Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8835559" data-attributes="member: 6915329"><p>Typically, when I've asked you these questions, you've ignored them...</p><p></p><p></p><p>And also please note that the MM only provides information that enforces the idea that a monster is evil. As <em>I've </em>said numerous times, if you want to play a particular monster in a different alignment, there's nothing in any of the book that supports you. Even though the MM says you can, every bit of information given for a monster fights against that option. That makes it <em>not </em>setting specific.</p><p></p><p>I'll give an example: harpies. Chaotic Evil. Their lore says Divine Curse, Harpy Song, Sadistic Cowards, and Gruesome Collectors. We can ignore Harpy Song for the moment, because that's just about their ability. It's the other three bits of lore that are important. This is in the Monster Manual, which is supposed to be setting agnostic. I should be able to use harpies in any official setting and any setting I homebrew. </p><p></p><p>If I make them not CE, then Sadistic Cowards and Gruesome Collectors stop making much sense. If I don't want harpies to have been created because an elf got angry and her evil curse backfired on her, then Divine Curse doesn't make sense. So anywhere from half to three-quarters of the monster entry is unusable, simply because I don't want them to be Evil. That puts a <em>lot </em>of effort on me to make them useful, a lot more than simply ignoring a monster. <strong>Any change to alignment is <em>automatically </em>a change to lore. </strong>If I want to have D&D harpies, as a species, that aren't evil, I need to <em>show </em>that they're not evil, not merely <em>tell </em>the players that.</p><p></p><p>Now compare to <a href="https://a5e.tools/node/1685" target="_blank">Level Up's treatment of harpies</a>, which doesn't give harpies an alignment. Their lore includes Luring and Tracking, Artistic and Scholarly Inclination, and Nature's Intermediary. They hold grudges, make for good historians because of a rich oral history, and can predict the weather by tracking air currents. If you want <em>your </em>harpies to be Always Evil Kill On Sight, then literally the only thing you need to do is not have them play nicely with PC races. You can even keep the good historians bit and say they simply don't share their knowledge!</p><p></p><p></p><p>"You're attacked by vicious bandits who happen to be goblins" is no more difficult than "You're attacked by goblins."</p><p></p><p>And "you enter the lair of the vicious bandits to kill them" is heaps better than "you enter the lair of the goblins to kill them," because then the players and DM have to justify killing children and other non-combatants. Do your PCs kill them because they will grow up to be Evil goblins? Do they leave them alone to starve to death on their own, which should alter the PC's alignment? At least with a lair of vicious bandits who are goblins, you can logically write it so that there <em>are </em>no children or non-combatants there, or if there are, they're unwilling but have no ability to leave.</p><p></p><p>Although personally, I don't think DM laziness or lack of creativity is a good enough reason to include alignments.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never asked about the Black Robes, and while I think the idea of alignment-restricted mage groups is stupid for a wide variety of reasons, it's an organization one <em>chooses </em>to join, not a race one is born into. Likewise, one <em>chooses </em>to be a vicious bandit.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Keith Baker said that D&D came with certain expectations he had to include in Eberron. While he didn't elaborate, I would not be surprised if that meant including alignment and those assumptions were things he was forced to include.</p><p></p><p>But you inadvertently made my point for me. Even in Eberron, we can't escape the idea that some races are intrinsically evil, because TSR/WotC decided that they had to have an evil alignment. Below you say "I still believe its far easier to say 'drop any assumptions you have around the NPC's or Monsters you encounter, this is a different setting'," but here you are admitting that's not the case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 8835559, member: 6915329"] Typically, when I've asked you these questions, you've ignored them... And also please note that the MM only provides information that enforces the idea that a monster is evil. As [I]I've [/I]said numerous times, if you want to play a particular monster in a different alignment, there's nothing in any of the book that supports you. Even though the MM says you can, every bit of information given for a monster fights against that option. That makes it [I]not [/I]setting specific. I'll give an example: harpies. Chaotic Evil. Their lore says Divine Curse, Harpy Song, Sadistic Cowards, and Gruesome Collectors. We can ignore Harpy Song for the moment, because that's just about their ability. It's the other three bits of lore that are important. This is in the Monster Manual, which is supposed to be setting agnostic. I should be able to use harpies in any official setting and any setting I homebrew. If I make them not CE, then Sadistic Cowards and Gruesome Collectors stop making much sense. If I don't want harpies to have been created because an elf got angry and her evil curse backfired on her, then Divine Curse doesn't make sense. So anywhere from half to three-quarters of the monster entry is unusable, simply because I don't want them to be Evil. That puts a [I]lot [/I]of effort on me to make them useful, a lot more than simply ignoring a monster. [B]Any change to alignment is [I]automatically [/I]a change to lore. [/B]If I want to have D&D harpies, as a species, that aren't evil, I need to [I]show [/I]that they're not evil, not merely [I]tell [/I]the players that.[B][/B] Now compare to [URL='https://a5e.tools/node/1685']Level Up's treatment of harpies[/URL], which doesn't give harpies an alignment. Their lore includes Luring and Tracking, Artistic and Scholarly Inclination, and Nature's Intermediary. They hold grudges, make for good historians because of a rich oral history, and can predict the weather by tracking air currents. If you want [I]your [/I]harpies to be Always Evil Kill On Sight, then literally the only thing you need to do is not have them play nicely with PC races. You can even keep the good historians bit and say they simply don't share their knowledge! "You're attacked by vicious bandits who happen to be goblins" is no more difficult than "You're attacked by goblins." And "you enter the lair of the vicious bandits to kill them" is heaps better than "you enter the lair of the goblins to kill them," because then the players and DM have to justify killing children and other non-combatants. Do your PCs kill them because they will grow up to be Evil goblins? Do they leave them alone to starve to death on their own, which should alter the PC's alignment? At least with a lair of vicious bandits who are goblins, you can logically write it so that there [I]are [/I]no children or non-combatants there, or if there are, they're unwilling but have no ability to leave. Although personally, I don't think DM laziness or lack of creativity is a good enough reason to include alignments. I never asked about the Black Robes, and while I think the idea of alignment-restricted mage groups is stupid for a wide variety of reasons, it's an organization one [I]chooses [/I]to join, not a race one is born into. Likewise, one [I]chooses [/I]to be a vicious bandit. Keith Baker said that D&D came with certain expectations he had to include in Eberron. While he didn't elaborate, I would not be surprised if that meant including alignment and those assumptions were things he was forced to include. But you inadvertently made my point for me. Even in Eberron, we can't escape the idea that some races are intrinsically evil, because TSR/WotC decided that they had to have an evil alignment. Below you say "I still believe its far easier to say 'drop any assumptions you have around the NPC's or Monsters you encounter, this is a different setting'," but here you are admitting that's not the case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed
Top