Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1810488" data-attributes="member: 707">As you quoted yourself, the key is &quot;knowingly.&quot;&nbsp; A paladin could travel with a pit fiend without losing his powers, so long as the pit fiend managed to successfully hide its true nature from the paladin.&nbsp; It's when he chooses to associate with evil that he breaks his code.There is no difference, though.&nbsp; An act's moral implications remain constant, regardless of who the victim is.&nbsp; Murdering a serial killer is no more morally clean than murdering a fine, upstanding citizen who gives to the Red Cross.&nbsp; It's the murder that's morally significant, not whom you kill.&nbsp; Likewise stealing from harmless passengers is no more despicable than stealing from villains.That said, you need to decide, for the sake of your game world, what the moral implications of theft are.&nbsp; As a DM, I usually rule theft as Neutral and Chaotic, unless there are extreme circumstances.&nbsp; You are free to rule otherwise, but if you do, you should have already discussed this point with the rogue's player the instant he told you he wanted to play a &quot;sneaky, greedy, sometimes selfish rogue.&quot;&nbsp; If you haven't, you'll need to do that now so that the player understands that his character concept is one that--in your campaign--cannot exist in a Chaotic-Neutral state, but will invariably slide into Evil through the commission of evil acts.Certainly he will, but I'd advise you to discuss this with the player before it gets to that point.&nbsp; If the player wants to play into that sort of conflict, great.&nbsp; But if he doesn't, then he's not going to enjoy being blindsided when you tell the paladin his character is evil, even though he hasn't committed any acts that he thought were evil.This isn't evil.&nbsp; Harming someone so there are less witnesses is evil.&nbsp; Not healing someone and taking advantage of less witnesses is not.&nbsp; It's certainly not good, but then this rogue isn't a good character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 1810488, member: 707"] As you quoted yourself, the key is "knowingly." A paladin could travel with a pit fiend without losing his powers, so long as the pit fiend managed to successfully hide its true nature from the paladin. It's when he [i]chooses[/i] to associate with evil that he breaks his code.There is no difference, though. An act's moral implications remain constant, regardless of who the victim is. Murdering a serial killer is no more morally clean than murdering a fine, upstanding citizen who gives to the Red Cross. It's the [i]murder[/i] that's morally significant, not [i]whom[/i] you kill. Likewise stealing from harmless passengers is no more despicable than stealing from villains. That said, you need to decide, for the sake of your game world, what the moral implications of theft are. As a DM, I usually rule theft as Neutral and Chaotic, unless there are extreme circumstances. You are free to rule otherwise, but if you do, you should have already discussed this point with the rogue's player the instant he told you he wanted to play a "sneaky, greedy, sometimes selfish rogue." If you haven't, you'll need to do that now so that the player understands that his character concept is one that--in your campaign--[i]cannot exist[/i] in a Chaotic-Neutral state, but will invariably slide into Evil through the commission of evil acts.Certainly he will, but I'd advise you to discuss this with the player before it gets to that point. If the player wants to play into that sort of conflict, great. But if he [i]doesn't[/i], then he's not going to enjoy being blindsided when you tell the paladin his character is evil, even though he hasn't committed any acts that he thought were evil.This isn't evil. Harming someone so there are less witnesses is evil. [i]Not[/i] healing someone and taking advantage of less witnesses is not. It's certainly not [i]good[/i], but then this rogue isn't a good character. [/QUOTE]

Verification