D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Lem23]

Nah, the doc in your example kills by an accident. That's not an evil thing, it was not of his doing, and there was no malice aforethought.

The tyrant in your example who thinks they're doing good but is actually evil is an example of what I was saying - a LE tyrant who doesn't know what their alignment really is.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Nah, the doc in your example kills by an accident. That's not an evil thing, it was not of his doing, and there was no malice aforethought.

The tyrant in your example who thinks they're doing good but is actually evil is an example of what I was saying - a LE tyrant who doesn't know what their alignment really is.

The specific example, though, is making the same mistake. He does what he does because of mislabling. He thinks its "good". The doctor "thinks" hes giving "penicilin".

You can't be evil unknowingly. You can do things that are evil without being evil.

You also cant be good unknowingly. Its the same reason why you dont call someone "good" just because they never killed anyone. Or just because they tried to kill people and didnt realize the people they killed were pedophiles or something.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Nah, the doc in your example kills by an accident. That's not an evil thing, it was not of his doing, and there was no malice aforethought.

The tyrant in your example who thinks they're doing good but is actually evil is an example of what I was saying - a LE tyrant who doesn't know what their alignment really is.

Yeah, nobody really knows what their alignment is.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

The specific example, though, is making the same mistake. He does what he does because of mislabling. He thinks its "good". The doctor "thinks" hes giving "penicilin".

You can't be evil unknowingly. You can do things that are evil without being evil.

You also cant be good unknowingly. Its the same reason why you dont call someone "good" just because they never killed anyone. Or just because they tried to kill people and didnt realize the people they killed were pedophiles or something.

Just because you don't know it's evil doesn't mean that it's not evil though.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Just because you don't know it's evil doesn't mean that it's not evil though.

There is a distinguishment between causing evil and being evil. Intention and comprehension.

Otherwise effectively "stupid=moral alignment"

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Conversely so would "smart"

 

[Hussar]

@Oofta - you are 100% right. No one cares what you do in your game. Just like no one cares what I do in mine.

But, and here’s the basic point, when you publicly discuss your game, you are now a fair target for criticism.

You said you wouldn’t play in a game where dark skinned humans are all brutish and stupid. Fair enough. But do you really not see the connection to all dark skinned humanoids are stupid and brutish?

Your intent, to answer @FlyingChihuahua doesn’t really matter. It’s the fact that, intentionally or not, you are still playing into these stereotypes and then trying to defend these stereotypes by claiming that you don’t mean to use the inherent bigotry of the tropes.

Look, what you do in your game is fine. You certainly don’t owe me anything. But at least recognize that you are perpetuating the bigotry when you do this.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

There is a distinguishment between causing evil and being evil. Intention and comprehension.

Otherwise effectively "stupid=moral alignment"

If you listen to Socretes, then yeah, stupid does equal to evil, in a way.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Consider the NE arch exemplars in d&d. Baernaloths. Central to their character is that they know EXACTLY why what they do is evil. They are intended as perfect representations of evil beings (not just evil events). They know exactly what they do and that is central to them being such gokd representations. Basically, they are the personification of mens rea, or, guilty mind.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If you listen to Socretes, then yeah, stupid does equal to evil, in a way.

Im familiar with socrates. He is sometimes mistaken. Best not to depend too much on a single philosopher. Hes right about a lot. I find his idea in this area lacking.