[quote=@VKAllen]
<Snipped quote by Sionnie>

This is laughable.

I will state again;

A character's alignment [u][b]DICTATES[/b][/u] the character's action.

If he attacks, he is Chaotic Good.

If he does not and refers to authority; he is lawful good.

If he has [i][b]hypothetically[/b][/i] shot a bolt of lightning, then he was never Lawful Good in the first place; which invalidates the hypothetical argument.

Your character is simply playing chaotic neutral at the moment.
[/quote]

Sigh.. I give, You are arguing on Ethos only.. I am arguing on Ethos/Logos/Pathos.. There is no longer point in an argument if you refuse to use Logos.  and you do not understand the word Hypothetical. [color=ed1c24][b]A hypothetical argument is and arguement based on a hypothesis. the hypothesis was not based on whether he would cast the spell, it was based on what WOULD happen if he DID cast the spell. In a Hypothetical arguement logos is the most important as technachality is everything![/b] [/color]sorry. So if that would change his alignment and he absolutaly set of the spell he jokingly threatened to do, than his alignment would have changed because it is not based on his alignment but rather his actions. oh and i am Chaotic Good. Again i have no question as to whether he would do this because i am sure he will not. I am simply making sure he would regret taking said action if he did... Hypothetically.. The arguement is laughable on both sides but what you misunderstand is that i know that he would not do it and i fully understand your side of the arguement. The laughable part is that you misunderstand mine.