Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 2647212" data-attributes="member: 22622">Ironically I believe it is the opposite.&nbsp; I don't believe it is very realistic for a character whom commits evil acts engage in activities with characters attempting to do good.&nbsp; Now I mean inheritedly evil.&nbsp; If we were being realistic, once a person sees someone commiting an evil act, I am sure that they would stop befriending that character.&nbsp; Like souls usually hang out together, only in an unrealistic campaign will a baby eater join forces with a priest.&nbsp; There are some things that are direly evil and some things that are good.&nbsp; The tone of my campaign is heroic (non-evil).&nbsp; The pcs are trying to save the world one adventure at a time.&nbsp; The party carries a neutral overtone to them.&nbsp; I am from the Joss Whedon school of good whereas it is never truly cut and dry.&nbsp; Most of the time my pcs dwell in the grey.&nbsp; Should they race towards the clocktower or save the village of Malamyr?&nbsp; I often throw delemmas like that at them to enforce the tone that doing good is not always easy.&nbsp; However,&nbsp; dire evil is always quite clear.&nbsp; Destroying the world for selfish reasons, killing kids for fun, ressrecting evil gods.&nbsp; Good is hard to define but evil is always clear.&nbsp; IF nothing good comes of it (or you don't think anything is coming from it) then its evil.&nbsp; To take your example, in my campaign the pcs have done evil unknowingly for an evil being thinking they were doing good.&nbsp; I don't consider that evil they were duped.&nbsp; However once they know they are doing evil and they continue, that's evil.&nbsp; Now if they have to do a little evil for a greater good, sometimes that happens.&nbsp; For instance if the evil being needs a child to sacrafice themselves so that the evil being does not come back, the pcs could figure out a way to do that and still remain good (or at least aren't considered evil).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DonTadow, post: 2647212, member: 22622"] Ironically I believe it is the opposite. I don't believe it is very realistic for a character whom commits evil acts engage in activities with characters attempting to do good. Now I mean inheritedly evil. If we were being realistic, once a person sees someone commiting an evil act, I am sure that they would stop befriending that character. Like souls usually hang out together, only in an unrealistic campaign will a baby eater join forces with a priest. There are some things that are direly evil and some things that are good. The tone of my campaign is heroic (non-evil). The pcs are trying to save the world one adventure at a time. The party carries a neutral overtone to them. I am from the Joss Whedon school of good whereas it is never truly cut and dry. Most of the time my pcs dwell in the grey. Should they race towards the clocktower or save the village of Malamyr? I often throw delemmas like that at them to enforce the tone that doing good is not always easy. However, dire evil is always quite clear. Destroying the world for selfish reasons, killing kids for fun, ressrecting evil gods. Good is hard to define but evil is always clear. IF nothing good comes of it (or you don't think anything is coming from it) then its evil. To take your example, in my campaign the pcs have done evil unknowingly for an evil being thinking they were doing good. I don't consider that evil they were duped. However once they know they are doing evil and they continue, that's evil. Now if they have to do a little evil for a greater good, sometimes that happens. For instance if the evil being needs a child to sacrafice themselves so that the evil being does not come back, the pcs could figure out a way to do that and still remain good (or at least aren't considered evil). [/QUOTE]

Verification