AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

ok so i fully understand good and evil its chaos and law that get me. i really need some help because i read tempus and feel he isnt CN he seems to honorable to be fully bound by Chaos. Cyric demands order in his clergy yet is CE? Kelemvor makes sense, he seems LN so does Tyr being LG and Sune being CG. can someone please help me out? i think of alignment as someones goals not their personality such as a LG paladin who is mean to evil beings and such or an assassin who acts all nice but does evil things. an artist who frees himself in art yet may carry the monk code. its so confusing! >.< just want some opinions here! i want my alignments to be right yah know ^_^ so thanks for any help i get.

Alignment is a tricky thing.

Especially chaotic, how do you play chaotic without being an idiot and doing just random things?

Lawful, what does that mean. Do you follow ever law? Do you follow just your own?

Neutral. Do you don't care at all? Or do you care? But can you be neutral in that regard then?

I think the alignment system only shows the general tendency for people, and where you actions so far lead you.
Clergy needs to be organized or it won't funtion,, best example the Drow.
An evil mass murderer who acts nice might just trick someone, or he is just not murderin 24 hours a day.

In the end it all comes down to: Play your character how you see it fit. There can always be reasons be found for why you did something, or shouldn't do something, but it all comes down to what -YOU- want. Its your character after all.

Quote:

Clergy needs to be organized or it won't funtion,, best example the Drow.

Lathander! Shaundakul! Selune!

As I think I have understood it, the aligment can be explained somewat this way:

Lawful: 'Tradition bound' would perhaps be the most universal explanation. A Lawfull character follows a certain tradition, code or law, or believes in an organized society. He can very well be a mass murderer or a saint, what matters is that rules governs his moral outlook. Ofcourse, this would make most 'The honour of my tribe is all to me' barbarians lawful, and they are in my oppinion. This also makes sun elves lawful as I see it, obsessed with traditions and the law of the Seldarine as they are. If you characters actions are guided by a set of explicit rules, your character tends towards lawful.

Chaotic: Chaotic on the other hand implies independence and the urge to challenge tradition and law. A rebelling teenager is in a sense chaotic, as would any that refuse tradition and law dictate their lives. Those who live on the fringes of society are usually chaotic. Chaotic does not necesarily mean a militant opposition to law and tradition, a chaotic char might very well dont give a crap and live as he sees fit without activily opposing the organized society.

Neutral: While Law and Chaos aligment are guided by certain principles, i see neutral as more pragmatic, how most people would be. They support a certain degree of order, respect traditions and follow the law, but they do not do so out of priciple or blind obedience. Likewise, they value freedom and independence, but do not see the need to go as far as chaotic characters, nor do they hold the same contempt for the organized society, or feel as restrictd by it as chaotic characters.

Thats how i see the law-chaos axis anyway. Good/evil is easier: Altruistic vs selfcentered, with neutral being something in between.

edit: I would for excample believe that the vast majority of todays humans on earth fall into the Neutral Good category.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Clergy needs to be organized or it won't funtion,, best example the Drow.

Lathander! Shaundakul! Selune!

Details, shush

Last edited by Silent2001 on Wed, Jul 22 2009, 9:48 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I think it could be said there are different degree's of chaos and or law.

For example, and slaadi is going to act completely random and do whatever first comes to it's mind.

A monodrone is going to go through a variety of checks, 'health and safety'checks whatever before it goes through with something. - Basically, they're a bit anally retentive.

A devil is going to abide by the law, and enforce it, but also abuse it to gain more power or whatever it desires.

And a paladin is going to abide by the law, unless said law is deemed unjust, for example a paladin isn't going to go around killing people because the law dictates it.

And then you could have a chaotic person who abides by the law simply because it's the smartest thing to do. And then you have a chaotic person who will break the law purely because it's the most amusing thing to do.

With Cyric I believe it's a matter of the god wanting to consolidate his power, if his priests are murdering each other instead of banites he's going to be significantly weaker, allignment is a big can of worms in D&D in m y experience anyway.

I suppose it's a very, very subjective matter.

That's my two cents.

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

I know it's got quite a bit of internal strife and such, but I thought he was trying to cut down on his homocides?!

He took over Bhaal's little niche of 'violent / ritualistic death' ... even when his priests knock each other of they give him power by doing so (so ong as it's not too higher a percentage >.>) :P

Tempus is honourable, but he's warriors honour, which tends to be chaotic in comparison to the general census of honour. So he is considered CN. So while not killing innocents is considered a warriors honour, following the laws of a city is not. While not fleeing battle without first testing a foe may be considered a warriors honour, turning down a fight on the basis of someone not being evil is not considered a warriors honour. Think army general or solider instead of mercenary. A champion solider may not attack those unarmed, where as a mercenary probably will.

Alignment wise Tempus is CN because he seeks to balance war. So while the "good guys" may outnumber the bad guys dramatically in a battle, Tempus will side with the bad guy's to make the war balanced. Otherwise it would be slaughter, which is Garagos domain. He is as likely to aid those that serve evil as he is to aid those that serve good.

The flipside to war with honour and tactics is the Red Knight. A demi-god sponsored by Tempus. She serves him and holds the portfolio of tactics. She supports Tempus in most of his endevours, and also helps out Torm. Torm and her are regular allies due to the closeness in the alignment chart. The Red Knight is LN, and my character worships her simply because I found her a better match to his personality and moral choices then Tempus.

If you'd like an honourable god that is still a god of war and accepted by the War Knights, do some research on the Red Knight. I can provide some if you can't find any.

Cyricist priests aren't organized.

They backstabb each other more often than they kill any of their enemies.

The only reason Cyric has been successful, lies in that he managed to get a rather big following, causing his numbers, by themselves, to be a threatening force.

But they're not organized for shiz.

The only deities you can expect to live up to their names are the Orcish deities. They're so simple (cept for Shargaas... but nobody likes him)

They all do what Gruumsh says.

They all hate everyone.

Their followers do as they say and kill all humans and elves.

PHB wrote:

"Law" implies honour trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability.
[...]
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment towards legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

Just thought I'd quote that for the OP to give him a vague outline of the two ends of the axis.

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Actually, he stopped doing that long ago.

Well since were all talking about Cyric...

Mr Mago wrote:

Cyricist priests aren't organized.

They backstabb each other more often than they kill any of their enemies.

The only reason Cyric has been successful, lies in that he managed to get a rather big following, causing his numbers, by themselves, to be a threatening force.

But they're not organized for shiz.

They can be organised, if they have a powerful/scary enough leader. Take the twin towers cult of Cyric in Amn, they run pretty much like a secretive army base, conducting banditry and sacrafices etc.

From what I've read about cyricists, they are a very varied mob, like you said with a very large following, I believe the largest of any of the evil aligned human gods. Mostly young, ambitious people, keen to get a slice of Cyric's power and inspired by his turbulent ascension to greater godhood.

I imagine cyricist cells to come in all shapes and sizes... cults of disenfranchised/poor folk who sacrafice each other regularly for percieved misdemeanors against the local high priest... cabals of evil illusionists... violent youth gangs... lawyers... warlords and bandit leaders... lone serial killers... he has a very varied dogma so I think he would appeal to many different kinds of people in faerun.

But his dogma does state that all authority aside from Cyric himself needs to be subverted, which would imply most cells to be pretty wild in terms of heirarchy, and an effective leader would need to be very powerful/deceptive/diplomatic in order to get anything done, and I imagine those guys would be few and far between.

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Actually, he stopped doing that long ago.

Source?

If this helps... Substitute: the needs of the many for Law, the rights of the individual for Chaos, selfishness for Evil, and Generosity for Good.

LG would represent someone who sees to the needs of others before himself, acting for the majority at the expense of an individuals rights.

LE would represent someone who also strives for the greater good, but only insofar as it applies to himself.

CG would represent a person who is independant and strives to help others. The belief that no group of people have a right to tell him what is right.

CE would represent an individual who is both independant and compleatly selfish. He would not want to be under anyones thumb, needing freedom to do as he wants. His world view would be me, me, me.

The neutral alignments would be a trend towards one part of the spectrum and an ambivalance towards the other. For instance LN would strive towards the needs of the many, but be more ambivalent of selfishness in general. As well NE would be very selfish, but on the fence over whether personal freedom or the needs of the many are more important.

Taken literally most characters will "be" all alignments at one time or another. The alignment of your character should be a direction for you strive toward not a rope with which to tie you down. After all, does your own life fit neatly into a box, no matter what the label may be?

I'm inclined to disagree with that, especially LE working for 'the greater good'.

My own beliefs are a tad fuzzy for me to appropriately word as I am, though.

My take:

LG: Good will bound to honour, codes and systems of society.
NG: Just plain old good will trough "OMG I LOVE EVERYTHING" without discrimination.
CG: Good will trough individual acts rather than social structures.
LN: Order order order, who cares about good will or my personal benefit.
TN: I do my job properly and the rest of the world can behave as they will, or BALANCE BALANCE omg universe is in BALANCE.
CN: I d00 eet for teh lulz.
LE: The system exists so I can abuse it for my own benefit... And maybe I like a bit of honour in seeking my own well being.
NE: Cares only for his own well being, the system is useless.
CE: I killz y00 for teh lulz.

TormakSaber wrote:

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Actually, he stopped doing that long ago.

Source?

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cyric

"His church is often beset by internal feuds and backstabbing, but this conflict has decreased in recent years as Cyric has gained better control of himself and has consolidated the churches of the deities whose portfolios he took over."

Their references are on the bottom of that page, as well.

I still stick with:

Chaotic: sod the rules! The end justifies the means
Lawful: The rules are unbreakable. The end never justifies the means

What that end is varies a lot depending on your character and/or their gods, but in general, I reckon the overall aim is:

Good: good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people.
Evil: good things *will* happen to me, and woe betide the bunnyrabbits if they're in the way.

Neutral, in my take, would be Lawful Good as long as that made no difference to them. If the rules need broken or some nuns need robbed to make ends meet, well, that's a shame, but it's a hard world and you need to look out for number 1.

I think it's the attempt at clear alignment definitions fails before it even begins.

One alignment can mean so many different things that it's pointless to come up with a "general" description. The Lawfulness of the Monk has little to do with the Lawfulness of the Paladin has little to do with the Lawfulness or a bank clerk. The Chaos of the Barbarian has little to do with the Chaos of the Bard has little to do with the Chaos of the Cyricist. The same words have many meanings that may be completely unrelated. One PC can be extremely lawful in the social sense, but lack any focus or self-discipline (hence: chaotic in a psychological sense), while another might care nothing for social conventions such as law and honour, but be consistently guided by an unerring inner moral compass. Both characters could be either Lawful or Chaotic, and they're complete opposites of eachother.

Aye, the alignments are big, fluffy things with ill-defined and overlapping boundaries.

Yurell wrote:

I'm inclined to disagree with that, especially LE working for 'the greater good'.

The greater good being a representation of the majority. In this case using the majority to achieve what you personally want, more power. The key here is the combination of selfishness and the needs of the many at the expense of the one, the control of large groups of people to achieve your own ends. For instance, giving speeches to incite a given population against another. As a RL example, Hitler speaking out against Jews, the movement was not for the betterment of the people but he succeded in getting a large group of people to give him what he wanted, ultimate power.

If you think about it most politics fall in to the LE alignment range, as they are interested in propagating their own power through the use of laws and public sentiment. Scary isn't it...

IronAngel wrote:

I think it's the attempt at clear alignment definitions fails before it even begins.

One alignment can mean so many different things that it's pointless to come up with a "general" description.

this.

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Actually, he stopped doing that long ago.

Source?

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cyric

"His church is often beset by internal feuds and backstabbing, but this conflict has decreased in recent years as Cyric has gained better control of himself and has consolidated the churches of the deities whose portfolios he took over."

Their references are on the bottom of that page, as well.

See, I stop reading that page at the very beginning...

Quote:

Cyric (pronounced SEER-ick [3]), whose titles include The Lord of Three Crowns, The Mad God, and The Prince of Lies, is monomaniacal deity of strife and lies with an immense following, though ever since he murdered Mystra and caused the Spellplague his faith has diminished somewhat.[4]

4ed stuff.

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Hilariously!

To my experience, same alignment with different characters can mean something totally different. lets take a few examples.

Lawful neutral 1: I'm the guard captain of this section of the large city of waterdeep, I make sure that everything goes according to law, everyone is justified to have a fair trial, but what the judge says, is final. (the lawholder)

Lawful Neutral 2: I'm a dwarven mercenary, what pays me well, I serve well. A deal is a deal, and I don't want any more details than I really have to have. If I need to, I will escape the jail, becouse they made the deal without my permission... (all around mercenary)

Lawful evil 1: I'm a devil from the nine hells, and I really like to make bargains with the wizards and humans that are easily lured to make my bidding. My plans are so complicated that your human mind cannot ever comprehend it. But be certain... you will be part of it, and you will not like it. (the ultimate essence of lawful evil)

Lawful evil 2: *yawn* well, I'm the prince cornelius, who has captured, secretly of course, my older brother Christian. Christian is the rightful ruler of the throne, but due to his sudden "disappearance" I had to take over, just to make sure everything goes right... oh yes... I will double the taxes and rip off everything the people has to offer. of course i prefer nobody gets killed, but mainly I don't want to be a killer... so I employ people to do it for me! (the tyrann)

Chaotic evil 1: I'm the villain who betrays the bargains to my own liking. I still make my plans and I am fairly intelligent, but deals and law? phew! did I mention I enjoy torture? I usually work alone, but few exceptions come now and then. call me 1-800-WILL-SACRIFICE-YOU-TO-DEMONS *winks* (demon worshiper)

Chaotic evil 2: Me and my clan will serve garagos well! we will bathe in the blood of our enemies! kill, kill, KILLL!!!!!!! *rips enemys throat off with his teeth* (the evil barbarian clan)

wow, what a response, sorry for waiting so long but i did read it all. ^_^

ok, so i said i get Good and Evil its mostly Law and Chaos and how they match up with deities.

Cyric, CE, yet his dogma is alsmot the exact same as Banes! order, structure, obey me. so why would a chaotic person choose cyric over bane? i understand that cyric himself is CE but he sounds like he wants LE followers.

i like your points of views on tempus but i know of good and evil but ho is he Chaotic yet sooooo VERY honorable, he should be True neutral? correct? no full on chaotic person is going to have more than 10 different laws, oaths, and or honors.

TeroSNS and IronAngel i found the two of your descriptions most informative and interesting so thank you and thank all of you.

if alignment is simply made up by opinions, if one can justify their actions as Lawful and the other char justify's the same actions as Chaotic such as the freedom and creativity of art as described in the players handbook as chaotic could be interpreted as Lawful if you incorporated the time, effort, and discipline of it.

By some opinions ive found, how can any chaotic char even serve a god without being Lawful.

i understand that people sway all kinds of directions yet it seems someone who is lawful to their god, who obeys their god over all else and serves that god no matter what, is stuck down for not being in alliance with the gods chaotic behavior, as if theyre being taught to go against their own god?

if all this really comes down to is opinion how come we have to strive for alignment changes? (not that i want one) but how can that even make sense if one is jurisdicted by their own opinion. peoples alignments can be detected, their alignment of chaos and law used against them in spell like ways or monk abilities. Yet, its decided upon by self opinion rather than a certain motion. A wizard isnt allowed to have an opinion on whether he is a wizard or not, sure he can, but hes still a wizard and therefore if there was a spell that killed wizards he would die from it even if he called himself a Dark Magi or Kyromancer, he is still a wizard. so there most be some definite determination of what alignmetn is otherwise it makes no sense and therefore becomes irrelevant since it can be decided upon by random. so what is Law and Chaos? im guessing there is no jurisdiction and somewhere along the way somebody screwed up on the whole system, cause it made sense to me and then i read how alignment effects every little part of your personality and hobbies rather than your goals, and initiative in life, how you react to certain things such as a mean paladin would not be good or if he were very creative he would not be lawful. its jacked up im pretty sure *Shrug*

Bravo21 wrote:

Yurell wrote:

I'm inclined to disagree with that, especially LE working for 'the greater good'.

The greater good being a representation of the majority. In this case using the majority to achieve what you personally want, more power. The key here is the combination of selfishness and the needs of the many at the expense of the one, the control of large groups of people to achieve your own ends. For instance, giving speeches to incite a given population against another. As a RL example, Hitler speaking out against Jews, the movement was not for the betterment of the people but he succeded in getting a large group of people to give him what he wanted, ultimate power.

If you think about it most politics fall in to the LE alignment range, as they are interested in propagating their own power through the use of laws and public sentiment. Scary isn't it...

There's a big difference between 'for the greater good' and 'twisting the laws for your own selfish gain'. One can be LE and working for the betterment of your people, but most examples consist of rich, bloated tyrants who are in it for themselves.
As for most politicians being LE I disagree completely - the only thing that made Hitler LE was his treatment of various groups (and I am assuming we can all agree that his treatment of the Jews, gays, homosexuals, gypsies etc. was evil). I'd put most politicians as LN, whilst others tend towards LG (they're genuinely doing what they are doing for the benefit of the community i.e. your 'greater good') or TN (many do like to see how far they can get away with things).

And this post is just evidence on how much things rest on personal opinion when it comes to alignment - they are so loosely defined that Bravo's arguments are just as correct as my own, even though we disagree.
I'd suggest just reading the PHB and reaching your own conclusions from tere, since you'll be able to justify just about anything.

Yurell wrote:

And this post is just evidence on how much things rest on personal opinion when it comes to alignment

Basically, the only thing that comes out of this topic is a view into how other people see alignments, maybe helping you form your own decision. At the end of the day we really just need to agree to disagree since as it has already been stated, alignments are such horribly vague things it's generally quite difficult to claim somebody is 'playing their alignment wrong', and even then if you consider playing your character as a real person everybody is going to do something good or evil in their lives at some stage.

I generally think that if you can justify it to yourself, it's probably fair game, so long as you can repeat aid justification to others.
They don't have to accept it, though

I like 4.0's alignment system. It's a step in the right direction.

Lawful Good
Good
Neutral
Evil
Chaotic Evil

Better one would have been an axis system where you mark on a gradient where your characters alignment is. One axe is Evil - Good. The other is Lawful - Chaotic. The middle is pure neutral.

-----------------------------Lawful
--------------------------------|
---------------------x---------'|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
Good --------------------Neutral--------------------Evil
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
--------------------------------|
----------------------------Chaotic

I hate 4.0's alignment system - the thing I loved about D&D biaxial table was the fat it wasn't linear.
Although I do agree with you that a plane instead of a table would have been good, although I think the table was that, just with the boundaries actually marked.

Yurell wrote:

I hate 4.0's alignment system - the thing I loved about D&D biaxial table was the fat it wasn't linear.
Although I do agree with you that a plane instead of a table would have been good, although I think the table was that, just with the boundaries actually marked.

Yep.

-Dark Faith- wrote:

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Paladin Vurk Amuu wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Cyric actually pits his own priests against each other a lot. Hilariously enough.

Actually, he stopped doing that long ago.

Source?

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cyric

"His church is often beset by internal feuds and backstabbing, but this conflict has decreased in recent years as Cyric has gained better control of himself and has consolidated the churches of the deities whose portfolios he took over."

Their references are on the bottom of that page, as well.

See, I stop reading that page at the very beginning...

Quote:

Cyric (pronounced SEER-ick [3]), whose titles include The Lord of Three Crowns, The Mad God, and The Prince of Lies, is monomaniacal deity of strife and lies with an immense following, though ever since he murdered Mystra and caused the Spellplague his faith has diminished somewhat.[4]

4ed stuff.

Fine, heres another way to put it.

http://www.nj-pbem.com/data/Gods/humangods/Cyric.htm

This is from 2nd edition.

"Cyric (SEER-ick) is a god born of the events of the Time of Troubles. He gained the followers and portfolios of many old evil gods, and fights to retain them. His power base is immense, and he is one of the three greater powers of evil in Faerûn. The destruction of Zhentil Keep, along with many of the rest of the woes of Faerûn, may be laid at his feet. In an attempt to further enhance his own power, Cyric created the Cyrinishad, a book that is enchanted to bind the reader slavishly to believing that Cyric is the most important being in the universe, exceeding all others. Cyric made the serious error of reading his own book and is now mad, believing that he himself is the center of the universe and everything that occurs is by his direct intervention. "

Now, from "Lords of Darkness" which is a 3,5 edition book about all the greatest villains in the Forgotten Realms setting, page 7:

"The church of Cyric is cellular in structure, with different groups of Cyricists keeping their location and agenda secret and often even working against each other. These habits stem from the Dark Sun's former period of madness, when he would give conflicting information to different high priests, causing them to turn their temples against each other. Cyric has stopped doing this overtly, but his chaotic nature and the fact that he embodies lying and intrigue attracts people of similar character who regularly betray their allies, which makes eliminating the problem difficult."

Its right there, black on white. Cyric considers his former habit a problem and attempts to eliminate it since he is no longer mad.

I do not make statements I am not ready to prove.

You point out a constant problem for PWs, Gexx: we have hundreds of players over a dozen DMs, all with their own opinions on what the alignments mean. It is clear they're very much up to interpretation, and quite subjective. Yet, in the game world, there's also an objective dimension to them: magic will detect your alignment, and smite you accordingly. So if you can decide your own alignment by justifying it convincingly enough, couldn't you protect yourself from that magic with a quick mind game?

I guess that's where it boils down to DM judgement. We can't and don't want to definte the exact contents and boundaries of any alignment, and so we don't lightly tell you how to play your PC. At some point, your interpretation might differ so wildly from the common sense we have that we must decide it's "crossing the line" and you're not the alignment you claim to be. So yeah, the decision is completely arbitrary, and there's no objective definition of what the alignments are. That's good, because it gives you a lot of freedom to express your own ideas, but the downside is that people will disagree and you can never be sure whether a DM thinks you're out of line. That's just how it goes, and it hasn't caused much practical problems over the years.

Quote:

Its right there, black on white. Cyric considers his former habit a problem and attempts to eliminate it since he is no longer mad.

That's lame@ Cyric was better when he was crazy.

Yeah. Now he's just dead weight, the most pointless of evil gods.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Its right there, black on white. Cyric considers his former habit a problem and attempts to eliminate it since he is no longer mad.

That's lame@ Cyric was better when he was crazy.

At least I am no longer a liar.

Besides, Cyric still pits allies against eachother, just not his -own- allies.

And wasn't he sealed away in 4th edition so he's like totally a nonfactor!

My cyric will always be a batshit insane motherfucking shiving and shanking his way to victory, TYVM.

EDIT: I never called you a liar, bro. I just asked for source.

TormakSaber wrote:

And wasn't he sealed away in 4th edition so he's like totally a nonfactor!

My cyric will always be a (censored) insane (censored) shiving and shanking his way to victory, TYVM.

EDIT: I never called you a liar, bro. I just asked for source.

But he is more competent now, might actually do some damage.

Besides, he just went from "MUAHAHA! Im going to kill this man who is zealously dedicated to making me the only god in the world because I FEEL like doing it!" to "I am going to kill this village of innocent people who do not pay me lip service because then people will fear me much more, giving me more power AND I feel like doing it."

To the Edit: Yeah I know, but I felt like one.

TormakSaber wrote:

And wasn't he sealed away in 4th edition so he's like totally a nonfactor!

My cyric will always be a (censored) insane (censored) shiving and shanking his way to victory, TYVM. :(

EDIT: I never called you a liar, bro. I just asked for source.

At the rate he was knocking off gods, he was easily the best, and certainly the most amusing.
Stupid fourth ed.

I hate 4th edition.

Everything.

From the races to the alignment system.

I havnt found a single redeeming quality yet.

Cyric is incredibly interesting and by far one of the deities I find most facinating. You can also find the bit about him being cured of his madness in Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad. But don't worry, he is still one nasty bugger who doesn't care overly much for his own. Yet he has probably on some level realised he needs them, lots of them.

And in fourth he at least takes Mystra down.

k thanks ironangel, wasnt trying to point out the faults of anyone, gotta work with what yah got right? just wondering and all, alignmetn was fine for me until i read some of the gods dogmas and then saw their alignments xD but yeah, thank you all, also i agree with tormak, cyric is so much cooler being a retard who made himself insane LOL Cyric ftw!

Maias227 wrote:

Cyric is incredibly interesting and by far one of the deities I find most facinating. You can also find the bit about him being cured of his madness in Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad. But don't worry, he is still one nasty bugger who doesn't care overly much for his own. Yet he has probably on some level realised he needs them, lots of them.

And in fourth he at least takes Mystra down.

You mean midnight :lol:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Maias227 wrote:

Cyric is incredibly interesting and by far one of the deities I find most facinating. You can also find the bit about him being cured of his madness in Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad. But don't worry, he is still one nasty bugger who doesn't care overly much for his own. Yet he has probably on some level realised he needs them, lots of them.

And in fourth he at least takes Mystra down.

You mean midnight :lol:

Mystryl, Mystra, Midnight .. who cares about specifics?

Yurell wrote:

Mystryl, Mystra, Midnight .. who cares about specifics?

Ed?

Alignment Opinions

Who is online