Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6406779" data-attributes="member: 48965">Dude how about you cool it with the backhanded insults.What does this have to do with anything I've said... And as many have said before all the tools necessary for any particular DM to make the Law/Chaos conflict primary are there in the game (and I'd argue Planescape as a setting does bring the Law/Chaos conflict just as center as good and evil)... but ultimately good and evil are easier for most people to relate to, and thus sell better.There are still a ton of grays between all these things you are listing and thus again an alignment encompases a multitude of behaviors, personalities, codes, etc... You haven't dis-proven what I stated... just danced around it.  Quick question... How is a vengeance killing evaluated?  Is it a good act?  An evil act?  What if I derive satisfaction from it as opposed to fun?  what if you have fun but it saves countless lives?  I mean if these things are defined in the rigidly absolute ways you claimed earlier these should be pretty easy questions to answer and not only should you be able to cite from the book to back the answer up... but if alignment is how you claim it is... I'm at a loss as to why people had so many alignment arguments, it should have been pretty clear right??  Wait what?  So you're citing an optional piece of advice to track alignment in the DMG... but it didn't give you the rules to do so which were later found in campaign supplements (which the majority of groups don't use)?  I don't understand this at all...  You presented this like it was an actual rule in 1e...  was it or wasn't it?I'm really trying to find your point here but I'm not seeing it... what is your point in referencing this?  If anything the fact that there are "transition points" would work against rigidly defined alignments... transition points speak to grey areas.You're still missing my point...  LG is not an absolute it is varying shades within boundaries..which is my point.  As I said earlier LG actions fall under very broad and very general guidelines but they are nothing like the inflexible, rigidly defined boxes that you seemed to claim they were in your earlier post...I fail to see how it becomes a failure if it epitomizes LG and LG, being a broad category, encompasses a multitude of behaviors, attitudes, personality types, methods, etc that are all found upon the plane (in some capacity)... then what is the failure here?  there is room on an infinite plane for those who believe that evil must be violently (if necessary) and within the letter of the law (because they are lawful) defeated... and those who want to stop suffering and disorder (see if he wasn't focused on stopping disorder (lawful alignment) he could devote some more of that energy to vanquishing evil)... I'm just not getting where the failure kicks in...</blockquote>

Verification