Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8834867" data-attributes="member: 7023887">It's very strange that you would say this. What do you know about the playstyles of the people asking for books to be held to modern morality? I'm in favor of making books not be filled with terrible, outdated morality, and I certainly label PCs at my table evil if they do evil things (murder, commit genocide, etc). When my PCs kill people and wish to stay "good people" (I don't use alignment, but we still judge if the PCs are good people or not), it's basically always in self defense or in the protection of others. If they kill people outside of these constraints, I make it clear that they just did an evil act and aren't good people. And this is part of the reason why I have such mixed feelings about the Dragonlance setting. I like quite a bit of it and recognize how influential it was to early D&D, but whenever I ask for it to change to be better for a modern audience, people that don't want anything to be changed in the setting come and tell me that I'm bad for the setting and ruining it for them. I honestly feel bad for WotC. It's hard to appease the modern community when the fans from previous editions keep getting of the way of any kind of progress because they don't want anything, even if it might make the setting better for a modern audience and wouldn't affect how they play the setting.</blockquote>