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="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8348476" data-attributes="member: 6915329">Non-alignment words--yes, even words like violent and selfish--don't have intrinsic morality to them. You can have a creatures that are violent or selfish to good ends (like most adventurers, especially those that demand payment for their services) just like you can have them that are violent and selfish to evil ends. Ditto, a kind person can have other traits that could be good or not good.Plus, what actually tells you something about the creature? "These creatures tend hang on to their possessions selfishly, rarely using them or giving them away even when when doing so could possibly benefit them" or "neutral evil"? I dislike labeling all members of a species as evil or good except for those few over there that are almost never actually used in anything. Especially since that smacks of real-world racism wherein people say, yeah, that minority group is just awful. But not Bob. I know Bob. He's a good one.For instance, in 3x, goblins were "usually neutral evil." I can't remember what percentage "usually" meant--let's say it was 80%--but in all the 3x books, how often were non-evil groups of goblins actually presented? Individuals, sure, I'm sure there were neutral and good goblins every now and then. But were there any neutral or good goblin tribes? Were 20% of all depicted goblin tribes non-evil? And if so, were there more than one example? I think there's been one known non-evil orc tribe.To me, it seems like saying that goblins are "usually" evil, or that evil is their "default" alignment doesn't actually mean they're ever going to be depicted as anything other than evil. Except for "that one good one."Which is one of the problems I have with alignment. Also, I find the reasons given for why a monster is evil are usually lacking. In 5e, lots of them are evil because some gods or demons made them that way (e.g., goblinoids, lamias, merrow, ghouls), or because a singular individual performed an evil act which changed them, and so now there's a whole race of evil monsters (e.g., harpies, vampires if you use the story that Strahd is the very fist vampire). So what does that mean for their alignment? Can any of them become not-evil without defying the gods or overcoming a racial curse? And anyway, "the gods did it" isn't really satisfying to me. And to be honest, there is some actual, real-world essentialism. Animal species have very distinct and often very strong behavioral traits--and in the case of domestic animals, those traits were often bred into them. Go to any pet site and read up on the temperament of different purebred cats and dogs. Considering how many animalistic traits most D&D monsters have, I don't have a problem with saying that a type of dragon "tends to be enjoy military history."I really, really don't like alignments. This is not a secret.No, I'm not really fond of those alignments either partially for the reasons you mentioned, and partially because they make no sense without also including Law and Chaos as cosmic forces, like they were in the original source.</blockquote>

Verification