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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archangel" data-source="post: 257332" data-attributes="member: 4537">Intent, Motive, Action - my takeFirst, I must agree with Umbran for the most part on including the motive axis in figuring out if the act is good or evil.Second, each DM must decide this to some extent on his own.  Some are raised in an atmosphere (religious, cultural, etc.) where indeed 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' (this seems to hold the most water with those who believe in hell).  Running a world in this way is definitely doable (in fact, many campaigns probably use this basis).  Characters just have to be careful of what they do, instead of why (obey the commandments, be virtuous, etc.).Some people, OTOH, come from a culture where intent and motive are more important and 'evil acts' can be justified and deemed good.  In these campaigns there are often more 'gray areas', and the question 'why?' must be answered more often.I cannot say which is better or worse (I can, but that would be my bias and upbringing, not a neutral analysis of how to abjucate alignment).With that said, I do see a double standard in a lot of campaigns.  PCs are often able to get away with evil actions based on their intent, while NPCs are made to be the enemy based on their actions.  I find this interesting, but not something to worry too much about (unless it is affecting the game).Once again, it may not be better (or fit into the way a person is taught), but I think that intention and motive should be factored in for the game (at least for the PCs).  It allows them to act in a way that we gamers are used to them acting (even if in the real world, some of our religious views would condemn the PCs for being as bad as the evil they are supposed to be fighting).Remember, try to allow the greatest suspension of disbelief while keeping the integrity and enjoyability of the game intact.</blockquote>

Verification