| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1SorxoresDec 04, 2014 5:09:15 | last night we found Harizawn, an intelligent Neutral Evil weapon. My ELdritch knight is Chaotic Good, so what does that mean?
I don't have the DMG (since I'm a player), if someone can quote me the intelligent weapon entry it would be greatly appreciated.
Then how do you rule how the sword work.
-Some people are saying the sword deal 2d6 necrotic damage to me (the weilder) because we don'T ahve the same alignment
-Other say the sword simply whisper evil "secret" in my ears ("attack the paladin he's a traitor" or "this little innocent girl will become a formidable evil witch and will cause the destruction of neverwinter, you should kill her now if you are really good" type of secret)
-Other say the sword simply don't allow me to attune nor bound (special Eldritch knight ability) with it
-Other say it's a curse item so once attune I need a restoration spell or remove ccurse
-Other say the sword can talk loudly so basically make me fail all stealth check (being in heavy armor and with 8 Dex I already failk my stealth check anyway)
-Other say the sword simply won't power up so will be a regular greatsword
-Other say the sword can take control of me so now I shoul dbecome neutral evil and the DM should take my character since neutral evil are illegal in AL
-Other say the sword can prevent me from swinging it completly making me loose my action
-Other say I have disavantage when using the sword
-Etc...
So who's right? I got this sword that I taught was super cool and I was super happy, and I would be really sad if I learn that this sword is completly useless and that I'm better to stay with my mundane greatsword that I had, would be kind of very bad if in the complet HotDQ book, within the 10+ magical item none of them are usefull for a greatsword fighter when the rogue got a super cool dagger of venom and a longbow +1, the wizard got awesome bracer of defense that stack on top of his Mage armor giving him a higher AC then the fighter and got close to get a staff of fire (we'll get it in Rise of Tiamat) and a wand of winter, the druid got a necklace giving him a magical +1 attack and damage to his wild shape forms, the paladin tank got a shield of arrow catching and a longsword +1, the ranger got a longbow +1. The leather armor+1 and the chain mail +1 are useless since studded leather and splint mail does the same job and doesn't count as a magical item. We couldn't found teh cloak of elvenKind nor the white dragon scale mail |
| #2NachturnusDec 04, 2014 6:46:47 | Intelligent weapons are the purview of your DM. What does your DM say it does? It makes literally no difference what anyone else says, as intelligent items are explicitly controlled by the DM, though more extravagant ones (2d6 necrotic, disad) seem like players who are just making things up. Intelligent items typically are more-than-willing to interact with people of other alignments, because they usually have uncommon alignments for player characters (XEvil, often,) and thus wouldn't be in any way compelling if you were prohibited from using them in any real manner. |
| #3SorxoresDec 04, 2014 7:07:42 | My DM is a beginning DM and he always ask to people how stuff work, usually I can refer him to the book and tell him this is how the book word it and this is my interpretation and here are the mos tpopular interpretation that the community brought up.
The problem here, is the description of what Inteligent weapon are is in the DMG and I didn't read it yet, So I told him that well, it's evil weapon so it want to do evil act. Evil act can be lesser evil like killing stuff moderatly evil like bathing in the blood of his victim, or extremly evil like getting polish using a freshly made skin cloth and fresh blood etc... The sword coul deven have a super cool talking persoallity where it will try to tempt me in doing stuff and try to explain some situation trought his understanding and his evil point of view, trying to convert me to the evil side.
If the weapon is disastisfy, it is still just a weapon without any telekenitic power or mental posssession ability, but could refuse to activate it's own power (making it a mundane greatsword untill it become satisfy again.
and this would be a very cool and fun item, way more fun then a simple flametongue and I would love such a weapon.
But in my group there is some player from older edition who believe that player other then themself shoudn't have cool stuff, so they convince the DM that an evil intelligent weapon is a cursed item, and it's the worse thing that ever existed and the weapon got all those super powerfull mental ability where the sword can refuse to attack and completly nullyfy my attacks, so now everytime I want to attack I need to roll 2 d20. The first one is to see the mood of the sword if I roll too low, then the sword do not move (prevent me from moving the sword completly so I lose my attack), so now the weapon become completly useless and nto fun at all, and I'm back at using my mundane greatsword, and I'm stuck with a useless piece of crap preventing me from getting an magical item that I could use untill everyone else get a magical item, since it's not a curse item I cannot simply remove curse and destroy it, it's a legit magical item so I cannot loose it, give it away, or what get rid of it by any means. Even if I give it to someone, I simply "lend it" to him and at the end of the session I get it back by AL rules. so this weapon is even worse then a curse item. At least a curse item is a challenge, it was put there to be fun, to force the player to be cautious and not simply equip any non identify item, and if my mistake you get curse there is a way to get remove the curse. Now I have a PERMENANT curse item that cannot be remove curse or wish away it is PERMANENT and cannot be destory by any AL legal way.
At least a staff of defense, once the item is obsolete and that I donT' want it anymore, I can simply use all it'S charge and eventually I will roll a 1 on the d20 and destroy it, but not HArizawn, even using all it's charge there is no destroy the weapon option within AL rules. (in my knowledge ther is no adventure to go to the volcano of Mordor. |
| (Reply to #3)Nachturnus |
|
| #5CahPahkahDec 04, 2014 9:16:19 | Hazirawn is a sentient item, the rules for which are on pp. 214-218 of the DMG. There are four pages there that I'm not going to type out for you, but the big takeaways are:
The other thing I'd mention is that, if you're playing in an Adventurer's League game, not everything that's in the DMG is applicable at the table. And the idea of including a high-level treasure that literally no character can use (since there are no neutral evil PCs) while simultaneously being a permanent magic item that you can never trade or otherwise rid yourself of is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the AL, and pretty obviously not how it works. |
| #6SorxoresDec 04, 2014 11:22:24 |
|
| (Reply to #6)CahPahkah | If you want to get into that level of detail, either you or your DM should buy the DMG. It's full of useful information, and could provide a lot of context for what you're trying to do.
In short, yes, an unhappy sentient items can prevent you from attuning to it, turn its powers off, and even force you to follow its commands via a charm power.
Would I do any of those things to you in the situation you're describing? No, I wouldn't. But I'm not your DM.
It's also worth noting that Hazirawn was created for the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure prior to the DMG being finalized, and so it's not actually statted properly as a sentient weapon. If you compare it to the sample sentient items on p. 216 of the DMG the difference (and the source of your conflict here) is pretty obvious: sentient weapons have attunement requirements, defined Int/Wis/Cha stats, specifications as to how they communicate, stated goals, and descriptions of their personalities. Hazirawn has none of those things. If it did have those attributes, there would be a lot less disagreement.
If I were you, I'd find a copy of the DMG, look at this section with your DM, and see if you can agree upon a set of full stats for the sword. If you can't, ask to "unclaim" the item, as your DM is radically changing its properties with the rulings he's making. |
| #8NachturnusDec 04, 2014 12:42:43 | Your DM doesn't understand what the NE alignment means, apparently. The Xenomorph (from the Alien franchise,) which murders other sentient creatures to reproduce. Man eating tigers (real-world) which intentionally attack humans because they are more centralized, and there's always a supply of them to feed on. Zombies (modern mythos, not the D&D creature specifically) which eat the flesh of still-living creatures to sustain themselves, without intent or malice. Drug Lords (real-world) who victimize other humans, often resulting in murder and theft, in order to make an obscene ammount of money. If anything, Chaotic Good is more likely to be able to align with it because Chaotic Good archetypes are more likely to try to control evil for good ends, certainly moreso than any lawful or neutral good alignments, and probably moreso than a lawful neutral.
|
| #9SorxoresDec 05, 2014 5:11:51 |
|
| #10NachturnusDec 05, 2014 5:52:29 |
|
| #11El_CondoroDec 05, 2014 13:51:11 |
|
| #12KentusDec 05, 2014 18:51:04 | Normally your DM should consider first, if the following things are there: 1.) Harizawn is a weapon and wants to be used as such. So as long the PC is using Harizawn often enough, it should stay tame. 2.) But it's NE, means that it doesn't care if it's time to be patient. It should regularly and selfishly suggest the wish to be used and be mean, if it isn't used as often as it wants. 3.) You attune to it. Attunement means to open yourself to the item, so it might use this connection to charm the wielder, as long it may think it's necessarily. NE items doesn't know scruples.
The DM is free to add any history and goals to Harizawn, if it seems plausible and makes the item more interesting. So maybe Harizawn is (due the former connection to Rezmir) too interested into the cult's plan and might block any attends to be used against the cult of dragons.
Basically: A NE evil weapon is NE, so it does what it wants, because it can. As long as you don't have some means to persuade it (like intimidate it to be thrown in a volcano), you might deal with a real nasty fellow here. |
| #13NachturnusDec 06, 2014 6:59:57 | We're about to hit some philosophy here that is relevant to the point, but also a bit long-winded , so anyone who's not interested in going down the rabbit hole, tune out here:
|
| #14El_CondoroDec 05, 2014 21:11:52 | ^^ I think I agree with most of what you're saying. Actually, I have deleted a lot of my post because I had a penny-drop moment! The key is to separate intentions, which we have no way of objectively measuring, from the action, which has an objective and measurable effect. The DM cannot say, in the example above, that the paladin's intentions in killing the hooded trolls were for good or for expediency ("evil") - whatever the player may describe - but he or she can say there are now dead innocents tied to those poles because of what the paladin and the party did. Murdered innocents are evil by most (all?) definitions.
Likewise, the man-eating tiger in your example is still nonaligned from a real-world point of view (they "lack the capacity for rational thought" as per PHB122) but from the point of view of their actions - in a game of D&D - they have done something evil (killed to satisfy a blood lust?) and can be considered evil. The intention and the motivation are irrelevant - we can feel sorry for such a tiger - but its actions would still see it being killed by villagers as a man-eater. The shark in the PHB example is in a similar situation: recently here in Australia they were hunted and killed when a human life was lost to one. The shark is nonaligned but its action of killing a human is "evil" from an objective point of view. Most people still feel sympathy for those sharks, though!
My limited understanding of law says the sociopath can still be convicted of a crime even if their "it's just who I am" defense may be true (this is a simplification, of course). The effect of their action is what is being punished. It's also why manslaughter is still a crime - a person has died, even if it was unintentional. Perhaps this relates to the paladin example above?
It's why the whole concept of alignment has been debated since its inception and is still (ENWorld link to topic of removing alignment from D&D).
And that's why, especially for RPGs, actions are the only true measure of alignment because the intention is unclear to the DM. As someone else has said, the actions invoke consequences and it is those consequences that will affect how the character will act in the future, not an abstract idea called "alignment". That said, it can still be useful for NPCs and for a basic character outline, as others have said. |
| #15PsikerlordDec 07, 2014 13:23:09 | I've not seen the DMG yet, but my instinct is, a NE sword is not meant to be weilded by a good PC. So my ruling would probably be that it's powers dont work for the good PC, or something similar. Or maybe it works at first, but as it comes to understand the PC is good, stops working - possibly at the most inopportune and dangerous time - either hoping to be discarded or getting the PC killed so it can go to an evil person.
So it might start out ok, but then kinda morph into a cursed weapon like effect. |
| #16NachturnusDec 08, 2014 5:51:11 |
|
| #17SorxoresDec 08, 2014 11:17:02 |
|
| #18NachturnusDec 08, 2014 12:10:05 | I've edited the post-edit, to try to make it more coherent to respond to. EDIT: The Wizards forum engine is giving me crap, so I'm finding it impossible to quote your post, as it's replied to in an edited form of my post. I'll be bolding your quotes, Sorxores.
---
There is no difference between the "man eating" and the "garden variety" in the mentality and view of the world. The only difference is when they are babies there mother teach then what is good to eat and what is not worth eating. The mother will bring to her cub a dead mouse, a dead rabbit, a dead bird, a dead what ever she can hunt (an learned from her mom the same way), to teach the cub what kind of meat is good to eat. Then the mother will bring an injured animal so the cub can learn the movement pattern of the different prey he could eat, then when the cub become older, the mother will bring him on the hunt to teach him how to hunt. Then the tiger will go on his own to get his own territories and hunt what his mother taught him to hunt. Tiger don't generally eat human, because most tiger that tried are getting killed and cannot pass the knowledge to the next generation. In the animal kingdom there is no difference between a human, a chimpazee a mouse or a fish, they all have the same worth, none of them is more important or got a special statut of "god favorite". With the EVIL HUMAN (because human are evil, knowingly destroying it's own environement and taking away the environement of other animal) destroying the tiger and it's prey environment tigers are force to find new source of meat, and a slow moving human without any weapon and that can be found anywhere is tempting and the tiger will try it since there is no other choice. This is not evil at all, no matter of the definition of evil you want to use: The tiger is not using the "morality" of human considering that human are more important then other animal. All animals (excluding human) cannot be evil (nor good) they are simply following the law of nature like they are suppsoe to do to survive, they are following the law of nature that let the previous generation survive and give birht to the new generation (which is the ONLY purpose of life). They don't do what they do for some other reason then surviving. if this is being evil, then all our character are evil because they all kill other stuff (goblin, kobolts) to protect them self, they all kill meat (hunting) to eat.
However there is a difference. In literary tropes during the late colonial period, there are numerous stories (The Jungle Book for example) in which Man-Eating animals feature prominantly as villains and antagonists, and are very clearly defiend as 'evil.' This is because they actions they took, regardless of intent, were viewed as harmful or destructive by the societies in which those activities were performed, thus making them evil.
---
YES that what it means, the "men eating" tiger do not wake up the morning and wondering if he's going to eat human, dear and bird tonight, he go for hunt and kill the first thing he catch, if he see a dear first, but the dear manage to flee, then the tiger will continue to hunt, then asee a bird and catch it, so the men eater tiger will eat BIRD tonight. If the first thing he manage to catch (because he's injured, weaken or becasue everything else got killed by human) is a human then he eat a human, but he DO NOT PREFER human, he eat it because he couldn't catch anythign else. If killing without considering the motivation for the killing make you evil, then like I said, EVERYONE in the DnD world is evil, because EVIL are killing others. Even in the real life, everyone is killing to eat (even vegen are killing plant, and plant are a living organism with the same worth as an animal, so if killing animal is wrong, then killing plant is just as wrong) killing bacteria (there are living organism just like animal and plant) killing to protect themself, asking to other people to kill for them (we are asking hunter to kill for out food, we are asking our military power to kill to protect our country, we ask policement to kill to protect our cities etc...
There is a difference, however. We expect the police to kill criminals, and the military to kill other militant bodies, because that's when we accept that killing is "justifiable." However, as soon as those social expectations are slightly mismatched (My Lai Massacre, Race Riots, the recent rash of highly publicized police shootings.) people freak out, decrying the actions as evil. Meanwhile in Norway there was recently a national outcry because the Norwegian police shot and killed the first criminal in that institution's history, and there a massive investigation into the issue. Obviously there are degrees of social variance here, however that doesn't make the defintiion of evil arbitrary and meaningless: it means it's defined by social standards. A lack of 'absolute' morality doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.
Killing is NOT an evil act. The same way that casting fireball is not evil. It's all depend on the reason why you do it. casting fireball to burn down an orphanage, is evil, killing for fun is evil, killing for revenge is evil. Casting fireball to protect yourself, your party, friends, family from the ennemy is neutral. killing for hunting and eat is neutral. Killing to protect the village of stranger, where you got no family, no friend living there, that is good. It's for this EXACT reason that most beast are unaligned, and the "men eating" tiger are unalign as well, they simply do what they have to do to survive, because EVIL human stole their land, stole their prey, and are too weak to protect themself. [/quote]
The Norwegians beg to differ, or more importantly, it depends wildly on what society or setting you find yourself in.
---
exactly, human standard do not mean anything and are worthless, therefor you cannot use human morality to determined evil or good. You cannot use your god (if you follow a God) to determine if your evil or not, since those action where commanded by their God (I won't start a debate demonstrating that God is a human creation, since the morality of God somehow follow the human morality)
---
False again, many humans does evil act all the time, and those act or encourage by our evil society and everyone know those act are evil, they simply ignore it because it's easier. The destruction of our own planet/society for making a quick profit for example. Selling drug, ****, killing for revenge or for political reason or just for money, slavery (even today). Do you really believe that the hit man working for the mafia, trully believe that since the drug addict didn't pay his drug it is legitimate to kill him? or does he do it knowing that it's evil, but the money will help him ignore that fact? Does the guy who **** a women "because she was dress like a prostitue" trully believe that it's victim deserve to be ****? He might use it as a defence in court, but I'm sure that if the guy is sane, he know he did something wrong. Good and Evil are nto sepparate from intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, first this is again a ignorant human saying, Then those good intent that paved the road to hell, had a bad execution (bringing 30 peanut butter sandwich to school to feed the kid who cannot afford eating breakfast in the mornign is a good intention, but forgetting that some kid are deadly allergic to peanuts, if a BAD EXECUTION, and those good intent that paved Hell road, shoudl be rename "blatant stupidity pave the road to Hell"
---
Please can you tell me which country have **** legalise for men? The difference is human learned to control there instinct, we have a very well develop frontal brain lobe which make us rationalise our instinct a frontal lobe tha is a lot less develop in most other animal (including tiger) we can control our instinct, they cannot.
---
We are now in magical realm of DnD so some of it might change, but from my knowledge, redeeming evil outssider (demon, devil etc...), are able to stop being evil and have a chance to redeem themself if they want to, they simply don't want to do it because being evil if fun and enjoyable or they prefer their own safety because if they rebel to become good they usually get killed quickly enought. The lesser being could choose if they want to to stop doing evil thing, but then they get hunted down by the greater one so they CHOOSE the easy path of continuing doing evil act instead of infuriating their master and having to work hard and fight many obstacle to escape their evil ways. Sometime you can read a story about some of them who manage to escape their fate (Drizzt'z I know he's not a evil outsider, he's an evil humanoid, but he did the choice to rebel against it's nature/culture and became a good align hero.)
|
| #19SorxoresDec 08, 2014 12:52:27 | [quote="Nachturnus"] I've edited the post-edit, to try to make it more coherent to respond to.
[quote="Sorxores"] There is no difference between the "man eating" and the "garden variety" in the mentality and view of the world. The only difference is when they are babies there mother teach then what is good to eat and what is not worth eating. The mother will bring to her cub a dead mouse, a dead rabbit, a dead bird, a dead what ever she can hunt (an learned from her mom the same way), to teach the cub what kind of meat is good to eat. Then the mother will bring an injured animal so the cub can learn the movement pattern of the different prey he could eat, then when the cub become older, the mother will bring him on the hunt to teach him how to hunt. Then the tiger will go on his own to get his own territories and hunt what his mother taught him to hunt. Tiger don't generally eat human, because most tiger that tried are getting killed and cannot pass the knowledge to the next generation. In the animal kingdom there is no difference between a human, a chimpazee a mouse or a fish, they all have the same worth, none of them is more important or got a special statut of "god favorite". With the EVIL HUMAN (because human are evil, knowingly destroying it's own environement and taking away the environement of other animal) destroying the tiger and it's prey environment tigers are force to find new source of meat, and a slow moving human without any weapon and that can be found anywhere is tempting and the tiger will try it since there is no other choice. This is not evil at all, no matter of the definition of evil you want to use: The tiger is not using the "morality" of human considering that human are more important then other animal. All animals (excluding human) cannot be evil (nor good) they are simply following the law of nature like they are suppsoe to do to survive, they are following the law of nature that let the previous generation survive and give birht to the new generation (which is the ONLY purpose of life). They don't do what they do for some other reason then surviving. if this is being evil, then all our character are evil because they all kill other stuff (goblin, kobolts) to protect them self, they all kill meat (hunting) to eat. [/quote]
However there is a difference. In literary tropes during the late colonial period, there are numerous stories (The Jungle Book for example) in which Man-Eating animals feature prominantly as villains and antagonists, and are very clearly defiend as 'evil.' This is because they actions they took, regardless of intent, were viewed as harmful or destructive by the societies in which those activities were performed, thus making them evil. In the jungle book is a magical worl just like DnD, the tiger is able of speach, so i believe that in the jungle book, that tiger must have a develop frontal lobe so yes he his evil because he have a human like mind. So yes I agree with you, the magical tiger from the Jungle Book is evil, but the real life tiger in the real world is UNALIGNED. There is also a singing bear speaking English. And don't get me wrong, in the jungle book, there is a friendly panther as well... I don'T want to break your beautiful dream, but if you give a defenseless baby human to a panther, then panther will EAT THE BABY, Jungle book is NOT based on reality. Yes in the magical world of the Jungle book, the tiger is evil, because in this magical land the tiger is able of reasoning and thought.
[quote="Sorxores"] YES that what it means, the "men eating" tiger do not wake up the morning and wondering if he's going to eat human, dear and bird tonight, he go for hunt and kill the first thing he catch, if he see a dear first, but the dear manage to flee, then the tiger will continue to hunt, then asee a bird and catch it, so the men eater tiger will eat BIRD tonight. If the first thing he manage to catch (because he's injured, weaken or becasue everything else got killed by human) is a human then he eat a human, but he DO NOT PREFER human, he eat it because he couldn't catch anythign else. If killing without considering the motivation for the killing make you evil, then like I said, EVERYONE in the DnD world is evil, because EVIL are killing others. Even in the real life, everyone is killing to eat (even vegen are killing plant, and plant are a living organism with the same worth as an animal, so if killing animal is wrong, then killing plant is just as wrong) killing bacteria (there are living organism just like animal and plant) killing to protect themself, asking to other people to kill for them (we are asking hunter to kill for out food, we are asking our military power to kill to protect our country, we ask policement to kill to protect our cities etc... [/quote]
There is a difference, however. We expect the police to kill criminals, and the military to kill other militant bodies, because that's when we accept that killing is "justifiable." However, as soon as those social expectations are slightly mismatched (My Lai Massacre, Race Riots, the recent rash of highly publicized police shootings.) people freak out, decrying the actions as evil. Meanwhile in Norway there was recently a national outcry because the Norwegian police shot and killed the first criminal in that institution's history, and there a massive investigation into the issue. Obviously there are degrees of social variance here, however that doesn't make the defintiion of evil arbitrary and meaningless: it means it's defined by social standards. A lack of 'absolute' morality doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. I agree with you morality is ever changing, evolving, and change between setting, in ancient greek, having same sex sexual relation between a adult and a child was accepted occurance (the apprentice was often bottom to the master) and then same sex relation got banned by the churchs, now same sex relation are accepted in the most advance country but sex between adult and child are viewed as evil. But in DnD, the Good Vs Evil system is universal, the Lawful Good paladin in Neverwinter, don't become Chaotic Evil when he travel to Thay. The system of Good Vs Evil in DnD is a morality system over the Gods. Pelor, Good align good give his cleric healing and offensive power only when those cleric follow the teachings of Pelor, Bane, Evil god, give THE SAME 95% SPELLS (domain spell might change) to his cleric when they follow Bane teaching. But Pelor teaching and Bane teaching both follow the SAME MORALITY CODE, Pelor is good and Bane is evil based on the universal morality system and no one believe that Bane is a good align God, but his simply misunderstood.
Killing is NOT an evil act. The same way that casting fireball is not evil. It's all depend on the reason why you do it. casting fireball to burn down an orphanage, is evil, killing for fun is evil, killing for revenge is evil. Casting fireball to protect yourself, your party, friends, family from the ennemy is neutral. killing for hunting and eat is neutral. Killing to protect the village of stranger, where you got no family, no friend living there, that is good. It's for this EXACT reason that most beast are unaligned, and the "men eating" tiger are unalign as well, they simply do what they have to do to survive, because EVIL human stole their land, stole their prey, and are too weak to protect themself. [/quote]
The Norwegians beg to differ, or more importantly, it depends wildly on what society. Then the norwegians are evil person since they are killing plants, animal and bacteria all the time in order to survive, and if killing is always evil, then they are evil. Then in DnD, all our character who are killing goblins, orc, dragon, outsider, other humanoid etc... by this definition they are all Evil, even the most virtuous paladin is a evil, evil character killing countless goblin/koboldt/dragon etc... (does killing undead count as killing? lol)
[quote="Sorxores"] exactly, human standard do not mean anything and are worthless, therefor you cannot use human morality to determined evil or good. You cannot use your god (if you follow a God) to determine if your evil or not, since those action where commanded by their God (I won't start a debate demonstrating that God is a human creation, since the morality of God somehow follow the human morality) [/quote] [quote="Sorxores"] False again, many humans does evil act all the time, and those act or encourage by our evil society and everyone know those act are evil, they simply ignore it because it's easier. The destruction of our own planet/society for making a quick profit for example. Selling drug, ****, killing for revenge or for political reason or just for money, slavery (even today). Do you really believe that the hit man working for the mafia, trully believe that since the drug addict didn't pay his drug it is legitimate to kill him? or does he do it knowing that it's evil, but the money will help him ignore that fact? Does the guy who **** a women "because she was dress like a prostitue" trully believe that it's victim deserve to be ****? He might use it as a defence in court, but I'm sure that if the guy is sane, he know he did something wrong. Good and Evil are nto sepparate from intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, first this is again a ignorant human saying, Then those good intent that paved the road to hell, had a bad execution (bringing 30 peanut butter sandwich to school to feed the kid who cannot afford eating breakfast in the mornign is a good intention, but forgetting that some kid are deadly allergic to peanuts, if a BAD EXECUTION, and those good intent that paved Hell road, shoudl be rename "blatant stupidity pave the road to Hell" [/quote] [quote="Sorxores"] Please can you tell me which country have **** legalise for men? The difference is human learned to control there instinct, we have a very well develop frontal brain lobe which make us rationalise our instinct a frontal lobe tha is a lot less develop in most other animal (including tiger) we can control our instinct, they cannot. [/quote]
|
| #20NachturnusDec 08, 2014 13:36:52 | Rather than try to reply to each quote in that tangled mess (Thanks WotC,) I'm going to hit the major points: |