Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hejdun" data-source="post: 4722409" data-attributes="member: 839">QFT.&nbsp; I think people are using a bit too much of their modern morality to judge this action, and that's also one reason some emotions are getting heated.&nbsp; There's a giant gaping chasm between saying &quot;V's act wasn't evil&quot; and &quot;Hitler had the right idea.&quot;&nbsp; It seems like almost everyone who has responded to this is coming from a Frodo perspective.&nbsp; And it's fine that Frodo never killed anybody, but if Sam hadn't killed those Orcs, he'd never have rescued Frodo.&nbsp; And if all of Gondor was like Frodo, they'd never have lasted.&nbsp; It sure seems that almost everyone here as a vastly different DnD experience than I have.&nbsp; I'm not too interested in what his motivation was.&nbsp; I'm far more interested in actions and results.&nbsp; From my perspective, an act is to be judged by what actions you took and what results were had.&nbsp; Motivations are important in-so-far as they give you insight into what that person is going to do in the future.&nbsp; If you're an evil (maybe even black) dragon and you slaughtered a village because you were hungry and bored, then killing the village was obviously an evil act.&nbsp; If you're a band of adventurers and you had no way to stop the BBEG from destroying the world but to also destroy the village he's in, it's also evil to kill the village.&nbsp; They're just going to feel a whole lot worse about it.&nbsp; But motivation only matters in regard to future actions.&nbsp; In the dragon's case, he's obviously going to do something just as evil in the future the next time he's bored and hungry.&nbsp; You don't have to worry about the adventurers razing the next village they visit to the ground.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hejdun, post: 4722409, member: 839"] QFT. I think people are using a bit too much of their modern morality to judge this action, and that's also one reason some emotions are getting heated. There's a giant gaping chasm between saying "V's act wasn't evil" and "Hitler had the right idea." It seems like almost everyone who has responded to this is coming from a Frodo perspective. And it's fine that Frodo never killed anybody, but if Sam hadn't killed those Orcs, he'd never have rescued Frodo. And if all of Gondor was like Frodo, they'd never have lasted. It sure seems that almost everyone here as a vastly different DnD experience than I have. I'm not too interested in what his motivation was. I'm far more interested in actions and results. From my perspective, an act is to be judged by what actions you took and what results were had. Motivations are important in-so-far as they give you insight into what that person is going to do in the future. If you're an evil (maybe even black) dragon and you slaughtered a village because you were hungry and bored, then killing the village was obviously an evil act. If you're a band of adventurers and you had no way to stop the BBEG from destroying the world but to also destroy the village he's in, it's also evil to kill the village. They're just going to feel a whole lot worse about it. But motivation only matters in regard to future actions. In the dragon's case, he's obviously going to do something just as evil in the future the next time he's bored and hungry. You don't have to worry about the adventurers razing the next village they visit to the ground. [/QUOTE]

Verification