Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1286780" data-attributes="member: 707">Sure I can.  But a nation that keeps choosing "lesser evils" will invariably become evil.  Just because you had no choice but to do an evil act doesn't make you immune to the corrupting nature of that act.  If war is an evil act, then a nation besieged by enemies on all sides, that must continually defend itself from invasion, will become tainted as a result.Not at all.  And if it happened only once, then fine, the nation could perform the evil act of war to defend itself, and still be a generally good nation afterward.  Just as with PCs, one evil act does not an evil nation create.But in a medieval situation, where wars are more common, then this becomes problematic.  A good nation could engage in many wars and survive, but it would eventually cease to be a good nation, because the incessant evil acts would turn it.Personally, I don't think that self-defense (nationally or individually) has any evil taint.  A person should be able to defend himself a thousand times, or daily, and not be evil simply because he chooses to fight for his life.  The same goes for the nation.  Thus, I cannot, from my own moral perspective, conceive of a moral paradigm in which war, rather than a neutral act defined by circumstance, is instead an inherently evil act.  Because to accept that is to accept that if you defend yourself long enough, you will invariably become corrupted.</blockquote>

Verification