>I don't think the giants acts are inherently evil if he sees
>almost everyone as a threat to his wilds, and acts on it.

>If your role amounts to something similar to "I will kill almost >everyone, all the time", I will turn you evil.

I was thinking more along the lines of a specific role for a specific foe. The biggest threat to the wilds in this giants eyes would be the fort and palace, with good reason to him

>Why
>should he let ANYONE with the stink of civilization live?
>Unless you're a serious friend to the wilds, I should be able
>to kill you without remorse.

>Sure, but you're evil.

>"I'm evil, but I don't think of myself as evil and have what I >consider to be good reasons for all the evil things I do, even though >I'm actually evil" describes most of my evil characters, >incidentally.

This is a fair assessment of how evil chars should see themselves, sure. Most of mine play out this way.

>A harbinger should have a reason, but if the role was written
>right, I would be super upset and dissapointed if I got turned
>evil for what could actually be a really well done role.

>Okay, I'm telling you right now to not write that role and play that >character if you don't want to be upset and disappointed.

If I play a battlerager that kills fortress mages, am I still in risk of being turned evil? I could argue that GENOCIDE of all mages, or the fortress encouraging GENOCIDE of all drow and duergar, are inherently evil thoughts in themselves. In my eyes, the fortress is a lot like the Nazi party. They don't think they are in the wrong. They have this idea of a perfect world and they are slaughtering anything that doesn't fit into that mold. Forcing their beliefs of purity on others that don't believe the same thing. I know this is a game and all, but say whatever you want. That's ####ing evil, regardless of how the fortress views themselves So i'm just saying, maybe making that cloud giant evil for his actions is a bit rash, since basically everything in CF is open to interpretation.

>You didn't turn fjodir neutral or good
>for hunting basically all evils. His acts were inherently
>good, so why the difference here?

>I don't think you really understand how the alignment system works. >Killing evil doesn't make you good, but killing good can make you >evil. The two alignment are opposites but they're not mirror images.

>For the record, Fjodir is an immensely more complicated character >than you're giving him credit for. Even as much as his concept was to >focus on evil he had moments of weakness and frequently did >unambiguously evil things. These weren't failings in his roleplay but >expressions of it.

This is fair, I was just trying to find an example to use. My fortress nazi example works fine. I actually had quite a few conversations with Fjodirs player about the choices he made, so I can see why he did what he did.

It's a good argument in my eyes. I'm sure people can argue both ways for it. Like I said though, it's your game at the end of the day, and if you want the mechanics done a certain way, that's how it should be. Just my own opinion on the outlander/fortress thing and how I view it is all.