Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8322969" data-attributes="member: 58416">I can see that.Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant.For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?)One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be.On a more personal level, my own view is admittedly &quot;skewed&quot; by influences from sword-&amp;-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be.It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically &quot;good&quot; Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?•edited to touch up some grammar and spelling</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8322969, member: 58416"] I can see that. Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant. For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?) One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be. On a more personal level, my own view is admittedly "skewed" by influences from sword-&-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be. It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others? •edited to touch up some grammar and spelling [/QUOTE]

Verification