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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Turjan" data-source="post: 1925562" data-attributes="member: 3477">You are completely right in this matter, there is no mechanical reason for such a ruling. Anyway, this is lastly one of this dreaded alignment discussions, again <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. I'd say, just ignore D&D's alignment rulings, because they are too strict to cover all cases well, and as a DM I ignore these pitfalls some published adventures have, where you are supposed to punish your players on  how they treat some monsters during combat (of course, I make rulings appropriate to the situation). IMHO, the best thing is to get completely rid of alignment as written.I don't agree with your last sentence. I don't see any automatism that educating the offspring is automatically connected with the lowest social standing. Regarding your first notion, I think that the concept, as seen from the standpoint of modern ethics, goes something like 'patriarchal society = primitive'. This means, it's easy to attribute a patriarchal organisation to 'monstrous' societies. That this is not a general rule in D&D can be seen at the example of Drow society. Another example in the fantasy genre are the trolls (Uz) of Glorantha, who have also a matriarchal organisation with females in the superior positions (Short remark: Gloranthan trolls are not evil, but just very different).</blockquote>

Verification