D&D General Inherently Evil?

Vaalingrade

Legend
From AD&D, you still have the same 9 old alignments, and the variations have been minimal over the editions. Much more of the core design has survived than things have changed.
I've noticed that Alignment supports don't tend to consider attendant mechanics like Alignment languages, restrictions (which is where this tangent started, but which has been abandoned in order to narrow the argument), the actual structure of alignment going from Law and Chaos to that five point diagram people keep posting, to 4e's line + Unaligned, then back to 3e, XP penalties, and Always monster alignments to be part of alignment.

Do you really consider alignment to just be the non-mutually exclusive definitions from the 3e PHB?
And yet, D&D, including alignment since the proportion of people not using at all it is I think fairly low (the degree of use varies for sure) has entertained many more people than any single other TTRPG game out there, by a huge margin.
D&D with a bad skill system has also entertained more people than any single TTRPG too. How does first mover advantage equate to 'good design', especially for a game in like it's 11th revision, 5th major revision?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You and also most Vegans, in fact! Could take root!
Probably PETA and most people think they're crazy ;)
Book of Vile Darkness page 10 under Fetishes and Addictions. Just to cite my reference point!
Page 10 gives my definition as THE definition of cannibalism. Then gives a vague, "You may consider it to be..." May is an "optional if you want to," not an actual redefinition for the game.
Though I would also like to point out that "Reverse Gravity" misuses both the words "Reverse" and "Gravity" since it doesn't actually reverse gravity, but just makes things float within a specific area (Cylinder).
It does reverse gravity. You literally fall up. They cap it at 100 feet so as to not launch things into orbit. You're also wrong about it just making things float. If you have a 40' ceiling, no floating happens. The creature falls 40 feet and can get up, standing upside down in the reversed gravity. No floating at all.

There is no redefinition or misuse of the words.
 



Vaalingrade

Legend
Let's just say 'eating people is bad' and skip the pointless semantic argument that sounds like someone trying to excuse eating non-human sapient?
 

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Let's just say 'eating people is bad' and skip the pointless semantic argument that sounds like someone trying to excuse eating non-human sapient?
lol, good luck on that one. we have crossed the useful discussion point of the thread and will now be carried for 30-40 pages on semantic arguments alone. :D
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
I've noticed that Alignment supports don't tend to consider attendant mechanics like Alignment languages, restrictions (which is where this tangent started, but which has been abandoned in order to narrow the argument), the actual structure of alignment going from Law and Chaos to that five point diagram people keep posting, to 4e's line + Unaligned, then back to 3e, XP penalties, and Always monster alignments to be part of alignment.

And still, despite minor variations, I can play alignment in 5e almost exactly the same as in AD&D. I notice that people who hate alignment either have to bring up minor details or actually invent things to try to make a point...

Do you really consider alignment to just be the non-mutually exclusive definitions from the 3e PHB?

And this is proof of the above. Alignment has never been extremely clear cut, there have always been degrees, variations and interpretations anyway.

D&D with a bad skill system has also entertained more people than any single TTRPG too. How does first mover advantage equate to 'good design', especially for a game in like it's 11th revision, 5th major revision?

Yeah, I know, the good thing is that incredibly good designers such as yourself have always had the right, considering all that they have successfully designed and published, to criticise the design of others.

And I find is significant, and in like with the above that you choose to now discuss the skill system in a thread about alignment. sigh
 


Okay, but you can't expect anyone else to follow your suit. I hereby declare cannibalism to mean eating any living thing!

They can't change it, either. It takes all/most of society to do that, and it hasn't.

Thank God I usually consume my food conveniently pre-killed! I am still a parangon of virtue ! :ROFLMAO:
Wanted to separate this one out in particular...

Bodily Autonomy.

Very basic principle: Your body belongs to you even when you die. That's why people have, famously, had elaborate rituals for the dead. Preparing bodies for the afterlife, interring them for safekeeping underground or in caverns, preserving the body in pyramids, the shell left behind, for the person who can't do it themself.

You make good points, but isn't this the other way round? With the first signs of religion being about explaining death and creating belief of survival of the soul, defiling the body meant depriving of "proper care" and therefore causing harm to the person beyond killing them, hence the moral prohibition, linked to the prohibition of not doing harm. If this belief is taken out of the equation, the taboo is much lessened. You mention organ donor having to declare they are OK to donate and not the hospital taking organs, but precisely, this was reversed (right to oppose on basis of individual belief with consent assumed) as the idea of survival of the self became less widespread, while it might still be as you say in more religious countries. If you take defiling as a way to prevent the soul to go where it must go, either because you don't generally believe in souls or, as it would be the case with fantasy worlds, performing rites has no bearing on what happens (AFAIK, in the FR, your soul is sorted by Kelemvor irrespective of the burial rites, and it's the same in Eberron, everyone goes to Dolurrh and decay there)... and with magic you can ascertain what happened by divining or communing with the gods themselves, there might not be such an emphasis on burial rites (and therefore no harm made to the person if eaten, and no fear/want of eating its spirit). The taboo might come from profundly ingrained religious belief that you somehow harm someone by eating its corpse.

Tangentially, anyone else creeped out by the sheer number of sapient you can harvest for components.

"I defeated the local warlord (a dragon) and as a trophy I am now wearing his skin. I am certainly the good guy here."

A PC once yelled at a dragon "I am wearing your sister. Soon, you'll be my boots." He didn't pretend to be a good guy, so it somehow was appropriately scary.


I have to know: do your human characters eat elves?

Nope, of course! You can eschew something without moral imperative. On the other hand, my lizardfolk characters would if the opportunity arose (which means not killing innocent for meat, obviously) (though I guess they'd prefer dwarf meat, elves seem too lean for meat).
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
And still, despite minor variations, I can play alignment in 5e almost exactly the same as in AD&D. I notice that people who hate alignment either have to bring up minor details or actually invent things to try to make a point...
"Minor Variations" like entire systems that deal with experience penalties, loss of magical powers, whole entire definition changes of the different allowed or varieties of alignments ranging from 3 to 5 to 9 to 10 options each with their own specific sub-definitions which are specific to a given edition of D&D... And at this point it functions pretty much exclusively as an RP tool with no mechanics tied to it, whatsoever...

AC has been more set in clay than Alignment has. At least there was never a time where you lost XP for having too high or too low an Armor Class.
And this is proof of the above. Alignment has never been extremely clear cut, there have always been degrees, variations and interpretations anyway.
Ahhh... so "Good Game Design" is "Vague and progressively disconnected from all other game mechanics as to essentially be irrelevant for the system". Good to know.
 

Remove ads

Top