Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 1030229" data-attributes="member: 10825">If the paladin can travel back in time, presumably, he can go right to the moment whenever that first bad, evil deed is about to begin. Now, as this is a kind of generic situation, this could mean a number of different evil kinds of acts, where certain reactions are just not appropriate. However, let's just boil it down to this: A time traveling paladin can go back to when the evil deed is about to/is being performed. As such, it is fully appropriate for the paladin to stop the evil deed - if it's already happening, killing the source of it seems entirely appropriate. But not before. If the paladin went in and killed the source of this evil as a child, that's not very chivalrous, and not very good. It's pragmatic. Which is the domain of Neutrality. An alignment arguement just waiting to blow up, but Good, in my opinion, means Idealism, whereas, with Lawful and True Neutrality, at least, it means Pragmatism. It's why Cuthbert and Helm are Lawful Neutral; they're pragmatic about evil. They don't hold to any ideals like redemption or converting evil over; if they did, they'd be Lawful Good. The simplest, most pragmatic solution is to kill the source of the evil. Doing a lesser evil (coldblooded murder) to prevent a greater evil (mass murder) makes for a Neutral act. Anything that falls under the heading of pragmatic, like this seems to, will generally fall quite handily into the realm of Neutrality. And paladin's aren't pragmatic, they're idealistic.Edit: spelling, grammar</blockquote>

Verification