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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dross" data-source="post: 5481402" data-attributes="member: 33802">(While someone can always find exceptions in these examples) I wonder about all the human/dwarf/gnoll/goblin slaves trapped in such a place being burned. A good being would to me at least think about that, and an evil one wouldn't. (And quoting you out of context somewhat): Would that be an acceptable sacrifice or too much collateral damage (your "greater good")? I do think that for some it would be (better than being a slave to such evil beings), but for others it wouldn't (should not suffer the same fate just because they are forced to be there).Let me ask this to see if I understand.If a Good Drow (which are generally evil) torches an Evil Dwarf (which are generally good) city, is it a Good act? <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If "yes": is it because the specifics in this case don't matter, all that matters is that the race has a "usually Evil" alignment so all should be considered such alignment (tarred with the same brush so to speak). So the actions of an "usually evil" race can be always considered "Evil" and a "usually good" race can be always considered good?  If so then... well we just have different views. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If "yes" because: It only matters what the perpetrator's alignment is and the alignment the victim's race usually is. Thus a good drow burning a drow city of any alignment would be a Good action (because drow are "usually Evil"), but a good drow burning a dwarf city of any alignment would not be a Good action (because they are "usually Good"). If so then again we just have different views. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If "no": is it because the alignment of those involved matter and the  actions of the specific beings matter rather then what a race is known  for? For me this implies that you need to figure out the alignment  (and/or reasons of said creature's actions) before acting if they have aided you. Which is obviously where I stand.</li> </ol>Post 35 ("It is never Evil to kill any one of the "usually" or "always" Evil beings.") has me leaning towards 1 & 2 (although to me 2 is a possible LN trait)Or have I just entirely missed your point?It could be argued that it was never evident the troll was there to harm the PCs either (given what we know, it's motives are unknown). I agree that there are lots of trolls who's idea of a good time is doing bad & evil (pretty much describes every troll that my PCs have met), but those are the bad & evil ones. If a troll acted this way to most of my Good to Neutral PC's they would be asking why it acted in that manner and try to find reasons: detect alignment, Knowledge checks, questioning, etc (while a ranger's hated enemy wouldn't get such considerations).In post #66 I mentioned troll types that are not "usually Evil" but "usually Neutral" and questioned what the alignment of a Steppe Troll is. If this troll happened to one of those Neutral trolls would that modify your view of the actions being a good act?</blockquote>

Verification