Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6921279" data-attributes="member: 6701872">My 2nd edition Monstrous Manual disagrees with you. It tells me right at the front that the Alignment mentioned for each monster "shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type." and that exceptions occur.To both of these: I already told you the definition you keep asking for, and that I'm not talking about what someone might do with their own campaign.It does matter because it highlights that the "red herring details people keep inventing" actually includes some of the details your interpretation of the events relies upon - which you have invented because it was necessary to invent something to reach a conclusion beyond "Not enough information provided to be sure."That's not what the book says.  You might. It doesn't, and I won't."Point being"? You sound like you think you are telling me something I didn't know already or don't agree with - and that is very odd since I'm the one that brought devils being evil with a capital 'E' into the conversation as a means to prove that orcs, being neither fiend nor celestial, aren't treated in the same way by the D&D books.That's not an expectation I have, nor is it one I expressed anyone, myself included, as having at any point.And again, I already did.Tolkien is not one of the names on the credits page of the D&D game... so no, that's not the case.Which makes it weird that you keep leading the discussion into them.Which is fine, because it doesn't have to - the text describing alignment and what it means already did that.  That is a question. But I find the more interesting one to be how one side of this specific grudge can be "wholly ruined" while the other side isn't, despite that other side both creating the negative emotion that caused the grudge, and being willing to take the grudge as far (since both sides treat the other with the same kill on sight attitude).It's really odd that you know that here, but ask me twice before this, and once after, to define orc. Make up your mind; do you know what we are talking about or don't you?Replace "orc" in that sentence with any real race and tell me if you think it still makes sense.Yes, I understand that orcs are genuinely fictional so there is some leeway in their creator possibly saying that they are not a people - but D&D talks about their outlook on life, their culture, their family units, and their self-awareness and the implied self-identity as being a people that comes with it, plus explicitly points out in the earlier versions that an orc counts as a person so that we know any spell that affects people affects orcs - so I'm not sure how all of those facts could coexist with the above statement that killing of a creature for no further reason than because it is what it is is not racist, or how that killing being done simply because an opportunity arose is able to be called anything but murderous.Are you aware that real world racism can manifest as insisting that other people that look differently than your people do aren't actually people?</blockquote>

Verification