Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dandu" data-source="post: 6825310" data-attributes="member: 85158">Shall I get off your lawn?The physics theories of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity" target="_blank">general and special relativity</a> have absolutely nothing to do with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank">moral relativism</a>, and I cannot think of anyone who has ever confounded the two or found any association between them whatsoever. And I speak as a member of this generation.I'm very confused as to what evil acts you are talking about. I don't recall any new evils being discovered by this generation, or the previous one. (And I'm pretty sure I would know.)Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Black Panthers, militant as they were, ever killed anyone.  Ah, very true. D&D morality is its own thing, with its own definitions. For example, Lawful meansNow, if that authority is not legitimate, a lawful character can disregard its rules, and one might even go so far as to say that a lawful character would be obligated to.Similarly, Good is defined asIf the wizard in question is challenging magic-phobia for the right reasons, I don't see why he would be considered unlawful or evil.Well, Daniel seems quite blameless, so I shall call him lawful and good without hesitation. And, of course, the evil men are evil for framing Daniel. I would call the King lawful and good as well, but then I remembered that the King had<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%206" target="_blank"> the wives and children of the evil men thrown to the lions to be torn apart as well</a>. <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ezek%2018.20" target="_blank">People should not be punished for the sins of others</a>, so I must conclude that the King was lawful and evil.The thought occurs that if Daniel supported his King in this action, I would have to revise my earlier assessment of him.I would dispute this on the grounds that Barbarians (such as Wulfgar, if I remember correctly) are honor bound to take oaths seriously in many D&D settings, and they cannot be lawful. (At least not if they want to keep their rage.)And speaking of Salvatore, I cannot help but think of Drizzt, who was the victim of quite a lot of prejudice and I imagine had more than one city gate shut in his face. Unfortunately, I am no expert on Drizzt, so you will have to tell me how he conducted himself in face of such behavior, and whether it was Good.Alignment in D&D is not the same as alignment in the real world (insofar as good and evil can be said to exist in the real world), and much digital ink has been spilled on what alignment actually entails. Sadly, the official authors at WotC were never quite on the same page, so it is portrayed inconsistently across the entire print history of the game – alas!</blockquote>

Verification