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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 3290942" data-attributes="member: 3400">Actually, in the D&D cosmology, it's both. There are actions that are, by definition, evil regardless of the intent. Casting spells with the Evil descriptor comes to mind.There are also evil intentions with any action whether bane or benign.When the two are in conflict such as casting a spell with an Evil descriptor to achieve a good intention or torturing someone to find out where they are keeping the king's heir captive, you have some interesting role play opportunities. For most characters, it's a good thing to play up the remorse and atonement when an evil action is taken in a good goal. It helps both the player and PC grow in the game. But if they keep using said tools without the remorse or mere lip service, even for good goals, I think it becomes time for the DM to remember the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and start sliding the PC's alignment.But it's true that some characters have a much harder time taking those evil actions. Paladins are forbidden them lest they lose their powers and good clerics don't even have some of those tools available for the temptation.In the case of the child being killed by the falling timber:The action of chopping down the tree that kills the child isn't evil even if it was negligent, I think. The reason for the negligence, however, gets at whether the character acted with evil intent. Was it through distraction or incompetence? Then it's not evil. Was it through an attitude of "I'm doing this and I don't care who gets hurt", then I'd say it is. The first is unintentional negligence, the second is willful.That said, it's not a very strong evil in any sense. Certainly not like taking a child's puppy and eating it in front of them to watch them cry.</blockquote>

Verification