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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6280698" data-attributes="member: 4937">You have some strange ideas about what is canon D&D.  Repeatedly, you seem to not be arguing against canon D&D, but against a warped perception of it that for me at least looks like a straw man.Nuetral is feeling very left out here.Murder is I'm pretty sure never considered morally aligned with good by anyone, and there is plenty of evidence that D&D good has always rejected killing indescrimently as good - prohibition against the assassin class, prohibition against poison, etc.  Any killing by good done within even the D&D framework is framed within the context of 'just warfare'.  I think very few would sympathize with a DM that protrayed good in the context you claim is default.  I suspect that may well depend on just how cartoonish people's approach to it is.  Certainly the actual D&D cartoon was not nearly as cartoonish as you claim, much less people's actual mature campaigns.Mainly because they lack the power to do so.  And yet, had they the power to do so, is it your contention that a crusade against the power of Sauron would have been morally unjustifiable?Would you condemn the Valar for waging war against Morgoth, or praise Morgoth as just because the Noldor launched a war of agression against him?   Surely if the Valar deserve condemnation, it's not for refraining from crusading against Morgoth, but for not heeding the Wisdom of Orome or the Suspicion of Tulkas and prosecuting the crusade against Morgoth sooner.   Much suffering might have well been avoided had the Valar been bolder.Speaking of cartoonish morality, gird yourself and answer me.  I presume you are at least somewhat aware of Harry Potter?  In the 3rd book, Harry Potter, Remus Lupin and Sirious Black debate the morality of executing the mass murderer Peter Pettigrew without.   Both Lupin and Black favor killing Pettigrew on the spot, but Harry ultimately decides that this would be murder for murder - vegeance and not justice.   Is Harry correct, or is Harry just being cowardly?   Keep in mind that as a result of Harry's decision, both Lupin and Black - along with many many others, including Cedric Diggory - are going to be murdered.   If Harry had the power to warn himself against his decision, should he have done so?   Is Harry motivated by compassion or by cowardice to put into someone else's hands something he himself knows must be done (Harry isn't actually against Pettigrew being killed)?</blockquote>

Verification