Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="krupintupple" data-source="post: 4487519" data-attributes="member: 58300">i would consider the use of a long-term charm or spell to render a harmful or dangerous creature (or creatures) docile to be acceptable. keeping a troll from terrorizing or killing innocents through an extended charm is acceptable, as it would save the lives of many and keep the troll away from the lands of those that it might harm. doing the same to a large group of farmers and craftsmen, against their will, is not a good action, but not explicity an evil one either; it's non-good.i agree with what green_slime has said, he basically distills my argument.i also note that people have explained that their character did lead a group of people to a good idea, or that their thrallherd was idolized by his follwers for a good cause or relgious reasons, but keep in mind that those same people were essentially forced (&quot;...they do not appear because they want to serve her...&quot;) into believing such things.if the thrallherd specifically attracted only thralls and believers who posed a danger to the larger community, then the class might be justified for a good aligned person - he'd be the keeper or warden of such people, to ensure they could do no more harm. but as written and as described, it is not.a good character would respect and treat his followers and cohorts as equals, and work with them to promote a common goal, he would not need to turn to subversion of their free will, in order to direct them to whatever his personal goals might be. even if the ultimate goal, or overarching ideal is a good one, means and the method are not: the very act of forcibly robbing people of their free will is not a good act.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="krupintupple, post: 4487519, member: 58300"] i would consider the use of a long-term charm or spell to render a harmful or dangerous creature (or creatures) docile to be acceptable. keeping a troll from terrorizing or killing innocents through an extended charm is acceptable, as it would save the lives of many and keep the troll away from the lands of those that it might harm. doing the same to a large group of farmers and craftsmen, against their will, is not a good action, but not explicity an evil one either; it's non-good. i agree with what green_slime has said, he basically distills my argument. i also note that people have explained that their character did lead a group of people to a good idea, or that their thrallherd was idolized by his follwers for a good cause or relgious reasons, but keep in mind that those same people were essentially forced ("...they do not appear because they want to serve her...") into believing such things. if the thrallherd specifically attracted only thralls and believers who posed a danger to the larger community, then the class might be justified for a good aligned person - he'd be the keeper or warden of such people, to ensure they could do no more harm. but as written and as described, it is not. a good character would respect and treat his followers and cohorts as equals, and work with them to promote a common goal, he would not need to turn to subversion of their free will, in order to direct them to whatever his personal goals might be. even if the ultimate goal, or overarching ideal is a good one, means and the method are not: the very act of forcibly robbing people of their free will is not a good act. [/QUOTE]

Verification