Quote:
Originally posted by Strahd Von Zarovich:
Yeah, But I was anwering with the tight consepts of Ad&d aliments and giving them real-life application and seriously no one can make a true mold each person's personality. Thecnicly a Paladin attacking a thief would be seen as evil by the thief. We could go in endless discusion on theorises and Philisophical discutions on whetter this and that exist or if this and that exist. It could make for intresting converstion on the general board Through.
|
Aha but this is my point. A properly roleplayed Palladin would not attack a thief, and if they had to they would use restraing violence and capture the thief because taking life is evil and usually unecessary.
The truly good mage of the earlier hypothesis would not kill the Druid but find a way to incapacitate the Druid or not commit any evil. The mage that kills the druid is acting OUT OF ALIGNMENT and with "good intentions" but it remains an evil act, a necessary evil? Still evil.
Thanks Accord
What is required to understand the defenition is a subtle change in perception of what evil is. It is not this terribly destructive force that demolishes everything - that is EVIL TAKE TO THE EXTREME. Mother Theresa is GOOD TAKEN TO THE EXTREME.
At it's dividing line you have my definition.
Evil is following your own agenda at expense of the benefit of others
Good is benefiting others at the expense of your own agenda.
Some actions could be in theory neutral, if your own agenda has no consequence on anothers benefit.
------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!