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: 3292133" data-attributes="member: 22779">Agree 100%.  However, killing is not the same as death.  If my actions directly lead to the death of an innocent, I am guilty of an evil act under D&D alignments.  Now, how evil is the question, and I've already stated that this is pretty vanilla of evil.  How is limiting the consequences to the actual actor arbitrary?  Alignment is not a quantum particle capable of affecting the past.  What happens in the future doesn't impact the event in question.  If the woodcutter saves the baby which grows up to be an evil monster, it doesn't make killing the baby good.  The woodcutter cannot be held responsible for actions he didn't take.I said this upthread.  Alignment is the universe' way of keeping score of your actions.  If a character does bad things most of the time, then he's evil.  The universe doesn't care particularly why he does them, just that they are bad.  That Sawyer from Lost is a tormented soul who wants self destruction doesn't change the fact that his actions hurt and destroy the lives of those around him.  The only thing that his alignment reflects is his actions for the most part.I fail to see how this violates my definitions.  The direct results of an act are the primary determiner of the alignment of that act.  The motives behind that act might account for some of it and certainly can make an act more good or more evil and coversely less good and less evil.  However, I don't believe that the intentions of the actor are enough to actually change the alignment of the act.As far as animals and the like are concerned, the RAW excuses them from moral actions, so bringing them up doesn't really matter.  It is irrelavent that a wolf eating the child is not guilty of an evil act since we are not discussing a wolf.  The wolf has no concept of good or evil, it is amoral same as a snowstorm or a lightning bolt or a sword.  The RAW specifically states that it is an amoral actor.The woodsman OTOH, is not.  He knows whether his actions are moral or not.  The good woodsman feels remorse and should pay restitution for his actions.  If his actions were morally neutral, why should he feel any remorse?  I posited this question a while ago and never received any answer.  His actions directly lead to the death of an innocent.  (Note the innocent part there.  Killing the guilty is a whole 'nother ball of wax)  If his actions were neutral, then he should not have to pay any restitution and should be absolved of any wrong doing the same as if the child was never there in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification