The_Gneech
Explorer
Depends on what's in it; Defenders of the Faith was something of a wash. -TG
Not necessarily. There are a lot of grey areas, not to mention the fact that "standards of good" change constantly. What about evil done in the name of good? That's a rather complicated subject that doesn't fall neatly under "a deviation from a standard of good."
Considering how you could write several volumes about each of those "villians" - again, not sure that I'd lump the Romans or Aztecs in with "villians" - I'd say there's a lot of differences.
Lots of variation there, as well. Again though, I wouldn't necessarily call Socrates a do-gooder. An influential thinker, to be sure, but not the first thing that springs to mind when you think of a hero.
Just because the news media reports a lot of evil doesn't mean there isn't good being done. People really aren't as wicked as the news media would have you believe.
kenjib said:What if it was written by the guy who wrote the Book of the Righteous?
dpdx said:No, I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't buy a book of Vile Darkness:
"Good" and "Evil" are concepts best left to the general agreement of the DM and his players in a particular game. I don't need Monte Cook, Tracy Hickman, or any of the wingnuts on this board to proscribe rules to my party's morality any more than Wizards has in the CRBs.
I really just need the basics: stats, abilities, how many hit-points I've got, encumbrance limits, and anything else that is morality-neutral and essential to the game itself. The rest can be up to us.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.