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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2215029" data-attributes="member: 27012">With the caveat that it depends on how morality works in your game:Unless you had some reason to suspect that a creature like that would make a mistake and actually do something Evil, then yes.  Was it Evil?  That depends on the motivations.  It may only be Neutral if it were done out of self interest rather than cruelty or malice.Unless the setting has harmless Evil creatures, yes.  You can assume that an evil creature will eventually  get around to burning down an orphanage (or something equally awful) if you just let it go.  The only other exception is if the setting allows easy alignment shifting and redemption of Evil creatures of the sort in question is possible or likely.[spoiler]Because being Good or Evil is not simply about helping or hurting the people on your own team.  Good and Evil are defined by how Good and Evil people treat the innocent commoners and other sentient creatures.  They are not simply flip sides of the same thing or two arbitrary teams.  In fact, I'd argue that if you are simply treating them as two morally equivalent teams, you are missing the point of those alignments.Is the leadership of the Grand Church Good?  Do they continue to have the capacity to cast spells through Good divine power?  Do the deities of the setting want to bring about the collapse?  Do your Good deities make mistakes?  What's the motivation for the Fey and Dragons for stopping them?[/spoiler]It sounds a lot like the Fey and Dragons are being Neutral.  They are not acting out of malice towards the Good Outsiders, nor are they being cruel.  But they do seem to be acting out of selfish reasons (protecting the status quo and their turf) rather than making self-sacrifices to help others (in the big scheme of things), which the RAW describes as a characteristic of being Good.  The only exception might be if they have genuine doubt that the end of the world would be a net Good, at which point that raises the question of why the Grand Church, their Good deities, and the Good Outsiders are trying to bring it about.  Remember, D&D is has three alignments on the Good to Evil scale, Good, Neutral, and Evil.  Neutral is neither altruistic nor cruel.  It simply cares about its own little slice of the world and the people and things it likes.  In fact, what you are describing is pretty much how I see the difference between Neutral Druids in my setting and the Clerics that are Good or Evil.  The Druids are all about preserving the world and its cycles regardless of how much Good or Evil happens down the road.  Both Good and Evil are not about cycles and the status quo.Ultimately, if you want to create a conflict within Good, I'd suggest a conflict between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good in a world where Good lacks the capacity to finally eliminate Evil in an end-game like you describe.  Basically, explore what happens when people equate order or liberty with Good and how either (or both) can conflict with protecting the innocent.  That would let you avoid the whole problem of which side to support being based on a guess about who is right or wrong about what happens when the world ends. You should probably also see the 1991 movie "The Rapture".[EDIT: Spelling]</blockquote>

Verification