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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1153584" data-attributes="member: 151">Please cease with the political references: it make's Eric's Grandma uncomfortable.  And after she offered you those nice tea cakes, too. For the record: I don't see an alignment violation with either action, depending on the motivation and the explanation.  As I mentioned before: a paladin serving Heironeous would have no problem smashing evil...it's what he does.  But the guiding principle of Pelor's faith is to 'do so much good in the world that evil cannot thrive'.  Preemptive slaughtering of kobolds is simply not on their agenda, and goes counter to their diety's wishes.  Therefore, it varies. LYS, I didn't think you were advocating a brutal thought-police of paladins, btw, that was someone else.  I understand your perspective on the Detect Evil issue, and your further statements have clarified why I think we'll need to agree to disagree.  As far as I can tell, you see evil in the D&D alignment system as an absolute...if someone is evil in one way, they are evil in all ways.  The difference between a pick pocket, a corrupt tax collector, a blackmailer and a mass murderer are merely levels of realized attitude. I don't view the system that way, and that's why I find the "with XX tendencies" concept to be fundementally wrong.  Someone who's "neutral with evil tendencies" is, to me, NE.  If you reject the PHB and SRD descriptions in favor of a more 1e/2e version of alignment (which I think is part of the reason for our disconnect), than that makes sense.  But the 'tendencies' qualifier, to me, invalidates the system.  You might as well abandon the alignment concept entirely, and just use two qualifiers: Lawfulness and Good, similar to what NWN uses, and then just measure on a scale.</blockquote>

Verification