Talk:Church of Shar

Darkcloak Alignment
Darkcloak alignment was described in the article as including "non-evil" and "law-abiding". I tried to change "law-abiding" to "good-aligned" but this was undone with the statement that "non-evil includes good. the lawful part is correct."

I strongly disagree with this undoing by Antyom pavlov. The alignment of Shar is NE, so her worshippers by definition are LAWFUL evil, NE, and CE. This is canon in 2e (Faiths & Avatars pp. 140) and in 3e (Faiths & Pantheons pp. 58).

The Darkcloak description states (Warriors & Priests of the Realms pp. 103): "Since darkcloaks can do some good to people, they can have non-evil priests. Darkcloaks can be true neutral, neutral good, or lawful neutral."

Thus, the "non-evil" is specifically used to state "non-evil alignments" since other Shar clergy simply cannot be non-evil. The "even-good-aligned" statement refers specifically to the Neutral GOOD alignment darkcloaks may have, making them unique amongst the clerical orders of Shar.

Saying "even law-abiding" ignores the fact that plain-vanilla clerics of Shar may be LAWFUL evil. This means that "the lawful part" of the correction is in fact INcorrect in the context of the article; it would not be even worth mentioning.

The simple fact is that darkcloaks are extraordinary among sharran clergy for their ability to be NG; glossing this over by lumping NG as simply another "non-evil" does a disservice to the kit and to the article.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the cited material "non-evil" by definition includes good and the lawful part is correct as per cited original material. Furthermore, dark cloaks are not vanilla clerics. -Artyom.pavlov (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If I may offer some input Sings-With-Spirits we prefer to avoid using "crunch" terms like neutral good in the body of text and only include it within infoboxes. For the phrase "...can be true neutral, neutral good, or lawful neutral" we may write something like "non-evil, morally upstanding, and law-abiding.". I'm not overly familiar with the subject material, but would ask that we remove crunch-terms like specific alignments and replace them with our own verbiage. The same goes for any other articles you encounter with the same writing. Ruf (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, which is why I originally used "good alignment" when I made my edit. Since this was rejected, I went for something more concrete. I have since edited it to read "morally good" as opposed to "ethically lawful/ordered" (as Artyom implied) so that the meaning and context is immediately obvious. There is no need to include "law abiding" in the description; that is intrinsic to Lawful Evil. It is important to note that they can be good because that is not necessarily included in "non-evil"; it could be that they could be ONLY true neutral, which is also one step away from NE. Note that true neutral is also part of "non-evil" but is explicitly excluded as a permitted alignment for darkcloaks (as cited above).
 * --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You edits are disregarding the fact that Darkcloaks included lawful creatures. Also non-evil means all alignments that exclude evil, which includes good. Your edits are superfluous and unnecessary. -17:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What SWS is saying is that regular Shar clergy can be lawful (LE), thus saying that darkcloaks are different because they can be lawful too is rather pointless. What makes them unique is that they can be good, so glossing that point over by just saying "NG is included in non-evil" is not really highlighting the point. SevenHouses (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)