Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 3478671" data-attributes="member: 28553">Holy Christ.&nbsp; Happyelf?&nbsp; Awful Forums happyelf?My point wasn't that Retreater was using alignments incorrectly--although it's a long and open debate whether alignments should determine character behavior or vice-versa--but that the alignment system itself is bad idea, and clearly a stumbling block in this particular instance.&nbsp; Instead of being &quot;Lawful Good,&quot; I'd rather describe this Cleric as &quot;a violent, suspicious, overzearlous hothead&quot;.&nbsp; Instead of saying &quot;they can't attack that temple; they're Good and it's Neutral&quot;, I'd rather say &quot;The priests haven't done anything wrong that the PCs are sure of, and their religion isn't typically considered a dangerous one.&nbsp; It's pretty suspicious and overzearlous to attack their temple with such little evidence.&quot;As billd91 implied, I think you can draw a distinction between being evil and doing evil.&nbsp; Or, for that matter, between doing evil and committing crimes.&nbsp; And, when you really come down to it, even if the temple has been breaking the law, and even if the PCs could prove that to the authorities, their pretty-much-unprovoked attack on the temple still sounds pretty illegal.&nbsp; It depends on local laws, of course, but I know that in our society, it ain't okay to break into a dude's house and kill him, even if he's later proven to be a murderer.&nbsp; Sure, this is D&amp;D, but these guys ain't a bunch of goblins out in the wilderness.&nbsp; The finer points of this legal situation are pretty much open for the DM to determine, I figure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreatLemur, post: 3478671, member: 28553"] Holy Christ. Happyelf? [i]Awful Forums[/i] happyelf? My point wasn't that Retreater was using alignments incorrectly--although it's a long and open debate whether alignments should determine character behavior or vice-versa--but that the alignment system [i]itself[/i] is bad idea, and clearly a stumbling block in this particular instance. Instead of being "Lawful Good," I'd rather describe this Cleric as "a violent, suspicious, overzearlous hothead". Instead of saying "they can't attack that temple; they're Good and it's Neutral", I'd rather say "The priests haven't done anything wrong that the PCs are sure of, and their religion isn't typically considered a dangerous one. It's pretty suspicious and overzearlous to attack their temple with such little evidence." As billd91 implied, I think you can draw a distinction between [i]being[/i] evil and [i]doing[/i] evil. Or, for that matter, between doing evil and committing crimes. And, when you really come down to it, even if the temple [i]has[/i] been breaking the law, and even if the PCs could prove that to the authorities, their pretty-much-unprovoked attack on the temple still sounds pretty illegal. It depends on local laws, of course, but I know that in our society, it ain't okay to break into a dude's house and kill him, even if he's later proven to be a murderer. Sure, this is D&D, but these guys ain't a bunch of goblins out in the wilderness. The finer points of this legal situation are pretty much open for the DM to determine, I figure. [/QUOTE]

Verification