Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1405208" data-attributes="member: 3051">An action doesn't have to be defined by one single "good" or "evil" tag, it can have elements of both that mix together for the final outcome.  Hitler performed a lot of evil actions, and a small number of good actions.  So, the net result is evil, but it contained both good and evil elements.  And, the elements CAN be considered on their own, without always having to consider the larger context.This should work the other way, too, though.  If I save the world but I willingly sacrifice innocents to do it, I've committed a huge Good act and a hefty Evil act at the same time.  While the overall effect might be considered Good (and therefore be acceptable to a good person), there is still an inherent evilness to allowing the innocents to die (which'd possibly cause problems for the Paladins in the group).  It may be the lesser of two evils, and it may overall be a good action, but knowing the net result is good doesn't give carte blanche; the ends don't justify the means, after all.Let's take a hypothetical example.  The party is told that the world will simply cease to exist in one month's time, unless 100 innocent human babies are slaughtered in a ritual sacrifice to a demon, and that the process will repeat every decade.Now, saving the world is undeniably a Good act.  And, the "lesser of two evils" types can argue that sacrificing 100 to save millions is a small price to pay, so someone who arranges the sacrifice shouldn't necessarily shift to evil.  But, to a Paladin, it should be unacceptable to commit the evil action involved, regardless of the context.  The evil action IS being performed, it's just being overshadowed by the larger good action.  Good characters should attempt to find some other solution, like attacking the demon on his home turf.So now let's say the players KNOW how to find the demon and kill him permanently.  But, it's risky; maybe they only have a 50% chance of success, and if they fail the world ends.  If they choose to go for the sure thing, and sacrifice the babies, are their actions still good, knowingly performing an evil action even though they know there's an alternative?</blockquote>

Verification