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="Al" data-source="post: 1812541" data-attributes="member: 2486">The true determinant as to whether or not consorting with Nerull is evil is principally dependent not as to what aid Nerull gives the nation, but, and I can scarcely belive that this distinction has been missed, even by Elder_Basilisk's (always) eloquent posts, but the nature of the opposing force.The OP does not indicate what these two factions against which the country over which Mortimer rules is fighting against .  To me, the principal determinant as to whether potential dealings with Nerull is evil or not is almost entirely conditional upon this factor.Let us posit one hypothetical scenario.  The opposing factions are not merely factions, but are in cahoots with Erythnul.  If they triumph, something which is virtually guaranteed with Nerull's aid, the world will be subjected to carnage, slaughter and that particularly sadistic CE brand of tyranny for the foreseeable future.  In this event, it might be justified to perform an act of the "lesser evil".  The BoED, in its crude moral absolutism, asserts that lying is de facto evil.  Yet few here would believe that, for example, military espionage during World War II was "evil", in spite of the necessary incorporation of deceit as a means of war.  The same system must apply here, albeit to a lesser degree: if seeking the aid of Nerull results in the "lesser evil", it is perfectly feasible- indeed encouraged- for a good non-paladin* non-exalted* character to undertake this course of action.However, the contrary scenario would be a war in the context of genuine international struggle between powers.  War, per se, is neutral.  The cosmic balance of good and evil, and largely the lives of the medieval citizenry in general, is unaffected by whichever particular administration is dominant is any particular reason.  There is no "lesser evil" here, since allowing the other nation to win is not actually evil in an objective sense (although to nationalists, patriots and generals it may seem evil in a subjective sense).  Conscripting the side of evil to further a neutral cause is ipso facto evil, and the PC should have his alignment changed, probably to TN, to reflect that fact."Lesser evil" is a doctrine which, whilst contestable, is certainly a valid interpretation of NG.  Many may disagree, but to argue for "lesser evil" as an objective and genuine rejection of the values of good is too much of a stretch.  The analysis of "lesser evil", however, must posit the counter-factual scenario of what were to happen if an evil course of action is not undertaken.  If the opposing country is hell-bent on enslaving and torturing the population, dealing with Nerull may be justified.  A simple international power-struggle, a Clausewitzian war or a war where a peace is available invalidates an evil course of action.  Power politics is always neutral, and good and evil are little concerned with the vicissitudes of national boundaries.  The question thus should not be: is this act evil, but is this act the "lesser evil"?* Paladins and exalted characters confuse matter since the former adheres the a strict code of conduct on morally absolute principles and the exalted character voluntary subscribes to the moral absolutism expounded by the BoED.PS: Re: the plague, dealing with Nerull to alleviate the plague is as wrong as it is stupid.  It is essentially akin to giving a serial burglar the title deed to your house and the spare key to your neighbour's house if he promises to stop burgling you.</blockquote>

Verification