Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6916775" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I don't consider him some infallible D&amp;D god. But in this case, when we are discussing (in part) what the meaning of &quot;good&quot; is, in terms of alignment, and there's a good amount of disagreement over what is &quot;intended&quot; by such an alignment, going back to the person who invented the alignments in the first place is a reasonable thing to consider.I think it's clear that most people's definitions are often considerably different than Gary's. And certainly the game has evolved/changed including the popular and intended definitions of alignment.My initial reaction with the OP is &quot;of course it's evil&quot; and furthermore I was a bit surprised that there was any disagreement over that. But as the discussion has continued, not only have alternate definitions of good and evil been presented from other sources, I find it extremely interesting that in the history of D&amp;D itself that the definition of good (at least as it would appear the original designer intended), not only allow such an action as good, but might even condone it.Essentially, seeing this sort of &quot;intent&quot; or clarification from the original designer sort of reframes a discussion about what alignment means in D&amp;D. At least from a historical perspective. Again, it doesn't mean that the current definitions aren't different regardless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6916775, member: 6778044"] I don't consider him some infallible D&D god. But in this case, when we are discussing (in part) what the meaning of "good" is, in terms of alignment, and there's a good amount of disagreement over what is "intended" by such an alignment, going back to the person who invented the alignments in the first place is a reasonable thing to consider. I think it's clear that most people's definitions are often considerably different than Gary's. And certainly the game has evolved/changed including the popular and intended definitions of alignment. My initial reaction with the OP is "of course it's evil" and furthermore I was a bit surprised that there was any disagreement over that. But as the discussion has continued, not only have alternate definitions of good and evil been presented from other sources, I find it extremely interesting that in the history of D&D itself that the definition of good (at least as it would appear the original designer intended), not only allow such an action as good, but might even condone it. Essentially, seeing this sort of "intent" or clarification from the original designer sort of reframes a discussion about what alignment means in D&D. At least from a historical perspective. Again, it doesn't mean that the current definitions aren't different regardless. [/QUOTE]

Verification