Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 39271" data-attributes="member: 158">Another vote for Evil Child-preservers here. <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=":)" />Just because you are evil would mean you didn't have a code of some sort. However, I think that the Chaos/Law axis would assist in governing this to some respect.To me, a chaotic character is one who may have a code, but this code is to a certain extent flexible. A Lawful character would not disobey his code except in the most extreme of circumstances.A Lawful Evil person who wouldn't kill children would possibly do so, if it came down to a life-threatening situation. Under most circumstances, he wouldn't violate that code. He would stick to it until ALMOST the very end, because he would be capable of causing harm to others, but he is loath to violate his code.A Neutral Evil person would weigh his code in the light of whether or not violating that code would result in a &quot;sure thing&quot; of power gain or prestige. In a hardship situation, he might find such a thing distasteful, but would probably in the end violate his child-killing code.A Chaotic evil character would probably have no qualms on child-killing, widow-burglarizing, or anything else unless doing so threatened his personal safety. In any event, if the child were REALLY causing him hardship or trauma (say, the child and he have to share water, and the waterskin is down to the last mouthful), then he would have no qualms whatsoever in choosing himself over the child. If the Chaotic Evil and the child were the last two in the Donner party, you KNOW he'd be dining on kiddie chow that very night.This is just my take on alignment discrepancies. As many long-term board-members know, I am more of the &quot;Lawful = order&quot; camp than the &quot;Lawful=law abiding&quot; camp. Otherwise, IMHO, A Paladin could never break an evil law, and that doesn't set well with me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 39271, member: 158"] Another vote for Evil Child-preservers here. :) Just because you are evil would mean you didn't have a code of some sort. However, I think that the Chaos/Law axis would assist in governing this to some respect. To me, a chaotic character is one who may have a code, but this code is to a certain extent flexible. A Lawful character would not disobey his code except in the most extreme of circumstances. A Lawful Evil person who wouldn't kill children would possibly do so, if it came down to a life-threatening situation. Under most circumstances, he wouldn't violate that code. He would stick to it until ALMOST the very end, because he would be capable of causing harm to others, but he is loath to violate his code. A Neutral Evil person would weigh his code in the light of whether or not violating that code would result in a "sure thing" of power gain or prestige. In a hardship situation, he might find such a thing distasteful, but would probably in the end violate his child-killing code. A Chaotic evil character would probably have no qualms on child-killing, widow-burglarizing, or anything else unless doing so threatened his personal safety. In any event, if the child were REALLY causing him hardship or trauma (say, the child and he have to share water, and the waterskin is down to the last mouthful), then he would have no qualms whatsoever in choosing himself over the child. If the Chaotic Evil and the child were the last two in the Donner party, you KNOW he'd be dining on kiddie chow that very night. This is just my take on alignment discrepancies. As many long-term board-members know, I am more of the "Lawful = order" camp than the "Lawful=law abiding" camp. Otherwise, IMHO, A Paladin could never break an evil law, and that doesn't set well with me. [/QUOTE]

Verification