Search results

I think that's because, in this hypothetical scenario, the force of "evil" continues to exist. That is, in in the absence of Force of Good, the triumphant Force of Evil pushes psychopaths to burn down orphanages, etc. and drives regular folk into turncoats or apathy and despair. What if the...

Here's a thought: Detect Evil/Good does NOT measure the moral weight of individual actions. It measures the balance of morality of all of an individual's actions. Presumably, the cosmos has some obscure algorithm that judges a person's psyche and behavioral history to produce an overall score...

OK, as long as it's clear that the idea is demons having no freedom of choice/sentience specifically in regards to making moral choices. Mindless beasts are 100% instinctive, which is different. A drug addict isn't mindless just because they can't control one aspect of their behavior. Edit...

An interesting option is that fiends (and angels) cannot reflect on that, because they don't have freedom of choice and/or sentience in that specific regard. That morality of choice, which is a mix of gut feeling and cerebral higher-level functions for us, are more like animal instincts for...

Cthulhu mythos is about humanity's powerless and insignificance in the cosmos and a fantasy of alien things we cannot comprehend. I happen to find that very interesting (in an era where we want everything to be at our control), although a lot of that is diminished in D&D. D&D heroes generally...

Look, all I did was take "evil incarnate" in the Monster Manual (and supporting tales of fiendish depravity) at face value. The Monster Manual doesn't describe orcs as "evil incarnate" but merely "evil" or unaligned (in 4E?) as a statistical mean. I have no reason to describe them as HAVE TO BE...

I hear you. Well maybe it's not a zero sum game. Maybe Evil can be characterized just enough to have interesting interactions, but still be faithful to an irredeemably evil nature. For example, Lucifer can be still come across as somewhat sympathetic and yet still be irredeemably evil. He...

Not "maybe". He IS bad, to the bone. But it may not manifest as Geiger-ish monstrous behavior. If I was, say, a reporter, and I met with Dracula in his castle, and I know he's the Worst Evil Vampire, and yet he was really nice and polite to me the whole time, that's still really disturbing...

Power? Paranoid and eliminating all rivals? I figure he has his reasons, they're just not explained since the character exists primarily behind the scenes. Mind you, I have the same puzzlement about the endless parade of D&D villians that seek an artifact to take over a region.

I agree that ultimate evil is often tedious, especially for mortal villians. On the other hand, I don't see Lucifer, Dracula, Grendel, or Sauron as being cartoony just because they are Ultimate Evil. It's a traditional fantasy of morality in black and white. Yes, I have sometimes seen...

Agreed... If evil incarnate is more evil than Hitler (Godwin!), and the media generally doesn't "humanize" Hitler, I wouldn't play a serious game of D&D that humanizes fiends. Oops ;) Well, then to tie it back, a Wonderland pocket dimension where everyone is mad as a hatter and the usual...

Except that demons/devils have been described frequently as *evil incarnate*, and Hannibal is an evil human (not even evil incarnate). To make demons whimsical is a paradox I cannot reconcile. FWIW, PS described a lot of things about the multiverse and then failed to walk the talk IMO.

How about 5E?

I could also say that was a "funny joke" or a "bad joke" and then someone could counter the quality of being funny or bad says more about the psychological experiences rather inherent quality of the joke. But that wouldn't stop people from continuing to qualify something as a "bad joke"...

Very enlightening! Thanks for articulating that. I also sometimes struggle with mechanics that seem ill-fitted or not comprehensive enough to match the fluff. And if I too could look at the mechanics as an outline framework and see the story blossom within, I would probably enjoy 4E. But if...

That's a nicely poetic sentiment, but it doesn't ring true to me. At least not in D&D, when designers presume to ascribe backgrounds and motivations to the likes of Demogorgon and other eldritch entitities. Sorcerer powers are small fry in comparison, and could/should be somewhat understood...

That's fine. I wasn't coming up with a story explanation for a sorcerer with spear proficiency. There's nothing in the PHB insisting on that. It's not time. It doesn't matter if an adventure takes one week or one month or one year to get to level x. It's perfectly valid for sorcery powers to...

No time? That's your one-size-fits-all answer? Then elven and dwarven sorcerers would know to use spear and armour, because they've had ten times more time. A story explanation could be made on an individual basis, but there's no default fictional reason why every sorcerer PC didn't have time...

If that's so, why press the reasoning you provided as some sort of cookie cutter explanation and then say not a lot of squinting required? Because I squinted, a lot. I have a certain threshold for suspension of disbelief, any plausible rule need only to meet that minimum subjective threshold. I...

Granted, but all I'm saying is that the OP has a point. There is an issue of plausibility expecting to buy into the fiction that sorcerers need full time hours over a dozen years to do a "pew-pew" power, whereas the adventure itself proves that there is no association between management of...