Qraces/classes

[Anume]

Feel bonked.

Druids are .. druids. No clerics who got an alignchange to neutral.

[mya]

I still think the reson about no neutral clerics wrong.

I can see neutral servants of deities very mutch.

I cant see why we have chaotic monks, but wont have neutrals. ( I know balance...)

Or why we have Chaotic Paladins. Paladins should all be Lawful or Neutral.

I cannot see someone chaotic submitting to an Military Order based on Chivalery.

[Tantangel]

Feel bonked.

Druids are .. druids. No clerics who got an alignchange to neutral.

Kendifax stay Good then to get into Watcher/Sacred Oak? I recall him running around at one point in time.

[Twinblades713]

I still think the reson about no neutral clerics wrong.

I can see neutral servants of deities very mutch.

I cant see why we have chaotic monks, but wont have neutrals. ( I know balance...)

Or why we have Chaotic Paladins. Paladins should all be Lawful or Neutral.

I cannot see someone chaotic submitting to an Military Order based on Chivalery.

I could definitely see a paladin being chaotic. What about the ones that run around killing every evil they find? There have been WANTED paladins. This doesn't mean they are evil. They just have a higher regard for ridding the world of evil, than for following the law.

I don't see why there couldn't be chaotic monks. In fact I think a monk should be able to be an alignment. Why do monks even have to be religious? They don't commune... And even with Neutral Clerics I think it could work. But again, balance issues. That would be too strong without a bit of gimping.

With RP I believe an class should be able to be any alignment, with the exception of paladins being good and dark knights being evil. And to an extent this is true even in game. It all just comes with penalties. Though maybe it shouldn't always. But there lies the balance of the game. We can't have evil elves running around or good illithids. But who says that can't happen?

[CruelEdict]

It was Keene who was a Halfling Cleric who went neutral, right? I swear he could commune (though it has been ages, so I am not really sure). I don't think we need neutral Clerics, but I think they could exist practically speaking.

[The Wayward Knight]

Most of the imms are just going to tell you 'balance issues' and leave it at that, possibly adding an emphatic 'no' to the mix. This has all been brought up before, and it was all shot down before, too.

[Valsgarde]

I could definitely see a paladin being chaotic. What about the ones that run around killing every evil they find? There have been WANTED paladins. This doesn't mean they are evil. They just have a higher regard for ridding the world of evil, than for following the law.

I don't see why there couldn't be chaotic monks. In fact I think a monk should be able to be an alignment. Why do monks even have to be religious? They don't commune... And even with Neutral Clerics I think it could work. But again, balance issues. That would be too strong without a bit of gimping.

I actually agree with Mya, I think that the reason given for no neutral clerics is totally bogus. Good and Evil are not the end-all-be-all of decisions and choices in life. The idea that clerics can't be neutral is just as bogus as the idea that a deity couldn't be neutral. A cleric is simply a worldly voice and arm for a deity.

As for Chaotic Paladins, I think that's totally bogus too, and to defend that I'll bring up the millions of D&D books.

In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, paladin is one of the base character classes. The paladin is a holy knight, crusading in the name of good and order, and is a divine spellcaster. Paladins are always of the Lawful Good alignment.

In addition, compared to other classes the paladin class has one of the most restrictive codes of conduct in their single-mindedness and utter devotion to good. Paladin characters are expected to demonstrate and embody goodness.

A Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment.

A Paladin may never commit an Evil act.

A Paladin cannot associate with any character that persistently commits acts which would cause the Paladin him/herself to Fall- notably Evil creatures.

A Paladin must remain truthful and forthright at all times.

A Paladin must give fair warning and due quarter to their enemies.

A Paladin holds stealth, subterfuge, attack from the rear, missile weapons and especially poison as weapons of last resort.

A Paladin is not just an asskicker for Light, a Paladin is an asskicker for Order, both cosmic and societal. They believe that 'Good' can, should, and must be legislated by law, as only through structured order, morals, and discipline can Goodness truly be upheld for the good of all. In a time in which a Paladin must choose between Law and Good, it's a tricky situation even then and has no clear-cut obvious answer. The Book of Exalted Deeds brings up a hypothetical situation: A Paladin catches a savage serial killer red-handed and turns him in, but is found not guilty by the courts of the land? Does he uphold Good and kill the murderer, or does he acknowledge the decision legitimate authority of the land? I love that dual-responsibility and it makes sense, and I hate that Paladins in FL have been dumbed down to just raving mindless madmen for Irumeru.

As for monks, who said they have to be religious? I would say they just have to be spiritual, an enormous difference. As for them being Chaotic, I think it's totally absurd that they can be chaotic. The rigid structures of their fighting styles and the self-discipline required to learn it can only be described as Lawful. Again, from D&D:

Monks usually live in monasteries, where they rigorously train the mastery of their bodies and minds, notably being able to defend themselves with their bare hands and certain specialized weapons. Due to the discipline imposed by this training, Monks must be of Lawful alignment. Fitting with this, they take a very structured approach to combat, planning out every move two steps in advance and only applying just enough force to get the job done, without wasting energy on flashy attacks or mad, wildly off-target swings with a club.

For a similar reason, I think it's totally absurd that a Berserker could be Lawful. Their actions, the way they fight, etc are all hall-marks of at least a marginally chaotic nature.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but I think these should be THE rule, and with little exception.

[Aulian]

Kendifax stay Good then to get into Watcher/Sacred Oak? I recall him running around at one point in time.

If my memory serves me right... Kendifax was never a member of the Watchers, only the Oak.... But I the dude who played him is from NZ, I'll ask him when I see him.

[Twinblades713]

Valsgarde's lengthy post

I understand where you're coming from with all this but quoting those D&D books is just like quoting a help file from FL itself. It's a given with a slight RP reason behind it. But I reiterate. Why could there not be a paladin that doesn't uphold the law, if and only if, it allowed him to do good? It's not like he purposefully disregards the law at every available opportunity. Just when there is no other clearly defined choice.

And the monk thing. Why do they have to be ... any certain alignment. Some very hypothetical person could theoretically join a monastery in this magical world called Aabahran, and do whatever he wants with his newly found discipline in hand to hand combat. Crap, he could turn out to be a mugger or something. But he would still be a monk. With his meditation and his martial arts ability.

And the berserker. I could see a berserker having to be chaotic, simply because that's the mindset behind them. They cannot control themselves. It's a condition of the mind. The wrecklessness simply would not allow for lawful tendencies. I believe a berserker could want to be lawful and live lawfully as much as they could, but when that barkeep adds a little too much mayo on his favorite sandwich... things could just get out of hand.

[Valsgarde]

As for why couldn't there be a paladin like that, that's how it is now. I just entirely disagree with it. It was the Catch 22 of Paladins in D&D, and a reason for why mine has been so fun to play now for 5 or 6 years. Lawful also implies reliability, honesty, integrity, discipline, etc - much more than just obeying the law.

Why do monks have to be any certain alignment? You somewhat answered it yourself. Imagine a barbarian, someone quintessentially chaotic, in a monastery trying to learn to be a monk. Wouldn't/couldn't happen. Alignments, as you said with the barbarian, are states of mind. It requires someone lawful to have to have years of patience, integrity, and self-discipline to master their mind and body ala martial arts. Something someone chaotic isn't prepared for or is simply unable to do, and something that someone neutral probably couldn't either.

[Pali]

Perhaps you missed this, but FL is not D&D. In FL, Paladins are warriors for Good, not for order. They may RP also being a warrior for order, but the paladin guild is not based around it. Remember, in FL the law is a fairly fluid thing that is decided by the Tribunal. In FL, the law can exist purely to bolster the power of the Council member who made it. The law can be corrupt. Why should warriors who dedicate themselves to serving good also have to dedicate themselves to serving this empire (the Tribunal)? Hell, the only good-only cabal explicitly refuses lawful characters because of this.

In short, FL != D&D. You want D&D rules, play D&D.

[Valsgarde]

Perhaps you would care to explain Chayesh shooting down Mya's crappy idea with D&D as the first basis of the defense of his opinion:

Classic mages have always had use of some weapon, especially using the DnD model. They always could use staff or dagger.

Where they were limited was in wearing armor, as it affected their dexterity to the point where they could not cast spells. Granted, their weapons training was cursory at best and using that is about as intelligent as spells are to a warrior. Mages often choose to use spells instead of weapons due to the higher chance of surviving the battle.

And there's no need to be dickish. We're discussing other peoples' opinions here. It's not a conflict, there's not going to be a winner. Chill out, Turbo.

[spiegel06]

Well true to what Chayesh said but good thing we are not following the D&D rules cause alot of things would change if we did one of them would be Vokers and wearing armors. To would be thieves and armors and weapons and the list goes on. Just because this MUD has some things in D&D and some things not makes it a bit more unique in my head. And yes some things has to do with balance and others has some unforeseen downside for having a reward.

Like for Ranser I was titled and what sucked about that I could not disguise because of that. Now can you imagine a neutral Monk fighting with all they get? A way to knock down protective shield, disregard protection bonus, good lagging skills, can drain HP, Move, Mana, can be use scrolls. Heal and cure alot of Mals at the same time Also can put them to sleep when close to death.

Yes, I agree that they should be Neutral but for balance reason I do not think they can be unless you get some adjusting. But remember -Red-'s monk was changed to Neutral and was adjusted because of that even though he was not a fighter and only Rped. But Also you can have anything in FL as long as you are willing to accept a few changes if it needs it and if you are willing to put the effort.

[Valsgarde]

A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses are joined without punctuation or conjunctions.

What accounts for the general decline in literacy? For the rise in ``permissive'' - read ``sloppy'' - language usage? Is it ignorance, laziness or lack of interest? How about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll?

Did the post-1960s educational movement emphasizing self-expression and creativity over rules and precision give rise to the decline? What part do television and technology play?

Not being an educator, I can only guess at the causes: all of the above and more.

Which is not to say that English should stagnate. (Or be written only in complete sentences.) English is a ``living'' language. It does, and should, evolve. But not without challenges, tests and good reasons. We don't need any more babble. I figure until you know the rules, you can't break 'em. You can only commit egregious errors...

And in conclusion:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate' date=' because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.[/i']

[Roykagh]

and I hate that Paladins in FL have been dumbed down to just raving mindless madmen for Irumeru.

It's not so much the paladin class that has been dumbed down, but how people choose to play them based on their religion. What you described sounds to me like an FL Paladin believer in Order. Whilst in D&D the Paladin's Guild may be a guild recognised for their members upholding the 'ideals' of Good and Order (correct me if I'm wrong here, I know little of D&D and I'm just drawing assumptions from what you've said) the FL Paladin's Guild alone doesn't have that same emphasis on Order.

I'm again, assuming that D&D Paladins Guild is established. Perhaps it was founded in town X by good ruler Y as a means of finding people loyal to his rule, who would uphold his righteous laws and fight for good? I again, am just assuming here, so call me out if I'm wrong. In FL, not all the guilds are 'established' - arguably it could be a positive or a negative, but they are more like a blank canvas with a very basic set of requirements i.e a shaman must be evil. They don't share the same connotations as D&D guilds do in that respect. You can have Paladins of Order, who are good-aligns with their beliefs set strongly in law/order/discipline. Paladins of Purity, who are good-aligns, with their beliefs set strongly in the eradication of evil. There is no sense of 'connection' between people of the same guild unless they take to exploring that themselves.

In Aabahran, it's possible for evil to rule, or for evil people to exist in some positions of power within the Empire. Therefore it's reasonable to suggest that some people will turn against the law imposed upon the cities by evil if they disagree with it. How they do so will differ.

What I'm trying to say is (hope you are bearing with me, I find it hard to explain what I mean often), paladin is a more vague title in terms of what it says about a person in FL than perhaps in D&D.

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.

2. any knightly or heroic champion.

3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

Raving paladin madmen of Irumeru can certaintly fit those two definitions.

[Twinblades713]

What I'm trying to say is (hope you are bearing with me' date=' I find it hard to explain what I mean often), paladin is a more vague title in terms of what it says about a person in FL than perhaps in D&D. [/quote']

This is what I've been trying to get across-however successfully, I'm not sure. D&D has a set path for the paladins played within it, and I play D&D still and when I roll a paladin within that game, I do act lawful in every way. But that's what's great about FL is (though there are some limitations) there is MUCH more you can do to roleplay, and I like that. I'm very against the cookie cutter ideology. I don't want to be able to think, "Oh, he's a paladin. He's going to make me sheath if I walk through the city and tickle me to death if I don't."

This also goes for every class. Again with dark knights being evil and pallies being good. What about thieves? I think this is a very good example. They can span the aligns, but people usually think of thieves as evil, or at least greedy neutrals. A thief can be good, a thief can choose to only steal from/kill evils. So why can't a paladin not be lawful? That's like saying all dark knights have to be not only evil, but chaotic evil. While it's true many are, some could be lawful evil. What if a DK was manipulating a trib into making laws that appealed to him? Or if the law itself was corrupt as Pali pointed out as a possibility. There's just SO many scenerios it's not funny. Most classes should have a full range of aligns for rp issues.

But for balance issues to this game, I understand and accept the restrictions. The do make sense for that reason.

[Valsgarde]

To Roykagh, the way classes are done in D&D really aren't guild-based, per se. It's a Knightly Order, a lawful one at that, thus it has a set Code which must be followed above all things. Whenever Evils rule legitimately in D&D, it's a tricky situation for a Paladin - because he respects legitimate claims to authority, but opposes Evil. He doesn't go bash-em-smash-em to rid the land of them, he does it lawfully. And yes, I'm aware that a Paladin is much more than a made-up class in fantasy games, and yes, for any idiots that might point out the obvious, I'm aware FL is not D&D; but FL is most certainly a child of D&D. You're basically playing some strange variant-version of it.

To Twinblades:

The D&D paladin code isn't a cookie-cutting device. The variation in personalities a paladin could have are just as vast as the ways in which they adhere to and uphold their code. I've played many paladins other than my main one I've played for years, and no two I've played are the same. Motivations, personal vices, quirks, mannerisms, all sorts of things about characters can be different...look at the Knights of the Crown in FL, for example. In the Hope Clan there is a list of tenets and ideals that are to be upheld - all in Knight uphold that code, and each Knight is different from the next. The Code is not a cookie-cutting device. Ironic that while having something as Lawful in nature as a set Charter of collective ambitions and ideals that Knight doesn't allow in lawful characters...something that I think is retarded in the first place. Yes. I know that it says sometimes what they do might be unlawful, blah blah blah, but why? That should be left up to the individual character to decide how he regards and reacts to the law. A Lawful Good paladin/monk unable to join the Knights? Right, that makes sense.

A thief can be good, a thief can choose to only steal from/kill evils.

Stealing is evil/wrong/bad, and to steal from someone that is evil or bad does not make it any less evil/wrong/bad, it just makes it so the victim is someone who, according to some monotheist moral dichotomy, deserves punishment. Moreover, stealing from/killing someone who is evil because they're evil is an act that is more often than not decided upon based on the victim's race (Drow, Duergar, FG, etc), assuming that they are X, evil in this case; that is called racism, and is 'evil' itself. I can count the amount of PK-successful Paladins and Knights that aren't completely hypocritical in this sense on one hand: zero.

So why can't a paladin not be lawful? That's like saying all dark knights have to be not only evil, but chaotic evil.

Because the essence of 'Good' is taking the 'noble', morally restricted route, whereas 'evil' is free to do absolutely as it pleases, as it is (much more often than not) not restricted by said moral inhibitions. There is not a set way or Code of 'evil'. And if there were, it'd be Lawful Evil by nature/definition, just as a Paladin's code is.

What if a DK was manipulating a trib into making laws that appealed to him?

If you're using that as an example of what a Lawful Evil DK would do as opposed to a Chaotic Evil DK would do, that's a terribly poor example. That's what any smart DK should do.

But for balance issues to this game, I understand and accept the restrictions. The do make sense for that reason.

What balance issues and restrictions? There aren't any Ethos restrictions in this game whatsoever at all, save for a very small amount of cases, all of which are Cabal-oriented in one way or another. The Ethos query in character creation could almost be entirely done away with (and, depending on your character, may as well be), as it is almost entirely pointless other than to enhance/flesh out RP - and you don't need it printed on your character sheet to make your character Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic anyway.

[mya]

And another hot topic!!!

Lawfull = following the Law

Being lawfull has nothing to do with following the law. It has to do with being correct, rightfull and Chiveralous.

A Lawful Paladin is someone who is a Beacon of Morality and Chiveraly.

A paladin can opose the Law by declaring it Anatema. As in the case of having a Vampire wielding the power of Tribunal.

FL just pulls a fast on on us by stating in the help files that:

Lawfull = Following the Law or you are struck by Lightning :eek: .

[Valsgarde]

I just read mya's post, and my brain melted. It refused to allow my eyes to subject it to something like that for more than three seconds. O Literacy! Where art thou in the world's time of need?

But anyway...she gets it.

[Twinblades713]

A Lawful Good paladin/monk unable to join the Knights? Right' date=' [i']that makes sense.

Completely agreed.

Stealing is evil/wrong/bad' date=' and to steal from someone that is evil or bad does not make it any less evil/wrong/bad, it just makes it so the victim is someone who, according to some monotheist moral dichotomy, deserves punishment.[/quote']

Under this assumption, I gather you don't think elves or faeries shouldn't be able to be thieves? Sure, it seems a little bit like Robin Hood, but for the same reasons all those purity paladins kill all evils they see, good thieves could steal for that reason. To at least weaken the evil populace through means of chicanery. I think it's perfectly fine. Through rp a good thief would feel vindicated stealing some good piece of armor from an evil, knowing it might one day help that evil hurt someone.

Because the essence of 'Good' is taking the 'noble'' date=' morally restricted route, whereas 'evil' is free to do absolutely as it pleases, as it is ([b']much more often than not) not restricted by said moral inhibitions. There is not a set way or Code of 'evil'. And if there were, it'd be Lawful Evil by nature/definition, just as a Paladin's code is.

I plainly disagree. Being good does not always mean being noble. Being lawful good indicates being noble to me. Evil is free to do as it pleases yes, but I believe that good is the exact same. These are two opposites and are symmetrical in every way. Lawful goods follow the law, they call it nobility, chivalry, or whatever else. Lawful evils follow the law, they use it, exploit it, help to gain power with it. Both are just using the law for their own purposes and calling it what they will. For goods it's nobility, for evils, it's manipulation. Two sides of the same coin IMHO.

If you're using that as an example of what a Lawful Evil DK would do as opposed to a Chaotic Evil DK would do' date=' that's a terribly poor example. That's what any [u']smart DK should do.

Perhaps it seemed poor because I didn't flesh it out. A lawful evil DK, one, there are many aspects to how this could be approached, could believe in order, therefore fulfilling his lawful alignment, but he would like the order to be in his favor, oppressing the weak and gaining him power. If the law was already good, then he would do his best to corrupt it, molding it to his likes. If that was not possible... at ALL, then he would sit in quiet resentment at his own weakness and inability to sway the minds of the big lawmen. After all, just because he can't manipulate who he wants to, doesn't mean he isn't lawful evil.

What balance issues and restrictions? There aren't any Ethos restrictions in this game whatsoever at all' date=' save for a [u']very small amount of cases, all of which are Cabal-oriented in one way or another. The Ethos query in character creation could almost be entirely done away with (and, depending on your character, may as well be), as it is almost entirely pointless other than to enhance/flesh out RP - and you don't need it printed on your character sheet to make your character Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic anyway.

Balance restrictions I'm talking about are mostly the neutral clerics and monks. Things that people would like but know could be overpowered or too hard to protect/defend against. You don't need it on your character sheet to make you that no, but if your not acting as you've built your character, then you are betraying the point of choosing that alignment in the first place and should be changed to how you act IG.

Solid arguments on your side though.

[Valsgarde]

Under this assumption, I gather you don't think elves or faeries shouldn't be able to be thieves? Sure, it seems a little bit like Robin Hood, but for the same reasons all those purity paladins kill all evils they see, good thieves could steal for that reason. To at least weaken the evil populace through means of chicanery. I think it's perfectly fine. Through rp a good thief would feel vindicated stealing some good piece of armor from an evil, knowing it might one day help that evil hurt someone.

I think it's fine that they're able to be thieves. Elves and faeries aren't saints, they're just as capable of evil as anyone else, they're just good by default. Being good doesn't mean that you don't once in awhile - or even often in awhile - do something wrong, or that you have bad habits or vices that are present your whole life.

I could see someone playing a thief like you suggest, but if I played a purity paladin at the same time, I'd be likely to call them a coward for attempting to justify stealing with such a benevolent cause. If they wanted to harm evil then they should meet it head on. Purity says something like, "To stop swinging your sword for a minute is to allow evil to advance," not, "To stop running and hiding and stealing for a minute is to allow evil to advance."

I plainly disagree. Being good does not always mean being noble. Being lawful good indicates being noble to me. Evil is free to do as it pleases yes, but I believe that good is the exact same.

I don't know what kind of subjective terms for 'noble' you're using, but I'm using the definition.

noble:

Adjective

Inflected forms: no·bler, no·blest 1. Possessing hereditary rank in a political system or social class derived from a feudalistic stage of a country's development. 2. a. Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor: a noble spirit.

According to the actual definition of noble, is a neutral or chaotic good paladin any less noble than a lawful paladin? No.

Then what exactly pray tell is the difference between good and evil? What I said is sound as a pound. The notions of contemporary good and evil stem from Good being upstanding and having a firm moral constitution, thus giving himself a harder life as opposed to 'evil', which allegedly is easier, due to it not being restricted by said moral creed(s). I submit exhibit A:

For wide is the road that leads to death' date=' and many are going down that road, and narrow is the gate that leads to life, for few will find it.[/quote']

And if we're going back to the neutral cleric topic, I don't see how it'd be so outlandishly unbalanced or whatever. I submit to the IMMs that they should make neutral clerics and play them to see for themselves.

[Twinblades713]

Then what exactly pray tell is the difference between good and evil? What I said is sound as a pound. The notions of contemporary good and evil stem from Good being upstanding and having a firm moral constitution' date=' thus giving himself a harder life as opposed to 'evil', which allegedly is easier, due to it not being restricted by said moral creed(s). I submit exhibit A:[/quote']

The difference between good and evil? Nothing. Goods are restricted in their firm moral constitution, so they don't hurt other goods, and likely not even neutrals. Evils are restricted too, in that they aren't protected from other evils. Evils can kill evils, they ally sometimes, but not always. Goods will never kill another unless one turns evil, in which it's a good killing an evil, not another good. I think the lack of all evils aligning themselves together is a moral creed as well. Contemporarily, in game, Atsul and Drayson hated eachother if I'm not mistaken. They were both powerful and influential advocates of evil, but were not aligned or with the same ideals on everything. How is that easier to deal with than this moral code of nobility that goods have?

It's the same IRL. I believe I'm lawful good, and when I die I'll go to Heaven, assuming my religion. I believe in turn, evil people will be evil and will go to Hell. I don't damn them, it's just a different place.

I submit to the IMMs that they should make neutral clerics and play them to see for themselves.

Good call.

[Valsgarde]

Evils are restricted too, in that they aren't protected from other evils. Evils can kill evils, they ally sometimes, but not always. Goods will never kill another unless one turns evil, in which it's a good killing an evil, not another good. I think the lack of all evils aligning themselves together is a moral creed as well.

That's the exact opposite of restricted; it's total freedom. Evils not killing other evils has nothing to do with a moral creedence (unless the evil characters will it so). Betrayal is not evil. Betrayal is dishonor. Real evil goes far above and beyond stabbing some dumbass that trusted you in the back.

How is that easier to deal with than this moral code of nobility that goods have?

Hence why I said 'allegedly'. And I was referring to Ye Olde R/L, anyway.

I believe I'm lawful good, and when I die I'll go to Heaven, assuming my religion. I believe in turn, evil people will be evil and will go to Hell. I don't damn them, it's just a different place.

If we're going to use the same monotheistic moral dichotomy for the basis of Good and Evil, then I am Chaotic Evil. You've prove my point entirely. You, as a Christian, are restricted in an innumerable amount of ways. Hence "For wide is the road that leads to death, and many are going down that road, and narrow is the gate that leads to life, for few will find it." I am not bound by your creeds or beliefs or restrictions in any manner whatsoever at all.

[Twinblades713]

That's the exact opposite of restricted; it's total freedom. Evils not killing other evils has nothing to do with a moral creedence (unless the evil characters will it so). Betrayal is not evil. Betrayal is dishonor. Real evil goes far above and beyond stabbing some dumbass that trusted you in the back.

It is the exact opposite. That's what I'm saying. They are symmetrical. Goodness is restricted to helping it's own. Evil is not. The question is which is harder to deal with.

If we're going to use the same monotheistic moral dichotomy for the basis of Good and Evil' date=' then I am Chaotic Evil. You've prove my point entirely. You, as a Christian, are restricted in an innumerable amount of ways. Hence "For wide is the road that leads to death, and many are going down that road, and narrow is the gate that leads to life, for few will find it." I am not bound by your creeds or beliefs or restrictions in any manner whatsoever at all.[/quote']

I said according to my religion. I don't pretend to govern anyone else's. So that's what it comes down to. Belief. If you are chaotic evil, and I don't refute that you are or that you shouldn't be, but it would be very hard to believe you get along in civilized world. That isn't even to say you aren't civilized, but if you have no regard for the law or doing anything kind, as chaotic evil implies, then alot of people are going to start have problems with that. But it really is different for all views of life. You could believe when you die you rot in the ground and exist no more. That's fine. I've chosen what I believe, simply because it's nice to think I'm going somewhere nice. Hehe. If a person wants to go to Hell and thinks it will be nice, power to them. If a person wants to go to some other third place, then power to them too. Point is, Paladins can be something other than lawful.

[spiegel06]

Has any one played Final Fantasy VI? If not there was a bad guy named Kefka and I would consider this one a Chaotic Evil cause he did not care for anything or anyone and would do anything to win. On the Other hand on the same team as Kefka, General Leo. This one cared for people, was concerned about the enemy prisoners and would not kill if he did not need to. To the game he was considered Evil because he was with the side that, in the game, was considered Evil.

Also many can have different views on certain things, Evil is subjective, For example to muslims (the ones that attacked us not all) consider us evil so they did what they did and in return we considered them the same.