Am I evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
So you think there should be rules for war? But you have been advocating that rules go out the window for war. You can't play both sides.

Whether or not there should be is beside the point. We have agreed to a set of rules for war and therefore must abide by them.


LilithsThrall wrote:

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Hence, my specification of the general popular ideal personification of Jesus and not the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Once again, reading is awesome!


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.

Split personality disorder ;)


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Whether or not there should be is beside the point. We have agreed to a set of rules for war and therefore must abide by them.

And why were those rules set?

Dark Archive RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.

Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Whether or not there should be is beside the point. We have agreed to a set of rules for war and therefore must abide by them.
And why were those rules set?

Indiscriminate weapons, torture, etc.


James Thomas wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.
Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.

Would it have been less blasphemous if he had quoted the chapers/verses he was referring to?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Indiscriminate weapons, torture, etc.

I didn't ask WHAT the rules were, I asked WHY there were instituted.


That's hilarious, to calvin the only way to be good is being a vegetarian also aparently... his games must be very funny to watch.

Liberty's Edge

James Thomas wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.
Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.

Not a single thing i said is false if you believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, and if not, then you can't blaspheme what isn't real.


LilithsThrall wrote:
James Thomas wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.
Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.
Would it have been less blasphemous if he had quoted the chapers/verses he was referring to?

Please accept my apology. If you are willing to give other religions (and atheism) all the legal status of your own religion, then it is impolite for me to point to where God had a man sacrifice his daughter to him or where God commanded thousands killed for not accepting a census, etc.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Indiscriminate weapons, torture, etc.
I didn't ask WHAT the rules were, I asked WHY there were instituted.

That is why they were instituted. The lingering effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons was affecting not only non-combatants during the war, but more importantly, non-combatants after the war (ie.-land mines, chem warfare).


Xum wrote:
That's hilarious, to calvin the only way to be good is being a vegetarian also aparently...

Pretty much

Quote:
his games must be very funny to watch.

I wouldn't know. I don't watch people play RPGs. That sounds pathetic.

Plus, I find games with evil PCs much more fun. Why do you HAVE TO play a good PC? What is so much more fun about being good? I would think the opposite is true. Sin is fun.


OK!!! Mr. Fishy is here...

If you kill 60(?) innocent bystanders and then justify the carnage,
You might be Evil.

If you watch puppies burn, you might be evil.

If you enjoy the suffering of others, you might be evil. Or Mr. Fishy's Wife.

If you listen the the villians rant and SEE his point, you might be evil.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

LilithsThrall wrote:
James Thomas wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.
Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.
Would it have been less blasphemous if he had quoted the chapers/verses he was referring to?

Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
That is why they were instituted.

No, that is not why, that is what. Try again.

Quote:
The lingering effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons was affecting not only non-combatants during the war, but more importantly, non-combatants after the war (ie.-land mines, chem warfare).

So, why is that a problem? Just collateral damage, right? Why are certain rules of war there and not others?

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
That is why they were instituted.

No, that is not why, that is what. Try again.

Quote:
The lingering effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons was affecting not only non-combatants during the war, but more importantly, non-combatants after the war (ie.-land mines, chem warfare).
So, why is that a problem? Just collateral damage, right? Why are certain rules of war there and not others?

I didn't make the rules, I just follow them.


James Thomas wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
James Thomas wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Xum wrote:
Hahahaha, so your entire argument on being good is "What would Jesus do?" That's funny, haha. Thanks for the laugh.

What would Jesus do?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Maybe it's a plastic sword made by playskool?

Let's not forget that his father (who is also him?) is a genocidal maniac that likes to kill babies and make people sacrifice their children.
Don't blaspheme God. That IS evil.
Would it have been less blasphemous if he had quoted the chapers/verses he was referring to?
Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.

You are serious, aren't you?

Well, religion is not the point here, so let's put this one to rest, shall we?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
I didn't make the rules, I just follow them.

Good little soldier. Perhaps when you learn to actually think for yourself, you can contribute to the conversation.

Liberty's Edge

James Thomas wrote:
Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.

While my comments may have been snarky, nothing I have said has been false. How you take them is up to you.


James Thomas wrote:
Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.

Look, I apologized for my earlier comment. Even though I don't share your religion, it was rude of me to post that.

But to threaten me by pointing out that the flying spaghetti monster (ie. "He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say") will take offense, that's just over the line. I carry Parmessian and talk like a pirate just like every other virtuous person. His noodley appendage and meatbally goodness extend to me even though I do make the occasional mistake.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
I didn't make the rules, I just follow them.
Good little soldier. Perhaps when you learn to actually think for yourself, you can contribute to the conversation.

Collateral damage during a war is someting that has to be accepted but at the same time kept to a minimum. Collateral damage after the fact is unacceptable. - my 2cp


LilithsThrall wrote:
James Thomas wrote:
Ascribing wickedness and injustice to God is a terrible blasphamous thing to say and is deeply offensive to Him and to those who know and love Him. I am telling you this so you will be careful what you say. Everything we say and do will be held to account. Not just by the message board administrators, but by He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say.

Look, I apologized for my earlier comment. Even though I don't share your religion, it was rude of me to post that.

But to threaten me by pointing out that the flying spaghetti monster (ie. "He who will hold each of us accountable for all we do and say") will take offense, that's just over the line. I carry Parmessian and talk like a pirate just like every other virtuous person. His noodley appendage and meatbally goodness extend to me even though I do make the occasional mistake.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, now THAT is snarky.

Leave the religious stuff alone dude, that is something not worth of argument.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:

A devil, OTOH, will ALWAYS surrender and continue to plot evil and work malice.

Does the paladin, knowing the devil is only surrendering so it can work it's mischief from within, accept the surrender? You can detect evil, but not evil INTENT...

At least, not anymore.

If the devil surrenders and the paladin kills him anyway, then it is an evil act that requires serious atonement.

There is a reason the superior legions of good do not rush the lower planes and erase evil from the multiverse. Because they would all fall and become evil if they did. Hence, to destroy evil you need to become evil.

Um no the paladin ought to be rewarded for casting a malign spirit from the prime material. Devils and Demons represent an evil beyond redemption.

Now why the celestials do not invade the lower planes? Well the celestials must allow mortals to make their choice between good and evil. So long as mortals sin cause destruction and death, things like devils, demons and daemons will exist.


WHAT? Good is as good does. Mr. Fishy once had a Imp trapped in a jar for two hundred years. Upon his release the party paladin reached for his weapon.

The Imp looked the paladin in the Eye and said, "I'll admit I'm evil but been in that jar for two hundred years so I haven't done any evil in that time...So went was the last time you did anything good?"


Look can we leave religion and politics out of this. There are plenty of off topic threads for that kind of discussion. The opener asked for an opinion on his PC not the analysis of World politics and Religions.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

WHAT? Good is as good does. Mr. Fishy once had a Imp trapped in a jar for two hundred years. Upon his release the party paladin reached for his weapon.

The Imp looked the paladin in the Eye and said, "I'll admit I'm evil but been in that jar for two hundred years so I haven't done any evil in that time...So went was the last time you did anything good?"

The paladin replied last week, when I knocked up the bakers wife

Liberty's Edge

Frostflame wrote:
Look can we leave religion and politics out of this. There are plenty of off topic threads for that kind of discussion. The opener asked for an opinion on his PC not the analysis of World politics and Religions.

Don't all alignment discussions break down into discussions of religion and politics?


Putting a bun in another man's oven is not good.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Collateral damage after the fact is unacceptable. - my 2cp

Why?


Mr.Fishy wrote:
Putting a bun in another man's oven is not good.

But if the baker cant put the bun into the oven


Frostflame wrote:
Um no the paladin ought to be rewarded for casting a malign spirit from the prime material.

Never said it was the prime plane

Quote:
Devils and Demons represent an evil beyond redemption.

That is untrue. Even alignments that say "always X" are not 100%. At least not in 3.5, but even if that is the case, a good person would still not murder an evil person.

Quote:
Now why the celestials do not invade the lower planes? Well the celestials must allow mortals to make their choice between good and evil. So long as mortals sin cause destruction and death, things like devils, demons and daemons will exist.

Almost, but don't forget, that both mortals AND immortals can cause "destruction and death". If the celestial armies pursued the evil hordes to the lower planes to cause "destruction and death" then they would fall and become evil. If an angle murders a devil, he falls. Such is the trap of evil.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Frostflame wrote:
Look can we leave religion and politics out of this. There are plenty of off topic threads for that kind of discussion. The opener asked for an opinion on his PC not the analysis of World politics and Religions.
Don't all alignment discussions break down into discussions of religion and politics?

They really shouldn't.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Frostflame wrote:
Um no the paladin ought to be rewarded for casting a malign spirit from the prime material.

Never said it was the prime plane

Quote:
Devils and Demons represent an evil beyond redemption.

That is untrue. Even alignments that say "always X" are not 100%. At least not in 3.5, but even if that is the case, a good person would still not murder an evil person.

Quote:
Now why the celestials do not invade the lower planes? Well the celestials must allow mortals to make their choice between good and evil. So long as mortals sin cause destruction and death, things like devils, demons and daemons will exist.
Almost, but don't forget, that both mortals AND immortals can cause "destruction and death". If the celestial armies pursued the evil hordes to the lower planes to cause "destruction and death" then they would fall and become evil. If an angle murders a devil, he falls. Such is the trap of evil.

Your argument of an Angel murdering a fiend is flawed. The thought of murder and thus sin would not enter and angels thought or heart. They are representations of good. They would though challenge such fiend and honorably fight them. And a daemon well since they devour mortal life and wish to end all it is no sin for any celestial or mortal to kill one.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Collateral damage after the fact is unacceptable. - my 2cp
Why?

Civilian casualties DURING a war is something that cannot be avoided and is very regrettable; having them occur outside of the war is something that should never happen.

EDIT: just realized i repeated myself. it's been a long day. Basically using weapons that have such a lasting impact is irresponsible because there is no way that two countries are going to be at war forever.


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Almost, but don't forget, that both mortals AND immortals can cause "destruction and death". If the celestial armies pursued the evil hordes to the lower planes to cause "destruction and death" then they would fall and become evil. If an angle murders a devil, he falls. Such is the trap of evil.

That's really not the reason they don't do it.

You REALLY should read Planescape and the book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness.


Frostflame wrote:
Your argument of an Angel murdering a fiend is flawed.

Actually, it is not flawed, you just fail at reading comprehension, because your entire response is merely restating exactly what I said.

Quote:
The thought of murder and thus sin would not enter and angels thought or heart. They are representations of good. They would though challenge such fiend and honorably fight them.

Which is exactly what I said in regards that to destroy evil you must be evil yourself, which an angel is not, thus evil cannot be destroyed. And even if the angel some how managed to overcome their innate sense of righteousness and murder the devil/demon, then that would be an act of evil and they would fall and become evil, hence evil lives on.

Glad we agree on that.


I am heavily tempted not to interject because I am never going to alter any ones long held convictions. Yahoo futility!

Part of the reason why alignment is such a messy topic to discuss is that it is dimension extend far beyond the game. Good and evil are something we all experience and observe and have a concept related as to how we live our lives. Most people tend to believe themselves good. Instead of reflection on our behaviours and connecting with the perspective of the individuals they have harmed (whether the 60 carnival goers, the hijacked plane passengers, the inhabitants of Hiroshima etc) the create an elaborate web work of rationalizations to cut those they have harmed or call the enemy from the rest of humanity where it becomes justifiable to do "necessary" evils as several of the comments have pointed out.

What people making such judgements don't realize is that is the same sort of logic which the BBG/terrorist/conquerors themselves us.

For example if it was Imperial japan dropping an atomic bomb on Los Angeles, New York or else where to avoid a costly land invasion would not Xpltvdeleted angurment not hold water for them as well? Or for that matter terriorist blowing themselves up along with passers by to kill their military opponent, as there opponent placed themselves admidst throng.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mr.Fishy wrote:
OK!!! Mr. Fishy is here...

ALL IS LOST! FLEE, FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES! SACRIFICE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!

:)

Xum wrote:
You REALLY should read the book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness.

*eyetwitch* IC or OOC?


Xum wrote:

That's really not the reason they don't do it.

You REALLY should read Planescape and the book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness.

Don't need to read them. Already know the answer. Unless you feel the need to add something to the discussion.

Merely disagree means nothing.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Civilian casualties DURING a war is something that cannot be avoided and is very regrettable; having them occur outside of the war is something that should never happen

Both are evil actions.

I don't care if they're "unavoidable" and "regrettable." It's still an evil action.

That's what so many of you aren't grasping - it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing an evil action are. IT'S STILL AN EVIL ACTION.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:
OK!!! Mr. Fishy is here...

ALL IS LOST! FLEE, FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES! SACRIFICE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!

:)

Xum wrote:
You REALLY should read the book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness.
*eyetwitch* IC or OOC?

I gotta say I thought the same thing. :) But I do like Mr. Fishy, fun Fish.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Basically using weapons that have such a lasting impact is irresponsible because there is no way that two countries are going to be at war forever.

Killing people with ANY weapon has a lasting impact. Killing 1000 civilians in a town has a lasting impact for decades if not centuries after no matter if you kill them with a bomb or a gun.

Also, why is torture illegal? That does not even involve innocents necessarily.

Plus, perhaps you should brush up on your world history. The same countries that were going to war with each other at the dawn of civilization are still at it 1000s of years later.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Basically using weapons that have such a lasting impact is irresponsible because there is no way that two countries are going to be at war forever.

Killing people with ANY weapon has a lasting impact. Killing 1000 civilians in a town has a lasting impact for decades if not centuries after no matter if you kill them with a bomb or a gun.

Also, why is torture illegal? That does not even involve innocents necessarily.

Plus, perhaps you should brush up on your world history. The same countries that were going to war with each other at the dawn of civilization are still at his 1000s of years later.

Wow, I didn't know that! Really, you mean all this killing in the middle east stuff didn't start in 2001? Who'da thunk it?

But seriously...
torture = illegal because it's ineffective 90% of the time and the gain isn't worth the effort.

And you know what i meant by the "lasting impact" comment. Yes destroying a town will have a lasting impact, but that impact is not the same as using a gas or landmine that will kill or maim someone decades or centuries down the line. The former at least has a grasp on what is going on and could (in theory) have fled when the war broke out. The latter has no idea why they were grievously injured or killed...wasn't their wary in any way whatsoever.


Xum wrote:


SRD wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

The bolded part states nothing of the kind "if u kill evil people than it's all right".

So by YOUR logic and by RAW as you people see it, killing and hurting is evil, period.

It says 'evil implies killing others'. That's not the same thing as 'anyone killing anything ever equates to an evil alignment'. Now calm down and consider that we all play this game where the good guys and the bad guys fight (shudder). And then consider that, in the game, the bad guys actually do have signs attached to them that say 'I'm evil'. Consider the moral implications of having tangible proof that evil actually exists. This changes the morality play in this thread entirely. You can choose to understand these differences between the game and reality or not.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Wow, I didn't know that! Really, you mean all this killing in the middle east stuff didn't start in 2001? Who'da thunk it?

Then why did you make such a naive statement before?

Quote:

But seriously...

torture = illegal because it's ineffective 90% of the time and the gain isn't worth the effort.

WRONG, that is not why torture is illegal. Try again.

Quote:
And you know what i meant by the "lasting impact" comment. Yes destroying a town will have a lasting impact, but that impact is not the same as using a gas or landmine that will kill or maim someone decades or centuries down the line. The former at least has a grasp on what is going on and could (in theory) have fled when the war broke out. The latter has no idea why they were grievously injured or killed...wasn't their wary in any way whatsoever.

Really? I didn't realize bomber pilots sent out warnings to people before the did air strikes. Also, people know landmines exist in certain areas, but they stay. By your logic they could just be relocated instead of banning landmines. They are banned for another reason. See if you can figure out why.


Robert Young wrote:
Xum wrote:


SRD wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

The bolded part states nothing of the kind "if u kill evil people than it's all right".

So by YOUR logic and by RAW as you people see it, killing and hurting is evil, period.

It says 'evil implies killing others'. That's not the same thing as 'anyone killing anything ever equates to an evil alignment'. Now calm down and consider that we all play this game where the good guys and the bad guys fight (shudder). And then consider that, in the game, the bad guys actually do have signs attached to them that say 'I'm evil'. Consider the moral implications of having tangible proof that evil actually exists. This changes the morality play in this thread entirely. You can choose to understand these differences between the game and reality or not.

I agree with you there buddy, really do.

But if we follow the SRD statement to the letter there is no way of ever playing a Good character, except if he is a pacifist and a vegetarian.

The thing is, I don't see Killing as inherently evil. Destroying Evil is the duty of good people. If someone is redemable, even at great personal cost that's the best course of action, if not, destroying him or it, is the best course of action.


Xum wrote:
Robert Young wrote:
Xum wrote:


SRD wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

The bolded part states nothing of the kind "if u kill evil people than it's all right".

So by YOUR logic and by RAW as you people see it, killing and hurting is evil, period.

It says 'evil implies killing others'. That's not the same thing as 'anyone killing anything ever equates to an evil alignment'. Now calm down and consider that we all play this game where the good guys and the bad guys fight (shudder). And then consider that, in the game, the bad guys actually do have signs attached to them that say 'I'm evil'. Consider the moral implications of having tangible proof that evil actually exists. This changes the morality play in this thread entirely. You can choose to understand these differences between the game and reality or not.

I agree with you there buddy, really do.

But if we follow the SRD statement to the letter there is no way of ever playing a Good character, except if he is a pacifist and a vegetarian.

The thing is, I don't see Killing as inherently evil. Destroying Evil is the duty of good people. If someone is redemable, even at great personal cost that's the best course of action, if not, destroying him or it, is the best course of action.

I wouldn't say destroying I would say preventing him.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Don't need to read them. Already know the answer.

What we have here is a deontological ethicist. Things are good and evil by virtue of what they are.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


Basically using weapons that have such a lasting impact is irresponsible because there is no way that two countries are going to be at war forever.

What we have here is a consequentialist ethicist. Or a casuist. Hard to tell the difference sometimes. Anyway, things are good and evil by virtue of their outcomes.

These two philosophical schools are FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to each other. There is no chance at dialogue, reason, or compromise since the underlying assumptions are inherrently incompatable.

The differing views on the Devil question I asked proves this analysis.

In other words, you are just spinning your wheels without making any progress. This argument dates to Aristotle and Plato, and will not, nor will ever be, resolved. It's a "chicken or egg", "unstoppable force vs immovable object" type argument. The definitions of each preclude the existance of the other.

And to the Pastafarian, SMURF-you! All hail Lord Xemu!

401 to 450 of 555 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Am I evil? All Messageboards