D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Scribe]

I mean, the Tau themselves would have multiple races beneath them, like the Kroot and Vespids. And within the Imperium you have at least two distinct races that are active within the guard (Ratlings and Ogryns). Orks have Grots and Snots, which come from the same growth-cycle but are absolutely distinct. Aeldari and Drukari are definitely different at this point.

But that's for army stuff. Within the RPGs, much more are detailed because the RPGs have room to detail more stuff because they are obvious more personal. The Hrud are one example, and there are those people made up of collective of worms whose name escapes me.

Right, but ask your random 40Ker what they associate in D&D from their experience in 40K.

They won't bust out the Hrud. It would be Orks are savage, all about fighting, how about D&D? Oh same? Same.

 

[Maxperson]

Then killing a bandit, by your definition, makes a character not good. No chaotic good characters killing bandits. Or goblins. Or anyone. If you can't kill and still be considered of a good alignment, the concept of the Paladin slaying evil (even the ability Smite Evil) means no paladins are good. Ever.

No. It makes the act not good. It takes more than an act to change or determine alignment.

Which is clearly not the intent of the game.

Excellent. We're on the same page here.

Yet you can't even define what evil actually is in the real world, let alone a game. No one can, really.

I can and do on a regular basis in the game. It's really easy.

I mean yes, the planes make no sense. I agree. They make no sense in large part because good and evil really don't make any sense if you view them from an absolutist perspective.

If a Devil does something, to plane-logic whatever he does no matter what it is IS lawful evil. Is he a devil? Then what he is doing (whatever it might be!) is lawful evil. He is not lawful evil because of what he does. This is nonsense, but it is nonsense written into the setting that we aren't supposed to really look at.

No. It means that he's bound to act in an objectively LE manner. He has no choice. He doesn't have the option to be magnanimous, altruistically help little old ladies across the street, etc. It doesn't at all mean that if he saves babies from a fire, that saving babies becomes LE. That's just silly. A devil isn't going to save those babies unless someone is going go pay a hellish price for it.

Can a good person do bad things? Yes. Clearly. Both in the game world and the real world. The converse is also true.
Can a bad person do good things? Yes, clearly. Unless its in the planes-logic of devilness or whatever.

The concept of 'Good people can only do good things and bad people only do bad things' is quite religious in nature. The clearest example I can think of is the Infallibility of the Pope. The Pope, as I understand, cannot do bad things or even be mistaken. Whatever he does or says, no matter what it is, is Good and True.

Nobody has said otherwise, though. If you are applying this to arguments made here, it's a Strawman. If you aren't, then I don't understand what you are really arguing here.

In the game, morality(alignment) is absolute. That doesn't mean that a good PC can't commit an evil act or vice versa(assuming not a planar creature like a Devil). It does mean that murder is always going to be an evil act, regardless of why it was done. Do it enough, and you will become evil. Neutral killing, such as self-defense or defense of another, won't really affect your alignment.

 

[HJFudge]

In the game, morality(alignment) is absolute. That doesn't mean that a good PC can't commit an evil act or vice versa(assuming not a planar creature like a Devil). It does mean that murder is always going to be an evil act, regardless of why it was done. Do it enough, and you will become evil. Neutral killing, such as self-defense or defense of another, won't really affect your alignment.

Perhaps I missed it in the rules. Where is murder defined, in RAW, as evil?

I am not saying it is not. I am just curious as to where it is.

And no, defining the alignment of an act isn't at ALL easy. You may do it all the time, but I'd argue you are doing it wrong if you think it is easy. Either that or there isn't a lot of moral choices in your game.

After all, if you kill in defense of another it is not murder. So killing a prince to stop a war that will eventually kill thousands is, in fact, defense of others. Therefore the killing of the prince is no longer murder by your definition.

 

[Charlaquin]

Playable? Not remotely.

Human.
Ork.
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tau.
Chaos.
Nids.
Necron.

You have subfactions under those, but that's it, and that's being generous that Eldar are even distinct.

Subfactions are how GW pushes product, you just keep selling the same kits in different colours.

I was looking at species, not factions. But yeah, there are only a handful of major ones.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Right, but ask your random 40Ker what they associate in D&D from their experience in 40K.

They won't bust out the Hrud. It would be Orks are savage, all about fighting, how about D&D? Oh same? Same.

Man, it's almost like it was designed meant to be a tabletop wargame and not an RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps I missed it in the rules. Where is murder defined, in RAW, as evil?

The game uses the common usages of words and meanings. I can't think of anyone who would say that murder isn't evil, which makes the common usage of murder as an evil act.

If something is in doubt, then the DM makes the decision on whether something is good, neutral, lawful, etc. And that decision becomes the objective morality of that act in his game.

And no, defining the alignment of an act isn't at ALL easy. You may do it all the time, but I'd argue you are doing it wrong if you think it is easy. Either that or there isn't a lot of moral choices in your game.

I can't do it wrong. You may disagree with me on a specific call, but your disagreement doesn't change anything. As the DM when I make a call on whether something is good, evil or whatever, that's what it is

After all, if you kill in defense of another it is not murder. So killing a prince to stop a war that will eventually kill thousands is, in fact, defense of others. Therefore the killing of the prince is no longer murder by your definition.

That's very, very wrong. Unless that prince is actively trying to kill someone, your act is not in defense of another. Killing in defense of another is an immediate thing. ie You come across someone strangling a woman to death and who won't stop, so you have to smash the person repeatedly in the head to save her and he dies.

 

[HJFudge]

That's very, very wrong. Unless that prince is actively trying to kill someone, your act is not in defense of another. Killing in defense of another is an immediate thing. ie You come across someone strangling a woman to death and who won't stop, so you have to smash the person repeatedly in the head to save her and he dies.

Ah yes, so it is murder then if you kill the scientist who is developing a chemical agent to turn the water to poison. After all, he is not trying to kill anyone IMMEDIATELY. One must wait till hes literally pouring it in the well in order to kill him.

Cmon thats nonsense.

 

[Scribe]

Man, it's almost like it was designed meant to be a tabletop wargame and not an RPG.

Exactly.

 

[Oofta]

It's not like D&D has wargame roots as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah yes, so it is murder then if you kill the scientist who is developing a chemical agent to turn the water to poison. After all, he is not trying to kill anyone IMMEDIATELY. One must wait till hes literally pouring it in the well in order to kill him.

Of course it is.

Cmon thats nonsense.

Do it and see what you get charged with.