Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8330895" data-attributes="member: 6915329">They were nothing but contradictions.But again, you went for the violent option rather than just asking them. Asking them, in and of itself, going to scare game away. It's possible to have a perfectly civil conversation with orc hunters--but you seem to think it's not. Because orcs are evil.And that's why alignments are bad. Why are orcs evil in your setting? Because, that's why.Because killing someone because of their race is sooo much better.You haven't shown that it's not lazy. So far, everything you've said in this post has involved following basic stereotypes.And again you're proving my point about the problem with alignments. Why would you assume that orcs have to be "more bad" than other races? When [USER=42856]@Galandris[/USER] pointed out that elves had tried to commit genocide on the quaggoths, your response wasn't "well, I guess the alignments were wrong and those elves were actually pretty evil." You didn't say "I guess elves are "more bad" than other races." Instead, your response was, quote "Nothing says that they had to go deep into the underdark. It's just as plausible that they simply feared the elves would follow them down into the dark and so they went deep just to be sure." Or as I read it, you're blaming the quaggoths for overreacting to them being nearly genocided--because elves are listed as being Good, so it doesn't matter that they tried to kill off an entire species just to get their land.How? Do you assume that an evil being would automatically attack upon becoming hostile and a nonevil being wouldn't? That itself is one-dimensional and cartoonish, and still lazy because there's a world of options that any creature within a particular alignment would do. A good being might attack, because these interlopers are proving a danger for the survival of their people. An evil being might not attack, because they have better things to do.Earlier, you were saying that alignments were objective. Evil is evil. I'd say it's objectively evil to capture and interrogate someone just because you don't like their answer, especially if they are under no obligation to answer you. Or to kill someone because of their race, or because they yelled at you because you spoiled their hunt and because of that, possibly made their family go hungry. Just like it's objectively evil to try to murder an entire race for their land. There's nothing about chaotic evil that means "might makes right" is the only interpretation. Most of the descriptions of CE I read have that as one possible way it might be expressed, and it certainly doesn't explain what a captured CE creature might do or how it might response to interrogation. A CE person might run away and attack later. They might be basically like chihuahuas and attack even if the odds appear to be overwhelmingly against them. They might refuse to answer someone who interrogates them, no matter what those people do them, because it doesn't believe them when they say they'll let them go if they answer the questions, so why not keep quiet. They might actually respect people who keep their word, even if they themselves rarely do. They might not attack at all because they don't feel like it. They might never give up any information because they have feel protective of their friends and family, even if they would gladly watch the rest of the world burn. They may get revenge on the PCs by spreading lies about them, or by sneaking into their camp at night and peeing on their rations, or by taking out their anger on someone else entirely. They might be perfectly charming and friendly and the PCs may never, ever know that they were CE, unless they follow them home to discover that the individual is, e.g., abusing their family members. So far, all your alignment as told me is that alignment is cartoonishly one-dimensional.And your box hasn't provided anything but blatant stereotypes.</blockquote>

Verification