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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9544822"><p>One point I would make here is that D&D good and evil, isn't real world good and evil, so it gets pretty difficult to answer these questions using the D&D alignment system (some settings approximated real world morality more with it, but I think the default system has never been one that you could easily apply to moral questions the way a philosopher would. The question of whether eating animal is evil in some way is a complex moral question in reality (I eat meat for example, but I would be lying if I said I was troubled by the fact that I am eating something that was alive and and sentient: and I would be lying if I said I didn't understand the arguments for it being evil: and then there is still the argument to be made, if one accepts it as necessary, that is still an evil in the world (perhaps humans must eat meat, but the fact that they must do so at the expense of other beings is an evil, even if you absolve humans from blame for it). I'm not debating the consumption of meat here, I am just using it as example to make the point. Real world morality is complicated and moral arguments about grave matters ought to be taken very seriously, even if you don't think X or Y is a problem, grappling with the arguments that they are is very important to do. But D&D alignment is so much more simplistic and gamey. You are expected to hand wave so many more things than you would if we were having real world conversations about what is moral and what is ethical.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification