Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rykion" data-source="post: 4062811" data-attributes="member: 33035">So saying they are known to eat intelligent humanoids seems to be an accurate paraphrase of that to me.&nbsp; Intelligence is usually assumed with most humanoids in D&amp;D, and the part about captives and slain foes reinforces it.&nbsp; I actually pointed out in post 194 that lizardfolk eating humanoids wasn't actually as common as is believed. &nbsp;It actually doesn't matter that it was a lizardman, but believing that capture probably equals getting eaten tends to motivate people.&nbsp; The lizardman stopped being a captive when he broke the terms of his parole and actively aided the party's enemies.&nbsp;I find that few parties actually have people with the heal skill.&nbsp; Low skill rank equals possible fail and more time eaten up retrying.&nbsp; The OP doesn't mention how the info was gained.&nbsp; If it was the DM just saying &quot;you knocked him out&quot; it can still be seen as at the metagame level rather than at the character level.&nbsp;&nbsp; Because intent is 9/10ths the law, and depending on motivation the exact same act can fall under different D&amp;D alignments.&nbsp; I've never said the act of killing the lizardman was good, but with the right intent it could fall under the LG alignment.Notice the &quot;closemindedness&quot; and &quot;judgetmentalness&quot; of lawful.&nbsp; There is also a specific section of the PHB just for LG.&nbsp; The one word summary for the alignment is &quot;crusader.&quot;&nbsp; LG can describe anyone from a do no harm pacifist to a self righteous paladin who has no time for mercy for those who cross him on a mission.&nbsp; This will be my last post on this thread because I've made my position pretty clear.&nbsp; We just disagree on what actions may fall under specific alignments in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Personally, I generally find all killing to be an evil act, even if it is justifiable.&nbsp; I was responding to character actions in a make believe world and my interpretation of RAW of that world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rykion, post: 4062811, member: 33035"] So saying they are known to eat intelligent humanoids seems to be an accurate paraphrase of that to me. Intelligence is usually assumed with most humanoids in D&D, and the part about captives and slain foes reinforces it. I actually pointed out in post 194 that lizardfolk eating humanoids wasn't actually as common as is believed. It actually doesn't matter that it was a lizardman, but believing that capture probably equals getting eaten tends to motivate people. The lizardman stopped being a captive when he broke the terms of his parole and actively aided the party's enemies. I find that few parties actually have people with the heal skill. Low skill rank equals possible fail and more time eaten up retrying. The OP doesn't mention how the info was gained. If it was the DM just saying "you knocked him out" it can still be seen as at the metagame level rather than at the character level. Because intent is 9/10ths the law, and depending on motivation the exact same act can fall under different D&D alignments. I've never said the act of killing the lizardman was good, but with the right intent it could fall under the LG alignment. Notice the "closemindedness" and "judgetmentalness" of lawful. There is also a specific section of the PHB just for LG. The one word summary for the alignment is "crusader." LG can describe anyone from a do no harm pacifist to a self righteous paladin who has no time for mercy for those who cross him on a mission. This will be my last post on this thread because I've made my position pretty clear. We just disagree on what actions may fall under specific alignments in D&D. Personally, I generally find all killing to be an evil act, even if it is justifiable. I was responding to character actions in a make believe world and my interpretation of RAW of that world. [/QUOTE]

Verification