Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1157159" data-attributes="member: 3146">Laying aside the alignment difference (in my view, Lawful Evil tribes are much more likely to make good neighbors than Chaotic Evil ones), there are several incorrect assumptions here.First, you assume that differences in the magnitude of a threat are not morally significant. They are. An Al Bundy (of Married With Children) type man with a horrible temper and no self-control may assault someone with his fists and do serious damage. A Mike Tyson type individual--a trained heavyweight boxer with a horrible temper and not much self-control--may also lose his temper and assault someone with his fists. And, in Western society, we generally agree that these two things are crimes of a different magnitude. In the US, the one is generally assault and battery and the second is assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. Similarly, we would look differently upon a man who taught his young children how to shoot a .22 rifle and one who taught them how to use an M60 or SAW. The magnitude of a threat does legitimately make a difference to how one reacts to it. Even in our political discourse, it makes a difference when a third-world tyrant is aquiring the region's largest conventional army and when they are aquiring or attempting to aquire (or even simply retaining the ability to aquire) weapons of mass destruction. All political groups seem to admit that, regardless of their stand on current American foreign policy. Granted, that is evidence of what people do believe rather than what they ought to believe, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that the magnitude of threat is not significant rather than the one who claims that it is.Second, there are other significant differences between the tribe of ogres with a young adult green dragon and the tribe of kobolds with a wyrmling white. The young adult green, for instance, is not a potential threat like the wyrmling. He is an extant threat in his own right. Unlike the kobolds' wyrmling, he is also quite durable and is unlikely to die because of abuse. The young adult green is also a significant enough power--in terms of intelligence, physical power, and ability--to turn the tables on the ogres and, in short order become a green dragon with a tribe of ogres at his command (a much more threatening prospect for the surrounding area).And third, there is another difference between a first level paladin vs. kobolds and a white dragon and a 15th level paladin vs. ogres and a young adult green: The 15th level paladin can almost certainly take the ogres and the dragon by himself. (The EL of a young adult green and 32 ogres is only 15 or so and considering the vast difference in CRs, the ogres are probably not a threat). The first level paladin, OTOH, is almost certain to die if he attempts to face 32 kobolds and a white wyrmling.That said, I would not say that the 15th level paladin is obliged to wipe out the ogres and their dragon. It would depend upon his understanding of the specific situation and the ogres interactions with the surrounding communities. Just like the case of Calcryx and the kobolds.</blockquote>

Verification