Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whisper72" data-source="post: 2820346" data-attributes="member: 17339">Well... I think one of the problems is that the definition of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos largely depends upon what is considered good or evil or what is considered lawfule _in your gameworld_.A while back there was some interesting debate on how taking resurrection, especially when coupled with longevity type magic, to its logical conclusion would mean all manner of difficulty, especially on the side of inheritance and succession among nobles etc. Some ppl put forth that in their worlds, resurrection was against the law, and because it in essence could lead to a lot of problems, was mainly seen as a _bad thing_ (maybe not completely evil).When it is _the law_ that resurrection is prohibited, then it is clear that the three lawful alignments are all against. Since it is also considered bad (that's pretty much why it was outlawed), then the good folks would also be against. That would leave CE to be for, as it creates more chaos, and prolly make CN also for, as it promotes chaos.TN wouldn't care either way, unless TN is somehow 'druidic' in its tenets, and then, they may see resurrection as being tinkering with the natural order of things, and therefore, they would also be against.On the other hand, if the law allows resurrection, it may completely depend upon who is being resurrected. Then the alignment and deeds/exploits of the person about whom the choice must be made will mean the deciding factor....The problem with alignment is that is is _by definition_&nbsp; a subjective thing. Without some more moral guidelines about how 'things are done' in your campaign world, it becomes impossible to say something definitive about this issue...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whisper72, post: 2820346, member: 17339"] Well... I think one of the problems is that the definition of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos largely depends upon what is considered good or evil or what is considered lawfule _in your gameworld_. A while back there was some interesting debate on how taking resurrection, especially when coupled with longevity type magic, to its logical conclusion would mean all manner of difficulty, especially on the side of inheritance and succession among nobles etc. Some ppl put forth that in their worlds, resurrection was against the law, and because it in essence could lead to a lot of problems, was mainly seen as a _bad thing_ (maybe not completely evil). When it is _the law_ that resurrection is prohibited, then it is clear that the three lawful alignments are all against. Since it is also considered bad (that's pretty much why it was outlawed), then the good folks would also be against. That would leave CE to be for, as it creates more chaos, and prolly make CN also for, as it promotes chaos. TN wouldn't care either way, unless TN is somehow 'druidic' in its tenets, and then, they may see resurrection as being tinkering with the natural order of things, and therefore, they would also be against. On the other hand, if the law allows resurrection, it may completely depend upon who is being resurrected. Then the alignment and deeds/exploits of the person about whom the choice must be made will mean the deciding factor.... The problem with alignment is that is is _by definition_ a subjective thing. Without some more moral guidelines about how 'things are done' in your campaign world, it becomes impossible to say something definitive about this issue... [/QUOTE]

Verification