Search results

I don't know how other GMs handle descriptions, but when describing NPCs, I don't talk like this: "You see an elf. It has small/medium/big boobs." I talk like this: "You see a female elf/elvish woman".

If I am saying "You need to die so I can live" I am saying exactly that - I deserve to live more than you do. And that's neutral, not evil.

I never had any problem mixing 3.0 and 3.5. We're playing 3.0, with a bunch of house rules, but I've been using 3.5 sourcebooks (especially the Monster Manual) for years without converting anything. If Pathfinder's changes are on a similar level I expect I could plug that stuff right in in the...

"I won't die for you, if it's you or me, then you die!" is the neutral stance. Even today, the old shipwrecked sailor example is still true: If a flaoting oar can only keep one of them afloat, they both have the right to save themselves by forcing the other to drown. Neither is expected to...

Last good party we had? The paladin killed Shar worshippers for worshipping Shar, and for anything they had done in that worship. The elven archer killed thieves. All killed slavers, partly out of revenge. Last big bout of killing was when the PCs were part of an army freeing a town taken over...

That sums it up perfectly. They made the Realms a setting for those who did not want the Realms (and were unwilling or unable to simply cut out all the lore themselves), but something new. And there was no reason at all to do this, other than to milk the name, or to destroy something you hate -...

All I can say is that if those writers of the new Realms did not hate the Forgotten Realms then in my opinion they really did a good - an excellent job - of faking such hate.

If said fellow would have his fascination under control, and not give in to temptation once he feels he can get away with it - or gets enough liquid courage - he'd not detect as evil in my game. If he detects as evil killing him is a good deed, but at the very least not evil. In other words - I...

No. Paladins in my game only fall if the player wishes it so - and I never put them in front of choices where they can only pick the lesser of two evils - they always have at least one or more non-evil options open, and at least the player, but usually the character as well know what those...

Yeah, I read both SP and Sluggy daily.

As I said: In my games, tribal and clan loyality is a given. As an example: My game contains a barbarian. If his clan is in a bloodfeud with another clan, then killing any warrior of said clan, no matter if they are attacking him or not, no matter their alignment, is not an evil act. Yes...

In my games, gods and characters do not follow our modern values, but fantasy/medieval ones. The paladin would not fall for killing black dragons, just as she doesn't fall for killing evil people. Also, in my games, revenge is usually a common motivation, and honor and customs being as they...

Also, not to nitpick, but I saw the raising of the dragon as a needed part to be able to center the spell - it goes out from the undead head. It may not have worked with a corpse as initial target.

One thing many are not considering is that in "olden times" (and unfortunately, in many lands today) you are expected to avenge a killed family/clan member - no matter why he was killed. Even if he was killed to avenge someone he killed. See where this goes? The acepted good/honorable/lawful...

V just needs to cast a wish ("I wish that any of the dragonspawn I just killed that wasn't evil and will not take revenge on me or my family for killing their family would be resurrected") and he's golden again.

Dragons will mate with anyone and anything, just check how many half-dragon whatevers are around. I am just waiting to hear of a half-dragon rock, or a half-dragon tree.

To make an Omelett you have to break eggs. Is it evil to sacrifice part of your army (like the first wave of an assault against an entrenched foe) if it's the best way to defeat a great evil? I do not consider D&D or OotS morality as equal to our modern, western morality. Good and evil...

Partially. From my own point of view, yes, it's sarcasm. But if I was living in the OotS land (or in an average pre-4E D&D land) then I'd applaud eliminating 60 evil dragons as a good thing, especially if done without collateral damage.

I haven't thought about it that way yet, that's a very good point.

Indeed.