|
You are basically asking to bring characters in that don't fit the rules of the setting, meaning you are asking the setting to be modified to fit your morality, meaning the rest of us who are playing have to adapt to your setting, rather than the published setting we bought.
Raising the dead is not the same as raising undead.
I'm not interested in your strawman. I'm interested in the setting described items that are evil.
You aren't, because your case doesn't work nearly as well when we look at those factors...
OK, I'll believe that you believe this when it's YOUR baby being sacrificed Rynjin.
You assume that just because I believe it's true means I would like it if put in the same situation.
Morals and selfishness often collide.
Killing an innocent baby to save a town is still killing an innocent baby.
And not killing an innocent baby is still indirectly condemning hundreds of others to death.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, good intentions are not an instant teleporter to hell. The reason is that the allure of evil (especially if committed with a good end) is difficult to resist once you have slid down the path. But if your desire to help others prevails over your desire to do things easily, you should not be in danger. The main danger is that you will take increasingly drastic steps for problems that are not so dire (killing a baby to stop a demon when you know the Knights of Kicking Demon Ass should arrive before the demon) (killing a baby to get more food, even if famine is not definitely going to set in), and then to situations that are not really dire at all (to make yourself win an election, to get tons of money, to kill off your rivals). The first problem might not have had any outs besides total death. The middle situations have a few outs that do not require committing evil. The last set have many outs, and it is only greed that will require an evil act to guarantee the results.
OK, I'll believe that you believe this when it's YOUR baby being sacrificed Rynjin.
You assume that just because I believe it's true means I would like it if put in the same situation.
Morals and selfishness often collide.
Killing an innocent baby to save a town is still killing an innocent baby.And not killing an innocent baby is still indirectly condemning hundreds of others to death.
So, morality is a numbers game to you Rynjin? Is stealing OK if the result of the stealing is that more people benefit from the stolen goods?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, good intentions are not an instant teleporter to hell. The reason is that the allure of evil (especially if committed with a good end) is difficult to resist once you have slid down the path. But if your desire to help others prevails over your desire to do things easily, you should not be in danger. The main danger is that you will take increasingly drastic steps for problems that are not so dire (killing a baby to stop a demon when you know the Knights of Kicking Demon Ass should arrive before the demon) (killing a baby to get more food, even if famine is not definitely going to set in), and then to situations that are not really dire at all (to make yourself win an election, to get tons of money, to kill off your rivals). The first problem might not have had any outs besides total death. The middle situations have a few outs that do not require committing evil. The last set have many outs, and it is only greed that will require an evil act to guarantee the results.
This is a similar take on morality as the Jedi idea that the "dark side" of the force necessarily contaminates and corrupts those who use it, no matter what their motivations. This was also a major theme in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."
The idea is that evil corrupts, and therefore doing evil begets more evil.
Coup de graces are evil. Good to know.Regarding a good necromancer and evil spells...
Why are spells evil?
Death knell: It is a spell specifically designed to kill helpless creatures. This really should be self evident.
Yes, they are. If you can take the opponent captive instead that would be preferable. Killing them just because it is more convenient is evil.
Infernal Healing: It heals people! Yes, but what is it's source?Devil's blood. I suppose forcibly removing angel's blood to heal people was too much of a good act.
Who said by force? An angel would probably give some up willingly if asked for a noble cause. Just as a devil probably would be willing to give some up to advance their own evil agenda.
Say you are a christian with a dying sister. You have prayed to God, but to no avail. Then, poof! Satan shows up. He says he will give you the power to heal your sister, no strings attached. As a matter of fact you can go on to heal other people too, if you want, but you don't have to. Your option. So would taking Satan's help to heal your sister be an evil act? Yes! He is the source of all evil. It doesn't matter that this would be a good act, it is still an evil source that you are using....No strings attached.
I.E. there is no payment (nobody else gets hurt when you do it, you're not forced to commit some heinous act to power it, etc.), and it's evil?
I don't buy that. Ignoring the fact that evil is HIGHLY unlikely to do something for nothing...actually let's not ignore that fact. That's pretty important.
Fine, let's not ignore it. The evil source is probably hoping you will get used to using it's evil power. Then it is just a downhill slide from there.
Gandalf: "Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. "
Summon Monster [evil]: Summoning a demon via Summon Monster to preform good deeds is still an evil act. Again, it comes down to it's source.And by that logic summoning an angel to be your sex slave for life is a good act.
Are you beginning to see why this is stupid yet?
No. How do you even arrive at this conclusion? It's insane.
Summoning an angel would be a good act, bringing more good into the world. Going on to force it do do evil or to torture it (forcing an angel to be a "sex slave" otherwise know as rape, is torture) would be an extremely evil act.
Edit: So forcing a demon to perform good deeds would be a good act, but it would have to be very good to overcome summoning a demon in the first place. And why couldn't you summon a good outsider instead?
Create Undead: Here you are using an evil source to create evil creatures that desire to do evil things. Sure you can stop them with your control and force them to do good things, but there is no way this is a good thing to do.Riiight.
Fine. I guess you don't have any problem with your grandmother being raised as an unholy monster bent on the destruction of all life...
As long as she is forced to dig ditches, clean out latrines or guard a kindergarten it is a good thing!
Riiight.
Slay Living: Why isn't this an evil spell? Because it is no different than a sword thrust.Neither is Death Knell.
Sure, if a sword was something that was powered by negative (read unholy) energy and could only harm helpless creatures near death, then yes, it is exactly like a sword.
If you target a helpless person with it, then that would be an evil act.No, it wouldn't be. The evil overlord of all creation is lying at your feet, helpless.
You let him live, rather than killing him.
YOU ARE EVIL. That is possibly the most evilly evil act you could ever possibly evil to the evilest.
But at least you saved your conscience from having to save the world...?
Killing an irredeemably evil being is a good act. Keeping him alive and redeeming him would be even better, but probably not worth the risk.
And no, that is not taking the convenient of easy option. That is making a sound, intelligent decision, because good is not stupid.
Target an evil Anti-paladin that's about to kill an innocent?Really by your own logic it should be an Evil act. He hasn't committed a crime YET, you know. You should let him kill the innocent first just to make sure.
This falls under self defense or defense of the innocent and is certainly not an evil act. You could even kill someone that is not evil (or even good) in self defense and it is not evil. Doing so would probably be considered morally neutral, but not evil.
Why is this confusing?Because not everybody shares the same simplistic black and white moral view you do.
I don't believe that morality is black and white, not in the real world. In Pathfinder, however, it is.
I'm not interested in your strawman. I'm interested in the setting described items that are evil.
You aren't, because your case doesn't work nearly as well when we look at those factors...
Eh?
The only examples I'VE brought up are ones in the book (Summoning evil things to do good/Good to do evil, Infernal Healing, and making Undead).
It's everyone else who's jumped on me and been like "Yeah what about baby Hitler?"
|
|
I'm not interested in your strawman. I'm interested in the setting described items that are evil.
You aren't, because your case doesn't work nearly as well when we look at those factors...
Eh?
The only examples I'VE brought up are ones in the book (Summoning evil things to do good/Good to do evil, Infernal Healing, and making Undead).
It's everyone else who's jumped on me and been like "Yeah what about baby Hitler?"
Summoning is based on evil things being willing to be summoned to your command...which means the evil things who are being summoned are coming under the belief they are serving evil.
If you are calling upon evil to act, it follows that they are doing so because it serves evil.
If it doesn't why would they answer your call?
137ben, I appreciate the effort you went to, but you seem to be conflating the comments of several posters together and presenting rebuttals to what you've conflated.
I never said animate dead was an evil act. I said that good, evil, law and chaos are forces of nature in the Pathfinder universe that interact with the physical world in the same way that magic or gravity does. That's how the rules are. I didn't write them and I'm not defending them, I'm just stating a fact. When you look at an evil alignment aura, you see an evil alignment aura. When you use a spell with the evil descriptor, you are using an evil spell.
Also, since you quoted me by name, and then rebutted ciretose without quoting him, it appears that you are attributing to me things that ciretose said.
If you want to rebut my comments, please rebut my actual comments instead of what you think I may or may not be agreeing with others who are in the debate at the same time.
Summoning is based on evil things being willing to be summoned to your command...which means the evil things who are being summoned are coming under the belief they are serving evil.
If you are calling upon evil to act, it follows that they are doing so because it serves evil.
If it doesn't why would they answer your call?
Because Summons don't have a choice.
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
Planar Ally they do, but that's not what we're talking about (it's got too many rules, mostly is the reason).
|
|
Because summoned creatures and called creatures don't have a choice about being summoned/called?
I'm not interested in your strawman. I'm interested in the setting described items that are evil.
You aren't, because your case doesn't work nearly as well when we look at those factors...
Eh?
The only examples I'VE brought up are ones in the book (Summoning evil things to do good/Good to do evil, Infernal Healing, and making Undead).
It's everyone else who's jumped on me and been like "Yeah what about baby Hitler?"
Summoning is based on evil things being willing to be summoned to your command...which means the evil things who are being summoned are coming under the belief they are serving evil.
If you are calling upon evil to act, it follows that they are doing so because it serves evil.
If it doesn't why would they answer your call?
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.
Summon Monster:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st Level list on Table 10–1. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can choose a different one each time you cast the spell.
A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. Creatures on Table 10–1 marked with an “*” are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an “*” always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.
Can you show me where it says the evil creature you summoned ceases to be evil? I have somehow missed that part...
Can you show me where it says the evil creature you summoned ceases to be evil? I have somehow missed that part...
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
I.E. as long as you speak its language or it speaks yours, you can order it around.
You're saying "The fact that it is evil means it is evil to use it even though it follows all your orders".
By your logic, making people in jail/prison work and do community service is evil too.
Babies are cute. One baby is not worth potentially hundreds of other lives.OK, I'll believe that you believe this when it's YOUR baby being sacrificed Rynjin.
This is an ancient, ANCIENT debate whether small evil in the pursuit of good intentions is evil or not. This is, in fact, precisely where the maxim "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from.
Killing an innocent baby to save a town is still killing an innocent baby.
We are not talking about real world suicide bomber that believe they are going to be rewarded with 17 virgins (or whatever). We are talking about a fantasy world. Death really isn't that bad. It is better that the whole town die and go to wherever good townsfolk go than they live a few years longer and go to the abyss or hell or whatever.
Maybe this is where you are making your mistake? In a fantasy world with black and white evil, it is always possible to do the right thing and be rewarded for it. In the real world, not so much.
We are not talking about real world suicide bomber that believe they are going to be rewarded with 17 virgins (or whatever). We are talking about a fantasy world. Death really isn't that bad. It is better that the whole town die and go to wherever good townsfolk go than they live a few years longer and go to the abyss or hell or whatever.
Maybe this is where you are making your mistake? In a fantasy world with black and white evil, it is always possible to do the right thing and be rewarded for it. In the real world, not so much.
Most townsfolk are neutral.
They don't go to Heaven, or Elysium, or anything.
They go here.
Is it eternal torment?
No.
Is it better than being alive?
I don't think so.
Besides, by that logic, again. killing a good guy is a good act. OBVIOUSLY you're doing a favor to them by sending them to Heaven, right?
I agree that they are evil acts, the idea is that the evil acts =/= evil person. A good person can subvert evil to do good, but it is very risky. So risky even Gandalf feared it. But some PCs are not Gandalf, and if this is a theme a group of players of a GM wants to develop, it would be awesome.
I think it is pretty clear that doing evil things does not make you an inherently evil person, especially if the instances are few, far between, and justified. However, there is always the danger. What the danger, and to what extent doing an evil deed leads to your downfall is solely the prerogative of GM.
If the Necromancer wanted to be a converted necromancer who had begun seeing undead as a cheap and expendable work force, but was being converted by the paladin in the group, that could be excellent for an adventure path party. If the necromancer was strictly academic, but was being won over by the ease and utility of death magic, and was in danger of corruption, that would also be fine. The party and the GM have to be comfortable with it though. If the party just wants to kill stuff and get through the plot, he could be absolutely evil, and the paladin could just not care. As long as the group and GM are comfortable with what is going on.
Lord, it's not clear if you are admonishing me or Rynjin.
I THINK you are essentially supporting my points here, but just want to be sure.
|
|
Can you show me where it says the evil creature you summoned ceases to be evil? I have somehow missed that part...If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.I.E. as long as you speak its language or it speaks yours, you can order it around.
You're saying "The fact that it is evil means it is evil to use it even though it follows all your orders".
By your logic, making people in jail/prison work and do community service is evil too.
So summoned creatures in your mind are jailed...that doesn't sound evil at all...
"The first step in calling extraplanar assistance is to determine the method of bringing the outsider to the Material Plane. If the caster is a cleric, the spell of choice is planar ally; wizard, sorcerers, and summoners rely primarily on planar binding (or summon monster, which controls without requiring binding). However, none of these necessarily bind the outsider to the caster's needs, and a wise spellcaster augments the summoning with additional encouragement, usually in the form of gifts or bargains."
When you summon an evil creature, it comes because you are powerful and evil and comes in your service.
When you summon a good creature, it comes because you are powerful and good and it comes in your service.
The summoned creature is not bound to your needs. If you summon something evil, you are summoning evil.
Which is just about the definition of an evil act.
You want everyone else to change the setting to accommodate your snowflake.
No thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly this is not going anywhere. Rynjin has made it pretty clear that he doesn't care what the rules say, he's opposed to the very idea of moral absolutes, even as rules in a game. I don't think repeatedly pointing out that whether he likes it or not, the rules are what they are, is going to change his position on this.
And as in most internet discussions, all trying to discuss this does is pull in other voices that either repeat the same points or else chortle over tiny semantic infractions or differences in rules interpretations.
I note that Rynjin did not answer my question about morality, so I'll repeat it here.
Rynjin, if you believe that it is OK to murder one baby to save the lives of 100 townspeople because 100 lives are more important than one life, then does that also mean that you believe that stealing gold from a noble is not an evil act if the gold ends up in the pockets of 100 townspeople instead of the one noble?
It's a simple question. Is morality simply a numbers game? Or is there something morally wrong with stealing the noble's gold regardless of the fact that 100 peasants would benefit if you stole it?
So summoned creatures in your mind are jailed...that doesn't sound evil at all...
"The first step in calling extraplanar assistance is to determine the method of bringing the outsider to the Material Plane. If the caster is a cleric, the spell of choice is planar ally; wizard, sorcerers, and summoners rely primarily on planar binding (or summon monster, which controls without requiring binding). However, none of these necessarily bind the outsider to the caster's needs, and a wise spellcaster augments the summoning with additional encouragement, usually in the form of gifts or bargains."
When you summon an evil creature, it comes because you are powerful and evil and comes in your service.
When you summon a good creature, it comes because you are powerful and good and it comes in your service.
The summoned creature is not bound to your needs. If you summon something evil, you are summoning evil.
Please, actually read all of what you quote.
"summon monster, which controls without requiring binding"
It's under your control. By the rules of the spell and explicitly in the text YOU quoted, Summon Monster controls the thing you summon.
Planar Ally and Binding do not (and explicitly say so).
You want everyone else to change the setting to accommodate your snowflake.
:rolleyes:
|
|
Didn't read the post did you...
PROTIP: If I put something in quotation, I'm probably quoting something. In this case, the book.
In what case? In the most recent case, you quoted the explanation for calling and binding spells, but referred to "summoning", which is different.
The last few times before that you put something in quotations you were quoting another person.
So, what the heck are you talking about?Also...any chance you could actually answer the question about Death Knell vs Slay Living, or does that involve too much thinking for you?
Death Knell is evil. You steal life energy. That is evil.
Slay Living kills someones. So does a sword. That isn't inherently evil, although it could be used for evil purposes.
Is that too complicated? I'll keep this short, as you clearly skim.
|
|
So summoned creatures in your mind are jailed...that doesn't sound evil at all...
"The first step in calling extraplanar assistance is to determine the method of bringing the outsider to the Material Plane. If the caster is a cleric, the spell of choice is planar ally; wizard, sorcerers, and summoners rely primarily on planar binding (or summon monster, which controls without requiring binding). However, none of these necessarily bind the outsider to the caster's needs, and a wise spellcaster augments the summoning with additional encouragement, usually in the form of gifts or bargains."
When you summon an evil creature, it comes because you are powerful and evil and comes in your service.
When you summon a good creature, it comes because you are powerful and good and it comes in your service.
The summoned creature is not bound to your needs. If you summon something evil, you are summoning evil.
Please, actually read all of what you quote.
"summon monster, which controls without requiring binding"
It's under your control. By the rules of the spell and explicitly in the text YOU quoted, Summon Monster controls the thing you summon.
Planar Ally and Binding do not (and explicitly say so).
You want everyone else to change the setting to accommodate your snowflake.:rolleyes:
What does "none of these" mean to you.
You have a "creative" interpretation of morality, maybe you also read words creatively?
|
|
Slay living just straight-out murders someone. Nothing good could possibly come from it.
I find at times like this, simply showing what someone wrote is more effective than any rebuttal I could make.
Death knell steals life. That is evil.
If you like, feel free to write your own setting book. Rynjin will buy it...
What does "none of these" mean to you.You have a "creative" interpretation of morality, maybe you also read words creatively?
Perhaps a grammar lesson is in order?
"Use parentheses [ ( ) ] to include material that you want to de-emphasize or that wouldn't normally fit into the flow of your text but you want to include nonetheless."
In Pathfinder, Good and Evil are game terms, with specific definitions. "Good acts" and "Evil acts" are also game terms, with specific definitions.
The rules, like it or not, do not actually say that animating the dead is an "Evil act". The rules do say that the spell "Animate Dead" has the [Evil] descriptor. The rules do not say that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an "Evil act". You can infer that, or change it for your games, but then you aren't playing with the rules as written. RAI? Sure. But not RAW.
This may fall in the same category as drowning in 3.5: back in 3.5, someone who was at -8 hit-points who fell into water and failed their save against drowning would have their hp go up to -1. Hurray! Drowning heals you! Pathfinder fixed this, but before PF, anyone who said drowning couldn't heal a dying character was invoking a house rule.
It is possible that in PF 2.0, they will edit the rules to include something like
Casting a spell with the [Good], [Evil], [Law], or [Chaos] descriptor is a good, evil, law, or chaos- aligned action, respectively.Until they do, though, it's just a house rule.
I think I can shed some light on this by directing our attention to the Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide (which should be extremely relevant considering this discussion is all about a character who is going to be played in the Wrath of the Righteous AP).
Section, Redemption (Relapse): "Each minor evil act a creature performs (casting spells with the evil descriptor, praying to an evil god, mind controlling good creatures to commit evil acts, and so on) counts against whatever penances the character has already performed, effectively cancelling one out. Any major evil act (knowingly slaying an innocent creature, spreading disease among a community, inflicting pain on an innocent subject, or animating the dead) undoes all good work done for the current stage"
Like I'd said a page back - this entire argument (which is now, I'm afraid, becoming terribly redundant) was sparked by a question about the Wrath of the Righteous AP. I've quoted a Paizo product directly relating to the AP in question (the player's guide for Wrath of the Righteous) which explicitly states that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an inherently evil action - and that animating the dead is on par with the torture or murder of an innocent individual. So for the purposes of the argument in this thread, it must be presumed that "Animating the dead" is an evil action, as it is written by Paizo.
However - I really think all of us should take a step back and take a breath. We're all just throwing the same points back and forth with no real progress made. Rynjin has his views which (while I find some of them mildly repulsive) are perfectly valid at his table. We have our views that are perfectly valid at our tables, and at any PFS table. The nice part about Tabletop Gaming is that your rules don't have to be our rules, and you don't have to listen to our rules.
|
|
What does "none of these" mean to you.You have a "creative" interpretation of morality, maybe you also read words creatively?
Perhaps a grammar lesson is in order?
"Use parentheses [ ( ) ] to include material that you want to de-emphasize or that wouldn't normally fit into the flow of your text but you want to include nonetheless."
None of these.
Not some of these, Not Binding or Calling.
None of these.
The summoned creature is called to fight your enemy for you. That is what it does. If that creature is evil, you have summoned evil to fight for you.
Which is a pretty damn evil act.
Well, then the solution is to just say: "Thank you but no". He has no real way of forcing his ideals onto you. But at the very least, let's all take a breather on this. This discussion is beginning to devolve into pointless flaming - and that's the point where both sides lose their validity entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm not sure on Paizo's stance, but once upon a time, this thread was about a Ranger wanting a Warg companion. We have gone beyond off-topic. The discussion was interesting, at least.
Flagging for thread lock due to being miles off-topic.
. Rynjin has his views which (while I find some of them mildly repulsive) are perfectly valid at his table.Yes. But he wants us to have to allow them at our tables as well.
Which is where the disagreement lay.
I think it's fair to say that what I read from Rynjin is not that he wants HIS rules enforced at our table, he resents that the rules as written are given greater weight at most tables and so he has to accept them to play. He would prefer that the rule not exist so that there was no bias against his preferred style.
I think that even if that were the case, Rynjin would find that the vast, vast majority of games would be played pretty much the same way because his preferred in-game moral code does not match the huge majority of people's view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm not sure on Paizo's stance, but once upon a time, this thread was about a Ranger wanting a Warg companion. We have gone beyond off-topic. The discussion was interesting, at least.
Flagging for thread lock due to being miles off-topic.
Ah, when discussing thread dynamics I neglected to predict the arrival of the self-appointed thread police.
Welcome!
None of these.
Not some of these, Not Binding or Calling.
None of these.
With Summon Monster in parentheses to provide an example of something that does not fit in the normal flow of the sentence but nevertheless is relevant to the discussion at hand.
It obviously binds them to your cause, however temporarily, otherwise it would have rules similar to Planar Binding or Ally.
However, even assuming you are right for now:
The summoned creature is called to fight your enemy for you. That is what it does. If that creature is evil, you have summoned evil to fight for you.
Which is a pretty damn evil act.
How so? Why is getting a Demon to kill a Demon any more evil than using a dog or an Angel?
Rynjin has his views which (while I find some of them mildly repulsive)
Necessary?
Yes. But he wants us to have to allow them at our tables as well.
Sentences like these are why I constantly question your reading comprehension.
No, you would not "have to allow them". You would just have to intentionally DISALLOW them.
Rather than Monopoly's rulebook calling me an a!*@!~# for putting a hotel on Park Place, the other players are doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The summoned creature is called to fight your enemy for you. That is what it does. If that creature is evil, you have summoned evil to fight for you.
I'd like to emphasize a part of this.
you have summoned evil to fight for you.
Calling a manifestation of evil into the world is an inherently evil act. If I called Lucifer into our world, without a doubt, it would be an evil act because I brought evil into the realm.
Summoning and Calling in D&D are different things. If you Call evil into the world, you are not Summoning evil into the world. Calling means you don't have control over the called creature. With Summoning you do.
The summoned creature is called to fight your enemy for you. That is what it does. If that creature is evil, you have summoned evil to fight for you.I'd like to emphasize a part of this.
you have summoned evil to fight for you.
Calling a manifestation of evil into the world is an inherently evil act. If I called Lucifer into our world, without a doubt, it would be an evil act because I brought evil into the realm.
I am aware. Calling is even worse in that after it's agreed service to you, it can run amok in our realm. Just because you have control over a creature doesn't mean that it's presence isn't evil.
Just because you've summoned it and it does your bidding, doesn't mean that you haven't brought evil into our world. Especially since there are multiple ways of stealing control or losing control of a summoned creature.
One last time:
1. Kill a baby to save 100 townspeople.
2. Steal a sack of gold from a noble to split between 100 peasants.
It's interesting how much easier it is to say that #1 is OK than it is to say that #2 is OK, isn't it?
The concept is exactly the same in both instances. One unwilling sacrifice provides benefit to 100 others. And clearly killing a baby is a more dramatic action than stealing a sack of gold.
So it should be much easier to say #2 is OK.
But it isn't, is it?
The real interesting thing is WHY some people can say #1 is OK but won't go as far as to say #2 is OK.
One last time:
1. Kill a baby to save 100 townspeople.
2. Steal a sack of gold from a noble to split between 100 peasants.It's interesting how much easier it is to say that #1 is OK than it is to say that #2 is OK, isn't it?
The concept is exactly the same in both instances. One unwilling sacrifice provides benefit to 100 others. And clearly killing a baby is a more dramatic action than stealing a sack of gold.
So it should be much easier to say #2 is OK.
But it isn't, is it?
The real interesting thing is WHY some people can say #1 is OK but won't go as far as to say #2 is OK.
Why would you think people would have more of a problem with #2?
Last I checked Robin Hood was considered a hero, not a villain...
Rynjin, then I assume you will be distributing all of your money to those who have less than you have.
Will you post the receipts?
The point AD is making is that people would go to further lengths to say why #1 is okay, but not nearly as far to say #2 is okay since it's "only" money.
Rynjin, then I assume you will be distributing all of your money to those who have less than you have.
Will you post the receipts?
1.) Because I'm a noble with sacks of gold to spare who lives surrounded by hundreds of peasants (i.e. people who are pretty much destitute by comparison)?
2.) I will certainly distribute the $.83 in my bank account to those less fortunate, if I find some.