Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 3891189" data-attributes="member: 151">I'm not sure that I follow you on that one.&nbsp; Some clerics and paladins in D&amp;D, by definition, are granted powers for just this purpose.&nbsp; Servants of deities like St. Cuthbert are strongly encouraged to take the fight to evil with no mercy or remorse...evil is not to be spared the swift sword of justice.&nbsp; Unless we begin to classify things like the War domain as inherently evil, which is a valid choice for some I would wager, but not for all.All we know of the Boon of Souls is that the patron of the Warlock, who may be one of three sources (possibly Shadow, Infernal or Feral, from another note in the article), grants the Warlock some sort of bonus when he kills his enemies.&nbsp; This almost certainly could be evil...but I can envision many situations when it would not be.&nbsp; A righteous smiting of an irredeemable villain would not be consider evil by many in the context of D&amp;D's rough justice, I'd wager.&nbsp; Certainly, a class ability like Smith Evil is not meant for use in molly-coddling the paladin's enemies.&nbsp; It is meant for ending their threat, permanently.&nbsp; Just as any number of class spells and abilities are, such as burning hands, chain lightining or holy sword.The typical D&amp;D adventurer's life involves killing evil things and taking their stuff.&nbsp; The real issue is more one of context.&nbsp; If the patron was a 'feral' being, such as some druidic force of nature, and the warlock received a boon for giving in to the nature of 'tooth and claw'...would that be evil?&nbsp; Is the act of a coup-de-grace on monster that was trying to kill you, instead of healing that monster to health and trying to rehabilitate it, actively evil?&nbsp; The moral code of a D&amp;D character is not so simple a thing, I'd venture.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 3891189, member: 151"] I'm not sure that I follow you on that one. Some clerics and paladins in D&D, [b]by definition[/b], are granted powers for just this purpose. Servants of deities like St. Cuthbert are strongly encouraged to take the fight to evil with no mercy or remorse...evil is not to be spared the swift sword of justice. Unless we begin to classify things like the War domain as inherently evil, which is a valid choice for some I would wager, but not for all. All we know of the Boon of Souls is that the patron of the Warlock, who may be one of three sources (possibly Shadow, Infernal or Feral, from another note in the article), grants the Warlock some sort of bonus when he kills his enemies. This almost certainly could be evil...but I can envision many situations when it would not be. A righteous smiting of an irredeemable villain would not be consider evil by many in the context of D&D's rough justice, I'd wager. Certainly, a class ability like Smith Evil is not meant for use in molly-coddling the paladin's enemies. It is meant for ending their threat, permanently. Just as any number of class spells and abilities are, such as burning hands, chain lightining or holy sword. The typical D&D adventurer's life involves killing evil things and taking their stuff. The real issue is more one of context. If the patron was a 'feral' being, such as some druidic force of nature, and the warlock received a boon for giving in to the nature of 'tooth and claw'...would that be evil? Is the act of a coup-de-grace on monster that was trying to kill you, instead of healing that monster to health and trying to rehabilitate it, actively evil? The moral code of a D&D character is not so simple a thing, I'd venture. [/QUOTE]

Verification