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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1763306" data-attributes="member: 5777">Some point after you realize that neutral things do exist and that there is a difference between the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis.You mentioned in a former post that a good person would not rob a bank to feed some orphans. Why not? Robbing the bank isnt evil, it is unlawful. There is such a thing as chaotic good and neutral good. Either of those might have a reason to rob the bank to feed the poor.Also, you have stated that you know where the 'line' is between good and evil. This assumes that there is nothing in between. Any action that is not good is evil and any action that is not evil is good. That is clearly not the case (remember the sandwhich question earlier).While the d&d morality system tries to paint things very strongly even it says that most things in the prime are simply neutral, or very weakly tied to some axis.I believe that many of your posts, relevant to this topic, have implied that nothing can be neutral, although I did not go back to reread them all to verify if you ever actually came out and said it directly. Still, the implication across them all is very clear.There are more things than neutral in the world, of course, but neutral is the general relaxation state. If one does not try hard to get farther up one of the axis then they will tend to slide towards neutrality. Much like a gently sloped hill, it takes more effort to climb than to go back down (there are exceptions of course, but then there always are. typically what I have just said goes more towards law/good than the other side, but the same holds true in other ways for the evil/chaos branches).Unless one is playing in a certain campaign setting (there is one where 'evil' has won and the heros are basically just guys trying to survive, I forget the name) then likely evil is not the most common alignment, or 'norm' as you put it. Even then though, I would think that more people would be neutral than evil, as it is just easier for them to be so. Much like the average peasant only gets npc levels (usually commoner) they simply dont have the drive to be strongly aligned with any alignment generally.Which is much like the animate dead problem. At its base it is merely useing some form of energy to make something move. Like telekinesis over a longer period of time. It can have negative connotations (or good, depending) but the definition of it should be neutral. Unless something evil is actually being done, which the core does not support (talk of soul imprints being tortured somehow even though they are only active for one spell, a different spell, and even that spell says that they remember nothing and are basically inert, without the soul to guide it is just like accessing a computer harddrive that you cannot save to).  This has no bearing on anything that has been presented before. It certainly has no bearing on ownership and no relevance to the discussion (as fragmented as it is, this still has no place).It doesnt matter how much you love or care for your pet, it is still your pet. I will refer you to the point I made before about people on farms. Just because you wish to use a different term does not change what it is.At this point I think I am one of the few voices of reason. There are several people who have said something that either directly says or amounts to, 'well, it says it is evil, so it is'. That is not a valid arguement.Others have said various other points, to which I have posted refutals and counter examples from the raw.Negative energy itself is not evil.The use of negative energy is not evil (although there are evil people who use it, but that isnt terribly important, there are good people who use it as well and there are lots of tools that evil people use that are also not evil)Nonintelligent undead should not have a neutral evil alignment, they cannot make the decissions necissary to have an alignment.There is no mention of a soul being used or abused in any way, shape, or form for either animating the dead or useing negative energy attacks (so far, there may be some spell out there that mentions it, but the base rules for such does not say anything like that)Using undead for ones own purpose is the same as useing any other tool, and less 'evil' than useing beasts of burden. The animals can feel pain, wants, desires.. the undead in question do not, cannot, and likely never will. Just like an animated object.I have probably missed a few. Earlier someone said I had ignored valid points, when I asked them to post them I have seen no response so I suppose they either do not wish to have them taken apart or found where I did respond to them.Doesnt really matter, but of course this isnt true. Even good men can be tricked into thinking something is good even when it is actually evil.I have just gone through all of my responses to you. Not once do I make any insults towards you and yet I have gotten things back from you such as, 'you must treat your animals poorly'. Do stop the insults please.</blockquote>

Verification