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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6160949" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I suspect if Raising is an Evil (or even morally questionable) act, the Clone spell becomes a lot more popular.  But that has its own issues.Wand or scroll...  Spellbook is still OK, if you have a wizard, but the cleric has many of the very situational protective spells that mitigate or remove the SoD risk.  Fall back certainly works, if the spells are available, but I can`t see a lot of clerics selecting very situational spells (unless you provide them a lot more breadth than Sorcerers in spells known).I`d see it within LG more so than within NG or CG.  But then, my view is that NG would have the greatest respect for life, its devotion to Good being constrained by  neither adherence to Law nor Chaos.  I don`t see the corners of the alignment square as the pure alignments, but the sides, which are devoted to only a single ideal.All true - however, the fact we have spent thousands of years grappling with these issues, to come to no truly definitive conclusions, makes it tough to see how an entire alignment would agree absolutely with a single interpretation.  I would expect that various LG worldviews could value the Justice of victim restoration over the Good of respect for the criminal's life (especially when respect for the life of the fallen supports the assertion that trading one life for the other makes that aspect break even).  There are nine alignments, but hundreds or thousands of applications of those alignments, and I would  not expect all Lawful Good, or even all Good, beings to concur on what approach is most appropriate.  [ASIDE:  Funny how we view all those Good people generally agreeing on most issues and working together, despite the variance between Law and Chaos, but we don't envision Lawful characters of various Good and Evil gradations working together against the common foe of Chaos, nor the opposite).Very true - and I think the interpretations of "good" and "evil" commonly need to be evaluated in light of the specific culture the game works to portray.  The typical D&D game accepts that "violence as a solution" is not wholly inconsistent with Good alignment.  An Aztec game would have to accept human sacrifice, which would be tough for our modern sensibilities to accept.Very true.  In fact, with transplants, the question of trading one life for another becomes more and more real.  I worked with a lady who gave up a kidney for a relative - not guaranteed lethal, but not without risk either.  We would accept that,  but I doubt we would permit a surgeon to transplant her heart into a sick child.  We have problems with voluntary donations motivated by financial reward as well.  Similar issues seem just as relevant in the "life for a life" ability to raise the dead.Personally, I play the game as an escape from my real-life issues, but I think we all struggle with accepting certain things in-game that we know don't work in the "real world".  Our ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.</blockquote>

Verification