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="LuYangShih" data-source="post: 737253" data-attributes="member: 10414">If you are going to leave the truth, in your game world, of moral situations such as this, undefined, why bother with alignments in the first place?  Everyone has justifications, rationale and reasons for the actions they take, and I would say it's a rare individual indeed who would call themselves evil and believe it.  People think they are good, no matter what they do.  The D&D alignment system is supposed to define what is good and what is evil, so you don't have complicated moral situations such as this one.  Spells like detect evil, protection from evil, etc. will not work in a world where every action can be construed as "good" because of the intentions or reasons behind the act, unless you plan to completely revamp the system and/or spells.  Slaughtering the Gnolls was either good, neutral, or evil.  You can throw in Lawful or Chaotic as well, if you want.  If Gnolls are born wicked, than it was a Good act.  If they are redeemable, it was a neutral or evil act.  A pragmatic, effecient and convient way of dealing with the helpless Gnoll children.If you do not wish to define such actions, like I said in the beginning of the thread, why bother with alignment at all?  It doesn't mean or indicate anything, since actions are not defined as good or evil in your gameworld.  As for player conflicts, they can add spice and drama to a game, as long you have mature players who do not let it affect the fun they are having.  It can wreck a less cohesive and/or mature group, and has the possibility of lessening fun in any group.  It all depends on how the players involved handle it, and as always that's a case by case scenario.</blockquote>

Verification