AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - The RP Police

So, what you are saying Iron is that scope for mitigating circumstances is a constant(?).

All actions taken have the potential to be good or evil depending on the combination of circumstance and motivation the result in the action being committed.

However, some paladins or priests may not agree that summoning a skeleton to save a drowning child is justified; it's entirely relative to those who have the power to judge the morality of the action. As we've seen, morality has little to do with those elemental good and evils we were talking about.

Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Aug 06 2009, 14:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yurell: Ah, but if you bring that external argument into it, it gets more complex:

If deliberately causing something that is evil, is evil, doesn't it work vice versa? If by deliberately causing something that is evil, you also deliberately cause something that is good (and is the final goal of all the causing), is it not good? Now we have a situation that is both evil and good, don't you agree? As such, I personally think the most fruitful way of determining the final label is to calculate the "net gain" of alignment points.

We've focused a lot on Evil, but let's explore the other Elemental Forces: Good, Law and Chaos are surely all identical to Evil in nature, and therefore subject to the exact same laws. By the logic you used above (and which I don't disagree with, but I think is incomplete without calculating the whole situation):

Using an evil assassin to kill an evil tyrant is evil. If this was done by a good person (such as a Harper; seems something they might do) to save all the good people of the town, is it still justified to call it evil?

And vice versa: Using a good person to kill a good king is good. This was something a villain acheived through misdirection and scheming for his own gain. Is it justified to call it good?

I think it's appropriate to use people as an example, because their alignment is just as "supernatural" as that of spells or magic items: it's all related to these elemental forces of the universe. But for clarity, let's drop people from the examples and use spells instead:

Create Undead has the Evil descriptor. Using it as the only option to save a child is evil. Is it justified to call it evil?

Gate (when used to summon good creatures) has the Good descriptor. Protection from Evil also has the Good descriptor. Sememmon wants to challenge Manshoon and subsequently enslave Faerûn as the lord of the Zhentarim, so he casts Gate to summon an angel and commands it to kill Manshoon's bodyguards. Then he casts Protection from Evil to shield his mind against Manshoon's spells, and proceeds to victory and world dominance. Is it justified to call the use of those Good spells good?

Order's Wrath has the Lawful descriptor. A thief knows that members of a compating guild are going to hit the same mark as him, that night. Luckily, he has a wand of Order's Wrath, and he sets up an ambush: just as the other thieves are about to leave with their bounty, he smites them all with the lawful wand and flees with the loot. Is it justified to call this lawful?

Cloak of Chaos and Magic Circle Against Law both have the Chaotic descriptor. A Waterdhavian guard unit is suddenly attacked by drow and demons. Their lawful leader is capable of casting both spells, and he does so out of duty, even if he knows the Cloak of Chaos will strike him, too. His sacrifice allows the Neutral and Chaotic guards and citizens to drive back the attackers and restore order. Is it justified to call this chaotic?

I could list many similar examples, but I think you get the point. The Evil descriptor of spells shouldn't be treated any different than the Good, Chaos and Law descriptors. If you want to consistently follow the line of thought you suggested, you'll also have to accept each of the above scenarios.

herkles wrote:

killing in D&D is not evil

Exactly: because no category is evil. Only individual, unique actions may be.

Though you have to remember this: those prescious rule books don't describe and define the contents of Good and Evil adequately, they simply state such forces exist. That's why it's up to the DM, and DM alone, to say what's Evil and what's Good in his/her game. If we were to look at the simple act of killing, detached from context, purpose, outcome, killer and victim, I would personally be inclined to say that ending a life is Evil in itself. But because no action is detached like that, you can say nothing universal.

Incognitos: You are right that paladins and priests would not agree. That's the IC side of things, and that's pretty obvious (hence, not interesting). I'm simply discussing the semantics of the rules from an OOC point of view, and this debate should have no effect on anyone's RP.

I refer to this comment about elemental 'morals'(good, evil, law, etc...);

...where do morals and their 'absolutes' come from? If they are not given form through consciousness then they have no value and as such cannot be said to exist or not exist as a force.

Furthermore, if morals are elemental then consciousness of morality has no intrinsic value at all, the potential force of one moral absolute over another becomes infinite. This is a paradox however as morality requires subjective balance to give it any value, it requires judgment.

So, if morality logically requires conscious judgmental how can it also be an elemental force?...

The acts only have a moral value in as far as it is expressed by those who judge it. All of those acts are effectively as good, evil or chaotic as the majority of the judges decide they are.

I maintain that there is no elemental force capable of universal moral determinations. The concept is inherently paradoxical. Therefor, the spells themselves are incapable of maintaining a moral value(good, evil, etc...) because they are not a moral actor. The spells are just an action and have nothing to do with universal moral absolutes.

EDIT: Realized how carried away I got. Ignore the ranting, arguing semantic crap like this is kind of my job. Hard to switch off sometimes.

Okay, did a little more reading and found this.

Book of Vile Darkness p. 8 wrote:

Unliving Corpses -corrupt mockeries of life and purity- are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

Book of Vile Darkness p. 77 wrote:

Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

Seeing that D&D takes a pretty absolute and unyielding approach to the use of evil, I would assume it takes the same approach with good, law and chaos. For, as Iron said, one must treat all aspects equally.

I would add, however, that I feel it is safe to assume that this is written with the mindset that the world being created is mostly good and accepting the belief that most of the peoples of the given world are goodly and will do what is "right".

Just for argument's sake, what would happen to all this if the scenario for the campaign was a dark, nasty, corrupt world where the average person was more of a LE or NE person?

Nothing would change, it would depend on the type of people. Alignments do not dictate actions they reflect them. It is perfectly possible in a dark and gritty world, to have people that hate undead, often in those worlds undead are a very real danger so associating with them is bad. Just because one is evil does not mean that one can or will do everything that is labeled as evil.

You can find many examples to support the ultimate evil of certain things, such as undeath. But you can also find several examples to counter them. The one most relevant to Amia is the Pale Master: a prestige class so devoted to undead that it ultimately strives to resemble and become one. Yet this PrC can very well be Neutral, and there's no "Must gradually move towards evil" restriction on it. Let's not even bring up the several non-evil undead types. (Look up page 90 of Monsters of Faerûn: "Good liches." These good liches can even animate dead, yet they don't become evil for it.)

Truth be told, I'd personally dismiss any and all contents of Good and Evil that the books offer, and only accept their existance. The contents should be defined by the DM of the campaign, possibly in interaction with players. If you wanted to accept everything the numerous D&D books stated about alignment, you'd run into huge conflicts, inconsistencies, ridicilous naïvity and unconstructive generaliations by a host of designers and authors, none of whom was probably a philosophy major. That's why I'm inclined to ignore specifics, and I would be even if I agreed with them in this case. DM's game, DM's rules, and the books simply do not offer a consistent and complete definition and contents for the alignment powers that they postulate to exist.

That last post, Iron, begs the question...

What is the DM team's stance on the topic as a whole? Could more DM's weigh in on what they think?

I can only guess that Iron's words are his alone and not the words of the DM team as a whole, even if they all share the same sentiment. It is always the DM's final say on what is and isn't evil, good, law or chaos. I'm just curious what other DM's think about the topic.

I'm pretty sure I made my opinion clear. You shouldn't know the answer, because your characters wouldn't know the answer, and therefore you could clearly metagame.

Taur doesn't know a lot of stuff.

But he does know what love is.

Love is to metagame stuff about undead.

Make love not war?

IronAngel wrote:

Yurell: Ah, but if you bring that external argument into it, it gets more complex:

If deliberately causing something that is evil, is evil, doesn't it work vice versa? If by deliberately causing something that is evil, you also deliberately cause something that is good (and is the final goal of all the causing), is it not good? Now we have a situation that is both evil and good, don't you agree? As such, I personally think the most fruitful way of determining the final label is to calculate the "net gain" of alignment points.

I would agree, but the problem is doing an evil act that will ultimately result in a good act. A paladin, for example, could Fall, but one would be unable to tell that from net gain. Each individual action must be taken individually.

An example of this is in George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. It isn't really a spoiler, but I'll put it in black anyway, just in case.
A smuggler, who had been a smuggler for years, saved a lord's castle during a siege by running dangerous supply missions at night. Once the siege was broken the man had all the fingers of one of his hands removed at the knuckle for his years of smuggling, and was knighted for his valour.

IronAngel wrote:

We've focused a lot on Evil, but let's explore the other Elemental Forces: Good, Law and Chaos are surely all identical to Evil in nature, and therefore subject to the exact same laws. By the logic you used above (and which I don't disagree with, but I think is incomplete without calculating the whole situation):

Using an evil assassin to kill an evil tyrant is evil. If this was done by a good person (such as a Harper; seems something they might do) to save all the good people of the town, is it still justified to call it evil?

And vice versa: Using a good person to kill a good king is good. This was something a villain acheived through misdirection and scheming for his own gain. Is it justified to call it good?

Why is that evil? Killing in general is not inherently evil in D&D, and as we constantly kill things in D&D the reason and alignment we kill, along with how we go about it determines the alignment of the action itself.
Which is why I used a situation that I had thought would be sufficiently evil - the murder of an innocent woman.
If that wasn't sufficiently evil, I could describe suitably graphic things the assassin could have done to make it evil - my argument as far as alignment goes is that causing something evil deliberately is an evil act.

Let me present a general case:
Let us say that C is evil.
Person B deliberately causing [C] is evil (regardless of Person B's alignment)
Person A deliberately causing [Person B deliberately causing [C]] is evil (regardless of Person C's alignment)

I used brackets so that one can see exactly what evil act each is causing. Of course that is a general case - each action needs to be seen bya DM to be determined if the act itself is good or evil (since intentions can affect this, and whether it is ultimately good or evil (this last determines alignment shift).

However I would also like to point out intentions don't always cut it - again with the example of slaughtering a village to save the world. If the world wasn't really in danger you're screwed (I've had a paladin begin a slow fall into becoming a Blackguard at this in PnP).

IronAngel wrote:

I think it's appropriate to use people as an example, because their alignment is just as "supernatural" as that of spells or magic items: it's all related to these elemental forces of the universe. But for clarity, let's drop people from the examples and use spells instead:

Create Undead has the Evil descriptor. Using it as the only option to save a child is evil. Is it justified to call it evil?

Gate (when used to summon good creatures) has the Good descriptor. Protection from Evil also has the Good descriptor. Sememmon wants to challenge Manshoon and subsequently enslave Faerûn as the lord of the Zhentarim, so he casts Gate to summon an angel and commands it to kill Manshoon's bodyguards. Then he casts Protection from Evil to shield his mind against Manshoon's spells, and proceeds to victory and world dominance. Is it justified to call the use of those Good spells good?

Order's Wrath has the Lawful descriptor. A thief knows that members of a compating guild are going to hit the same mark as him, that night. Luckily, he has a wand of Order's Wrath, and he sets up an ambush: just as the other thieves are about to leave with their bounty, he smites them all with the lawful wand and flees with the loot. Is it justified to call this lawful?

Cloak of Chaos and Magic Circle Against Law both have the Chaotic descriptor. A Waterdhavian guard unit is suddenly attacked by drow and demons. Their lawful leader is capable of casting both spells, and he does so out of duty, even if he knows the Cloak of Chaos will strike him, too. His sacrifice allows the Neutral and Chaotic guards and citizens to drive back the attackers and restore order. Is it justified to call this chaotic?

I could list many similar examples, but I think you get the point. The Evil descriptor of spells shouldn't be treated any different than the Good, Chaos and Law descriptors. If you want to consistently follow the line of thought you suggested, you'll also have to accept each of the above scenarios.

No, the line of thought I followed was someone deliberately causing an evil act each time was ultimately an evil act (which I clarified in this post, along with brought up the difference between ultimately and individually).

In each of these examples, the spell is of the alignment stated, but each action in the entire series needs to be summed in order to come up with the total alignment shift.

I'll use the example of the undead and the girl, since it is most convenient - summoning the undead is evil, saving the girl is good. It is, however, up to the DM whether these acts are ultimately good or evil. Does saving the girl outweigh the evilness of the summon? I should hope so - but there's the rub. They can still be persecuted individually for their crimes and rewarded individually for their virtues as well (such as the example I gave in black above).

I like to believe in the absolutes, otherwise how would Protection from Alignment and Detect Alignment Work? My drow casting Protection from Evil should be helped against whatever the Seldarine's servants throw at them ... but she isn't? Why? Because the alignments are absolute and not up to individual interpretation (for the characters).

IronAngel wrote:

Truth be told, I'd personally dismiss any and all contents of Good and Evil that the books offer, and only accept their existance. The contents should be defined by the DM of the campaign, possibly in interaction with players. If you wanted to accept everything the numerous D&D books stated about alignment, you'd run into huge conflicts, inconsistencies, ridicilous naïvity and unconstructive generaliations by a host of designers and authors, none of whom was probably a philosophy major. That's why I'm inclined to ignore specifics, and I would be even if I agreed with them in this case. DM's game, DM's rules, and the books simply do not offer a consistent and complete definition and contents for the alignment powers that they postulate to exist.

I'm arguing from an in-universe perspective, where these laws exist and what is written in the rulebooks are canon. It is, of course, up to the DM to interpret how he likes, but if one used a philosophy major for alignment, what about someone who studied medieval and ancient weaponry to advise on the combat? The game would be very boring.

The thing about the D&D universe is that it doesn't resemble real life - in real life there are no anchored absolutes, only shades of grey and the individual's perspective.

Yurell wrote:

The thing about the D&D universe is that it doesn't resemble real life - in real life there are no anchored absolutes, only shades of grey and the individual's perspective.

True, absolutes may exist within DnD where they do not exist in RL. But in DnD, your PCs are still bound by individual perspective. If these absolutes exist, you do not know what they are, or that they are true. Because if you did, the world would be absolutely broken. Let me give you an example.

PC commits good act.

DM imposes circumstances that render good act an evil act, or that have it be interpreted as an evil act.

PC points to Yurell's rule that good and evil are absolutes that are known to the individual PC and that the PC would have known well in advance of committing any act what the outcome would have been.

DM disagrees.

PC disagrees, and rightfully so, because according to Yurell's rule, if the DM does not have the absolute acknowledged universally as an absolute by all parties involved, the DM is turning the absolute into a social relative. PC demands retcon to save face.

Therefore, you will rarely receive any affirmation from me about what is absolutely good or evil. Already in the plots I run PCs have committed good acts that turned sour due to unforeseen circumstances or lack of knowledge (what you call individual perspective). This is not a liberty I would have if I acknowledge the viewpoint that PCs KNOW the details of the absolutes. I would be hamstrung into having the universe conspire to conform and represent those absolutes, and rather than create personal tension and dramatics, just read from the script of the gods.

To hell with your rules!

Yossarin wrote:

Yurell wrote:

The thing about the D&D universe is that it doesn't resemble real life - in real life there are no anchored absolutes, only shades of grey and the individual's perspective.

True, absolutes may exist within DnD where they do not exist in RL. But in DnD, your PCs are still bound by individual perspective.

Aye, I agreed with that many posts ago. I also stated that the DM has absolute power to make the universe as he sees fit.

What we know and what our PCs know are totally, but the actions that we make them do are their actions - if a DM disagrees with the alignment we expect it to be there is no 'retconning' to save face - the character's interpretation (and the player's) was wrong for the setting (in this case Amia).

DM has final say on these just as they do on all the other forces of nature.

off topic: best forum debate ever. No flaming in a contentious topic. Never thought I'd be debating Kant and the Relativism of metaphysical elemental morals. crazy. Out of curiosity, how many of you have covered philosophy in study? If you haven't then you have some big arse brains up there.

I've spent several hours reading different sourcebooks, and I really have to ask this question: Where is everyone getting the idea that an evil descriptor on a spell, makes using said spell evil?

I couldn't find any reference to that. What I *did* find was the specifric statement that the descriptors rarely had anything to do with in game effects, and were there to help differentiate how a certain spell might react with certain other spells or effects.

For example, the cleric domains good and evil, enhance spells with the good and evil descriptor. Namely that a spell with the good descriptor is cast as though your caster level was +1 if you have the Good domain.

But absolutely nowhere - not in the players guide, not the monster manuals, not the dm guide, not the faerun-specific players guide or campaign setting guide, not the spell descriptions, nor the diety descriptions - nowhere in any book I read, did I find any reference to use of a spell itself having any bearing on the characters alignment. Only action, intent, and result, seem to have a bearing on alignment.

This would infer that summoning an undead to save someone, would class as good. And that summoning one to commit murder would class as evil. And either action or intent would have no bearing on how other characters, whether pc or npc, might view you for taking the action. A town might well be grateful that you rescued the child, but might scorn the fact that you used an undead to do so, and exile you, or worse, for having done so. It doesn't mean your alignment should change.

Good and evil are absolutes, as far as existing. But that doesn't mean that absolutely every action is also absolutely good or evil. The world would be broken, as Yossi said, if everything was THAT pre-determined.

So a paladin killing an innocent child to save the world, I would think would not shift the paladin to evil - because of the intent and result, not the action - but that most certainly doesn't mean that everyone who learns what the paladin did wouldn't spit at him, run him out of town, or try to bring him to their view of justice for the murder.

Whereas a Thayan killing an innocent child slave for no reason at all would definitely class as evil, because of the action itself, and the intent, while the Thayan's peers wouldn't even shrug - hell, might even laugh.

While a paladin killing a child for no reason, which by pure happenstance results in saving the world, would in my opinion shift the paladin to evil, despite the favourable result. At this point though, even though he shifted to evil, the Lord of the land might favour the paladin for having saved the world, maybe rewarding him or promoting him, while in private the paladin (likely now ex-paladin) laughs at the fool.

Then of course, the dogma of your diety would also come into play though, as far as determining whether you fall or not. If the diety hates the use of undead, you'd fall for using them, regardless of whether you had good intentions, or saved the world. But falling does not mean your alignment has to change.

Bottom line of what I'm trying to say, is that the only thing I've seen written about alignment was that action and intent should determine whether a DM chooses to alter a pc's alignment, and that alignment wouldn't and shouldn't have direct bearing on how other pc's or npc's view the character in question (except of course where it might be appropriate).

Cori wrote:

But absolutely nowhere - not in the players guide, not the monster manuals, not the dm guide, not the faerun-specific players guide or campaign setting guide, not the spell descriptions, nor the diety descriptions - nowhere in any book I read, did I find any reference to use of a spell itself having any bearing on the characters alignment. Only action, intent, and result, seem to have a bearing on alignment.

This is the exact point i was trying to make with my posts. Just because a spell is classed as using evil energy, does not mean that using that spell automatically gives you evil points.

Yurell wrote:

However, my reasoning goes:
The spell is evil.
Deliberately causing something that is evil is evil.
Therefore casting the spell is evil.

I think this reasoning is flawed. I'll use an example i used earlier and apply your reasoning to it to show why i dont believe it holds up.

A paladin is fighting a mage. His sword has been turned to dust by the mages spells. He grabs the evil sword dropped by the mages lieutenant to hack off the mages head and save the kingdom from destruction.

The sword is inherently evil. Therefore the paladin would fall for the act of killing the mage and saving the kingdom, because by your logic using the sword makes anything he does evil.

Edit: messed up the quote, i cant cut and paste correctly apparently

I wouldn't say negative energy is inherantly evil, just to throw it out there into the swirling mass of debate - And thus drawing upon it to reach your goals shouldn't give you a mass of evil points. Infact, I believe all the elemental and quasi-elemental planes are classed as neutral. Granted the Positive/Negative planes are the most hostile (And the negative plane is also dangerous to Undead - just not -as- dangerous as to say a paladin.).

So the whole 'Drawing upon evil energy' debate is flawed, as you'd basically sling all the elemental planes into the same category, I'd say their all as destructive as each other. Stay on the fier plane long enough and you'll probably be cooked, water you'll drown and the positive you'll explode.

--

Anyway!
--

I'm in full agreement with IronAngel. If you want to read source material where the authors are clearly phiolosophy majors I'd suggest the 'Factols Manifesto' it outlines various groups who aren't bound together by allignment but by belief, evils and goodies alike work together to further the aims of their faction (Granted, the way they get to the end result is probably different).

Paladins rubbing shoulders with LE torture fanatics and anally retentive judges what more could one want?

Granted it's planescape and has little to no effect on Faerun unless the Harmonium invade.

@ Cori: Read the Book of Vile Darkness. I quoted my sources very clearly for the idea of what absolute evil is. If I remember correctly, look at page 7 for clarification.

As for the "evil" classifier for spells... well, I don't see it either, but maybe I'm missing something.

@ The Incognitos: I took the entry levels of Philosophy and Logic. Didn't go any further because I thought it was pretty redundant from there on out.

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Yurell wrote:

However, my reasoning goes:
The spell is evil.
Deliberately causing something that is evil is evil.
Therefore casting the spell is evil.

I think this reasoning is flawed. I'll use an example i used earlier and apply your reasoning to it to show why i dont believe it holds up.

A paladin is fighting a mage. His sword has been turned to dust by the mages spells. He grabs the evil sword dropped by the mages lieutenant to hack off the mages head and save the kingdom from destruction.

The sword is inherently evil. Therefore the paladin would fall for the act of killing the mage and saving the kingdom, because by your logic using the sword makes anything he does evil.

Except that isn't an example of the quote. I said causing the thing that is evil is evil - the Paladin creating the evil sword would be an evil act, not him simply using it to defend his life.

Cori wrote:

I've spent several hours reading different sourcebooks, and I really have to ask this question: Where is everyone getting the idea that an evil descriptor on a spell, makes using said spell evil?

I've provided my arguments for that ... it is essentially what this debate has been revolving around.

Cori wrote:

But absolutely nowhere - not in the players guide, not the monster manuals, not the dm guide, not the faerun-specific players guide or campaign setting guide, not the spell descriptions, nor the diety descriptions - nowhere in any book I read, did I find any reference to use of a spell itself having any bearing on the characters alignment. Only action, intent, and result, seem to have a bearing on alignment. [.quote]

Well, using a single spell will not make you evil, to argue such would be folly. As for the action, intent result idea, my interpretation is:
Action: Cast evil spell
Intent: Save little girl
Result: Save little girl

So the ultimate shift is good. However, it is interesting that you put 'result' as having a bearing on alignment - if I'm going mountain climbing, and I accidentally cause a landslide that kills people, does that shift my alignment? Quite aside from something like that, in the little girl and zombie (which I think has become the standard

) example, what happens if it doesn't work and you fail to save the little girl? Are you less good than if you succeeded?

The Incognitos wrote:

off topic: best forum debate ever. No flaming in a contentious topic. Never thought I'd be debating Kant and the Relativism of metaphysical elemental morals. crazy. Out of curiosity, how many of you have covered philosophy in study? If you haven't then you have some big arse brains up there.

Never done philosophy - I'm a maths / science student. ^^

Edit: Forgot to put "" in the quote tags

Book of Vile Darkness by Monte Cook, release under Wizards of the Coast Licence.

Page 7 - 11
EVIL ACTS:

Lying: If used as a tool for evil purposes

Cheating: Breaking the rules for own personal gain.

Theft: Within' Evil reasons, such as greed.

Betrayal: As it is, it doesn't have to be intentional to be an evil act.

Murder: Self explanatory

Vengeance:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"An act of vengeance does not have to be evil, but the evil mindset usually redefines the concept as "Revenge at any price".

Worshiping Evil Gods or Demons: Self explanatory.

Animating the dead or creating undead:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Unliving corpses - Corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are INHERENTLY evil".

Casting Evil Spells:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue sufferings, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects."

Of particular note is the following,

Book of Vile Darkness Page 8, Casting evil spells wrote:

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."

Damning or Harming Souls: Self explanatory

Consorting with Fiend: Self explanatory but given how Amia has more then it's fair share of fiendish PC's you could probably ignore it for them.

Creating Evil Creatures: Duh

Using others for Personal Gain: Again, duh.

Greed: Duh Duh

Bullying and Cowing Innocents: This one is odd, NWN stuff's it up a bit given the intimidate skill could be considered bullying, but isn't.

Bringing Despair: Duh Duh Duh

Tempting Others:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Tempting good individuals to do wrong is an evil act."

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Animating the dead or creating undead:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Unliving corpses - Corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are INHERENTLY evil".

Casting Evil Spells:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue sufferings, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects."

Of particular note is the following,

Book of Vile Darkness Page 8, Casting evil spells wrote:

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."

Creating Evil Creatures: Duh

These are the points I was trying to convey.

Edit: Although I disagree to an extent with cheating. It would depend on how one cheats, and is more likely a chaotic act, as with some of the others in there.

Yurell wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Animating the dead or creating undead:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Unliving corpses - Corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are INHERENTLY evil".

Casting Evil Spells:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue sufferings, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects."

Of particular note is the following,

Book of Vile Darkness Page 8, Casting evil spells wrote:

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."

Creating Evil Creatures: Duh

These are the points I was trying to convey.

Edit: Although I disagree to an extent with cheating. It would depend on how one cheats, and is more likely a chaotic act, as with some of the others in there.

If you cheat for own personal gain it would be considered greed, which is evil. Generally if your cheating for a good cause, to defend yourself, or because you need to eat or something it would be neutral or good.

I'd consider cheating for any cause to be Chaotic, and minimal of anything on the Good-Evil axis if it does stray from neutral.

Unfortunately in D&D though it is a matter of absolutes. I once had the same argument in a PnP game where i wanted to play a char that prestiged into a demonologist from the Book of Vile Darkness. Even the class descriptor said that a demonologist doesn't necessarily view themselves as evil, they are corrupted by prolonged influence of the entities with which they choose to associate by use of their power. Therefore you could not become the prestige class without the alignment of CE.

My argument was this...A Sorcerer who studies demonology at first to understand the creatures he considers an enemy, to better understand how to combat them. Realizes that they are chaotic creatures and wont to fight amongst themselves as much as any particular creature or entity, thus decides to start summoning them, binding them, and using them against other demons in his crusade to weaken and destroy their influence in his world or theirs, whatever the case may be.

In his estimation he is using evil against itself, an act that in his mind is good. He is not unleashing his summons upon the populace to destroy and manipulate humanity, he is striking directly against demonic powers.

Here is a prime example of where game mechanics say that spell description is an absolute. On the surface he is altruistic in his motives and considers himself a crusader for the cause of Law. But because he dabbles in spells that carry the descriptor of Evil he required to be evil. And because the entities are also Chaotic in nature, thus the spell description technically also Chaotic, He is forced to be Chaotic as well.

It is not his intentions that make him CE... it is the means by which he chooses to use that force his alignment. There is no room for debate in the game mechanics... he is Evil regardless of how he chooses to act or what his reasoning is. He summoned and bound Demonic powers...Evil Evil Evil!

All this said, No matter how you look at it, no matter how you try to justify it... the game will always say..if you summon or create undead you are evil.

naturesfolly wrote:

All this said, No matter how you look at it, no matter how you try to justify it... the game will always say..if you summon or create undead you are evil.

While for most of it I'm arguing the same contention as you, this I disagree with. Is one evil spell enough to turn someone from a life of good into pure evil? Even if such a spell is used for a good purpose?

naturesfolly: I think we've covered the example you gave already in the 'good/evil/law/etc. as elemental forces' area. An act, action etc has no ethical or moral value in and of itself. It is the motivations and circumstance that give it that value.

If one was to create a game setting where everything was like Tarkull then Undead would not be evil.

"The Game" doesn't say whether something is evil or not. The game is always represented entirely by DMs, since we are talking Pen & Paper here. DMs make the rules, they say go or no go. They, along with the players, may find that certain rules don't fit well for what they are trying to do (having fun with the supplied system), and then alter it.

xordae wrote:

"The Game" doesn't say whether something is evil or not.

Actually there are some things it does specifically say are evil or good.

In DnD a world with undead and evil actions and philosophies as the majority would still be just a particularry evil and corrupt prime. Good is not defined by what is the majority. That kind of thoughts fit the self-justifiaction of evil characters fine, but only create headaches on the OOC level.

This discussion has become a pile of useless wannabe-filosophy.

It's always easy to defend your case by calling the opposition wannabe-philosophy. If you used the definition of philosophy instead, it would look like a poor defence: "This discussion employs too much systematic rational thinking!"

Yurell, it occurred to me today at work (yes, I thought about this for hours at work; hey, mine is a very repetitive job!) that there may be some misunderstanding between the examples you used and those I used.

When I used people as an example (using an assassin to kill a tyrant, using a good guy to kill a king), I wasn't thinking of causing evil things to happen. I was thinking of using evil tools (or good tools), which is a fine analogy for using evil spells as tools. You chose to consider casting an evil spell as "causing evil," which I suppose is justified. You could say you're causing the spell to happen, though you could also say its existance in the Weave is independent on you casting it. But it's just as justified thinking of casting an evil spell as "using an evil tool" which may be for good goals. I'm not sure if you could call casting the spell "causing evil," because while it is a cause in a very narrow sense, it is only a tool in any larger, meaningful sense.

I don't disagree with you on the most important matter, in the end: I do think there can be an evil factor in the larger scheme of things, and it can still be condemnded as evil despite the good net gain. (Whether raising undead is such universal evil or not, I'll leave for each DM to decide on their own when they DM.) However, I don't think it's very purposeful to get stuck on this detail. If the act is good, it seems fruitless to dissect it to find a small evil factor within. At the end of the day, the act is still good, and even a paladin won't necessarily Fall. (Some may use undead, after all, though not create them; I'd chalk it up to religious code rather than universal good, though.) The supposed evil factor simply isn't meaningful.

Cori's right on the money, I think. The evilness of a spell doesn't lead to the evilness of casting the spell, which has been the dominant argument for supporting the universal "Evil" of casting Create Undead. There have been some other arguments, too (such as Yurell's "causing evil"), but they're really all dependant on opinion and speculation. The aprioric certainty is lost when you realize that the Evil descriptor is not analytic with the Evil of the casting action.

And on a general note about running the Realms, not only related to this subject: the Book of Vile Darkness is a source you should steer clear of, because it's horrible junk. But that's just my opinion. All in all, it's a mess trying to scrutinize the contents of Good and Evil from books, because there's wildly conflicting material and it simply wasn't thought through. You should exercise a lot of criticism towards D&D sources in these matters, because it's a fact there's no consistent system therein. I can tell you, this topic has analyzed the matter far deeper and sharper than the game designers ever have, so they can't help us further.

Yurell wrote:

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Yurell wrote:

However, my reasoning goes:
The spell is evil.
Deliberately causing something that is evil is evil.
Therefore casting the spell is evil.

I think this reasoning is flawed. I'll use an example i used earlier and apply your reasoning to it to show why i dont believe it holds up.

A paladin is fighting a mage. His sword has been turned to dust by the mages spells. He grabs the evil sword dropped by the mages lieutenant to hack off the mages head and save the kingdom from destruction.

The sword is inherently evil. Therefore the paladin would fall for the act of killing the mage and saving the kingdom, because by your logic using the sword makes anything he does evil.

Except that isn't an example of the quote. I said causing the thing that is evil is evil - the Paladin creating the evil sword would be an evil act, not him simply using it to defend his life.

Using a spell to save your life is the same thing as using a sword, they're just different tools. A wizard does not create magic. With the spell animate dead the wizard is using negative energy as a tool to defend himself, just as the paladin in the example did.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Animating the dead or creating undead:

Book of Vile Darkness wrote:

"Unliving corpses - Corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are INHERENTLY evil".

Book of Vile Darkness Page 8, Casting evil spells wrote:

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."

This perfectly highlights the point iron and i and some others have been making. No one is contesting that animating the dead is an inherently evil spell. But the spell itself, and the act of using it are two different things. As you can see from the quote, using an evil spell does not necessarily automatically get you evil points, it depends on the circumstance.

I have a drow character that has the intent of a lawful good paladin, but in all reality he is chaotic neutral (which is what I use in nwn)maybe even chaotic evil . He wants world peace, he views himself as a lawful good paladin of sorts. He is sacrificing his mind by murdering Llothites and sun elves and what not that get in the way of that world peace. In his mind world peace is a world dominated by drow and elves, and humans and the lesser races are slaves. Now some would say that a world dominated by someone is evil, which in reality it is...but in my characters mind it isn't, it's what he was raised on into believing. All he truely wants is peace and his intent is good, but what he does to achieve it, is evil or neutral, not good. In his mind he is good, his intent is good...his actions are evil or neutral and still as condemning probably

..Your point being?

It's fallacy to think PC alignment can be determined by their own perspective. It's equal fallacy to think that because this isn't so, everything is obvious, clear and simple.

People seem to have this illusion of "moral relativism = real world and complicated ethical problems; moral absolutism = simple rules and easy answers in a fantasy context." If you actually study ethics, you will notice that the majority of systematic ethics is based on objective, or at the very least inter-subjective values. Kant, Aristotle and J.S. Mill aren't moral relativists at all, yet they're all very different and the problems they deal with are very complex. The objectivity of Good and Evil does not mean ethical problems are easy; on the contrary, things get much more complicated and gray.

well my point being....that even though in his mind he is good and he will tell people he is good, and he does mostly good actions except the few like murdering bad people....he is still only chaotic neutral and probably should be chaotic evil because the absolutes of alignment in dnd....so I have him as chaotic neutral....though in the pc's mind he good.

I spent several hours last night reading the Book of Vile Darkness (previously had only skimmed through it a bit. Good book, I recommend reading it).

Firstly, it does clearly state that creating or animating undead is an evil action, regardless of intent. It even gives an example of how it's still an evil action if you create the undead specifically with commands to do good deeds.

Secondly, as has been quoted multiple times, it does also state that one can use evil spells (of which NWN has *very* few - pretty much the undead summons and the Contagion spell, are the only ones that carry the evil descriptor, that are in NWN) without becoming evil.

It also states that use of evil spells on a regular basis, regardless of intent, WILL corrupt you into evil.

What these statements imply to me, is that use of evil spells, but with good intent, mitigates the alignment shift, so that it is a small shift towards evil, as opposed to a larger one. But still a shift towards evil, despite committing good acts.

And lastly, keep in mind that negative energy is not inherently evil. There are many spells that use it, which do not carry the evil descriptor. Enervation, for example. And the Inflict Wounds series of spells. And of course, Harm.

The book very specifically states that spells to create undead are evil, and that spells which create undue suffering are evil. Spells which are intended to kill or do damage are not evil, because as has been pointed out by others, murder in D&D is not an evil act in and of itself, but only when circumstances make it evil.

The book does also state that many evil people will not actually see themselves as evil, and therefore the affect that intent has, towards determining if an action is evil or not, is not based on subjective intent, but rather the objective intent. Subjectively, an evil tyrant might think he is doing good by ensuring peace in his lands, by murdering rebels and their families. Objectively, he is murdering non-evil individuals for his own gain, and the fact that it might also insure peace in his lands is a minor side effect.

Where intent seems to really come into play, is accidents with dire consequences. The example given in teh book is a paladin climbs an unstable hill to escape certain death by foes chasing him. His escape causes a rockslide, which destroys a hut below, and kills the good aligned inhabitants.

If he did not know of the danger of a rock slide, what he did was not evil (though he likely would feel guilt and might choose to atone for the harm he did). If he had been warned in advance that the hill was unstable, and would likely cause the slide, and that there was a hut full of innocents below who would be in danger, then his action would be evil, because it would be entirely selfish to risk, and cause harm to innocents just to save his own skin.

Really, I just recommend reading the Book of Vile Darkness. It pretty much settles the dispute this thread has become. The detail it goes into about intent vs. action vs. consequence, is really quite good. It stops just short of detailing how much of an alignment shift various evil acts would bestow, leaving such things up to the discretion of the individual DM.

On the contrary, I think it's a horrible book that really should be disregarded for the most part.

It's one person's opinions from a very narrow perspective. (Well, a few people's, but there's no way to tell which is whose opinion.) It's not even a core rulebook of the game, let alone a Forgotten Realms product, it's just an addition some might find useful. It can be rationally questioned, because its system isn't flawlessly logical. It's also contradicted in several places: There is no necessary alignment shift towards evil when Pale Masters summon undead, for example - otherwise, this would be noted in the description. There are several examples of good undead in the Realms. There are paladin orders which sanction the limited use of existing undead. All in all, I'd only give weight to FR products, and maybe a little bit to the PHB, DMG and MM, but only insofar as it works smoothly for the Realms. We're not really playing D&D, we're playing the Realms, and I think the stereotypes and effect of the former should be minimized.

Intent is the primary factor which determines the moral value of an action, so I don't see how it possibly couldn't matter - even moreso than anything else. Keep in mind that the intentions of a tyrant who wants to keep order by murdering people are not good; he simply thinks they are good, and is thus misguided. There's a huge difference to someone whose intents actually are good, and who's simply forced to utilize some questionable means. (Sacrificing one for the good of the many can certainly be good, for example; but only if it is for the true, justified good of the many and not just one's subjective delusion.)

I guess we tread pretty deep into the realm of opinion, though. It's a fact that books contradict eachother, are not complete, and are not all supposed to be given the same value. How we choose to interpret and use them is pretty subjective, though, so we're not going to get much furhter in this: yes, the book says everything you quoted, but I don't think it has any weight in solving this matter. I'll personally stick to reading classics of systematic ethics, people who actually dedicated their intellectual lives to dissecting these questions, rather than game designers. A matter of taste, I suppose.

cori stated what I think I been trying to state. Using spells with [evil] description is an evil act, it is evil and will effect someone influencing their actions. However, while it does shift a person to evil, doing good will atone for that action, depending of course on the action. Certain spells and items are far more evil to use than others.

As a side note, Remember what our characters believe is evil or good is diffrent than what may actually be evil or good, and that is what should count the most. For example, enervation is a spell that the Eternal order has deemed to be evil dark magic. However that is just an IC thing. Our charachters do not have access to the source books so we can't read them to know.

also iron why don't you like the book of vile darkness?

I think I already stated it quite clearly. It's naïve, it's tasteless, it's stepping into territory the authors aren't professionals in, it tries to dictate DM judgement and take the DM's job, it's very generalizing, very much against the spirit of creativity and critical thought, and the stuff it introduces is mostly just lame shock-value things that don't have much use or relevance in the Realms. It falls into the same category as Stormwrack, Frostburn, Sandstorm etc. A half-arsed "theme" book. I acknowledge it can be very useful for DMs who want to run a campaign around the theme of the book, in this case, wicked horror, but it's not much value as a core book of the game. You should really just consider the entire book, like most core stuff, as a big Variant Rule. Use it when it suits you, pick a new monster or two, but don't feel the pressure to introduce it into the "canon" of your game world.

Definitely a matter of taste, and I can respect everything you said there. Which really isn't *that* different from what the book says.

Pale Masters for instance, are more about *becoming* undead (at least, more like them), than summoning them. Which is why it says pretty much everywhere that necromancy insofar as raising undead is better left to actual mage classes, and most especially, clerics.

And your paladin order example is not a good one. None of the command/control undead spells has an evil descriptor. Use of undead is not listed anywhere as being evil, even in the Book of Vile Darkness. Only the creation of them is listed as evil. Which makes a lot of sense, really. As in other examples, why forbid a good person from using resources already at hand to do good deeds. Torture as a means to get information is (in generally accepted real-world standards) wrong. But would you ignore details acquired through torture, and allow an evil plot to go forward thus killing untold numbers of innocents, just because the method of getting the information was evil?

And as I said, and gave examples of above, intent very much does matter. But in an objective fashion, not subjective. Like you say, the tyrant is misguided in thinking he's doing good by murdering. Subjectively, he thinks he's doing good. Objectively, he most certainly is not, and his alignment would change toward evil as a consequence.

I do have to disagree that real life philosophy should override an official product for the game that NWN is based on though. We have no gods granting us myriad mighty spells, and as such, no spells which affect only people of certain alignments. As a result, any real world philosophy on the subject of good and evil is inherently flawed when applied to a game with not only these things, but rules set in place by official products on how to deal with them.

That said, the book does not state how any consequences should be applied, nor how severe they ought to be. That is left up to the DM to determine. So I see no reason why the book, as an official product, should be disregarded. It agrees with your own opinions for the most part, so far as I've seen, and merely expands upon heretofore undetailed subjects.

TheNamelessUnknown1 wrote:

Using a spell to save your life is the same thing as using a sword, they're just different tools. A wizard does not create magic. With the spell animate dead the wizard is using negative energy as a tool to defend himself, just as the paladin in the example did.

I' contending that using the spell creates evil, akin to forging the blade, not uses pre-existing evil.

IronAngel wrote:

When I used people as an example (using an assassin to kill a tyrant, using a good guy to kill a king), I wasn't thinking of causing evil things to happen. I was thinking of using evil tools (or good tools), which is a fine analogy for using evil spells as tools. You chose to consider casting an evil spell as "causing evil," which I suppose is justified. You could say you're causing the spell to happen, though you could also say its existance in the Weave is independent on you casting it. But it's just as justified thinking of casting an evil spell as "using an evil tool" which may be for good goals. I'm not sure if you could call casting the spell "causing evil," because while it is a cause in a very narrow sense, it is only a tool in any larger, meaningful sense.

Yes, I think we agree in all of the matters but one - I see casting an evil spell as an evil act in and of itself whereas you see it as using an evil tool.

The difference, I suppose, is opinion - the reason I consider it evil s that by using the spell you are creating evil, whilst using the blade you are not. In my mind:
Casting the Spell : Forging the Blade :: Using the Undead Created : Using the Blade

That is simply how I view the casting of an evil spell. Another way to look at it is that the Weave is independent and neutral, and you are forcing it to commit evil.

Of course, this naturally boils down to opinion.

IronAngel wrote:

It's fallacy to think PC alignment can be determined by their own perspective. It's equal fallacy to think that because this isn't so, everything is obvious, clear and simple.

People seem to have this illusion of "moral relativism = real world and complicated ethical problems; moral absolutism = simple rules and easy answers in a fantasy context." If you actually study ethics, you will notice that the majority of systematic ethics is based on objective, or at the very least inter-subjective values. Kant, Aristotle and J.S. Mill aren't moral relativists at all, yet they're all very different and the problems they deal with are very complex. The objectivity of Good and Evil does not mean ethical problems are easy; on the contrary, things get much more complicated and gray.

I agree with ths completely.

Iron I think you covered all the bases quite succinctly insofar as the moral and ethical relativism goes; I agree with basically everything you said(particularly the bit about adapting the game systems to your own world. The PHB has rules for laser guns for gods sake).

But my major bugbear is still being addressed here; how can a spell be 'evil' in and of itself? A spell has no conscious, no concept of right and wrong, nothing to be morally or ethically relative to.

I have seen the comment repeated that consistent casting of 'evil' spells will lead to the character becoming evil. I do not see how this can be the case if the castings are consistently motivated by and result in Good and when the cast spell, irregardless of effect, has no moral or ethical value. Again, the spell cannot be moral or ethical it has no consciousness.

If the motivation and result is consistently good, where does the evil come from?

The Incognitos wrote:

Iron I think you covered all the bases quite succinctly insofar as the moral and ethical relativism goes; I agree with basically everything you said(particularly the bit about adapting the game systems to your own world. The PHB has rules for laser guns for gods sake).

But my major bugbear is still being addressed here; how can a spell be 'evil' in and of itself? A spell has no conscious, no concept of right and wrong, nothing to be morally or ethically relative to.

I have seen the comment repeated that consistent casting of 'evil' spells will lead to the character becoming evil. I do not see how this can be the case if the castings are consistently motivated by and result in Good and when the cast spell, irregardless of effect, has no moral or ethical value. Again, the spell cannot be moral or ethical it has no consciousness.

If the motivation and result is consistently good, where does the evil come from?

The spell is described in the rules to be evil. I guess it just happens when evil is an elemental force, just like a spell can be fire.
The difference between D&D Absolutism and real life is tat evil does physically exist, and has affects in and of itself with no will behind it e.g. a strongly evil-aligned plane will destroy good characters. The plane itself is evil - does it have sentience? No, no morals or ethics, it is an inanimate (well, as inanimate as things get in D&D) object.
But it is still evil.

So... 'it's magic'. The solution to this seems to be accepting that morality in the Realms must be considered an elemental force and NOT a force of conscious determination. This is a pretty big call to make because it CANNOT be both. One must be a result of the other.

This is very relevant to religion in the Realms as well. Are gods evil because they are conscious of their evilness and express a desire to pursue it or are they evil because they are made from/influenced by an elemental and hence inert force of evil?

Are the sources of morality in the Realms inert elemental forces? This may be the most logical answer as it allows for infinite potential force in all categories(good, evil, law, etc.) and for the mitigation(for want of a better word) of judgment by relative conscious decision. That is to say that the goodness or evilness of an action is circumstantial.

The Incognitos wrote:

So... 'it's magic'. The solution to this seems to be accepting that morality in the Realms must be considered an elemental force and NOT a force of conscious determination. This is a pretty big call to make because it CANNOT be both. One must be a result of the other.

The people themselves likely hold to their own relative morality, but the Universe doesn't give a damn about what they believe - an example of this is a Paladin falling when they believe they've done nothing wrong.
As far as I believe, conscious determination can and does affect the alignment - slaughtering a village because you want to is Chaotic and Evil, whilst doing so because you were ordered is Lawful and Evil.

The Incognitos wrote:

This is very relevant to religion in the Realms as well. Are gods evil because they are conscious of their evilness and express a desire to pursue it or are they evil because they are made from/influenced by an elemental and hence inert force of evil?

I'd say they are made evil from this 'elemental evil'. That is not to say elemental evil dictates their actions, the property of 'being evil' is derived from having or manifesting this elemental power.

Morality-based alignment: A spell can be used *for* evil, without itself *being* evil.

"Elemental" based: A spell can *be* evil, without being used *for* evil.

Both can result in an alignment shift towards evil. One does not preclude the other - in fact, I see no reason why both cannot coexist. Particularly since the rules say they can.

So creating an undead regardless of use, can wholly be an evil act.

Using an undead for a good use can wholly be a good act.

It's up to the DM's to then decide how these acts would balance each other, and/or what the consequences might be. This fits within the "rules" set forth for D&D, so why ignore it?

Adding a class like paladin into the mix doesn't even have to affect all that, because "falling" isn't strictly alignment based, but rather religious dogma based.

Cori wrote:

So creating an undead regardless of use, can wholly be an evil act.

Using an undead for a good use can wholly be a good act.

That's what I've been trying to communicate - the creations of the undead is wholly evil, independent of its use.

Yurell wrote:

Cori wrote:

So creating an undead regardless of use, can wholly be an evil act.

Using an undead for a good use can wholly be a good act.

That's what I've been trying to communicate - the creations of the undead is wholly evil, independent of its use.

This is contingent on the acceptance of evil as an elemental force as opposed to a conscious moral force. The reason the cannot co-exist is that the conscious evil becomes a mere channeling of a preexisting and universal power; hence evil, or morality in general, as an inert elemental force.

I'm tempted now to ask is there a difference between the planes of evil and negative energy but I fear that will throw a rather large can of worms into the mix.

The Incognitos wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Cori wrote:

So creating an undead regardless of use, can wholly be an evil act.

Using an undead for a good use can wholly be a good act.

That's what I've been trying to communicate - the creations of the undead is wholly evil, independent of its use.

This is contingent on the acceptance of evil as an elemental force as opposed to a conscious moral force. The reason the cannot co-exist is that the conscious evil becomes a mere channeling of a preexisting and universal power; hence evil, or morality in general, as an inert elemental force.

I'm tempted now to ask is there a difference between the planes of evil and negative energy but I fear that will throw a rather large can of worms into the mix.

The reason 'elemental' is in inverted commas all the time is that it's not a true element. You have the elemental planes, and the planes of positive and negative energy (which are essentially 'elements' in D&D) but a plane can be 'aligned' with an Alignment, doing damage to those of opposing alignment or making them feel otherwise uncomfortable.

The RP Police - Undead

Who is online