Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RigaMortus" data-source="post: 870969" data-attributes="member: 1077">I was only making a silly point to your silly logic.Yup, they would be doing something evil as well.Well it certain doesn't make them Good.  And Neutrality also displays a respect for life, just not when it puts ones self at risk.Good -> Respect for life, even sacrificing themselves if it comes to it.Neutral -> Respect for life, but not if they are going to have to sacrifice themselves to do so.Evil -> No respect for life.  Will kill anything, anything they feel like it, with no remorse.You are probably correct here.  Not 100% correct.  Because once you kill that "demon" who is trying to do the right thing against all odds, you're screwed (especially if you are a Paladin).  But that could NEVER happen in DnD.  It "goes against the rules", right?I just love how you can take other peoples words and twist them around.  Are you in politics by chance?  Don't worry, you are not alone.  There are others that post here as well which practice the philosophy of taking something someone says the wrong way to make that person look like he is deliberately being an instigator or insulting.Please quote to me where I said "YOU, Rel, lack creativity and originality".  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />  Anyway...Not as bad as I would feel when his friend runs past me and kills an ally as I take the full round action to CdG the person, who is no longer a threat, instead of attacking those who are concious and still pose a threat.I am glad you asked.  I am not normally the DM.  Our current DM originally requested that we play any alignment except "Evil" or "Chaotic Neutral".  As I was the newbie to this group, I complied.  The DM likes to run Heroic types of campaigns.  He feels that a lot of people who play DnD (people who he's played with in the past) put a lot of emphasis on killing, and have no regard for anothers life, no matter what alignment they are playing.  I tend to agree with him.  He didn't want to play such a campaign.  He wanted the heroes to really be heroes and for the campaign to be challenging in that way.  He throws the occassional moral dilemna at us, and this is the kind of thing we enjoy.  Others may not.Let me set up a typical scenario and how it usually plays out.  Bear in mind we have 9 players in the group, 4 of which are Paladins of different gods.  And if you must ask, I do play one of the Paladins.  Also bear in mind, there are varying alignments in the group, just no Evil or CN.Group of us are jumped by a gang of seedy looking sailors.  They first tell us to drop our weapons and come along quitely.  They want to "press" us into being sailors.  We give them a warning.  They ignore it and attack us (using lethal force, real damage not subdual).  We retalitiate in kind.  Some sailors drop during the fight (maybe they are dead, maybe they are bleeding to death).  At this points, we do a variety of things, not all the time mind you.  It varies given the situation.1) We might tell the remaining ones to surrender or leave and they will be spared.2) We might continue fighting until they decide to leave on their own (which does actualy happen, not all encounters end with a fight to the death).3) We might try and stablize the fallen enemies in the midst of battle, hoping that they other sailors will see our mercy and think twice.  Leave us alone.4) We might fight to the death, and once all enemies are gone or lying on the ground unconcious, we will heal any of them that are not "dead".  At least stabilzie them, and maybe bring one or two back to question.As you see, we don't have any problems with attacking or killing (even the Paladins) provided there is still a threat.  We first try and talk our ways out of it.  We give them a chance to surrender when they start to lose.  We give them every opportunity to "give up".  We don't kill first and ask questions later just because "Well, they attacked us first so they deserve to die".  Oh, and as a roleplay aspect, sometimes the Paladins or Clerics will say a prayer for their fallen enemies (we don't roleplay this out all the time as it gets repeatative, so we just assume that is part of the after-battle stuff, such as "looting the corpses", well the Paladins don't loot, but the Rogues do =)Back to the original question.  All I was saying from the beginning is that CdG is an evil act.  Which I later gave in some and restated that it is inherently "neutral" (only because the RULES don't specifically say it is an evil act) but more often used for evil purposes, given that there is healing in DnD there is no other reason to CdG someone/thing except to ends it's life.  And ending another creatures life, to me, is evil BECAUSE Good people (according to the rules) have a "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings".</blockquote>

Verification