D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Reynard]

Don't confuse "non-hostile" for "non-evil". You can still be a LE kobold and decide it's better to work with potential murderhobos ín an attempt to bargain your life and the life of your dragon charge than to needlessly throw it away on a suicide attack.

I try not to use two different races for the same niche. if goblins are my cackling pyromaniac cannibal monstrosities, I use kobolds for the put upon forced to serve darkness people.

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't confuse "non-hostile" for "non-evil". You can still be a LE kobold and decide it's better to work with potential murderhobos ín an attempt to bargain your life and the life of your dragon charge than to needlessly throw it away on a suicide attack.

They said there was a tribe of kobolds that was “way more nuanced,” so if they’re all evil, I think we must have different definitions of nuance.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Don't confuse "non-hostile" for "non-evil". You can still be a LE kobold and decide it's better to work with potential murderhobos ín an attempt to bargain your life and the life of your dragon charge than to needlessly throw it away on a suicide attack.

That's usually how I portray Lawful Evil. More cautious, willing to work with others long term if it meets their needs, less likely to complain. The Lawfulness tempers the Evilness.

As a DM, I play devils as much less likely to fight PCs. For them fighting is a fail-state in most interactions with mortals. They don't even always need to be looking to get someone's soul so long as they think they can corrupt more people in the long run by being an ally in the present.

 

[payn]

Please, when do I get to just stomp around in my own little mecha... I've waited so long...

Here ya go.

 

[Cadence]

They said there was a tribe of kobolds that was “way more nuanced,” so if they’re all evil, I think we must have different definitions of nuance.

To me it feels like LE has a lot more room for nuance than CE. Kingpin feels like he has a lot more interesting than the chitauri, or Dr Doom vs. Carnage.

 

[Scribe]

Here ya go.

Method2, may be my spirit animal...

 

[CleverNickName]

To me it feels like LE has a lot more room for nuance than CE for me. Kingpin feels like he has a lot more interesting than the chitauri, or Dr Doom vs. Carnage.

Agree. Forget Monsieur Thenardier, the real money in Les Miserables is Inspector Javert.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hey, don't knock it. I'll sometimes get a couple spoonsful of my favorite jam (raspberry) and mix in a splash or two of my favorite wine (pinot) until it has a pourable consistency, then drizzle it over my favorite ice cream (vanilla).

'Vanilla is boring'? pff. You just gotta know how to houserule it.

I don't do wine, but I most assuredly put jam in my ice cream. Have for years. Get a good French vanilla, then add whatever jam I want (or better yet, during the season I put the raspberries fresh from the vine in with the ice cream)

 

[Umbran]

Agree. Forget Monsieur Thenardier, the real money in Les Miserables is Inspector Javert.

Javert is pretty clearly Lawful Neutral.

 

[Reynard]

They said there was a tribe of kobolds that was “way more nuanced,” so if they’re all evil, I think we must have different definitions of nuance.

It seems like you are conflating a few things as it relates to evil humanoids. "Inherently evil" only indicates a lack of free will in the moral sphere. Those creatures can still be subtle and charismatic and personable and complex and cooperative. They can also be fiery Cuisinarts of death and dark hilarity.

 

[MNblockhead]

Really, though, D&D could just shift a lot of the negative traits ascribed to goblins and orcs and whatever to certain low CR demons and make them more common as low-level enemies. It would also help give dretches and what not more personality.

Demons are pure evil without the civility that devils can have, don't reproduce, are invaders from the Abyss rather than natives of the world, and don't even really die when destroyed unless destroyed in the Abyss. Their presence in large numbers also increases the Abyss' link to a world, so wiping out incursions is also an imperative.

What are you, an alignment chauvinist!?

Edit: The only thing is I have the suspicion that putting demons in the goblins' niche might somehow end up making people want to start portraying literal demons more sympathetically, which would be bad optics for the game that once suffered under the Satanic Panic.

...maybe Jack Chic was right all along!

 

[Charlaquin]

To me it feels like LE has a lot more room for nuance than CE. Kingpin feels like he has a lot more interesting than the chitauri, or Dr Doom vs. Carnage.

I don’t think the 9-alignment system has much room for nuance. The idea that someone can be both lawful and evil may seem deep to someone with little to no exposure to philosophy, but I think at this point it’s old hat for most D&D players. It’s just shoving people (or worse, types of people) into one of nine boxes and pretending that tells you all you need to know about their moral character. Maybe LE is more nuanced than CE, but if it is, it’s in the way that GI Joe is more educational than Loony Tunes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Javert is pretty clearly Lawful Neutral.

His philosophy is that to be good is to be lawful and to be lawful is to be good. I struggle to imagine a better example of Lawful Good.

 

[payn]

I don’t think the 9-alignment system has much room for nuance. The idea that someone can be both lawful and evil may seem deep to someone with little to no exposure to philosophy, but I think at this point it’s old hat for most D&D players. It’s just shoving people (or worse, types of people) into one of nine boxes and pretending that tells you all you need to know about their moral character. Maybe LE is more nuanced than CE, but if it is, it’s in the way that GI Joe is more educational than Loony Tunes.

This is just another dismissal of a general system because it isnt specific.

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems like you are conflating a few things as it relates to evil humanoids. "Inherently evil" only indicates a lack of free will in the moral sphere. Those creatures can still be subtle and charismatic and personable and complex and cooperative. They can also be fiery Cuisinarts of death and dark hilarity.

If they are not capable of being other than fiery Cuisinarts of death and dark hilarity, how can it be said that they have free will?

 

[Charlaquin]

This is just another dismissal of a general system because it isnt specific.

It’s a dismissal of a moral system because it does a terrible job of being a moral system.

 

[Cadence]

Maybe LE is more nuanced than CE, but if it is, it’s in the way that GI Joe is more educational than Loony Tunes.

Ok, misread that. I thought you were dissing Looney Tunes. (<-fixed previous things)

But going without the labels, Dr. Doom, Kingpin, and Lex Luthor more nuanced than the chitauri, Carnage, and Doomsday?

 

[Umbran]

His philosophy is that to be good is to be lawful and to be lawful is to be good. I struggle to imagine a better example of Lawful Good.

I call him LN because he doesn't care about the welfare of people, so long as the law is followed. However, he's also not in it for his own profit, or specifically to cause harm.

 

[Cadence]

Wrong thread. Sorry!

 

[MNblockhead]

I don’t think the 9-alignment system has much room for nuance. The idea that someone can be both lawful and evil may seem deep to someone with little to no exposure to philosophy, but I think at this point it’s old hat for most D&D players. It’s just shoving people (or worse, types of people) into one of nine boxes and pretending that tells you all you need to know about their moral character. Maybe LE is more nuanced than CE, but if it is, it’s in the way that GI Joe is more educational than Loony Tunes.

I think that we should replace the old alignment system with Myers Briggs Personality Types to really bring nuance to our game.






No, no I don't. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm NG and an ENTJ. Oh, and a gemini.