Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8854647" data-attributes="member: 6901101">I agree with these. But it should be made clear that players, on an increasing basis, do choose to be these. I mean, in second edition I had a player choose to be a githyanki. In 4e I had a player choose to be undead and another a gnoll. In all cases we made them the exception. The Drizzt style of play. In all cases, they had backstories that broke them from their &quot;inherently evil&quot; ways. Again, just an observation.But what you two suggest is the issue: a player having the choice of that &quot;inherently evil&quot; species.Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is &quot;inherently evil?&quot; Dragons fly. Wizards stay alive forever. I mean grimlocks exist, right? They were once regular humans who took their cultism too far. That is not at all, not even in the slightest, what anyone is trying to do in this discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8854647, member: 6901101"] I agree with these. But it should be made clear that players, on an increasing basis, do choose to be these. I mean, in second edition I had a player choose to be a githyanki. In 4e I had a player choose to be undead and another a gnoll. In all cases we made them the exception. The Drizzt style of play. In all cases, they had backstories that broke them from their "inherently evil" ways. Again, just an observation. But what you two suggest is the issue: a player having the choice of that "inherently evil" species. Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?" Dragons fly. Wizards stay alive forever. I mean grimlocks exist, right? They were once regular humans who took their cultism too far. That is not at all, not even in the slightest, what anyone is trying to do in this discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification