Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tylermalan" data-source="post: 5739582" data-attributes="member: 30929">&quot;Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.&quot;So... there's that.Also!&quot;Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.&quot;This is the Pathfinder official definition of good and evil, yes?&nbsp; Where exactly is the &quot;attitude&quot; portion?&nbsp; Those sound like deeds to me.Devils are evil because they do not protect innocent life - they debase or destroy it.&nbsp; Picking a flower does not matter either way, really.&nbsp; Further, there is no such thing as a devil who does not do those things.&nbsp; Emphasis on the &quot;do.&quot;But really, I don't even know where the debate lies.&nbsp; &quot;General moral and personal attitudes&quot; ARE deeds.&nbsp; How many people do you know that perform deeds that go directly against their moral and personal attitudes?&nbsp; A person who thinks evil thoughts but who does good deeds is... good.&nbsp; How could you call him otherwise?&nbsp; He either protects innocent life or destroys it... who cares what he thinks?&nbsp; Remember, this is in a multiverse in which there ARE good creatures.&nbsp; This label is IMPOSSIBLE if there is not a STANDARD of good and evil to which all creatures could be applied.&nbsp; &quot;Evil creatures destroy innocent life&quot; is not ambiguous.&nbsp; There is a definition of &quot;good&quot; in the multiverse of D&amp;D in the same way that there is a definition of the word &quot;innocent&quot; in regards to whether or not you &quot;protect innocent life.&quot;Of COURSE alignment represents a broad range of personality types - see the difference between devils and demons on the evil spectrum.&nbsp; This doesn't mean that they're both evil only because they &quot;think&quot; evil.Also, you seem to be ignoring my points on the atonement spell... I think those are some of the better points, by the way.&nbsp; If alignment really reflects thoughts instead of deeds, then the atonement spell makes no sense.But anyway, the only real point you should take away from this is that devils could not be inherently evil without a standard of evil, and the definition of this standard, as per the link I posted, doesn't say anything about thoughts.&nbsp; It only talks about what a creature does or doesn't do.I leave you with a quote from the bottom of the page, in the section on changing alignments:&quot;it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment... If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tylermalan, post: 5739582, member: 30929"] "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic." So... there's that. Also! "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." This is the Pathfinder official definition of good and evil, yes? Where exactly is the "attitude" portion? Those sound like deeds to me. Devils are evil because they do not protect innocent life - they debase or destroy it. Picking a flower does not matter either way, really. Further, there is no such thing as a devil who does not [i]do[/i] those things. Emphasis on the "do." But really, I don't even know where the debate lies. "General moral and personal attitudes" ARE deeds. How many people do you know that perform deeds that go directly against their moral and personal attitudes? A person who thinks evil thoughts but who does good deeds is... good. How could you call him otherwise? He either protects innocent life or destroys it... who cares what he thinks? Remember, this is in a multiverse in which there ARE good creatures. This label is IMPOSSIBLE if there is not a STANDARD of good and evil to which all creatures could be applied. "Evil creatures destroy innocent life" is not ambiguous. There is a definition of "good" in the multiverse of D&D in the same way that there is a definition of the word "innocent" in regards to whether or not you "protect innocent life." Of COURSE alignment represents a broad range of personality types - see the difference between devils and demons on the evil spectrum. This doesn't mean that they're both evil only because they "think" evil. Also, you seem to be ignoring my points on the atonement spell... I think those are some of the better points, by the way. If alignment really reflects thoughts instead of deeds, then the atonement spell makes no sense. But anyway, the only real point you should take away from this is that devils could not be inherently evil without a standard of evil, and the definition of this standard, as per the link I posted, doesn't say anything about thoughts. It only talks about what a creature does or doesn't do. I leave you with a quote from the bottom of the page, in the section on changing alignments: "it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is [i]behaving[/i] differently from his stated alignment... If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's [i]acting[/i] out of alignment..." [/QUOTE]

Verification