I put it forward that if we were talking about a rogue that used a pastry shop to dupe people into divulging information using their bluff and diplomacy skills, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
Honestly, if any component of your alignment were to shift, it should be from LN to TN. Most cities have laws regarding the use of magic and I'm willing to bet that using enchantment magic on unsuspecting customers falls in the illegal category.
There's no intention on your part to injure anyone, so it's really not a good/evil question. It's definitely not altruistic, but not altruistic does not equal evil.
Basically, you character's a jerk, but not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I put it forward that if we were talking about a rogue that used a pastry shop to dupe people into divulging information using their bluff and diplomacy skills, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
And if the rogue was blackmailing people, selling secrets to the highest bidder, and eliminating the competition?
Information brokering is not the same as blackmailing people. And nobody's getting killed.
Whatever the rogue chooses to do is up to him and doesn't determine the moral standing of the character.
Now if the character found out the rogue was doing those things and didn't change his operation, then an alignment change might be appropriate. However, that's not the case.
|
Forgiveness does not change the morality of the action that was forgiven. It merely means that the forgiven person has another chance to do better.Now here's an interesting question:
You charm someone, via the spell. You employ them to your purposes. You release them, at which point they're furious. You explain why you took the actions; after some thought, they decide your use of them is understandable, forgive you for it, and grant you permission for what you did—after the fact.
Is it still an evil act, or does the forgiveness and subsequent allowance whitewash the, for lack of a better term, sin?
Depend on what was done. I would still see imposing your will on another person as a basically evil act. The final goal and result can balance that evil or even make the whole chain of acts count as good in the end, but you must carefully consider your actions before chosing to use Charm person.
Bad translations notwithstanding, not even Macchiavelli said "the end justify the means." If you take the whole book in account he was saying that a lord need to consider and evaluate the means he use to reach a goal.
|
|
Lastly, I would question the motivation of the paladin's player in doing this. If you want in-game conflict, there are numerous ways you could work.....
Maybe he is trying to avoid PVP between characters?
Saying to the GM: "What the wizard do to me seem evil, but I don't want to stat a fight between my paladin and him. Consider what he is doing." don't seem a bad thing.BTW, if he is speaking behind his back, how it that the OP know what was said?
Edit:
I hate when 2 different people in one thread use the same avatar. Initially I thought he was the OP.
None of that is anywhere in the OP's original post. I haven't read most of the 500+ posts in this thread. Reading through the OP's comments, I see that he once had to kill a rival who murdered his assistant and was trying to have him killed. Here's what he actually said:
Another would be power broker, this one absolutely evil, decided to
get rid of me. As I mentioned I am very careful that my rogue
intermediary does not know who I am. The one who was working for me
at the time met a bad end because he couldn't give up my identity
even if he wanted to. This lead to a short information war until I
finally figured out who was trying to take me out. He learned the
hard way that a wand of lightning bolts is a very unpleasant thing
when you are not prepared for it.
That's a far cry from your misquote of him taking out a potential rival.
Blackmail isn't necessarily immoral. The context surrounding it determines its moral standing. However, it's definitely unethical. He should be using his information to give the city authorities the evidence they need to maintain order in the city. His propensity for vigilante justice is another reason his alignment should be Neutral or Chaotic.
A real Lawful Neutral character is only concerned that order be maintained. They operate within the bounds of the laws of the society they live in to achieve those ends. His character frequently operates outside of those bounds.
Lastly, I would question the motivation of the paladin's player in doing this. If you want in-game conflict, there are numerous ways you could work.....Maybe he is trying to avoid PVP between characters?
Saying to the GM: "What the wizard do to me seem evil, but I don't want to stat a fight between my paladin and him. Consider what he is doing." don't seem a bad thing.
BTW, if he is speaking behind his back, how it that the OP know what was said?Edit:
I hate when 2 different people in one thread use the same avatar. Initially I thought he was the OP.
The GM may have told Player 1 that Player 2 was talking to him. The OP did not state these details. This is primarily why I said the GM should be monitoring this thread, not the Paladin. His input would be FAR more important regarding his own table.
Questioning a characters alignment or actions out of character is big warning flag for me. If these players have been together for years, then maybe it is fine. But I've seen similar things deteriorate into constant squabbling that detracts from the actual game.
And seriously, if as a Paladin your first reaction to a questionable act by a friend or party mate is "turn him evil!", your character is a poor friend/party mate and a worse Paladin. If that's not what happened, then fine, but it certainly reads that way in the OP. All we have in this he said/she said/GM said story so far is the "he said" part, and there were a lot of "ifs" in my post to qualify that.
A real Lawful Neutral character is only concerned that order be maintained. They operate within the bounds of the laws of the society they live in to achieve those ends. His character frequently operates outside of those bounds.
I bolded the false part. It is a fallacy that lawful means law abiding. Lawful people favor order and discipline but do so on their own terms. Like a personal code if you will. LE people often disobey local laws, they live by their own set of rules.
PC determines alignment, always.Unless PC abuses the privilege (not right, privilege), in which case DM overrides PC and changes alignment.
Actually according to the PRD the DM does not override the PC, he talks to the PC about the PC's actions and if the PC wants to change the DM lets him.
The PRD says the DM decides if something is not in accordance with an alignment, but he does not override a PC to change an alignment.
Changing Alignments
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
There is one thing which amuses me. If any of the OPs rivals had any brains they would just station an informant at the pastry shop where they could record all these secrets for themselves. Then they just sell the information themselves at a much reduced cost compared to the expense of crafting magical bread which is probably costing about as much as a potion does.
Did you read your quote Voadam?
alignment is solely a label the GM controls
Sure it goes on to say the GM should be nice about it... but really this isn't in the player's hands.
There is one thing which amuses me. If any of the OPs rivals had any brains they would just station an informant at the pastry shop where they could record all these secrets for themselves. Then they just sell the information themselves at a much reduced cost compared to the expense of crafting magical bread which is probably costing about as much as a potion does.
Now you're assuming that his schemes are commonly known. If they don't know he's working out of the pastry shop they can't very well know to set up informants there.
To put it simply, no. Living by your own code is Chaotic.
Here's Paizo's take on law vs. Chaos, "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
So lawful characters DO NOT break the law. LE characters use it to meet their own ends, but they do not break it.
However, I agree with Taow. The alignment system is nonsense and simulates the reality of human life/activity very poorly. It's better to just ignore it completely, IMO.
One must also consider what would happen if a paladin did go into battle with a wizard. He would need A.) backup and B.) to hope to whatever god he worships that the wizard doesn't know he's coming. If he walks in that room and the wizard is ready for a fight, it's already over.
1) depends on if the DM agrees that he's evil... 2)Paladins have some AMAZINGLY awesome saves. That wizard will probably be able to escape.... but he MAY have time nickel and diming the Paladin.
Mine has gone through a few evil casters now and the biggest frustration is that dimension door/teleport crap. Still, if he's fleeing, it's MY win :P
|
One must also consider what would happen if a paladin did go into battle with a wizard. He would need A.) backup and B.) to hope to whatever god he worships that the wizard doesn't know he's coming. If he walks in that room and the wizard is ready for a fight, it's already over.1) depends on if the DM agrees that he's evil... 2)Paladins have some AMAZINGLY awesome saves. That wizard will probably be able to escape.... but he MAY have time nickel and diming the Paladin.
Mine has gone through a few evil casters now and the biggest frustration is that dimension door/teleport crap. Still, if he's fleeing, it's MY win :P
I'm more talking about the spells that don't allow saves. There's a fairly wide array of spells that do very, very bad things and don't allow a save. For example, the wizard could bombard your paladin with enervation. Doesn't seem that dangerous on its own, but it will get pretty bad if they start flinging maximized enervations. Could also trap you between resilient spheres and open a pit underneath you when there are no available squares to shift to even if you do pass the reflex save, thereby effectively negating your ability to keep from falling in. Lots of nasty combinations.
I've seen more than a few people wind up having spell casters powerful enough to take on whole groups of high level PCs by themselves with minimal risk. Just gotta know how to mix and match your spells for optimal levels of cheap.
One must also consider what would happen if a paladin did go into battle with a wizard. He would need A.) backup and B.) to hope to whatever god he worships that the wizard doesn't know he's coming. If he walks in that room and the wizard is ready for a fight, it's already over.1) depends on if the DM agrees that he's evil... 2)Paladins have some AMAZINGLY awesome saves. That wizard will probably be able to escape.... but he MAY have time nickel and diming the Paladin.
Mine has gone through a few evil casters now and the biggest frustration is that dimension door/teleport crap. Still, if he's fleeing, it's MY win :P
I'm more talking about the spells that don't allow saves. There's a fairly wide array of spells that do very, very bad things and don't allow a save. For example, the wizard could bombard your paladin with enervation. Doesn't seem that dangerous on its own, but it will get pretty bad if they start flinging maximized enervations. Could also trap you between resilient spheres and open a pit underneath you when there are no available squares to shift to even if you do pass the reflex save, thereby effectively negating your ability to keep from falling in. Lots of nasty combinations.
I've seen more than a few people wind up having spell casters powerful enough to take on whole groups of high level PCs by themselves with minimal risk. Just gotta know how to mix and match your spells for optimal levels of cheap.
Oh sure, it's definitely possible. I'd never claim that!!! Wizards can kick butt.
Just not a bygone conclusion :)
Man, this took way too long to read through. The dishes will never get done at this rate.
My thoughts on this as someone who's seen alignment situations like this as both a player and a DM:
A) At first this was probably just a shady act; not evil, but definitely not good. If your character was otherwise a legitimately forthright citizen I'd leave you as a LN PC with a warning that it's a dangerous road to go down. However, the scale with which this enterprise is being undertaken to obtain information through compulsory means pushes it well beyond a "fleeting indiscretion" or occasion "information gathering technique."
B) I do agree that extracting information from someone has gray area. The individual's willingness to give up that information is probably the best indicator as to how whether it's an evil or non-evil act. Again, the occasional use of such tactics doesn't necessarily make you evil.
C) A person's use of such information should be weighed by their intent before they gain the information, not just what they do with it afterwards. If someone is gathering massive amounts of information simply to broker and just happens to be passing along occasional convenient information to the authorities, then you aren't doing things for the sake of good, you're probably barely in the realm of neutral. The fact that a single individual is explicitly profiting from this should make it evil. It's for sheer personal gain at the expense of others.
I realize here that some people are differentiating the whole "expense of others" bit. A good rule of thumb is that if it's not something you are having done too you, it's not good to do to others (there are obvious exceptions to such a rule, self defense being the main one). Intrusive theft of information is something people usually don't want done to themselves.
D) As for the paladin, I can only judge and make assumptions here. I have no way of knowing how he approached the DM, but I'm assuming it wasn't in some behind everyone's back b*#ch session. Thing vary from group to group as to how the player-DM contract works, but in most of the groups I've played with a player is allowed to at least question the DM if something doesn't seem to jive right. If I was in the group I would have asked if the baker was evil or on that road, not just out of concern regarding where the line is, but also out of sheer curiosity.
The fact that the player's PC was a paladin is both important and not important at the same time. Assuming that the paladin is lawful stupid because he's a paladin is playing to stereotypes and an insult to paladin's everywhere; someone playing a LG cleric or rogue could be just as concerned. Even if not "evil" it is surely "unethical" enough to make someone who believes in people's rights to privacy to take offense with or break ways with an individual. The paladin bit does matter because of this: "While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code." (emphasis mine). That right there means that a player should be right to question an action (or in this case a series of actions) to make sure that they aren't at risk of having their own PC crisis.
Obviously your DM is the law, so it's up to him to decide what's evil or just shady. Personally I sorely wish the alignment system could get rehauled, or at least massively clarified. The less room for interpretation on matters that affect basic game mechanics, the better.
To put it simply, no. Living by your own code is Chaotic.
The actual description of Lawful Neutral:
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
In the section on Good Versus Evil the only positive statement regarding neutrality is that they have compunctions against killing the innocent. It also says that evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others.
If the OP's character has compunctions against killing the innocent and is not hurting and oppressing and killing others out of lack of compassion or a dedication to evil then he's not evil per the alignment write up.
Basically if you aren't a cartoonish supervillain then you aren't evil (and if you aren't a crusader lunatic with a Who-Whom morality concerning who it is appropriate to hurt, oppress and kill then you probably aren't "Good" either).
Did you read your quote Voadam?
alignment is solely a label the GM controls
Sure it goes on to say the GM should be nice about it... but really this isn't in the player's hands.
Nope, under that section the DM gets to say they are not acting in accordance with their alignment. He does not get to say it changes because of that.
All it says is if the PC wants to change his alignment the GM should let him.
The actual description of Lawful Neutral:
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
In the section on Good Versus Evil the only positive statement regarding neutrality is that they have compunctions against killing the innocent. It also says that evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others.
If the OP's character has compunctions against killing the innocent and is not hurting and oppressing and killing others out of lack of compassion or a dedication to evil then he's not evil per the alignment write up.
Basically if you aren't a cartoonish supervillain then you aren't evil (and if you aren't a crusader lunatic with a Who-Whom morality concerning who it is appropriate to hurt, oppress and kill then you probably aren't "Good" either).
Two quotes to contradict that from the very same webpage:
"In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.""Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped)."
By those rules a person could be evil without ever spilling blood, there are a lot of ways to harm or oppress people with inflicting physical pain, though it seems easier for one be a non-violent LE than NE or CE.
PC determines alignment, always.Unless PC abuses the privilege (not right, privilege), in which case DM overrides PC and changes alignment.Actually according to the PRD the DM does not override the PC, he talks to the PC about the PC's actions and if the PC wants to change the DM lets him.
The PRD says the DM decides if something is not in accordance with an alignment, but he does not override a PC to change an alignment.
Changing Alignments
... In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation ... ... alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
The two above statements together mean that a DM determines both whether you're remaining withing the bounds of, or near enough to, your alignment and whether a forced alignment change is warranted—though I do enjoy this whole, "It's my choice! Mine! Mine Mine Mine!! My paladin doesn't fall even if he blows up an orphanage on his way to the Black Mass with Malificent on his arm!" schtick. (And yes, I'm aware that's hyperbole, thanks.)
Tell it to the Marines.
The two statements do not mean that. :)
It says nothing about a forced alignment change. Nothing. It talks about a PC choosing to change after a GM brings up the issue. That is the rules section discussion of changing alignment that talks about changing a PC's alignment.
This is distinct from a paladin doing an action the GM says is evil. The GM is the determinator there and the paladin falls.
The alignment of an action is handled differently than a PC's alignment.
PC determines alignment, always.Unless PC abuses the privilege (not right, privilege), in which case DM overrides PC and changes alignment.Actually according to the PRD the DM does not override the PC, he talks to the PC about the PC's actions and if the PC wants to change the DM lets him.
The PRD says the DM decides if something is not in accordance with an alignment, but he does not override a PC to change an alignment.
Changing Alignments
... In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation ... ... alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
The two above statements together mean that a DM determines both whether you're remaining withing the bounds of, or near enough to, your alignment and whether a forced alignment change is warranted—though I do enjoy this whole, "It's my choice! Mine! Mine Mine Mine!! My paladin doesn't fall even if he blows up an orphanage on his way to the Black Mass with Malificent on his arm!" schtick. (And yes, I'm aware that's hyperbole, thanks.)
Tell it to the Marines.
The two statements do not mean that. :)
It says nothing about a forced alignment change. Nothing. It talks about a PC choosing to change after a GM brings up the issue. That is the rules section discussion of changing alignment that talks about changing a PC's alignment.
This is distinct from a paladin doing an action the GM says is evil. The GM is the determinator there and the paladin falls.
The alignment of an action is handled differently than a PC's alignment.
I agree with Voadam on the interpretation: In most cases the DM should be giving the PC a heads up about actions that could shift their alignment, then leave it to the player as to whether or not they want to follow that course of action. Free will and all that jazz.
Now you're assuming that his schemes are commonly known. If they don't know he's working out of the pastry shop they can't very well know to set up informants there.There is one thing which amuses me. If any of the OPs rivals had any brains they would just station an informant at the pastry shop where they could record all these secrets for themselves. Then they just sell the information themselves at a much reduced cost compared to the expense of crafting magical bread which is probably costing about as much as a potion does.
True... but simple police work between different targets would likely pinpoint the pastry shop without much effort since no effort is being made to disguise the effects.
To put it simply, no. Living by your own code is Chaotic.
Here's Paizo's take on law vs. Chaos, "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
So lawful characters DO NOT break the law. LE characters use it to meet their own ends, but they do not break it.
However, I agree with Taow. The alignment system is nonsense and simulates the reality of human life/activity very poorly. It's better to just ignore it completely, IMO.
Chaotic characters have NO code. That is a Lawful trait. And everything you just quoted about lawful applies heavily to the mafia and I can assure you they are NOT law abiding citizens, they live by a different code. Even a paladin who is a paragon of lawful isn't law abiding while living in an evil nation.
Did you read your quote Voadam?
alignment is solely a label the GM controls
Sure it goes on to say the GM should be nice about it... but really this isn't in the player's hands.
Nope, under that section the DM gets to say they are not acting in accordance with their alignment. He does not get to say it changes because of that.
All it says is if the PC wants to change his alignment the GM should let him.
Look up and read that again: the GM SOLELY controls a players alignment. That is as unambiguous as you can get. YES this means the player has no control. He can ask to change and the GM can let him if he wishes, but that alignment is what the GM says it is.
Oh, I completely agree that the DM shouldn't be dictating the player's volition-based actions. Those are of course totally up to the player. But the idea that a player can take certain actions obviously grossly contrary to their stated alignment and remain that alignment simply because the player decrees it so is laughable. Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequence is the DM saying, "Your actions have resulted in an involuntary alignment change." The idea that the DM doesn't have this authority is beyond ludicrous.
Exactly. A player can do what he or she desires the only control the GM has is over the label itself. Still in a Pathfinder game that label has some in game effects. Do evil all you want, just expect the GM to change your alignment at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I have learned from all of this is that next time I am adventuring and come into town, I will kill all the bakers... just to be on the safe side.
|
|
I think what I have learned from all of this is that next time I am adventuring and come into town, I will kill all the bakers... just to be on the safe side.
If I have learned anything it's not thinking outside of the box when playing with a character. Since apprently I have to play like a stereotype with no imagination whatsoever. in case it might bother the Dms and/or certain players at the table
Aranna,
The mafia rejects the idea that society has legitimate authority. Their own organization is another matter altogether though. However, I do no regard the mafia as a lawful organization. At best they're a NE one.
When I think of a LE character, I think of a crooked politician who uses his position and the law to achieve his ends and has no regard for the effects his actions have on others. He won't violate the law, because he needs it in order to accomplish his goals. He will twist the hell out of it though and he will attempt to enact legislation that serves nobody's interest but his own.
In order for a game to exist it MUST have rules. Those rules must be objective and have a clear definition. Saying that LE characters do whatever they want, falls outside for the rules for this alignment. Paizo literally says about a LE character, "He is loath to break laws or promises."
All people have codes. Everyone has reasons for engaging in the activities that they engage in. What makes a character lawful or chaotic is how they reconcile their code with the larger code of society. A chaotic character makes no attempt to reconcile their code with the code of society. This is what makes them chaotic, not that they don't have a code.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I have learned from all of this is that next time I am adventuring and come into town, I will kill all the bakers... just to be on the safe side.If I have learned anything it's not thinking outside of the box when playing with a character. Since apprently I have to play like a stereotype with no imagination whatsoever. in case it might bother the Dms and/or certain players at the table
This type of attitude is tiresome. Nobody said he couldnt do what he did. It was a very cool idea, it just didnt fit within the alignment the player was trying to maintain for his character. At least thats the general consensus I believe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I have learned from all of this is that next time I am adventuring and come into town, I will kill all the bakers... just to be on the safe side.If I have learned anything it's not thinking outside of the box when playing with a character. Since apprently I have to play like a stereotype with no imagination whatsoever. in case it might bother the Dms and/or certain players at the table
You should always worry about the DM and other players at the table. This isn't a solo game. Everyone needs to be having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the OP's language is so slanted that the self-delusion is tumbling right off the edge of the page.
Pretty much.
Although I don't get how the heck this is supposed to work in the first place. If the pastries are trying to enchant everyone who gets one with a suggestion (or similar), then it seems like
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
ought to come into play and you'll have some snooping real fast about why, say, 70% of your customers are going out talking about how your pastries are the best thing in the city but the other 30% are going to the guards complaining that your pastries are attacking their minds.
At that point, anyone with basic familiarity with magic should immediately recognize what is going on.
Pretty much.
Although I don't get how the heck this is supposed to work in the first place. If the pastries are trying to enchant everyone who gets one with a suggestion (or similar), then it seems like
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.ought to come into play and you'll have some snooping real fast about why, say, 70% of your customers are going out talking about how your pastries are the best thing in the city but the other 30% are going to the guards complaining that your pastries are attacking their minds.
At that point, anyone with basic familiarity with magic should immediately recognize what is going on.
Agreed. It seems that there was a lot of "handwavium" involved. Some 'magic stuff' was done and the pastries suddenly had this miraculous effect.
Maybe there are some custom researched spells involved? If so I would love to see the write-up.
Someone secretly spiking punch that...[it's evil]
Oh, okay. I see the problem here. The people who see spiking punch as an Evil act are going to see this wizard as Evil, and the people who see it as a Neutral one are going to see him as some form of Neutral. Guess that's where we reach an impasse, but at least we understand each other.
(I snipped your post because the quote did and I couldn't remember exactly what you said)