Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8188944" data-attributes="member: 18">I'd agree it was semantics if it didn't come up so much as a real issue in actual games and so on. But it has, in my experience. Also, dude, you know what D&D players mean by inherent, too, so it doesn't matter what the "dictionary definition" is here. They mean innate and unalterable.I agree that what they're doing here is a change, because they're basically ruling out the possibility of saying "Oh they're inherently evil", together with the extremely unfortunate implications (like "they're not worthy to live"/"genociding sapient beings is okay if their alignment code ends in E!" etc.). That's good for the game, for sure, though might make some of the more... unfortunate... adventures out there look bad. But they already looked bad. I knew it was wrong to genocide orcs when I was 12 in frickin' 1990. But clearly some people didn't, and from the boards we know some people still don't (and indeed, some 3PP adventures seem to have this issue from time to time).</blockquote>