Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tallow" data-source="post: 243184" data-attributes="member: 4962">Ok, seems we do agree on a few things anyways.  I have no problem with a forced change if the acts are continuously brutal like this.  But the GM above who started this thread indicated that the Fighter did this one act and that ONE more would be a forced change.  That's not a continuous downward cycle. Secondly, you HAVE to look at things with moral relativism.  A lawful good person doing an evil act is going to have to pay MUCH more repercussions for doing so, than a Chaotic Neutral Character performing the same act.  In other words, a Chaotic Neutral person should not be held to the same standards of "evil acts" as a Lawfull good one.The only thing that is in stone about a Chaotic Neutral character, is that you can't write anything in stone about how they should or will act.  They are by their very nature, impulsive, selfish, passionate, emotional, and rash.  They are the loose cannon, the wild card, the one that nobody is quite sure what the hell they will do.I've played MANY chaotic neutral characters, that have been extreme assetts to a party.  Its just a matter of how you play the character.  Too many people try to get away with doing whatever they want by choosing an alignment like Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral.  I have a HUGE problem with someone saying, well if I commit evil today, its ok, cause tomorrow I'll do good.  That's a concious decision to do evil, and that makes you evil.If a neutral druid coup de grace's a mage who tried to burn down his forest, the killing of a helpless person may be considered a borderline evil act.  But in saving the forest he saved thousands of animal lives, and therefore the act is a neutral one, because he weighed the good with the bad and chose the animals he is prescribed to protect by his deity/nature over the mage.If a group of fearful peasants grabs a man they are afraid is a witch and burns him at the stake (a very cruel punishment to be sure), are they evil if he's innocent?  If he's not innocent?  I'd say that the peasants aren't performing an evil act, as they are seeking to protect themselves.  It is certainly a chaotic act though, as the law probably does not allow vigilanteism.Andy Christian</blockquote>

Verification