Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tallow" data-source="post: 243210" data-attributes="member: 4962">1.  All medieval settings do not define evil and good the way you've defined it.  There are many "evilish" characters that became heroe's for the good of all.  Ultimately Cyric if you want a FR example.  Then you have Cain in "Heroes Die" who was the evilist bastard in the realm, but ultimately became the hero for all that was good and eventually was revered as a saint.  Achmed in Elizabeth Haydon's "Rhapsody" was not a "good" man, and yet he was a hero who performed good deeds for the good of all.  He just killed everyone who got in his way, innocent or not.2.  Society's definition of evil/good is not what I'm getting at.  Not at all.  Whether it was Old West, Medieval, or Modern times, the definition of evil has changed over the times.  But ultimately there are things that have always been construed as evil, such as murder, wanton acts of cruelty, etc.  In an archetypal medieval setting, there are very clear definitions of evil and good, and either you are one or the other in many cases.  But some acts were considered self-defense or justified, and therefore not evil.The fighter killing the mage did so because he was angry.  This was not a Lawful Act.  It was certainly chaotic.  But the Mage committed a crime against the PC's.  Fraud, Theft, Endangerment, etc.  All of these crimes were usually punishable by death in Medieval times.  It was not lawful for the fighter to take the judge/jury/executioner role upon himself, but it was not evil to do so.  What if one of the PC's had died when the trap was sprung?  Would the fighter then be justified in killing the mage?Andy Christian</blockquote>

Verification