Janis Papanagnou
2023-04-11 10:17:26 UTC
I wonder whether _canceling_ is considered an *extraordinary* alignment
abuse in EvilHack?
My current record of "abusive actions":
- (deliberately) ate a floating eye as a Monk => slightly abused
- canceled a peaceful by accident, killed it => (moderately/seriously)?
- canceled a peaceful by accident, killed it => severely abused
With these _three_ abuses I got in the abuse-alignment range of 30..49,
*irreversibly*. (Doesn't make it better if canceling and killing the
hostile monster are technically considered as two abuses.) - Very very
badly balanced, IMO.
Or is it also penalized if canceling a hostile monster? - In that case
(although I wouldn't understand the rationale behind such a design) my
Monk would have 2 or 3 more "dirty deeds" done.
Practically that means that my Monk can now kill and eat what he likes,
it cannot really get much worse for practical purposes?
Janis
abuse in EvilHack?
My current record of "abusive actions":
- (deliberately) ate a floating eye as a Monk => slightly abused
- canceled a peaceful by accident, killed it => (moderately/seriously)?
- canceled a peaceful by accident, killed it => severely abused
With these _three_ abuses I got in the abuse-alignment range of 30..49,
*irreversibly*. (Doesn't make it better if canceling and killing the
hostile monster are technically considered as two abuses.) - Very very
badly balanced, IMO.
Or is it also penalized if canceling a hostile monster? - In that case
(although I wouldn't understand the rationale behind such a design) my
Monk would have 2 or 3 more "dirty deeds" done.
Practically that means that my Monk can now kill and eat what he likes,
it cannot really get much worse for practical purposes?
Janis