Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Estlor" data-source="post: 2189776" data-attributes="member: 7261">This is beside the point.&nbsp; In fact, it's kind of a straw man.&nbsp;Whether you agree with it or not, D&amp;D grants certain connotations to certain creatures.&nbsp; An intelligent, standard PC race is viewed in an entirely different light than a monster.&nbsp; The assumption in D&amp;D is that a party will be largely good (or at least moral in nature over 50% of the time).&nbsp; Look at the standard races.&nbsp; Elves are good.&nbsp; Dwarves are good.&nbsp; Halflings are friendly folk.&nbsp; Gnomes are lighthearted folk.&nbsp; Good, good, good, good, good.&nbsp; The attempt made by Eberron to inject a certain amount of ambiguity in these races doesn't erase the standard, assumed perception of a base character race in D&amp;D - they are good, friendly folk.&nbsp;Monsters, on the other hand, are typically evil creatures you kill without remorse.&nbsp; If it's a &quot;good&quot; monster it quickly becomes an NPC that is only statted out as an afterthought on the rare event that it might fight alongside the PCs.&nbsp; Anything goes with an evil monster.&nbsp; Kill it.&nbsp; Spit on its corpse.&nbsp; Kick its lifeless body all you want.&nbsp;So saying, &quot;if flaying a PC race is evil, flaying a monster race must be too,&quot; requires you to ignore 30 years of implied alignment connotations throughout three editions of rules.&nbsp;Or, perhaps, is the problem the players are seeing Warforged as nothing more than the next flavor of intelligent monster?&nbsp;Let me put it to you another way.&nbsp; Which is more evil: killing a human, skinning it, and wearing your new human suit around town or killing a cow, skinning it, and wearing your new leather jacket around town?&nbsp; Yes, I know cows aren't ancient, intelligent monsters that breathe fire, but the analogy is the same in prototypical D&amp;D terms nonetheless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Estlor, post: 2189776, member: 7261"] This is beside the point. In fact, it's kind of a straw man. Whether you agree with it or not, D&D grants certain connotations to certain creatures. An intelligent, standard PC race is viewed in an entirely different light than a monster. The assumption in D&D is that a party will be largely good (or at least moral in nature over 50% of the time). Look at the standard races. Elves are good. Dwarves are good. Halflings are friendly folk. Gnomes are lighthearted folk. Good, good, good, good, good. The attempt made by Eberron to inject a certain amount of ambiguity in these races doesn't erase the standard, assumed perception of a base character race in D&D - they are good, friendly folk. Monsters, on the other hand, are typically evil creatures you kill without remorse. If it's a "good" monster it quickly becomes an NPC that is only statted out as an afterthought on the rare event that it might fight alongside the PCs. Anything goes with an evil monster. Kill it. Spit on its corpse. Kick its lifeless body all you want. So saying, "if flaying a PC race is evil, flaying a monster race must be too," requires you to ignore 30 years of implied alignment connotations throughout three editions of rules. Or, perhaps, is the problem the players are seeing Warforged as nothing more than the next flavor of intelligent monster? Let me put it to you another way. Which is more evil: killing a human, skinning it, and wearing your new human suit around town or killing a cow, skinning it, and wearing your new leather jacket around town? Yes, I know cows aren't ancient, intelligent monsters that breathe fire, but the analogy is the same in prototypical D&D terms nonetheless. [/QUOTE]

Verification