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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4168406" data-attributes="member: 47776">Here's the thing: considered by whom?  In D&D, there are absolute, observable answers to moral questions.  You can determine whether or not a given action egregiously violates the dignity of sentient beings by having a paladin do it, then check the paladin for his powers.That being said, one of my campaign worlds has a kingdom is experiencing an institutional level of corruption.  For a while, the kingdom was solidly LG, if a bit heavy on the L, until a series of events showed how massively profitable necromancy could be under certain conditions.  After all, it was just being done on animals and nonhumanoids slain in battle or banditry, right?  They'd be left to rot on the ground anyway.  Why not get some work out of them?  Why not a lot of work, in fact?  When the G religion objected, it was politely informed that its state religion status had just become negotiable, and a lot of the high-level clergy decided to leave rather than start a war.  This nation has a very clear idea on what is good and what is evil in the campaign world; they just have decided that if the definition of good includes sending living troops into battle unnecessarily and the definition of evil includes suddenly-tripled harvests as undead oxen and horses pull ploughs tirelessly, they will quite cheerfully sign up for team evil.  They don't do the random killing or tyrantry; the leadership of the kingdom has decided to do what's best for the kingdom, and that currently includes a lot of evil.  If the forces of good enable the mass-production of deathless for industrial use, the kingdom will hop from evil to good in a heartbeat, but for now, evil achieves their goals, so they do evil.Does it make a difference if good is absolute, but ignored?</blockquote>

Verification