Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6513658" data-attributes="member: 4937">Wow.&nbsp; I never realized just how bad the RAW was on alignment.&nbsp; I'll stick to the Gygax, or at least something close to it.&quot;The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world. Similar to the neutral good alignment, that of neutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything. &quot;The RAW are themselves misconceptions.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's telling that they describe neutral as &quot;malefactors&quot; - a word which only means &quot;commits an offense against the law&quot;.&nbsp; Chaotic evil by any other name is still chaotic evil.For me your idea here raises two issues.&nbsp;&nbsp; First, &quot;Is canon also rules?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And second, &quot;Which canon?&quot;I'd argue that it's a misconception that Kobolds are cold-blooded creatures related to dragons, when in fact is was well established that they were dog-faced rat-tailed beings related to goblins.&nbsp; The fact that the misconception was held by an author at WotC doesn't make it less of a misconception.&nbsp; What exactly is the correction here?&nbsp; Which way is clearly wrong?Or put it another way, if canon is actually rules, having which deity in your game would be clearly a misconception?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6513658, member: 4937"] Wow. I never realized just how bad the RAW was on alignment. I'll stick to the Gygax, or at least something close to it. "The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world. Similar to the neutral good alignment, that of neutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything. " The RAW are themselves misconceptions. It's telling that they describe neutral as "malefactors" - a word which only means "commits an offense against the law". Chaotic evil by any other name is still chaotic evil. For me your idea here raises two issues. First, "Is canon also rules?" And second, "Which canon?" I'd argue that it's a misconception that Kobolds are cold-blooded creatures related to dragons, when in fact is was well established that they were dog-faced rat-tailed beings related to goblins. The fact that the misconception was held by an author at WotC doesn't make it less of a misconception. What exactly is the correction here? Which way is clearly wrong? Or put it another way, if canon is actually rules, having which deity in your game would be clearly a misconception? [/QUOTE]

Verification