People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way
Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.
I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.
To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.
You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.
Seriously? You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me? I have said nothing to insult you. In fact, I have gone the extra mile to not insult you. In an earlier post you said that redemption stories are your thing. I consider redemption stories to be the silliest of RPG tropes. Furthermore, I believe some things that you do (like pledging yourself to a god like Shar) are so terrible that they make you ineligible for any sort of redemption. Nevertheless, at no point did I attack or insult you for having your preference for redemption stories. Because that's just not my way. You should play your game in whatever way makes you happy, redemption stories and all. As should I. So don't try and turn this on me. You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore.
As for these specific characters, I have never said I would react a certain way based on meta knowledge. I have actually posted in several threads against role-playing based on meta knowledge. So if, upon first meeting any of these characters, I don't have enough information to identify what they are, I will just keep role-playing my very good aligned character. But, and specifically in SH's case, the moment I do find out she's a Sharan, I'm done with her at that point (unless she renounces Shar right then and there). By contrast, I can see myself being willing to keep open a relationship with the likes of Astarion and Lae'zal until such time as my exclusively good actions come into conflict with them, because I would be open to seeing exactly what kind of vampire/githyanki they are (the good kind, perhaps?). But someone who says she stands by Shar? No benefit of the doubt can be extended to such a person.
