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="PowerWordDumb" data-source="post: 879657" data-attributes="member: 8614">I realize the post I'm replying to is rather old at this point - my apologies for coming late to the thread, but it is indicative I feel of the poster's misunderstanding of the alignment system, and of a rather marked inability to extricate his own personal feelings from his analysis.  Specifically, I refer to the interpretation of all acts through a strong Lawful Good mindset.  It is not true that one corner of the alignment wheel gets the right to define absolute morality, and it is doubly true that one side of the Law-Chaos axis has no more claim to ethical righteousness than the other.  To whit, these two quotes:In both cases, poster has erroneously applied a Lawful interpretation of just punishments as support for his ethical interpretations.  To reuse a phrase, "BZZZT.  WRONG".  Both replies assume some sort of higher order exists to deal 'legitimate' justice, and that an individual cannot dispense justice on his/her own.  That certainly does not hold from a Chaotic viewpoint - even Chaotic Good, and not even from any of the Neutral viewpoints.Don't cloud abstract Good-Evil discussions with Law-Chaos interpretations.  They're not relevant.The CdG feat is not any more evil or good than the context in which it is used.  It may perhaps have a tinge of Chaos to it, assuming that some more lawful way of dealing with the target reasonably exists under the circumstances, but even that is questionable.  Even if one were to stipulate a chaotic bent to CdQ, it would have no implication at all on its Evilness or Goodness.</blockquote>

Verification