Search results

Perhaps I missed it in the rules. Where is murder defined, in RAW, as evil? I am not saying it is not. I am just curious as to where it is. And no, defining the alignment of an act isn't at ALL easy. You may do it all the time, but I'd argue you are doing it wrong if you think it is easy...

Yeah but that is a gameplay problem, it leads to boring games. Murderhobos don't become real life murderhobos. I just don't think problematic, as a definition, should include problems that don't leave the game.

Important for? I dont know. But you really don't need any races other than human (edit: Actually it doesnt have to even be human, it can be machines or elves or anything...but it only has to have the one) to tell a compelling story and run a compelling game. I guess maybe I do know the answer...

Is this something we are considering as problematic? I guess a better way to ask: What is the problem with encouraging killing your enemies as a means to advancement? From a pure gameplay perspective: it may be a bit boring and lead to very samey encounters...if all you have is a hammer, I...

Then killing a bandit, by your definition, makes a character not good. No chaotic good characters killing bandits. Or goblins. Or anyone. If you can't kill and still be considered of a good alignment, the concept of the Paladin slaying evil (even the ability Smite Evil) means no paladins are...

I vastly prefer the 2nd. I find 1 limiting and constricting and I'll almost always end up just throwing it out and doing my own. With the 2nd, I can at least grab some ideas from a couple of the outlines. My personal preference.

It isn't lawful evil AT ALL. They are neither amoral nor are they following the laws of the land. Of course they aren't, laws forbid murder and such. If someone has no problem in killing someone in order to achieve a goal, yes they are clearly not good. But this isn't the scenario at hand...

If I recall correctly (and I might not) but Oriental Adventures DID have asians called in as consultants to help review/critique it. They may have raised objections prior to publication, I am not sure. But getting someone of that culture to do a review won't be as helpful as people might suppose.

Okay this argument kinda bothers me. What does the lines popularity gotta do with it? Twilight books sold a huge amount, were commercially more successful than a whole ton of other books. This does not mean that Twilight was 'better'. We can make better arguments to support our case here. This...

I have not played the default faerun setting in so long I cannot honestly tell you what my players think. Though most of them think the Forgotten Realms is 'dumb'. So I cannot tell you either way. Just how they react to the races I present them. And I struggle to get some of them to do it in any...

Oh man there is an elf for EVERY occasion. This is definitely an occasion where there is far too much granulation for the health of a setting!

I 100% have players who will RP any race they play as a Human, the only difference being accent. Whether or not this is a problem with how the races are portrayed or some of my players, well, flip a coin I guess. I guess here is a good litmus test for 'Is this race differentiated from humans...

So what are the alignment criteria? Lets use 5e's. From the 5E SRD Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good. Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their...

Yup! That is certainly one argument that can be made! There is no right answer to this. There is no One True Way. Each PC, each party, will arrive at a different conclusion and they are all okay. Each choice will have a consequence. The important thing in gaming terms is to make the consequence...

I mean, by this logic, literally ANY house rule, any deviation of lore, any single word changed from RAW in any available book for the edition you play makes it Not D&D and not relevant to the discussion. If the book doesnt specifically say you can, you can't. This is a very peculiar argument...

D&D does if I want it to? If I add time travel as an actual thing in my D&D world, does it then cease to be D&D? I wouldn't think so. But then the question: When does it cease to be D&D? This is very ship of theseus I guess.

Here is where it becomes tough. Because there is an argument that can be made, as distasteful as it may be, that if you can end a war sooner by doing something HORRIBLY VICIOUS...well, consequentialism right? If the consequences of your heinous act is that a war ends a year sooner than it would...

Those PCs better MOOOOve out of it's way. Or they will be udderly destroyed.

A soldier defending their country against an invading force is going to go out of his way to inflict suffering on the invaders, in as serious way as they can manage. Is that evil? Maybe. I dont know. I'd tend towards no, as would most, but the argument can be made and it bears serious...

Man that is a pretty big ask considering the definition of evil or if it even exists is something that people have been discussing/arguing/debating with no end in sight for centuries! I mean, maybe we here on an internet forum about RPGs will solve this but I kinda doubt it!