Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="unknowable" data-source="post: 7705532" data-attributes="member: 6861330">I disagree, it matches chaotic good and neutral good fairly well as well as lawful neutral. Good is the intent behind action and these could be the views of a pragmatist. Also as for Chaosmancer's response. There have been lots of historic figures that have taken a pragmatic or harsh approach that have been viewed in a positive light, the difference is the framing they are given when talked about regarding their actions. I repeat, I do not believe that conquest in any way has to represent an evil character. A hard and uncompromising character for sure, but not evil. "It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire."Make sure those who would do evil or upset balance won't spread their activities around and stop their actions permanently."Once you have  conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law.  Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who  defy it shall be  punished as an example to all  who might follow."Strictly uphold the laws that are created to give no quarter to those who would destroy order and peace.I see conquest as a pragmatic paladin's way of strictly enforcing their ideals and fear is a great way to influence events without having to resort to violence or to lessen the risks of a violent altercation/repercussion.As per usual it boils down to roleplay, but nothing in it's tenants or abilities necessitates an evil character. Unless we are trying to make the argument that subjugation and a judicial system backed up by enforcement is somehow worse than just going around killing things... The standard problem solving method.</blockquote>

Verification