How can this not be evil?
- Thread starter DMH
- Start date
devilish
Explorer
That's my issue with D&D alignment --- all this talk of "...but it'd be ok if
they destroyed the souls of evil necromancers." The absoluteness of
evil/good that makes the alignment system faulty - shouldn't the good characters
go to all lengths _not_ to destroy any souls, to make sure they get their
eternal reward or punishment?
they destroyed the souls of evil necromancers." The absoluteness of
evil/good that makes the alignment system faulty - shouldn't the good characters
go to all lengths _not_ to destroy any souls, to make sure they get their
eternal reward or punishment?
fafhrd
First Post
Crothian said:
Not exactly sure what your parenthetical statement means Crothian, but a mechanical alignment system is irrelevant to the issue of making "greater good" actions into plot devices. Rules for which interpretation varies so greatly, as evidenced by this thread, serve little use in a game as collaborative as D&D. Shoehorn bad, nuance good.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
On the standard D&D matrix of alignment, I would say there is no way this could be dropped into the category of "good." Of course few things are really absolute like D&D alignment tries to be. I think in this case much depends upon the views of this society. I do not know the book, so I can only propose hypotheticals, but suppose the society believes that people who are not enlightened to their religion are doomed to have their souls spend eternity in torment. In their mind the destruction of a few souls - which would be saved from eternal torment as a result - in order to return the possibility to save countless more souls from torment by virtue of returning their society and its enlightened teachings would be worthwhile and good.
Trickstergod
First Post
Are any of these souls paladins?
If not, then I don't see a problem.
The act is evil. Permanent, ultimate destruction of a person's essence for your own continued existence, whatever what the goals, no matter who's being destroyed, is evil, as I see it. Unless of course the person consents to it; if they do, then, hey. No big deal. Oblivion's not the worst thing to happen to you, especially if you're willing.
But, presuming these people aren't consenting, yes, sure. Evil act.
However...one evil act alone isn't enough to shift your alignment. Not as I see it. If these folk are paladins then, yes, that's bull. If not, though, then I don't see that one act, no matter how horrid, as outweighing all the other good things these souls apparently have done and will do.
It could definitely be the first step to evil, though. In fact, that might be a good way to run things. I'm not familiar with the product, but the souls might eventually get a feeling of pride and hubris over the thought that their worth is more then any one souls, and with pride comes the fall...
Edit: Wrong word, now fixed
If not, then I don't see a problem.
The act is evil. Permanent, ultimate destruction of a person's essence for your own continued existence, whatever what the goals, no matter who's being destroyed, is evil, as I see it. Unless of course the person consents to it; if they do, then, hey. No big deal. Oblivion's not the worst thing to happen to you, especially if you're willing.
But, presuming these people aren't consenting, yes, sure. Evil act.
However...one evil act alone isn't enough to shift your alignment. Not as I see it. If these folk are paladins then, yes, that's bull. If not, though, then I don't see that one act, no matter how horrid, as outweighing all the other good things these souls apparently have done and will do.
It could definitely be the first step to evil, though. In fact, that might be a good way to run things. I'm not familiar with the product, but the souls might eventually get a feeling of pride and hubris over the thought that their worth is more then any one souls, and with pride comes the fall...
Edit: Wrong word, now fixed
Last edited:
GuardianLurker
Adventurer
Actually, IIRC, the Orbs don't instantly obliterate the soul of their possessor. It's a process that takes at least a few levels. Theoretically, the possessor can voluntarily get rid of the Orb. Practically, these things are artifacts, or near-artifacts, and are intelligent. Meaning that they have Ego scores so high that most characters are going to be unable to resist.
The orbs have a few other effects, and under certain circumstances, I could even see how a character could regard the change as benficial - especially initially.
The orbs have a few other effects, and under certain circumstances, I could even see how a character could regard the change as benficial - especially initially.
Given that the traditional fate of evil souls is an eternity of torment and pain, I can see how "destroying" a soul could easily be considered a "Good" act. As long as these spheres are posessing only willing or evil creatures, I don't see it as necessarily an evil act. Taking over someone's body and destroying their soul unwillingly would definitely be evil if done to a good, or even neutral creature. However, Evil is to be fought and vanquished. There really isn't that much of a difference between killing them and destroying their soul, especially if you are "saving" their soul from a horrible fate,
JustKim
First Post
I really don't want to argue the semantics of my post, so I'll just make one note and move on.
I'm sorry if you're not familiar with the fantasy convention of powerful undead who eradicate the living in order to prolong their own unlife. In any case it was an example, and whether the example is a lich or barghest or flumph does not matter.
No, that would be silly, wouldn't it? Statistically there would of course be lawful goods with a strong enough desire to save the world to do the unthinkable. It may be a large portion of lawful goods. In the course of saving the world, however, they would break the edicts of the lawful good alignment and cease being lawful good. In the same way, this supposedly lawful good society is doing things which blatantly break the edicts of the lawful good alignment. Why then should they magically continue to be lawful good?
I don't agree. It's my opinion, and a number of D&D designers seem to share it, that no one but those who're evil can do evil deeds without moral consequence. Let's say you have a good PC who uses soul bind on a random innocent bystander, because doing so and then destroying the soul will get the PC something he wants- something morally insignificant like a +12 hackmaster or the return of a long-dead empire. How can a PC who follows through with this continue to be good? How could fellow party members ever believe the PC is still good? How could people who hear of the PC continue to trust in the gods of good who condoned his actions?
Here are the example orbs and their hosts-
LG cleric that possessed a dwarf miner. He doesn't believe that the people knows what is best for themselves.
LG sorcerer that possessed a teenage girl. She is a battlemage that is convincing the girl to do what she wants.
LG paladin that possessed a bugbear chief. He doesn't care for modern society and wants to bring back the past. I think that this is an even more grey area.
CG bard that possessed an elf. She is "stirring up dissension among ancient elven families."
The sorcerer bothers me the most. She knows her host and what will happen and just strings the girl along. And the cleric reminds me of Rite of Passage by Alexei Panshin.
The authors are Rick Neal and Keith Baker. Do either of them read this board?
LG cleric that possessed a dwarf miner. He doesn't believe that the people knows what is best for themselves.
LG sorcerer that possessed a teenage girl. She is a battlemage that is convincing the girl to do what she wants.
LG paladin that possessed a bugbear chief. He doesn't care for modern society and wants to bring back the past. I think that this is an even more grey area.
CG bard that possessed an elf. She is "stirring up dissension among ancient elven families."
The sorcerer bothers me the most. She knows her host and what will happen and just strings the girl along. And the cleric reminds me of Rite of Passage by Alexei Panshin.
The authors are Rick Neal and Keith Baker. Do either of them read this board?
