Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brentos" data-source="post: 3613016" data-attributes="member: 14027">Yikes!Too many questions!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />I kind of thought that was the point of the thread.&nbsp; Otherwise it is a circular argument with no end.&nbsp; We can't debate what each of us wants to do, only what the rules as written support.&nbsp; My apologies if I had this wrong.Intent for the sake of alignment.&nbsp; I'm not discussing other mechanics.&nbsp; The only real issue occur on the player side when dealing with intent, as the DM can't rule with knowledge.&nbsp; For enemies and diplomat NPC's and such, the DM can adjucate those instances, so intent can be part of the rules.The player *is* the character.&nbsp; The DM *is* everything else.&nbsp; this is semantics.But, it is the killing or not killing that defines their alignment.&nbsp; If you claim that your character wants to kill everyone but protects everyone instead, as a DM I can only assume your character's actions reflect your character's alignment.There has to be some fluff text so that players know how to play a character based on their alignment, since as a game mechanic it is picked before play, not earned.&nbsp; The assumption built in is that the character up until the age of adventuring has *acted* a certain way in life. &nbsp;Yes, because inanimate objects can be infused with the descriptor of Evil, which means using it is an Evil act.&nbsp;Vampires are evil by RAW.&nbsp; An imprisoned being's alignment doesn't change because they are imprisoned, it remains what it was until future actions dictate otherwise.&nbsp; Vampires, though, since evil by RAW, won't do any good as a standard course.&nbsp; Remember, though, anyone of any alignment can do individual acts against alignment.&nbsp; Some, though, face consequences (Paladin).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brentos, post: 3613016, member: 14027"] [b]Yikes![/b] Too many questions! :-) I kind of thought that was the point of the thread. Otherwise it is a circular argument with no end. We can't debate what each of us wants to do, only what the rules as written support. My apologies if I had this wrong. Intent for the sake of alignment. I'm not discussing other mechanics. The only real issue occur on the player side when dealing with intent, as the DM can't rule with knowledge. For enemies and diplomat NPC's and such, the DM can adjucate those instances, so intent can be part of the rules. The player *is* the character. The DM *is* everything else. this is semantics. But, it is the killing or not killing that defines their alignment. If you claim that your character wants to kill everyone but protects everyone instead, as a DM I can only assume your character's actions reflect your character's alignment. There has to be some fluff text so that players know how to play a character based on their alignment, since as a game mechanic it is picked before play, not earned. The assumption built in is that the character up until the age of adventuring has *acted* a certain way in life. Yes, because inanimate objects can be infused with the descriptor of Evil, which means using it is an Evil act. Vampires are evil by RAW. An imprisoned being's alignment doesn't change because they are imprisoned, it remains what it was until future actions dictate otherwise. Vampires, though, since evil by RAW, won't do any good as a standard course. Remember, though, anyone of any alignment can do individual acts against alignment. Some, though, face consequences (Paladin). [/QUOTE]

Verification