Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raloc" data-source="post: 3288933" data-attributes="member: 28093"><p>See, personally I agree with you in regards to neutrality.&nbsp; In a campaign I play in, I started as a neutral good fighter.&nbsp; My DM decided my alignment should be neutral when I decided to brand an assassin that attempted to kill us with a mark that would identify him as such (and essentially put an end to his assassination career).&nbsp; The DM immediately said that I would immediately shift to neutral evil if I were to do so.&nbsp; Personally, I think that's absurd, since in &quot;harming&quot; (hardly, a brand is not killing) the assassin, my character was committing an evil act (regardless of the fact that it would have abruptly ended this assassin's further killing of people).&nbsp; I view neutral as a balance of law/chaos and good/evil, where as the DM in the story above seems to view it as some sort of pseudo-good but with a total absence of evil (no idea what he's thinking).&nbsp; I also don't agree that chaotic neutral is just &quot;insane/stupid/selfish with disregard for everything&quot;.&nbsp; Nor evil as merely &quot;kill everything always&quot;.&nbsp; I've come to accept that the DM in that campaign specifically wants to stick to black/white interpretations of what is and is not lawful/chaotic or good/evil.&nbsp; I, however, have no such contention for my own games and take every opportunity to show just how gray things can be.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Raloc, post: 3288933, member: 28093"] See, personally I agree with you in regards to neutrality. In a campaign I play in, I started as a neutral good fighter. My DM decided my alignment should be neutral when I decided to brand an assassin that attempted to kill us with a mark that would identify him as such (and essentially put an end to his assassination career). The DM immediately said that I would immediately shift to neutral evil if I were to do so. Personally, I think that's absurd, since in "harming" (hardly, a brand is not killing) the assassin, my character was committing an evil act (regardless of the fact that it would have abruptly ended this assassin's further killing of people). I view neutral as a balance of law/chaos and good/evil, where as the DM in the story above seems to view it as some sort of pseudo-good but with a total absence of evil (no idea what he's thinking). I also don't agree that chaotic neutral is just "insane/stupid/selfish with disregard for everything". Nor evil as merely "kill everything always". I've come to accept that the DM in that campaign specifically wants to stick to black/white interpretations of what is and is not lawful/chaotic or good/evil. I, however, have no such contention for my own games and take every opportunity to show just how gray things can be. [/QUOTE]

Verification