Would this be evil?

[Nifft]

Humiliation is NOT the same as degradation.

If you got an Evil Point every time you wounded someone's pride -- even the pride of someone evil, who was trying to beat up an innocent innkeeper when you intervened -- there would be a LOT more Blackguards.

Cheers, -- N

 

[buzz]

killing is evil, but PCs do it all the time.

The alignment rules generally make a distinction between killing in general and killing innocents, and whether the killing in question is wanton and/or unwarranted.

Then again... no one said the path of [Good] was easy.

 

[pallandrome]

Yeah, this one comes down to motivation. If they did the deed because it was funny, evil. If they did the deed to teach a lesson, or to protect the patrons, good.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, this one comes down to motivation. If they did the deed because it was funny, evil. If they did the deed to teach a lesson, or to protect the patrons, good.

Eh, I disagree, mostly because then you could summon a demon "just to help orphans" and have it be somehow a Good act.

Road to Hell, good intentions, etc.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mouseferatu]

Eh, I disagree, mostly because then you could summon a demon "just to help orphans" and have it be somehow a Good act.

I don't think the argument was that intention always makes the difference. Summoning demons is evil, regardless of intention.

Humiliating someone is not inherently evil. Therefore, in this case, intention makes a difference.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't think the argument was that intention always makes the difference. Summoning demons is evil, regardless of intention.

Humiliating someone is not inherently evil. Therefore, in this case, intention makes a difference.

There's definitely two kinds of situations: Those that don't have an inherent alignment component and those who do.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

There's definitely two kinds of situations: Those that don't have an inherent alignment component and those who do.

Is this a typo, or an oh-i-see-what-you-did-there moment?

 

[Huw]

There's definitely two kinds of situations: Those that don't have an inherent alignment component and those who do.

(suppresses inner grammar Nazi, 'cause you've made a good point)

That's the nature of the D&D universe - good and evil are absolute, not relative, and you can be measured by how far you are from one of them.

However, there are some instances where the direction is not clear. Stopping the bullies was a good act, but how the punishment resolves is unclear, and whether it is good or evil might not be realised until weeks later. Consider:

1) Party punish nobles as above. Father of one noble is annoyed, so razes the town. Ultimate nature of act: evil. There is now more evil in the world than before.

2) Party punish nobles as above. Father of one noble is pleased that someone has taken his wastrel son down a notch, and decides he is now responsible enough to inherit the estate. The bully has learnt his lesson, and becomes a compassionate ruler known affectionately as "the baron who did the dishes". Ultimate nature of act: good.

 

[Nifft]

whether it is good or evil might not be realised until weeks later

Strongly, strongly, strongly disagree. Consider the implications....

Paladin: I use detect evil!
DM: Oooo, you can't do that any more. Turns out you committed an act a few weeks back, and the act's quantum wave-form finally collapsed into Evil.
Paladin: What was it?
DM: You defeated that dragon which Sir Geoff failed to defeat, and thus wounded his pride. He got jealous, and just became a Blackguard today. So your act was Evil.
Paladin: Can I Smite your system?

Cheers, -- N

PS: Post-hoc morality is what Devils preach in my world...

 

[Nifft]

1) Party punish nobles as above. Father of one noble is annoyed, so razes the town. Ultimate nature of act: evil. There is now more evil in the world than before.

(Sorry for double-post, but this is a separate point which I didn't notice until later.)

Why is the party responsible for this particular noble's evil action? Is the noble a minor under the party's guardianship? Is the noble under the effects of a dominate person spell?

I'm all for actions having consequences, but let's give the NPCs a modicum of personal responsibility here.

Cheers, -- N