The new archetypes and an omission that needs to be addressed

[fatherpirate]

just a quick side note.

The difference between good and evil, in most cases,
is not what you do [there are exceptions] it is why you do it.

Good - I defend the farm from orcs to protect the family there.
Evil - I protect the farm from orcs because I like killing.

There are certain acts that are always evil.
Causing pain or harm to innocents for profit or pleasure.
Willingly serve evil Gods. Would only serve a good God
with a great deal of compensation on a one time issue

There are certain acts that are always good.
Assist or help innocent folks with no motivation of any gain.
Willingly serve good Gods. Would only serve an Evil God on
a one time issue to save numerous lives if it was the only option.

It is those last sections that throws into question alignment.

Powers to use evil as a weapon or undead powers
are never granted from a good god ... only the evil gods deal with
that.

all said and done, SSG has the last say, and I am
pretty sure their moratorium on the evil alignment
has absolutely nothing to do with D&D in general.

so that is that

[Oxarhamar]

just a quick side note.

The difference between good and evil, in most cases,
is not what you do [there are exceptions] it is why you do it.

Good - I defend the farm from orcs to protect the family there.
Evil - I protect the farm from orcs because I like killing.

There are certain acts that are always evil.
Causing pain or harm to innocents for profit or pleasure.
Willingly serve evil Gods. Would only serve a good God
with a great deal of compensation on a one time issue

There are certain acts that are always good.
Assist or help innocent folks with no motivation of any gain.
Willingly serve good Gods. Would only serve an Evil God on
a one time issue to save numerous lives if it was the only option.

It is those last sections that throws into question alignment.

Powers to use evil as a weapon or undead powers
are never granted from a good god ... only the evil gods deal with
that.

all said and done, SSG has the last say, and I am
pretty sure their moratorium on the evil alignment
has absolutely nothing to do with D&D in general.

so that is that

Already quoted Eladrin on the D&D link earlier in this thread

[fatherpirate]

This post had less to do with the game and more to
do with clearing up what good and evil means.

I am sure there is a sizable grey area between them
but some folks just don't have any grasp of
the meaning of good and evil apparently.

Still, it is just my opinion.
Knowing the difference between good and evil
is apparently an issue that extends far beyond a
game if watching the news lately is any indication.

[Xgya]

This post had less to do with the game and more to
do with clearing up what good and evil means.

Alignment in D&D is meant to be black and white.
It doesn't deal that well with the grey area.

Who's Evil? The guys getting hurt the most by Holy Smite.

Casting an Evil spell is an Evil act in and of itself, without even thinking about what the spell actually does.
Even purely defensive spells can count as doing an Evil act (clear example: Protection from Good).

Summoning an Evil being, even if it's to force it to do some good action, is an Evil act. You might say you're doing it for a Greater Good, and still end up being right, but the very summoning act is Evil.

Now Eberron DOES deal with the grey area a fair bit, in that you can see beings noted in the Monster Manual as "Always Evil" be not quite so evil, greatest examples being a few dragons.
You can also see Good Guys(tm) fighting one another in a political war of some sort, wondering why their Smite Evil doesn't work on their opponents that are so obviously opposed to their goals, goals which are both Just and Good.

[FengXian]

Nah that's a fallacy.

Just because there are "evil" trees/archetypes doesn't mean there have to be evil characters. Besides while some of those may be traditionally evil in PnP, doesn't mean they have to be in DDO.

It could be one of those "use evil for good" situations where a good/neutral characters uses dark tools to achieve good goals.

In fact most quests in D&D see the players as heroes. Adding extreme moral choices to the game would be too much of an undertaking, simply not worth it.

[Bjond]

I am
pretty sure their moratorium on the evil alignment
has absolutely nothing to do with D&D in general.

IMHO, it's due to how games are rated. If you can truly act out "evil" in a game, it ends up loosing it's PG-13 rating, which at least used to be one of the "prime directives" for any game.

Most games are pretty soft on that idea; eg. SWTOR has both light and dark jedi playable. There are story-features that require you to torture your apprentice (for fun) as a sith -- any time you want you can stop and press a button to torture your apprentice (includes fully voiced yelps and complaints, too). Yet it still manages to be OK for 13yr-olds.

IIRC, D&D got burned pretty hard in the 70s over supporting "satanism" due to being able to play as evil and worship devils. It also actually has an alignment specifically called "EVIL". So, I agree with the suspicion that the absolute ban on EVIL for DDO likely has nothing to do with game, morality, or story issues. But, I suspect it does indeed have a great deal to do with D&D -- specifically it's history with ratings boards.