Post by marredwolf on Apr 19, 2017 20:57:55 GMT -5
not at all mandene, this is exactly what i asked for, and thank you for it. you have laid it out very well and im glad this has turned from a name calling thread to a serious discussion. so let us continue the discussion...
btw, yes there was someone questioning my source, which is why i made it a point, so i'd known what to draw info from.
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
sorry but i just dont buy into that archaic notion. just because it is amongst the wise things you might hear a sage saying does not make it valid. question everything, all the time. intent is key here, so lets study it for abit.
the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.
if it is a "knowingly...evil act" that it is evil. plain and simple. but if the attempt is to do good, the answer is different. keep this in mind. this is the difference between making a mistake, being misguided or otherwise being wrong about a situation as opposed to knowingly committing an evil act. this part is saying that if you commit an evil act in order to do good then you are wrong. but if the intent is good to begin with (a good plan not an evil one) then the answer is different. this is something we may never agree on. this quote covers knowingly committing an evil act, not committing a good act that goes wrong (the village gets stoned).
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "i can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity". For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
yes. "for some that is a sacrifice worth making..." personal sacrifice in order to save others is an incredibly noble, and good, act. giving up your honor in order to save thousands of innocent lives is a good act, but that is my opinion. it is choosing the life of innocents over your own exalted deads/honor. this paragraph is actually attempting to say that...
...This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession....
i see absolutely nothing wrong in sacrificing not just one's life, but lower still, one's own personal honor/deads in order to save others. as long as the goal is to save said lives. It may be viewed as another possession or not, it doesn't matter because whatever that means to you, whatever value it holds, is nothing compared to the lives you will be saving.
What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor.
not something that i agree with at all, but if the rules say it is then my opinion doesnt matter.
But let's make it even more complicated. Another character witnesses the good character about to put poison in the town's drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs - the other choice the witness has - is far more evil than preventing the poisoning.
this one is weird and frankly complete nonsense. "the good character about to put poison in the...drinking water" is obviously an evil act. its a horrible example of anything. i dont see a point to this quote at all. but it does seem to be aiming at intent as well. it seems to be trying to choose between the lesser of two evils. let me show you this weirdness... this quote is saying that killing the "poisoning (good) character in order to stop him" is not an evil act (true), and that the alternative "standing by while a mass murder occurs" is far more evil then preventing the poisoning. far more evil? these are not two evils, unless you consider killing a "good character" in order to prevent him from killing hundreds, an evil act.
these rules that you pick up and quote... i cant say anything about them concerning the rules of this game, but as far as making actual sense, thats a different story. but thats just me.
btw, yes there was someone questioning my source, which is why i made it a point, so i'd known what to draw info from.
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
sorry but i just dont buy into that archaic notion. just because it is amongst the wise things you might hear a sage saying does not make it valid. question everything, all the time. intent is key here, so lets study it for abit.
if it is a "knowingly...evil act" that it is evil. plain and simple. but if the attempt is to do good, the answer is different. keep this in mind. this is the difference between making a mistake, being misguided or otherwise being wrong about a situation as opposed to knowingly committing an evil act. this part is saying that if you commit an evil act in order to do good then you are wrong. but if the intent is good to begin with (a good plan not an evil one) then the answer is different. this is something we may never agree on. this quote covers knowingly committing an evil act, not committing a good act that goes wrong (the village gets stoned).
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "i can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity". For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
yes. "for some that is a sacrifice worth making..." personal sacrifice in order to save others is an incredibly noble, and good, act. giving up your honor in order to save thousands of innocent lives is a good act, but that is my opinion. it is choosing the life of innocents over your own exalted deads/honor. this paragraph is actually attempting to say that...
i see absolutely nothing wrong in sacrificing not just one's life, but lower still, one's own personal honor/deads in order to save others. as long as the goal is to save said lives. It may be viewed as another possession or not, it doesn't matter because whatever that means to you, whatever value it holds, is nothing compared to the lives you will be saving.
not something that i agree with at all, but if the rules say it is then my opinion doesnt matter.
this one is weird and frankly complete nonsense. "the good character about to put poison in the...drinking water" is obviously an evil act. its a horrible example of anything. i dont see a point to this quote at all. but it does seem to be aiming at intent as well. it seems to be trying to choose between the lesser of two evils. let me show you this weirdness... this quote is saying that killing the "poisoning (good) character in order to stop him" is not an evil act (true), and that the alternative "standing by while a mass murder occurs" is far more evil then preventing the poisoning. far more evil? these are not two evils, unless you consider killing a "good character" in order to prevent him from killing hundreds, an evil act.
these rules that you pick up and quote... i cant say anything about them concerning the rules of this game, but as far as making actual sense, thats a different story. but thats just me.
