Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UnsocialEntity" data-source="post: 3578479" data-attributes="member: 52799">Well since you seem to just be interested in the strict d&amp;d alignment, not how people run their own campaign:From the SRD:&quot;Good&quot; implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. &quot;Evil&quot; implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. D&amp;D's good and evil system is pretty black and white. Good people make sacrifices, evil people are baby eaters. It seems like the system mostly cares about action, not thoughts. If someone thinks about it, but doesn't do anything, they're just neutral. They haven't slipped into *true* evil.So what are the peasants doing? Blackmailers, muggers, etc would probably fit pretty well into evil, and wouldn't require more than level 1 commoner. If you're looking for something that would be a moral quandry, you would probably have to look at lawful evil, since you wouldn't be able to arrest them for their eeevvviilllss.Speaking of LE, it's pretty lawful evil to try to trick the paladin into slipping up on his code. It can be interesting to make situations like this, but hopefully it's in order to develop the paladin's character, and whether he values law over good, or good over law, instead of just trying to punish someone for picking paladin. Of course, if the paladin just decides to slaughter the peasants as soon as they register evil without even witnessing them commiting a crime, then perhaps he should be playing a CG or CN character... but yea. I would say as long as the paladin puts some thought into his actions (or inactions), no need to take away his powers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UnsocialEntity, post: 3578479, member: 52799"] Well since you seem to just be interested in the strict d&d alignment, not how people run their own campaign: From the SRD: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. D&D's good and evil system is pretty black and white. Good people make sacrifices, evil people are baby eaters. It seems like the system mostly cares about action, not thoughts. If someone thinks about it, but doesn't do anything, they're just neutral. They haven't slipped into *true* evil. So what are the peasants doing? Blackmailers, muggers, etc would probably fit pretty well into evil, and wouldn't require more than level 1 commoner. If you're looking for something that would be a moral quandry, you would probably have to look at lawful evil, since you wouldn't be able to arrest them for their eeevvviilllss. Speaking of LE, it's pretty lawful evil to try to trick the paladin into slipping up on his code. It can be interesting to make situations like this, but hopefully it's in order to develop the paladin's character, and whether he values law over good, or good over law, instead of just trying to punish someone for picking paladin. Of course, if the paladin just decides to slaughter the peasants as soon as they register evil without even witnessing them commiting a crime, then perhaps he should be playing a CG or CN character... but yea. I would say as long as the paladin puts some thought into his actions (or inactions), no need to take away his powers. [/QUOTE]

Verification