NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6907541" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Exactly. This is something that I point out to all of my players when we get going on a new campaign. Killing an intelligent creature is a traumatizing event for (almost) everybody. Even those trained to do it.You can run the game anyway you want, and the gritty, gray area between good and evil is a very interesting place to play the game. BUT, by design D&D has a very well defined concept of good and evil. It is not setting or culturally dependent. Murder is always evil in the game, and it's a game where there may be repercussions aside from the normal ones (revenge, justice, mobs, etc.). Granted, 5e has separated alignment from class abilities pretty much completely (which I agree with), but the opportunities still exist.Even the idea of playing evil characters, while difficult to do well (particularly to run a campaign with an evil party), the definition of good and evil is constant.The game also leans heavily on certain creatures (drow, goblins, orcs, etc.) being evil and therefore acceptable targets for wanton killing. Which is fine in theory, but circumstances arise in my campaigns that make them question that. Even in the early adventures, Gygax put you in that position with scenarios like Caves of Chaos where there are kobold, goblin and orc non-combatant families, mothers and children, and you have to decide how you handle that situation.There is no question that the OP act is evil. It's not even in a gray area. So now that there's a murderer in their midst, the interesting part of the campaign to me would be how the rest of the party handles it.</blockquote>

Verification