Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 153325" data-attributes="member: 537">I'm not so much holding one position, as pointing out that both could be consistent with D&amp;D. D&amp;D doesn't mandate what position characters in-game have to take vis-a-vis what's morally good or evil, only that they behave in a consistent manner with some pretty broad guidelines. This allows a whole range of possibilities.You could have a game where Evil people (those who have the Evil descriptor) consider ghouls and demons to be allies like any other. They may be distasteful to some, but you could say the same of any creature. In such a game, the &quot;Evil&quot; descriptor has no place in-game (although it would still exist as part of the rules) -- such characters might consider themselves to serve &quot;Darkness&quot;, or some other more morally neutral word. Examples of such people can easily be found in high fantasy, such as the Southrons or Black Numenoreans in Tolkien. They were clearly serving the Evil cause, but probably believed that what they were doing was right (ie, they did not consider themselves as &quot;evil&quot;).You could also have a game where Evil people consider such creatures to be morally dubious, but still useful servants nonetheless. They believe that they're doing the right thing, although their actions may be unacceptable to many. No doubt they would use reasoning along the lines of &quot;the end justifies the means&quot; to excuse their dealing with demons and etc. Such a game would be a bit darker and more morally ambiguous than the black-and-white situation in Tolkien, but it's still possible with D&amp;D. It's the default setup in Rokugan, for instance -- you have Evil clans like the Scorpion who are ultimately on the same side as the Good clans, because they're all part of the same empire and fighting the Shadowlands.Finally, you could have a game where Evil characters know that they're doing things that are morally wrong, but revel in it nonetheless.&nbsp; Here, it's possible for the Evil descriptor to exist in-game -- these characters would know they're &quot;evil&quot;, and are proud of it. I'm not sure what precedent this has in history, legend or fantasy, though, unless you're talking about psychotic killers and madmen.Not that there's anything wrong with having madmen as villains, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Hong &quot;just mentioned Hitler&quot; Ooi</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 153325, member: 537"] I'm not so much holding one position, as pointing out that both could be consistent with D&D. D&D doesn't mandate what position characters in-game have to take vis-a-vis what's morally good or evil, only that they behave in a consistent manner with some pretty broad guidelines. This allows a whole range of possibilities. You could have a game where Evil people (those who have the Evil descriptor) consider ghouls and demons to be allies like any other. They may be distasteful to some, but you could say the same of any creature. In such a game, the "Evil" descriptor has no place in-game (although it would still exist as part of the rules) -- such characters might consider themselves to serve "Darkness", or some other more morally neutral word. Examples of such people can easily be found in high fantasy, such as the Southrons or Black Numenoreans in Tolkien. They were clearly serving the Evil cause, but probably believed that what they were doing was right (ie, they did not consider themselves as "evil"). You could also have a game where Evil people consider such creatures to be morally dubious, but still useful servants nonetheless. They believe that they're doing the right thing, although their actions may be unacceptable to many. No doubt they would use reasoning along the lines of "the end justifies the means" to excuse their dealing with demons and etc. Such a game would be a bit darker and more morally ambiguous than the black-and-white situation in Tolkien, but it's still possible with D&D. It's the default setup in Rokugan, for instance -- you have Evil clans like the Scorpion who are ultimately on the same side as the Good clans, because they're all part of the same empire and fighting the Shadowlands. Finally, you could have a game where Evil characters know that they're doing things that are morally wrong, but revel in it nonetheless. Here, it's possible for the Evil descriptor to exist in-game -- these characters would know they're "evil", and are proud of it. I'm not sure what precedent this has in history, legend or fantasy, though, unless you're talking about psychotic killers and madmen. Not that there's anything wrong with having madmen as villains, of course. :) Hong "just mentioned Hitler" Ooi [/QUOTE]

Verification