Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3315344" data-attributes="member: 35788">[Sblock=RA]For the record, note that I edited Unleashed's Sblock above earlier after my previous post.&nbsp; I didn't change the original post, simply added the two lines at the end.In answer to your question, I would say that NG is the purest good because it is the most flexible good.&nbsp; It can be comfortable in both law and chaos although admittedly never truly comfortable in the extreme of others.I also came to a new understanding.&nbsp; I definately do not define good in my personal life along the lines of D&amp;D.&nbsp; I think their version of Good it often boils down to &quot;respector of life&quot; while their version of evil boils down to &quot;taker of life.&quot; (Or for lack of a better term ... &quot;disrespector of life)&nbsp; With that understanding, I can understand how at WotC a chaotic good could be comfortable with lying, although I fundamantally disagree.ASIDE: However, I would still place lying in the evil camp because lying to someone is ultimately a sign that you disrespect their life.&nbsp; A liar does not think them worthy enough to need to be honest to them.&nbsp; Thus, because of your willingness to lie to them you are saying in your mind that they are less of a person.&nbsp; That is a disrespect of life.&nbsp; I would consider manipulation an evil act for the same reason.&nbsp; If you are willing to manipulate someone, you are showing disrespect for their life, priorities, and right to think for themselves.&nbsp; You disrespect them.&nbsp; You take away the value of their life.&nbsp; You may not kill them physically ... well, enough of that I suppose.&nbsp; (You is used in the general, not specific, here.)As for me switching Good/Law ... perhaps.&nbsp; However ... I honestly think you would not have a problem in my games because I essentially ignore alignment (unless you can't stand that - at which point I'd drive you berserk).&nbsp; People role-play what they want and as long as they stay true In-Character I don't get upset at whatever alignment that In-Character alignment is.&nbsp; I've never knocked any player from one alignment to another.&nbsp; In that regard, you may hate my games, because I honestly don't know what alignments any of my players are.&nbsp; I know they put it on the character sheet, but beyond looking at it at character submission I simply don't care about it enough to know.&nbsp; So long as they don't make a big deal about it, I don't either.Let's see.&nbsp; What else.&nbsp; For the record, I hate the write-up about the Beguiler class.&nbsp; But you and I have been down that road in the past. You love the fluff of the Beguiler and hate the fluff of the Duskblade.&nbsp; (I don't know what you think about either of the classes.)&nbsp; I dislike the Beguiler and am okay with the Duskblade.&nbsp; Maybe I simply have a personal hatred of the way D&amp;D defines alignments, then.&nbsp; If so, I'm okay with that&nbsp; the game can be fun without agreeing with WotC about alignments.As for where to go ... I'm happy continuing these discussions.&nbsp; Like I've said, though, Rhaka has not been good.&nbsp; Perhaps it is the disconnect over the alignment and the VoP combined ... but whatever it is this game has been a struggle.&nbsp; Not because you aren't an interesting DM.&nbsp; It just seems like Rhaka is always going away from the direction of the game.&nbsp; So, if the game has to progress I have to put Rhaka in a box and capitulate.&nbsp; And that's just frustrating.&nbsp; If I played a more vanilla &quot;okay, I'll go kill things&quot; or &quot;I don't care what we do so long as it's adventure&quot; I wouldn't have to worry about it so much.&nbsp; Either way, Rhaks is neither of those things.&nbsp; {And don't take that to mean a low-INT character, either.}[/Sblock]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 3315344, member: 35788"] [Sblock=RA]For the record, note that I edited Unleashed's Sblock above earlier after my previous post. I didn't change the original post, simply added the two lines at the end. In answer to your question, I would say that NG is the purest good because it is the most flexible good. It can be comfortable in both law and chaos although admittedly never truly comfortable in the extreme of others. I also came to a new understanding. I definately do not define good in my personal life along the lines of D&D. I think their version of Good it often boils down to "respector of life" while their version of evil boils down to "taker of life." (Or for lack of a better term ... "disrespector of life) With that understanding, I can understand how at WotC a chaotic good could be comfortable with lying, although I fundamantally disagree. ASIDE: However, I would still place lying in the evil camp because lying to someone is ultimately a sign that you disrespect their life. A liar does not think them worthy enough to need to be honest to them. Thus, because of your willingness to lie to them you are saying in your mind that they are less of a person. That is a disrespect of life. I would consider manipulation an evil act for the same reason. If you are willing to manipulate someone, you are showing disrespect for their life, priorities, and right to think for themselves. You disrespect them. You take away the value of their life. You may not kill them physically ... well, enough of that I suppose. (You is used in the general, not specific, here.) As for me switching Good/Law ... perhaps. However ... I honestly think you would not have a problem in my games because I essentially ignore alignment (unless you can't stand that - at which point I'd drive you berserk). People role-play what they want and as long as they stay true In-Character I don't get upset at whatever alignment that In-Character alignment is. I've never knocked any player from one alignment to another. In that regard, you may hate my games, because I honestly don't know what alignments any of my players are. I know they put it on the character sheet, but beyond looking at it at character submission I simply don't care about it enough to know. So long as they don't make a big deal about it, I don't either. Let's see. What else. For the record, I hate the write-up about the Beguiler class. But you and I have been down that road in the past. You love the fluff of the Beguiler and hate the fluff of the Duskblade. (I don't know what you think about either of the classes.) I dislike the Beguiler and am okay with the Duskblade. Maybe I simply have a personal hatred of the way D&D defines alignments, then. If so, I'm okay with that the game can be fun without agreeing with WotC about alignments. As for where to go ... I'm happy continuing these discussions. Like I've said, though, Rhaka has not been good. Perhaps it is the disconnect over the alignment and the VoP combined ... but whatever it is this game has been a struggle. Not because you aren't an interesting DM. It just seems like Rhaka is always going away from the direction of the game. So, if the game has to progress I have to put Rhaka in a box and capitulate. And that's just frustrating. If I played a more vanilla "okay, I'll go kill things" or "I don't care what we do so long as it's adventure" I wouldn't have to worry about it so much. Either way, Rhaks is neither of those things. {And don't take that to mean a low-INT character, either.} [/Sblock] [/QUOTE]

Verification