Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6686942" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Circumstances.&nbsp; From the original post:Now, if that's just &quot;the victim is tied to a chair behind a trapped door, safe and sound&quot;, I also question the &quot;let's make a deal&quot; approach.&nbsp; But I wasn't there, so I don't know the situation.&nbsp; &quot;While you fight the Brigands, the Beast kills and eats the Princess&quot; is probably not an acceptable result, so &quot;Look, you're in it for the money - we'll give you cash, just stay out of the way while we rescue the innocent&quot; seems like a viable tradeoff between &quot;protect the innocent&quot; and &quot;punish the guilty&quot;.&nbsp; Then it's a variation of the classic dilemma of choosing whether to chase the bad guy or rescue the innocent people he has somehow endangered. However, the possibility that there are six CN characters, but three are in denial and don't want to look bad is also very real.Lying is evil?&nbsp; It's certainly Chaotic, but is it evil?Now, respect for life is a hallmark of Good, but if killing the perpetrators of evil deeds means one cannot be Good, we can take that third of the alignment chart out of 99%+ of fantasy RPG's I've ever seen.&nbsp; LN at best, and I agree leaving them to starve moves it further down the axis. Like you, I have difficulty with the term &quot;properly kill them&quot;.&nbsp; Goading them into a fight so you can claim &quot;self-defense&quot; doesn't cut it.&nbsp; Good people aren't looking for an excuse to kill.&nbsp; But then, didn't the Good people here choose to sacrifice their own wealth to avoid the need to kill the brigands?&nbsp; Taken in isolation, that seems like a Good act.&nbsp; But acts can't be taken in isolation, which brings us full circle to the reasons for making the deal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6686942, member: 6681948"] Circumstances. From the original post: Now, if that's just "the victim is tied to a chair behind a trapped door, safe and sound", I also question the "let's make a deal" approach. But I wasn't there, so I don't know the situation. "While you fight the Brigands, the Beast kills and eats the Princess" is probably not an acceptable result, so "Look, you're in it for the money - we'll give you cash, just stay out of the way while we rescue the innocent" seems like a viable tradeoff between "protect the innocent" and "punish the guilty". Then it's a variation of the classic dilemma of choosing whether to chase the bad guy or rescue the innocent people he has somehow endangered. However, the possibility that there are six CN characters, but three are in denial and don't want to look bad is also very real. Lying is evil? It's certainly Chaotic, but is it evil? Now, respect for life is a hallmark of Good, but if killing the perpetrators of evil deeds means one cannot be Good, we can take that third of the alignment chart out of 99%+ of fantasy RPG's I've ever seen. LN at best, and I agree leaving them to starve moves it further down the axis. Like you, I have difficulty with the term "properly kill them". Goading them into a fight so you can claim "self-defense" doesn't cut it. Good people aren't looking for an excuse to kill. But then, didn't the Good people here choose to sacrifice their own wealth to avoid the need to kill the brigands? Taken in isolation, that seems like a Good act. But acts can't be taken in isolation, which brings us full circle to the reasons for making the deal. [/QUOTE]

Verification