Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Exactly.I think that's the point. Thay semantics is in general the extent of the distinction posed by the thread
Exactly.I think that's the point. Thay semantics is in general the extent of the distinction posed by the thread
My position isn’t that objective evil shouldn’t exist in the game, it’s that alignment doesn’t serve a useful purpose in 5e. In other versions of the game, where the rules actually cared about alignment more than once in a blue moon, it had a purpose. It doesn’t any more, it just causes arguments for no tangible benefit.Definitely not getting into another point by point rebuttal with people who have a beef with Objective Evil on an ideological basis. If it’s not your cup of tea fine… I’m pretty sure one of the recent surveys showed most people want to keep it, which is good enough for me.
If you don’t like it fine, there’s no point baiting people into arguments about alignment again.
Yes, you’ve said so ten or twelve times. Other people disagree.My position isn’t that objective evil shouldn’t exist in the game, it’s that alignment doesn’t serve a useful purpose in 5e. In other versions of the game, where the rules actually cared about alignment more than once in a blue moon, it had a purpose. It doesn’t any more, it just causes arguments for no tangible benefit.
Which is useful in and of itself.So if I say "Hey, there's a bad guy and she's LE," what exactly does that tell you about the bad guy? It doesn't tell me what she's doing, or why, or how she does it, or what her limitations are, or what about her is lawful or evil. It doesn't tell me how to run her as an NPC.
So those two letters aren't actually all that useful, other than to say "well, this person is lawful evil."
Ok, but OP’s point was you don’t need evil, not that you shouldn’t use it.
So if I say "Hey, there's a bad guy and she's LE," what exactly does that tell you about the bad guy? It doesn't tell me what she's doing, or why, or how she does it, or what her limitations are, or what about her is lawful or evil. It doesn't tell me how to run her as an NPC.
So those two letters aren't actually all that useful, other than to say "well, this person is lawful evil."
Yeah. This thing winds up reading like this:
A: X is not strictly required.
B: But I like X.
A: That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
B: But... It is useful!
A: That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required. You can do without it, and nothing fundamentally breaks.
B: But it is traditional! And many people like using it!
A: That's fine. Still doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is almost as if recognizing that it isn't strictly necessary is viewed as a threat.
Does it though? Ask any 10 people what Lawful Evil means and you’ll get 12 answers.Even with this minimal context it's not that little.
It says she's willing to work within the system and likely works ok in a group (lawful). And that she's willing to use means good people wouldn't to accomplish her goals which also (as she's an adversary) conflict with those of the group in some way.