the injury/disease, then there's nothing to implicate the doctor in evil.  His action was to heal the patient.  That he failed to do so doesn't make it an evil act.  At worst, it was accidental.  In the same way that the tree killing the child is not an evil act.  The tree didn't actually do anything.  Something made that tree fall over.  If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act.  Ask yourself this:  if the woodsman who cuts down the tree and accidentally kills the child didn't commit an evil act, then why does he feel remorse?  Assuming the woodsman is good aligned, then he knows that his actions were wrong.  If the woodsman is evil, then he doesn't care and gets back to chopping wood.  However, in both cases, the woodsman still commited an evil act.  So what?  Good characters can commit evil acts, they just feel bad about it afterwards.  In the case of a paladin, he would have to atone for that action.  In the case of a cleric, he would also likely have to do some sort of atonement (assuming he was good of course).  Everyone else just feels bad.If it was a morally neutral act, then why would anyone care?</blockquote>

Verification