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="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8531605" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Just to be clear, as per my post - I do not want them to be kill on sight. If I did, I as a DM would create an elaborate setting full of logical reasoning and motives, and then still have some grey area. My motive for writing was to work on a solution to the debate going on in this thread and the other hundred like it. These examples are great. So would it be okay to you if a table used them to show the orcs as being corrupted and can only be cured by some high-level magic?Just seems worthy of repeating - I, as DM, need no such thing. But there is a side of the debate (supposably, I haven't seen them speak up) that wants things to be inherently evil. Even something that has a culture. There is another side that wants everyone, regardless of race or culture, to be treated as an individual in every interaction. The two seem pretty far apart. So the goal was to have all of us write a description that allowed validity of inherent evil without being called out as racist or bigotry. And as I also stated in the same post - if you just can't ever get behind the idea of inherent evil, then state that specifically. From a roleplaying aspect, I completely agree. It does offer the whole disguise or disguise self or Drizzt mask to come into play. But even then, that can get tiresome. I agree. So how would you change it?No doubt. Generic is terrible. I would push back a little that rewriting something for a D&D "setting" implies being generic. Generic is the baseline.</blockquote>

Verification