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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3579777" data-attributes="member: 16574">Success in D&D is generally dependent on violence and fighting, but is only dependent on "murder" if the DM makes it be (or allows it to be). Non-intelligent animals and animal-like monsters generally don't carry much/any moral baggage when killed (at least among the people I play with). Likewise constructs, undead, and other soulless/non-living monsters (demons, devils, etc.). So, really, this is only an issue when dealing with humans, humanoids, and other intelligent monsters (such as dragons), and in these cases I do think it's wholly appropriate for good-aligned characters to ask "is it possible to defeat these foes without having to kill them?" and/or "have they committed specific actions that warrant being killed over?" and if the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, then it behooves them to at least try not to kill them or possibly risk an involuntary alignment-change. Neutral characters are allowed to be a bit more pragmatic and morally gray in justifying their actions (a lot of the sorts of justifications you hear for killing by good characters are, IMO, actually more appropriate to neutral characters), and of course evil characters can and will kill whatever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want.Part of this also lies with the DM and how he designs his adventures -- since I think good-aligned characters should strive to kill as few intelligent foes as possible, I try to design my adventures in such a way that there aren't many unavoidable fights to the death against intelligent foes (unless they're really nasty and definitely have it coming...) and that the characters can "succeed" in the adventure just as well by tricking, capturing, driving away, negotiating with, or simply avoiding intelligent foes as by killing them all.</blockquote>

Verification