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="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 2665122" data-attributes="member: 29112">Then we do have experience in common here! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That is certainly unequivocal now, whereas it was not previously. Adherence to a code sounds a lot like *Lawful* behaviour to me, you see, rather than *Good*. Differences in perspective abound, it seems.I thank you for posting something by way of 'evidence'.On the other hand. . .These are the definitions of the adjective 'evil', from the actual dictionary off the shelf:1. Morally bad, wicked.2. Harmful or intending to harm, esp. intentionally or characteristically.3. Disagreeable or unpleasant (has an evil temper).4. Unlucky; causing misfortune (evil days).For the noun 'evil':1. An evil thing; an instance of something evil.2. Evil quality; wickedness, harm.Nothing here prevents an evil person from adhering to a code of behaviour, provided that code of behaviour doesn't run counter to any of the conditions upon which evil is dependent (naturally).You might believe that to be so, but objective reality is something else again. If you would simply admit that your beliefs are exactly that, I wouldn't take issue with your assertions. It's that simple. Definitions vary from culture to culture, era to era, person to person, year to year in some people's cases. . .No. You've misread things significantly, I'm sorry. What you are suggesting to be my motive was (and is) the farthest thing from my mind, in all honesty.I have supplied a succinct definition of the word 'evil' to support my rebuttal (which I hope helps), and yes, I agree at least that you are talking about your opinion based on. . . (etc.) As am I! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Evil brings with it other limitations, restrictions etc. For example, an evil person cannot as easily create and sustain supportive networks and relationships (for various reasons). Therefore, no.Also, all morality is an obligation? It can't simply be natural, and healthy? And need it be a higher law, or could it be (in some cases) common sense or something else again?The SRD is, as far as I'm concerned, a load of bollocks when it comes to defining alignments, or anything else not strictly to do with number-crunching. For the said number-crunching though? It's the bees' knees. Er, until you get into house-ruling. . . oh wait. . . Hm.It was only so easy because you hadn't provided anything conclusive, to date.No, I wasn't saying that at all. When you write "seem to be saying", it implies that you're unsure what I'm meaning. Well, let me just state now for the record that I wasn't and am not saying that. . . except in cases where the noted, and possibly other exceptions occur.I suspect that there might not be any conclusive evidence available, but I am open to the possibility. If some is provided, I will acknowledge it without complaint.edit --- If you insist on bringing D&D's definitions of alignment into it, these snippets from the D&D 3.5 PHB might be helpful in distinguishing Lawful from Good and Chaotic from Evil, in terms of D&D anyway:(A Chaotic Good character) "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him", and "believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations".(A Lawful Evil character) "cares about tradition, loyalty and order but not about freedom, dignity or life", and is "comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve".(etc.)Contrast, if you will, with this statement of yours:I hope you can see now that it might pay to: a) thoroughly investigate something before presenting it as evidence; and b) always at least humour the notion that a claim that you make might not be the incontrovertible truth.. . . also c) do these things before attempting to insult someone you don't even know.</blockquote>

Verification