Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RigaMortus2" data-source="post: 877800" data-attributes="member: 11586">I don't see that.  Guess it's all in how you interpret it.AFAIK, there is no Core Rule or game mechanic which defines "strong good tendencies".  This would be a house rule kind of thing here.  By the book a person is either Good, Evil or Neutral.  There is no measurement for "tendencies".  Therefore, as you have stated, I have described a neutral person... (with strong good tendencies IF you are using a secondary alignment measurement).I am kind of confused on your usage of unprovoked here.  You say he may kill unprovoked attackers.  Isn't that an oxymoron?  If someone is attacking they are either doing the provoking (such as you getting jumped by bandits) or are being provoked (such as your party picking a fight with someone).  If they are being provoked, then they aren't really attackers, but defenders, aren't they?What is an example of an unprovoked attacker?Administering a lethal attack to someone with the intent that they die from it and then giving your reason that it was just a "utility" does not give you a safety net to proclaim your Neutrality.  Either people kill out of necessity (defending themselves or an innocent) or out of pleasure (I killed a man once, just to watch him die).  I don't think there is a third "neutral" reason to kill someone.What would the reason be for this "Neutral" person to go ahead and kill an unprovoked attacker?  Either he is doing so because it is necessary to do so (in which case, he isn't unprovoked to begin with) or he is doing it because he likes it (re: evil).</blockquote>

Verification