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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sekhmet" data-source="post: 5481985" data-attributes="member: 97602">Answering a Summon spell falls under definitions 1, 2, 3, and 6. It is their legal (contractual laws between summoner and called creature) duty, it is their positional duty (demons obey summoning ritual etiquette), it is expected of them (see entry 6), and it is an obligatory force that is directly tied to all demons. Fighting Devils falls under definitions 6, 3, and 2 for similar reasons.    I am an amoral sociopath. I make no mistake in my own alignment (being most definitely CN). However, I do have an exceptionally high (99th percentile) IQ and exceptional reading comprehension.  This adds together so that I have the (apparently) unique ability to read the descriptions in the PHB and apply them to the situation at hand. My own opinions of good and evil in the real world are much, much different than are displayed in the D&D world. When speaking of one, I do not use the other's arguments. I'd like to point out that I most often play LN or LE characters, as I find them more challenging to play correctly without becoming a detriment to a party's short and longterm goals. It is not Evil for the Troll to attack the Orcs. Evil creature's hatred does not end at Good creatures, however. Troll attacking helpless Orcs (entangled, Orcs apparently had no way to kill the Troll) is exploiting a situational weakness which is quite the opposite of the code of honour that applies to Paladins, which makes it, at the very least, Chaotic or Evil (not necessarily both).   We can safely assume the Drow would have human/elven/dwarf slaves. If burning the city is for the protection of the Good peoples of the world, then it is inherently Good. If it is for resource or personal gain, it is Evil.  If no regard is given to the slave it is a Chaotic act, if some regard (but ultimately decided against) was given to the slave, it would be Lawful. You have a good grasp, but miss some of the nuances.  Good and Evil creatures can perform acts that are against their nature. If a Good creature burns an Evil city, it can be for Evil reasons. If an Evil creature burns an Evil city, it can be for Good reasons. However, the reasons aren't what really matter. What matters is the consequence.  To take this back to the Troll situation. Assume a Troll is LG and a party is entirely LG.  If the Troll attacks the party, it is performing an Evil act.  If the party retaliates and kills the Troll, it is an Evil act. We'll call this the "two wrongs don't make a right" theory. If a Troll of unknown alignment joins combat between a Good party and any other creature, and, during that combat is slain, the Good party is effectively "torching the Evil city with slaves in it". It is for the betterment and protection of a greater number of Good persons than it harms.  To bring this into a real world scenario that might be easier to understand for some, assume a tyrannical dictator holed himself up in a bunker with twelve of his trusted, also tyrannical allies (generals, scientists, or what-have-you), and one benevolent, altruistic scientist who is being held hostage. It is still a Good act to destroy the bunker and thereby everyone in it because it is for the betterment of the greater Good. Killing the good scientist is regrettable, but necessary. It is Chaotic Good to destroy this bunker. It is Lawful Good to send a strike team to extract the good man and kill the evil men with more precision tactics. If the Troll was of a subrace that is usually/always non-Evil/Chaotic, the PC's can assume that it will not be in the best interest of Good to slay that particular Troll. My question to you is this, if a Red Dragon flew overhead and torched half of your enemies in a combat, landed and proceeded to torch things (other than you), would you attack that Red Dragon?</blockquote>

Verification