D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Azzy]

In 3.x there was a distinction between always evil and usually evil. I think that helped.

I really wish that 5e had kept that.

 

[reelo]

While reading this discussion, I couldn't help but think of this quote:

"Revolutions, like Saturn, devour their children."

Why don't we just dispense with any and all descriptions to end up with a purely mathematical game?

"Your 34HP entity comes across three 2HD entities armed with what looks like d8 damage-tools."

Surely nobody could morally object to that?

 

[Charlaquin]

While reading this discussion, I couldn't help but think of this quote:



Why don't we just dispense with any and all descriptions to end up with a purely mathematical game?

"Your 34HP entity comes across three 2HD entities armed with what looks like d8 damage-tools."

Surely nobody could morally object to that?

Boring slippery slope argument, 1/10. Try harder next time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

*themself. It’s in their title.

Thanks for the correction. My error was unintentional- I simply almost never look at that section of the screen, so didn’t see that.

 

[reelo]

Boring slippery slope argument, 1/10. Try harder next time.

It's not a "slippery slope" argument. The question "where do we draw the line?" has been asked several times in this tread, by several different people, without a consensus being reached.

Where do we draw the line?
Are undead just sad, angry, confused, and in need of empathy and help?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's not a "slippery slope" argument. The question "where do we draw the line?" has been asked several times in this tread, by several different people, without a consensus being reached.

Where do we draw the line?
Are undead just sad, angry, confused, and in need of empathy and help?

At least one notable group of gamers has established a fairly clear boundary: don’t use RW bigoted stereotyping in describing creatures in RPGs. It’s an easy enough bright-line test that has been suggested time and time again in multiple threads.

 

[reelo]

At least one notable group of gamers has established a fairly clear boundary: don’t use RW bigoted stereotyping in describing creatures in RPGs. It’s an easy enough bright-line test that has been suggested time and time again in multiple threads.

I have no issue with that. But Redcaps and Fire Giants now, seriously?

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not a "slippery slope" argument. The question "where do we draw the line?" has been asked several times in this tread, by several different people, without a consensus being reached.

Where do we draw the line?
Are undead just sad, angry, confused, and in need of empathy and help?

”Where do we draw the line?” is the quintessential slippery slope argument. Yours was boring because you took it to far. The notion of removing all descriptions from the game is so patently absurd it doesn’t even need refuting. You got so close with undead - vampires were right there being all angsty, but you didn’t take the shot. The folks asking “what about centaurs and satyrs?” have the right idea. It’s just enough on the borderline that the notion can’t easily be dismissed as ridiculous out of hand, which makes it necessary to engage with it seriously.

EDIT: This, by the way, is how we find the line. Ignore cases that are obviously ridiculous, discuss cases that have more room for interpretation, and see what shakes out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have no issue with that. But Redcaps and Fire Giants now, seriously?

Regardless of context-RW or pure fiction- there will always be people who have more conservative or radical views than you do. Some of these views are based in actual needs, some aren’t.

So, no matter where the final decision point ends up, someone won’t be satisfied. Gauging where on the spectrum of possibilities for any given issue one wants to be is a personal struggle for each of us.

 

[Yaarel]

Where do we draw the line?

For me, I draw the line at how humanlike the concept is. If it is too human, then be cautious. Human-hybrids like dragonborn or satyrs, are borderline, but as because they are player races, they are humanlike.

Are undead just sad, angry, confused, and in need of empathy and help?

For me, humanlike includes undead. A ghost might be any alignment. A good vampire is a popular trope. Zombies might be more like mindless golems, so dont really have an alignment.

For me an angel or fiend lacks free will, so "it" is a symbolic physicalization of the ethical alignment itself. But even here, an angel can become evil and a fiend can become good, so for me, these kinds of transformations depend on human behavior. If humans do bad, even angels mirror the bad (thus ethically punish), and if humans do good, even fiends mirror the good (thus ethically reward). This astral transformation reflects the alignment become more or less influential as a result of the ethical behavior.

Earlier, I read every "humanoid" creature type would have its alignment removed. Only specific humanoid individuals would have a specific alignments. In this context, humanoid means having "free will" as a trait.

The situation seems more complex now. For example, in the UA, the pixie is a playable character that is "fey" without being "humanoid".

But humanlike, remains the gist.