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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2948521" data-attributes="member: 32164">Nope. It makes you Evil Complicated. As opposed to Evil Simple. Probably, such a character wouldn't even REALIZE he was evil (most people don't). I know, in D&D you claim he would...or might he think that those telling him he was "evil" were in fact "evil" themselves?Not feeling COMPELLED to do good makes you at best, neutral. Doing good things? Well, it's a start, but why are you taking the risk? Even an evil character can risk his life to save a child. It doesn't automatically make him good (or even neutral).I suppose in some cosmic balance sense, you may come out okay (we'd all like to believe that) but redemption is a thorny issue. What does it take to atone for evil? Self-sacrifice (or potential self-sacrifice) for the benefit of others is pretty good. Minor evil acts require minor acts of goodness.One good example: Magneto in X-Men. Good, evil, or neutral?Your definition says neutral (he does both good and evil). But Magnus does some pretty horrific things. So, which is it?Most people are uncomfortable with the notion of good and evil as absolutes. They tend to favor a more "flexible" philosophy oft-described as "Moral Relativism." This is probably because most people, are themselves neutral or evil, by D&D terms. We all want to think we'd be classified as "good" in such a setting. Most of us would be wrong.And yes, I agree that the Book of Vile Darkness is laughably simplistic. The line I'm referring to went something like this:"In a world where good and evil are concrete things, sacrificing yourself to help someone else is a good act. Exploiting someone else for your own benefit is an evil act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is."He then proceeds to jump through hoops for 200 pages to explain why, in this world of concrete good and evil, PCs can murder monsters for their gold and still themselves BE "good." That's only because to do otherwise treads on the genre conceits of the game.But the initial summary line is still a very good comment about good, evil, and what it MEANS for them to be concrete things, rather than abstract concepts.My two cents.</blockquote>

Verification