Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sejs" data-source="post: 1606157" data-attributes="member: 4910">Flawed reasoning.  A lawful evil person isn't a lawful good, or a lawful neutral person who does an evil act, let alone one who has to choose between the rock and the hard place.  In the example, BOTH are viable choices and BOTH would have the paladin remain lawful good and a paladin.It's very important to remember that an evil alignment denotes a consistant and overriding self-interest.  An evil person is out for themselves, first, last, and all the way in between.  Ignoring the town to strike at the general isn't evil because you're doing it to end the threat of the demon army and thus preserve the welfare of all those innocents that would be affected by the war.  Ignoring the general to defend the town isn't evil because you're doing it to preserve the welfare of those innocents that are in immediate danger, and you can reason that you'll have another shot at the general later.  But either decision is being made with good intent, rather than "I can do X to benefit me in Y way".  Purposefully letting the town be sacked and the innocents slaughtered just because you know that it'll give you the leverage you need to get the armies of Generica to join the war on your side - THAT would be an evil act.  Evil is essentially the philosophy of Grab What You Can And To Hell With The Other Guy.Anyway, personally I'd take out the general.  Evac the town if possible, but if not.. *shrug*.  Greatest good for the greatest number.  The loss is regretable, but... omlettes and eggs, ya know.</blockquote>

Verification