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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Errant" data-source="post: 2769890" data-attributes="member: 1926">Imagine the servant who hates kids, loves seeing them cry every time they bump and scrape themselves, but is too cowardly to ever lift a hand against them in case their parents find out. Imagine the arrogant noble who laughs at beggars and other unfortunates. I'd call them evil, and I'd describe them as radiating a 'faint aura of evil' even if they never acted on his impulses. I think that if you enjoy the suffering of others, whether you cause it or not, you're evil. If you feel guilty about your feelings and do good deeds in atonement, you're probably neutral or maybe even a conflicted good. I've always considered a complete or general lack of compassion and/or respect for the rights of others to be a key indicator of evil alignment. If you feel compassion or recognise others' rights but don't do anything to aid or protect them you're Neutral. If you do act to aid or protect others, you're doing good. The balance of how predominant each trait is in your actual behaviour determines your alignment. Thats my rationale anyway.Before you go justifying smiting someone just based they detect as evil, shouldn't you ask yourself 'does the punishment fit the crime'? If you abandon fitting the punishment to the crime aren't you abandoning the core principle of Justice and leaping down the slippery slope to evil yourself? As for distinguishing between evil spells on people and the people themselves I think it depends a lot on the spell. At best DE lets you sense the strength and location of magical auras. If you can safely say a spell only effects part of a person's body, the location of the aura could be interpreted as only existing in that aura. If you can't say that, you're making the spell even more powerful than it already is and its already powerful enough to be a potential headache.</blockquote>

Verification