OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

[EvilElitest]

They are the defining rules on the subject for campaigns that use the BoXD as part of their setting. Eberron, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and pretty much every other campaign setting ever produced has different defining rules on the subject. The BoXD are optional, and most people don't use them.

You do realize that in order to prove a point, other than you know, claim it without backing. FR, PS, Ebberon, Ravenloft still use the rules, find me a disclaimer in any of the books where they say they don't. They had different rules for other things, but not for the rules of good and evil.

1) Since OotS is a parody of D&D at large, and not "D&D when using the weirdest campaign supplements ever to stain WotC's presses," there's a good chance the world doesn't use those definitions.
2) See above. Additionally, since the BoVD's definition of murder is different from the BoED's, even if you use them you still have to choose which of the contradictory rules takes precedence.
3) Hyperbole, meet EE. EE, Hyperbole.

1) Considering MIko fell for a rule in the BoED deeds, and there is nothing to say it wouldn't be in their (and there have been monsters from the book), until you can prove this, its worst nothing
2) BoVD had a different definintion within a different context. Again, no proof
3) Point meet Mr. S Phoenix, on wait, i think he's avoiding you today, come back next time

I'll reference again the slayer of Dromiel, who presents a class accessable by paladins, and it excplicitly states that they may act, when occassion arises, as assassins. Assassins, by definition of the term, are those who engage in assassination, which is defined as murder in all cases. Paladins may never, ever commit evil deeds without falling, yet here, a situation is given where they may murder. May not commit evil+may sometimes murder

Um, thats not quite true, they still have to follow the exalted rules

Nope. An unlawful action definitely. Evil, that's an entirely different story. The idea that he killed for convenience is a misreading. It had been an act of mercy not to kill Kubota earlier. V simply stopped granting mercy. [BED does say one should always be merciful, but quickly turns around and shows that "always" in fact means "almost always", which is also the D&D definition of "always evil".]

see the section on killing prisoners and mercy. It won't make V evil because its just one deed, but it is an absolute evil action
from
EE