Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 8855990" data-attributes="member: 42856">To reiterate, unfortunately, much like the racist trope is &quot;our god cursed that other group to be evil&quot; is different from &quot;their own god made them so&quot;, it is &quot;too close&quot; to work. You mentionned that WotC will be confronted with the same problem down the road should they change a little thing only and I think you're right. Look at Paizo. They outright removed the existence of slavery overnight from their setting. They, correctly, analyzed that the topic is too touchy to be mentionned in a current product, so they obviously made the best choice (also, I invoke Beaumarchais on this), preferring to drop it than try to use it responsibly. I supposed the ship has also sailed where you could have &quot;evil X&quot; where X is not a gelatinous cube or a giant insect, something definitevely alien, in a published product targetted to mainstream audience.True, but &quot;always evil&quot; also means irremediately evil. So, yes, they can be killed, not necessarily on sight as the made-up argument goes, (nothing precludes making with a bad guy for the greater good, as in your hag example) but if the need arise, for example because they are antagonists with a credible motivation designed to make the story interesting. While a human bandit, who is not &quot;always evil&quot; but acting evil, should be tried and be punished in a way that helps him reintegrate society as a better person, especially if he has he credible motivations, which might be giving exoneratory or extenuating circumstances. Killing people without trial, outside of self-defense, because they commit misdemeanors is evil-aligned and many players don't want to have to deal with morality (and just punch Nazis, who were &quot;old-school archetype of unredeemably evil people&quot;). So always evil have their use in fiction, for groups who eschew unnecessary killilng or vigilante killing as part of their role as agent of Good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 8855990, member: 42856"] To reiterate, unfortunately, much like the racist trope is "our god cursed that other group to be evil" is different from "their own god made them so", it is "too close" to work. You mentionned that WotC will be confronted with the same problem down the road should they change a little thing only and I think you're right. Look at Paizo. They outright removed the existence of slavery overnight from their setting. They, correctly, analyzed that the topic is too touchy to be mentionned in a current product, so they obviously made the best choice (also, I invoke Beaumarchais on this), preferring to drop it than try to use it responsibly. I supposed the ship has also sailed where you could have "evil X" where X is not a gelatinous cube or a giant insect, something definitevely alien, in a published product targetted to mainstream audience. True, but "always evil" also means irremediately evil. So, yes, they can be killed, not necessarily on sight as the made-up argument goes, (nothing precludes making with a bad guy for the greater good, as in your hag example) but if the need arise, for example because they are antagonists with a credible motivation designed to make the story interesting. While a human bandit, who is not "always evil" but acting evil, should be tried and be punished in a way that helps him reintegrate society as a better person, especially if he has he credible motivations, which might be giving exoneratory or extenuating circumstances. Killing people without trial, outside of self-defense, because they commit misdemeanors is evil-aligned and many players don't want to have to deal with morality (and just punch Nazis, who were "old-school archetype of unredeemably evil people"). So always evil have their use in fiction, for groups who eschew unnecessary killilng or vigilante killing as part of their role as agent of Good. [/QUOTE]

Verification