Sending an assassin to kill the priest of a demonic cult before he can summon a greater demon as you send troops to perform a frontal assault (and thus creating the much needed distraction) is not in and of itself an evil act.It depends on whether you believe the ends justify the means.Then the question is… How many do you allow to die, and keep your good alignment?
You can tell in my home games, most Paladins don’t stay lawful good for long, it’s a double edged sword and a no win situation. Saying "Well I didn’t summon the demon, so I'm not at fault!" opens the question "did you do everything in your power to stop it?"
Ask you self this...
How is the Man knowing full well he would not escape alive, sneaks into the temple and strike down the cult leader, thus saving of hundreds. Any different than the Paladin charging into imposable odds in an attempt to buy some time for the pilgrims to escape?
They are both condemning someone to death for the life of another.
I have found of all the alignments to play LG is the hardest.
Your assassin and your charging paladin differ in a few ways. The cult leader killer is using stealth to kill another, the paladin is defending others and in your example it isn't clear the paladin is killing anyone else.
But more then that what defines an act as Good or Evil has more to do with motivations then with physical actions taken. Your characters come on a scene of a sword wielding man killing another unarmed man. Can you now determine if the act was evil? No. You have no idea if the unarmed man was the attacker, a caster perhaps or a monk and the sword wielder might have simply been forced to kill in self defense, or the defense of others. Prehaps it had nothing to do with good or evil, prehaps the unarmed man was being exicuted and the sword user a person authorized by the local law to do the act, and he was simply carry out a legal order. The act alone does not define the alignment of those involved in most situations, but rather the reasons behind the act that do.
Funny -- in the real world, I'd categorize at least 70% of people as just plain "neutral".Ok, you see an unattended infant crawling towards a fast running current.
Good: scoop up the baby and find the parent, regardles of reward.
Neutral: wait there for someone to offer you an incentive to either save from or kick the baby in the water
Evil: keep on riding, unless there is overwhelming reason not to.
My take on it:
Good - Risk your own life to try to save the baby, no matter whose baby it is.
Neutral - Wait for someone else to do something, unless it's the baby of someone close to you. Maybe make a token effort to help, if it's not too much trouble (e.g. call 911).
Evil - Get a good laugh out of baby falling into the water. Maybe videotape it for "America's Funniest Home Videos".
Neutral doesn't mean "good half the time, evil half the time", IMO. It just means "not particularly good and not particularly evil".
My take on it:Good - Risk your own life to try to save the baby, no matter whose baby it is.
Neutral - Wait for someone else to do something, unless it's the baby of someone close to you. Maybe make a token effort to help, if it's not too much trouble (e.g. call 911).
Evil - Get a good laugh out of baby falling into the water. Maybe videotape it for "America's Funniest Home Videos".
Neutral doesn't mean "good half the time, evil half the time", IMO. It just means "not particularly good and not particularly evil".
Now lets toss in some cultral twists and have some fund :oP
3 days left to vote
