Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2119323" data-attributes="member: 7240">John, you and I have been in enough threads on this topic to acknowledge that while, on one hand, you can perform an exegesis of the rules that makes these things simple and consistent, this interpretation is not, however, either universal or one that naturally arises from a person just reading the rules.My case here is that this is what the always descriptor is for. Creatures that are always a particular alignment are of species in which evil inheres as a fundamental part of their nature. Other alignment descriptors indicate predisposition not inherency. If we accept that goblins are usually neutral evil, I'm guessing about 55% are NE, another 12.5% are LE, another 12.5% are CE and about 20% are various shades of neutral. In this case, we need a framework that models an evil predisposition rather than inherent nature. In my view, the three predisposition theories I offered have a more medieval/pre-modern feel than a tarted-up rephrasing of modern ideas of genetics.And many goblins are under my model but my models also try to offer people ways to cope with this being less than 100% while still retaining the idea that "goblins are evil."No. But we are talking about the rules having three categories for describing the alignments of large groups; and it seems to me that you, in order to make alignment work in your campaign, are effectively changing goblins' alignment descriptor to always; now if that's what you're doing, good for you. My answer is just predicated on the GM trying to cope with the usually descriptor.These theories could all be integrated into a Christian framework; in the 9th century, Ratramus of Corbie wrote about how the cynocephali (dog-headed men) must have sould because, although they were monstrous and savage, they wore shirts. The views of the cynocephali and the St. Christopher legend were about medievals reconciling the idea of non-human or quasi-human races being predisposed to evil and savagery but still capable of choosing Christ. It is this spirit that I wanted to preserve in the frameworks I articulated because it appears to be consistent with the usually descriptor.We can. Creatures with the always descriptor are just such things. If people want to change goblins to that descriptor, I say more power to them. But I'm working with the RAW.Again, I was trying to maintain the racism while conforming as closely as possible to the written text of the rules. I have no problem with the views you are articulating but the question we were given was not "how do I alter goblins' alignment descriptor to make it easy to kill them?" it was a question about dealing with goblins so I assumed the rules were fully in effect.You make a good case for changing many races to the always descriptor here. But ultimately, we're situated right in the middle of the free moral agent question, having been given a 'yes and no' position by the RAW. So my response was to design frameworks with a pre-modern feel that can accommodate that position. There are all kinds of categories that pre-modern people answered 'yes and no' to on the free moral agent question; at various times it was Jews, Turks, Gypsies and cynocephali.I assume that the good alignments are out of range except in very rare cases.I don't allege that anywhere. Some evil people consider themselves to be good; some consider themselves to be evil. All I'm saying in my post is that it's tough for powerful evil people not to notice that they are evil. So I don't think we're exactly disagreeing here.</blockquote>

Verification