| |
|
#34, "Pets"
|
I remember way back when entropy used to frown upon people using pets. Something about they didn't allow free will. I forget really. Whatever the reason, I never really agreed with that especially if it was a chaotic evil person. Wouldn't a chaotic evil person bully others around? If he could have a slave or two, I think they would. I remember when there was charm, entropty would use it all the time, but they would also kill my newbie characters if they saw me with a mercenary. It was a long time ago, was just wondering if that was still the case? If so, why exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Pico | Tue 10-Apr-01 09:18 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
586 posts
|   |
|
#35, "RE: Pets"
In response to Reply #0
|
I don't recall this ever being an explicit or implicit "policy" for Entropy. You're correct that being a master of another (of anything, really) is not inherently Chaotic (thus when Pico has "Slaves" he does so for the irony of the title since he lets them be afterward), but I choose to judge the (un)Chaos in the relationship that the character has with the pet, rather than the ownership itself. Why do you have the pet? Do you have intended purposes for the pet? How does your outlook on Chaos reflect itself on buying/binding/owning the pet? I think you're right that a chaotic evil person would be more likely to have a pet (than a chaotic good, for instance), but this has less to do with the morality of the person and more with how the two alignments choose to see the net effect of Chaos on people and the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend 
