Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8537611" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Thank you. Sincerely, thank you. Ah... thanks for the clarification. It makes some sense, even if I have seen it argued that beholders shouldn't have an alignment attached to them. But for your view, perfect sense. Again, I appreciate the time you spent clarifying this. Thank you. And from a sci-fi realm, I get exactly where you are coming from. Yeah, I just think we disagree on one thing, and one thing only - letting the DM decide a race's alignment. And to me, that's okay. It would never prevent me from playing at a table like yours (as I have many times).I bolded one part to explain, that it was contrary on person. The DM making all dwarves lawful evil, but the player choosing the one dwarf that broke the mold, and gets to do the whole PC vs society thing is a classic conflict in storytelling. Thus, while the DM controls the race's motives, the PCs are always in control of their motive and destiny. And again, I think we just disagree. Most DMs I know, that have their own setting, put a lot of time and thought into their lore. I would like to think the rest do the same. And while I know there may be a few half-hearted, or "fig-leaf" attempts, I believe they are rare. It seems we're just on opposite sides of the optimistic/pessimistic mirror on this one.I don't know, there seems to be a lot of exceptions to the bolded statement: giants are a classic example, as are gith, as sahuagin, as are kua-toa, as are troglodytes, as are thri-keen, as are lycanthropes, etc. And that is me skimming through the MM. Even None of those are any stranger when comparing "human-like" than a cat a PC can play as a tabaxi. Or a tortle. Or a warforged. It's just the tabaxi, tortle and warforged were normalized.But I hear you loud and clear. None of these should have a predisposed alignment, regardless of whether a player can play them or not. I like the dragon idea. It seems you could write an entire page of lore around it, and you are definitely right, it doesn't seem fig-leafy to me. This is what I see DMs do though. So who are we to decide whether it's "a way around" or not a way around? As for me, I don't feel like I should be the judge. But that is where we differ. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Regarding your exceptions: It would be nice to have a thread of why (and how) some monsters are evil. Again, thanks for explaining your view. It is appreciated. And I learned something, which is nice. (About dragons and 3e, which I never played.)</blockquote>

Verification