NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 8188970" data-attributes="member: 15700">I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.If I describe Jews as "lawful evil" in the rules, but then have one Jew who isn't evil in a book or module, that doesn't make it any less problematic or functionally different than saying that "Jews are inherently evil."  Arguing the difference is semantic and ignoring the point of why labeling Jews as "lawful evil" is a bad thing to begin with, because when people read that stat entry, they assume that Jews as a default, and the vast majority, are evil.edit  Perhaps this analogy might work better.  When a creature has a defined stat block feature, like being chaotic evil, then people will treat that trait as being inherent to that race.  Having extremely rare exceptions doesn't change that.  Just like it's an inherent trait that humans have two eyes even though some humans might not (birth defect, or other reason).  If a DM doesn't want an orc to be evil, they have to intentionally make that exception to the stat block because it goes against the assigned characteristic.  And that's the problem.  People read the descriptions of orcs/goblins/whatever and see that as a default, they are evil unless the GM makes it a point to not make them evil.  That's the problem.  We don't say Nazis weren't inherently bad because John Rabe was a good fella.  If someone is identified as a nazi, we make assumptions that they are not a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification