Posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on May 17, 2000 at 23:24:43:
In Reply to: Evil according to D&D discription... from the book. posted by Nobody on May 17, 2000 at 21:49:16:
If anyone can actually define "good" or "evil" completely, using only a few sentences which cover all situations, please contact me, and I will forward your name to some philosophy professors.
> Taking from the AD&D Players Handbook:
>
> Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively see to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil characters's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process well, that's tood bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies.
>
> If the evil character believed that he could gain the award by killing the NPC's involved he would. But if he felt that could not (and Carrion Fields allows for trial and error by repop...) he would go along with the quest to get the reward to make him more powerful. Of course if this interfers with immortals plans somehow then the imm has every right to kill a character. I do not see how getting the boots actually interfers with the imms or the Empires plans. I actually think that it shows that the Evil chracter will do anything (including helping a good NPC) to get a reward that is offered just to make himself more powerful whether it be jewels or boots. It shows he is hungry for power and that is what the Empire is about "Power" not evil acts or morals...