>Not exactly what I meant. As a good-aligned rager, you can
>convince yourself that magic is evil (Red Aura), those who
>wield it are evil (Red Aura), and therefore you are completely
>justified in killing magic users regardless of alignment.
>Just because your character believes this is an
>adequate justification does not make it so.

I absolutely, positively agree with this statement. The good-aligned rager who justifies his killing of good-aligned mages with the argument that "they're evil" is not being honest with himself, and has convinced himself of these mages' evilness in clear opposition to the truth. The average goodie mage doesn't act evil. So I would consider it highly questionable for a goodie rager to regard them as such. But you don't have to regard mages as "evil" to be compelled to kill them.

>My whole point on this thread is that if your character does
>evil things, they are not good, regardless of whatever mental
>gymnastics they do to justify it. An example: you could
>easily write a role for a storm giant that said, in essence,
>'Orphans are the root of all evil in this world because they
>will eventually rise up and kill everyone that has never
>donated to the orphanage.'

The difference here is that it's not reasonable to believe that all orphans would act in that way, or even some significant number. Given that unreasonability, the person who believes this is either 1) delusional, or 2) really doesn't believe it, and is just using it as an excuse to kill orphans. The other issue is that this storm giant is killing all orphans, including some who may not grow up to kill non-donors. That's questionable, but it doesn't apply to goodie ragers since they target willfull mages who are currently engaging in dangerous, destructive activity.

If it's sufficiently "reasonable" for a goodie rager to believe that goodie mages are highly dangerous and destructive, then his altruistic, compassionate, unselfish nature (i.e. his gold-aura-ness) should compel him to take appropriate action, which may involve destroying such goodie mages. That doesn't mean he thinks they're evil, just that they're ignorant as to the true nature of their craft, dangerous, and a threat to all Therans.

>Personally, if my goodie character really "believed" the
>Rager worldview then I would feel compelled to kill
>goodie mages should they refuse to be purged of their magic.
>Imho it would be questionable goodie role-play not
>to.
>
>That's fine. But those would be the actions of a
>neutral-aligned individual, not a good-aligned individual.

Really? Sure sounds like the actions of a good-aligned individual to me, since they're motivated by altruism, self-sacrifice, compassion, etc. Not traits associated with a neutral. I'd imagine that your average neutral individual, when confronted with the information that magic was forbidden and dangerous, might just say, "Oh well, that's somebody else's problem." Or maybe, "Well, if the world's going to hell in a handbasket, I might as well enjoy myself in the meantime." They wouldn't be compelled by their altruistic nature to commit violence against mages who, deep down, they really don't want to hurt. (Because they view killing goodies to be a bad, bad thing.)

>In other words, if your character thinks that
>mages will eventually destroy the world through their
>manipulation of magic, you have to ask yourself if this is a
>goal that a good-aligned mage would work towards - one that
>would involve the wholesale slaughter of a lot of innocents?

Agree 100%. Clearly, some mages (Scions) have as their stated goal the destruction of the world. They would obviously take priority over some random elf. The goodie rager assume that the elf isn't aware that his magic is having a negative effect on the world. He knows elves are categorically "good", and this is never a goal that an elf would work towards. But, it is nevertheless true (in his mind) that the elf's magic is bringing Thera that much closer to destruction, whether the elf realizes it or not.