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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3290384" data-attributes="member: 172">You know, you have to be about the most aggravating poster. This sort of proclamation of wrongness, as the mods put it, escalates the rhetoric.I certainly have stated my stance and given reasons. Just because you do not agree -- or rather, you fail to percieve where the root of our difference lies--does not mean they have not been put forth.Incorrect. Hussar said "If a woodsman cut the tree down, but didn't know the child was there, he still commited an evil act." He is implying that he had remorse because the act was evil... that remorse implies the act was evil. That is precisely contrary to what I had to say. My assertion is that, separate from intent, the act cannot be judged to be evil; the existence of remorse is a sign of good.Ah. No we get to the heart of the disagreement.Some philosophy holds that "act" and "agent evaluation" are separate things (I forget the exact philosopher known for this, BID). That's a valid stance, in the realms of ethical philosophy, but the D&D alignment system really only addresses agent evaluation. The text on becoming an ex-paladin does seem to support this interpretation, but it seems to be the only place that it does. How many spells or effects operate on "evil acts"? I merely think it's nonsensical to divorce them for gaming purposes, for what other purpose does an assessment of "good" or "evil" act serve separate from intent or how it reflects on the actor? But that's not where we differ. He said that nobody would care if it was a morally neutral act. Not so. People care when people they care about are impacted negatively; that does not mean the act is "evil".Speaking of unsupported assertions...</blockquote>

Verification