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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 1910787" data-attributes="member: 2268">Pure interpretation. Where does it say so?Wrong. It can be killed. Killing for convenience reasons only is evil. Ignore it as you like, that's in the rules.And as a sidenote, if you really are of the opinion that, in D&D, it's only evil if you harm your ally, I'm really sorry for every innocent bystander your characters might encounter.It's very nice of you to make up claims for us to use in this discussion, but I guess Storm Raven agrees that we don't need them...using arguments is so much more effective.I know all the good PCs in my games are good according to the rules. But you make me wonder about yours, to be frank.Utter and complete tosh. An "either, or" argument doesn't hold water like this, especially while using only your own interpretations, which are about as well supported by the rules as are, for example, mine.Or, to put it differently, summoned creatures aren't slaves, and summoning them to fight against my enemy is as evil as drafting loyal soldiers to fight for my cause. My interpretation. Period.Heh...lame. And here I was already wondering when this word would turn up. Sorry, but this argument here simply shows a very narrow, limited and oversimplified understanding of what constitutes "good" and "evil" alignment. Of course, if you want to judge a character's alignment solely on his motivations, more power to you..in your own game. D&D, as simple as it's definitions of morals may seem to look, still acknowledges that motivation and action go hand in hand to make up a character's alignment.</blockquote>

Verification