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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LuYangShih" data-source="post: 1153094" data-attributes="member: 10414">I disagree.    <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> Actually, no.  You seem to be misinterpeting strong action as Evil.  Lawful Good characters are the "Crusaders" according to the PHB.  Waging a Crusade against Evil and its influence.  The Paladin only emphasizes this trait all the more.In a fantasy D&D world, a good deal of the population will fall under my definition of Evil.  You seem to be much more forgiving than I am, actually.  I suspect more people would be Evil by my definitions than yours. Yes, but almost no one is a paragon.  You can commit lesser Evil and still remain Neutral, and the same is true for Good actions.  To a lesser extent, this is also true of Good and Evil characters, who are capable of performing actions on the opposite end of the alignment.  Their overall character determines their final alignment, however.  No, I consider only people who are truly willing to harm and destroy others to further their own interests as Evil.  Most people are at least a little greedy, selfish, or uncaring.  This is why the majority falls under the Neutral definition.  Most people never reach a decision on a moral basis to live their lives by, whether that be helping others, or stepping on them.  But your views are not in concordance with the standard rules.  Furthermore, they handicap characters such as Paladins in your world from being truly effective adventurers.  Paladins are Crusaders in a holy war against the forces of evil.  You apparently see them as something else.Shall we define our standpoints, then?  Good does not neccessarily require mercy in all cases.  Indeed, I think a wise standpoint for a Good character would be to realize that he is simply bringing justice to Evil creatures for the crimes they have commited.  He need not feel compelled to forgive them, as that is not his duty.  Mercy should only be applied when it is thought the Evil creature one is facing truly feels remorse or regret over his actions, and wishes to change.  You cannot change another unless they wished to be changed, after all.  If an Evil character shows no remorse or regret, and cannot understand why you judge them, than they are not deserving of mercy.  It is thus the Paladins duty to destroy such creatures both to prevent any further harm they do, and as punishment for the Evil they have committed.  PSAnd yes, this has been a good debate so far.</blockquote>

Verification