D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Vaalingrade]

Hahahaha. Fighter as a viable choice.

But seriously, the DM yoinks your character concept because they don't like how you played them is some bullcrap.

 

[payn]

Can I just say that I've hated this term ever since day one?

If you quit a job to the point you're against it fully you don't become an anti-lawyer or an anti-insurance agent, or an anti-grocery store clerk.

Liches now use anti-paladins to protect their soul cages.

 

[Voadam]

Many, many real species have typical behaviors that if translated into people would be evil.

 

[Argyle King]

"Supernaturally forced to be Evil" is just Unaligned.

Do you feel that killing those "unaligned" creatures would be an evil act?

 

[Steampunkette]

Do you feel that killing those "unaligned" creatures would be an evil act?

Demons and Angels, Modrons and Elementals?

No more so than killing animals is, but also no less so. And certainly dependent on context. Killing an animal -just- to kill it or to derive pleasure from it's suffering is evil. Killing an animal that is a threat to you or others is not. Same sort of thing.

 

[Slit518]

I hear that's going around.

I assume you meant one of those to be vampire.

Holy crap, how did that happen? Yes, I meant for one of those to be vampire. I swear, when I typed it out it said vampire. My mind has been ramen noodles lately.

 

[Argyle King]

Demons and Angels, Modrons and Elementals?

No more so than killing animals is, but also no less so. And certainly dependent on context. Killing an animal -just- to kill it or to derive pleasure from it's suffering is evil. Killing an animal that is a threat to you or others is not. Same sort of thing.

I can agree with that.

Where would hunting fall on that scale of morality?

I'm asking because I am cognizant of the D&D community changing views on morality. I'm trying to step outside of my own point of view.

From the perspective of just D&D, I believe there to be some questions raised concerning morality-based spells and abilities when the views of the game's audience changes.

 

[Scribe]

It was never one. As I said above, the alignment penalties for classes and alignment changes were a disincentive, but they didn't actually stop anyone of any alignment or class from acting how they wanted.

I'll never get this. It was never a straight jacket...

 

[Steampunkette]

I can agree with that.

Where would hunting fall on that scale of morality?

I'm asking because I am cognizant of the D&D community changing views on morality. I'm trying to step outside of my own point of view.

From the perspective of just D&D, I believe there to be some questions raised concerning morality-based spells and abilities when the views of the game's audience changes.

My view of morality likely doesn't represent the community... or any significant segment thereof.

Hunting for food, morally neutral. Hunting for sport, bad.

Now if you were hunting Demons/Angels/Modrons/Elementals for food, that would be bad. 'Cause while they're incapable of making moral decisions (In a setting where they're unaligned) they're still intelligent and that makes consuming them cannibalism.

 

[Scribe]

Now if you were hunting Demons/Angels/Modrons/Elementals for food, that would be bad. 'Cause while they're incapable of making moral decisions (In a setting where they're unaligned) they're still intelligent and that makes consuming them cannibalism.

Are we talking Demons eating Demons or?