NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7974358" data-attributes="member: 18">I think that's problematic, actually, because I've seen some superb examples of trained assassins in fantasy who were much more Good than countless noble knights and other "heroic" figures. Being trained to kill particular targets, with precision, from stealth, does not, I think, make you necessarily non-Good. Your motivation and targets will surely determine your alignment.Necromancers are a more complex issue that varies from edition to edition and based on the metaphysics of the setting (as well exactly what spells they are casting).I would say that, historically, if we look at D&D across all editions, and if we use your particular delicate definition of Good (which again, I quite like), then yes, it's unlikely that they will really be Good by your standards, because their motives will be too impure. In 1E, in fact, the Gold = XP thing was specifically designed to motivate characters who were not noble heroes, but accidentally serves also to motivate you not to be noble heroes, by rather slayers who got through the pockets and belt-pouches, and make sure they loot every single tomb.Later editions of D&D have gradually moved away from that, but there's still a significant focus on looting and reward and so on as motivating factors to the point where it's rather problematic.I know this is true for 5E to a significant extent due to discussions on the 5E reddit, where a lot of people feel that, for example, if an LG mercenary (if such a thing can be conceived - but NG/CG also applies) wasn't paid to protect a village, which he knew would be imminently attacked by orcs and suffer many casualties (i.e. the people refusing to pay were idiots or didn't value human life), then he could just walk off and say "See ya morons, if any of you live!" and still be "Good". Which is definitely not going to work under your definition, nor, I suspect, most definitions.Yeah, I get that you think that. I don't think anything Tolkien has written about LotR supports him being definitely LG, for example. I'm not denying he's "awesome", or "on the side of light", but I am saying that I suspect if Tolkien was forced, at gun point perhaps, to assign D&D alignments to his characters, he wouldn't necessarily be giving Eomer an LG (LN, certainly nothing Evil). I feel like your opinions on Tolkien are predicted on reading LotR but really not reading stuff Tolkien said about LotR. In that this is incredibly common and typically of probably 95%+ of people who "love LotR" or "loathe LotR", that is unsurprising and I can't really hold it against you, but I always find it a little disappointing.Tolkien also allows for change and redemption, so perhaps he would say Eomer Eadig was indeed LG, even if earlier on he wasn't meeting that standard.And which you are have failed to acknowledge, that in his letters and general writing, Tolkien was very clear was not his philosophy, and he didn't regard it as some sort of pure good (or possibly even good at all). He didn't think anyone who insisted on dominion over others was a wholly good person. That specifically included Aragorn. This isn't a matter of opinion, I would suggest. Tolkien was not unclear in his letters nor his opinions re: tyranny.To be fair, you don't have to be like that if you're LG. But you kind of do have to LG to be like that.PREACH IT BROTHER!</blockquote>

Verification