Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
There are examples of this dating back to the second edition.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorMy point being that if anyone starts trying to argue for a playable species (elves, humans, dwarves, orcs so on) being inherently an alignment due to their biology will be moderated. This is not a debate.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Yes there are some creatures (excluding the dozens of playable species) who's alignment is fixed. But from this, to conclude that the game at it's core is about the struggle between good and evil is too reductionist. Since some people in the actual--our--world see the life as the struggle between good and evil, it's not surprising that they run their D&D setting the same way. [Redacted]
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s, took a 40 year hiatus, re-started with 3.5 and 5e in 2023
I think for lore, it's really going to come down to someone's definition of 'good'. Just because something is not my cuppa tea, doesn't make it bad. There's a lot of modern, canon, wotc written lore that I detest. Just because I don't like it, doesn't make it bad.
As far as races go, at risk of moderation, crossing alignment boundaries has been canon in the game since 1e. That's when Drizzt came out, and while drow were 'inherently evil', Drizzt is aligned as good. Jander Sunstar was a good aligned vampire in 2e. A vampiric curse seems more likely to be 'inherently evil' and remove free will than being a race. Hell, even Shar had a small number good and neutral aligned priests (Dark Cloaks) which I think went back to 2e. That's something I personally have plans to explore at some point with a character.
Alignment is something that's been weaponized by bad DMs and bad players for far too long.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Part of what made Drizzt so great was that drow were considered inherently evil and he went against that type. You can't really do that anymore with the current lore, as there is no type to go against.
My point is that the statement 'Morality is not biological' is meaningless in a game where dozens of races and creatures are locked into evil because of their biology.
Please understand that I'm not arguing that ..... all 'elves are evil', or any such nonsense. But the game absolutely, literally, has races that are locked in as evil.
You are a moderator. How you communicate defines how the rest of us are allowed to communicate. If you are ... I apologize, but grossly unclear or misleading, how are we to have any conversation?
Some races are locked into being evil. They are not player races, sure. I concede that.
I ... don't think that's true.
I've played since 1987. There abouts. I have seen a very, very few games that were against evil's struggle against good. A vast, vast majority of games that were about good's struggle against evil. I've played a single game (me as GM) about neutrality's struggle against both good and evil. And I've played eg. Shadowrun, with lots of grey zones - in the struggle against the corporations, aka evil.
I'm not saying there isn't nuance. But to call it reductionist when I'm - to the best of my knowledge - correct about perhaps 99% of all games. I think that's a stretch.
Maybe I should say ... 'it's a dominant theme'. It's not totality of the game.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Um....
The moderator said this isn't a debate. While I agree with the points that you have made, I don't think you should continue to push against what the people who are running the sight say you shouldn't do.
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"
Mezonberranzan still a evil society, this type of narrative is still wide open and possible.
I mean .. it is of questionably wisdom, perhaps. But I'm serious: If you are the ... 'law maker' ... you have a duty (as far as I'm concerned - and I have zero say in this, but I'm willing to speak up regardless) ... if you are the law maker, you have a duty to make sense. Because I honestly don't know what to make of that statement. It's literally contradictory.
You cannot be a moderator, and direct players of the game to tackle a certain issue in a certain way - and then what you're saying is quite literally not possible in the context of the game.
Come on. I'm not trying to make trouble. I'm not saying ... I don't even have an example. All I'm saying is: There are races in the game that are literally locked into evil alignments, because of biology. As long as that is the case, the statement contradicts the rules of the game. Someone make sense of this for me - I cannot.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.