>"All fish guys are evil, and we should immediately slaughter all of them, including the children">"btw I'm lawful good"
if he made exceptions based on feelings, he wouldn't be lawful. if he allowed an evil species to continue living he wouldn't be good
are...are the fish guys evil?
>>96619031>fish guys are literally all ontologically evil>all Paladins are ontologically Lawful Good (until they commit evil acts)>he remains a Paladin after killing them all>therefore, it is Lawful Good to kill all evil creaturesOntological alignment is too complex for brainlets, I guess.
>>96619043Worked great for zariel
Is this an ACKS thread?
>>96619080that was literal devil corruption
>>96619090Yeah sure, its everyone else's fault. Do you really have time to mald about it on 4chan? I thought you had a blood war to "win"
>>96619073>Ontological alignment is too complex for brainlets, I guess.You'd think they'd be able to think more clearly in black and white terms.
>>96619073Yes, because brainlets do not understand truth as a concept
>>96619163It's the bellcurve meme. Low IQ understands onto alignmentMidwit thinks everything is morally grey in a fantasy universeHigher IQ understands onto alignment
>>96619031Yes.>>96619048Yes. It is in reference to sahuagin, not, like, mermaids or anything.>>96619233It's literally exactly the bellcurve meme on display.
>>96619031Why are the younger generations so morally corrupt? Is it the constant decrease in testosterone?
>>96619073
>>96619031Based if true
>>96619084No, but I think we should just to piss off that one guy who hates ACKS for no reason.
>>96619031Wow, a badly conceived D&D mechanic? I am shocked.
>>96619440They were raised by commie daycare works and teachers to the point they really can't think for themselves. Not all of them are corrupt but you got that a small but really loud group that tend to ruin everything the get in
>>96619031Video games have their own board.
>>96619512Tell us more about how you don't understand alignment.
>>96619512You don't understand pulp.You don't understand Moorcock.You don't understand 0e or AD&D.
>>96619031If ontolgoical evil exists, then it is good to kill it.If it isn't illegal to kill ontologically evil creatures, then it is lawful to kill them.
>>96619031Hey bro, wanna check out this movie, The Shape of Water?
>>96619233It's still more complex than that. Because it's more like a progression than strictly ending up in the same place again.>Low IQ latches onto alignments with a surface-level understanding, and loses sight of possible nuances>Middle IQ moves on from this and sees the nuances now, and forsakes the simplicity of just leaning on alignments>High IQ understands that most things are nuanced, but that there are cases where alignment is a strict, real thing, especially when it comes to extraplanar (and divine) beings and powers derived from them
>>96619502Excuse you, there are at least two of us and I do have a reason! I hate ACKS for the same reason I hate Knave, BFRPG, Lamentations, Labyrinth Lord, etc. In a world where printing out a pdf of BX costs only about $15 at office depot or you have access to a free online SRD, it is creatively and morally bankrupt to sell a packet of homebrews when you could be selling adventure modules, setting guides, and expansion material on its own.
>the children of the fish guys, being weaker than human adults even in numbers, carry human babies off at night to devour them alive>it is somehow an evil act to slay these fish children
>>96619031If the fish guys are innately evil then this is an entirely reasonable thing for a lawful good character to say.> B-buh muh moral relativism!> No one is truly evil! Lol.Lmao even.That may be the case in your game, but evidently not this one.
>>96619073It is odd that people don't understand that the multiverse itself has objective morality with literal beings made out of the concepts of good and evil itself.
>>96619612>In a world where printing out a pdf of BX costs only about $15 at office depotBFRPG costs $10 (used to be even less) to have it delivered to my doorstep and it has better rules.
>>96619612>BFRPGis literally free of charge as a PDF, the entire thingand books are charged to cover printing expenses and not a penny above
>>96619031That's it?BG2 specifically has "good" aligned characters that consider murder as a solution to their inconveniences or another "good" aligned character who is fascinated by and praises the idea of mindcontrolling people into slaves... not to mention "idiotic plots" and charactershonestly BG2 just had atrocious writingkinda works for a computer game where Carmackian plots are simply excuse to go engage with gamified mechanics, do some combat or play with new powergaming spells/trinkets or whatever, but nothing more than that
>>96619073>ontological
>>96619031Yes? What is the problem?
>>96619612>sell a packet of homebrewsEvery game is a packet of homebrews if you want to be that reductive. Like it or hate it, ACKS does fill out the higher levels where BX just goes 'Man, I don't fucking know, go off vibes?'>Selling adventure modules, setting guides and expansion materialRespect on the setting guides, disagree on the modules unless they're something really good, there's far too many generic modules out there as it is.
>>96619031And he was Lawful good and also very Based!
>>96619031If you check the alignment, every one of the sahuagin (who are murderous, imperialistic, cannibalistic, genocidal, sadistic, malevolent, and led by a king who is literally insane enough to dial all those things up to eleven) registers as evil. If they are left alive, they gleefully begin planning and preparing to launch a war against the surface where they will kill and eat their fill, and then enslave for sacrifice anybody they don't. Killing them is indeed the moral choice.Killing them
>>96619612So you're hating on ACKS for making their own "BX system with Blackjack and Hookers" and making money of it?Sounds just as bad as the others
>>96619031Nits make lice.>>96620168>it has moral clarity so it's bad
>>96620400The best kind of punishment doesn't require killing at all.
>>96620426That kind being ?
>>96620434Eternal rape from a dick-golem?
>>96620450Sounds self-indulgent.
>>96620468On a more serious not, I suppose life in prison was the expected punsihment.Which is fairly pricey for society.Especially for entire populations of undesirables.
>>96619031>"All fish guys are evil, and we should immediately slaughter all of them, including the children">>"btw I'm lawful good"fish guys; horrid monsters"children"; spawn of horrid monsters
>>96620426Did you get that from a superhero cartoon? Punishment should be for the purpose of protecting the innocent, and if you kill someone you know they aren't going to harm anyone else.
>>96619031When does he say this during the game?
>>96620519Like you said, it's bothersome for society.You can say that they can put to use.But pragmatism doesn't equate justice. Killing solves the problem of a criminal existing, and provides emotional outlet for the victim.Work and unethical experiments are viable when criminals are either theorically redeemable, or completely heinous and require harsher sentence that "8 life sentences".Lastly, the matter of sin resolution doesn't actually lie in the material realm. And killing simply sends the perp to meet God's justice for him to determine appropriate punishment, since death is not necessarily an end.
>>96620574During chapter 2. Keldorn finds you first and forcibly joins, declaring>Let's go rape fish faggots! FTGJ!Activates the quest "Rape the Fish-faggots".
>>96619048They're among the most evil bastards in FR, up there with mind flayers and drow.>>96619610The enlightenment comes when you realize that "doing the right thing" does not always mean "doing the good thing".
>>96620571>superhero cartoonHalf right; it's from a cartoon.Specifically the Dungeon Soup short "BBQ ORC".
>>96620574If you bring him to the Sahaugin City, then during the conversation with the king, he'll tell you to just start killing everyone. If you have Mazzy as well, she'll say "dude wtf what about the children," and he'll say "You won't pluck my heartstrings, woman, I know what I know" and keep telling you to kill everyone.
>another inane, obvious bait thread clogging up the catalogYawn.
>>96619031All "fish guys" are evil because they reproduce exclusively via rape of humans. They eat the humans after stealing their seed or wombs.>b-but that doesn't make evolutionary senseThey are a supernatural hazard and it is indeed possible to exterminate them all by preventing them from being able to rape humans or eating them. Truly heroism worthy of a tale. Are you a bad enough dude to do it?
>>96620775>The enlightenment comes when you realize that "doing the right thing" does not always mean "doing the good thing".It does when you're a Paladin. Otherwise you don't get to keep being a Paladin.
>>96619751Except there is no God of Good, God of Evil, or God of Chaos. The various good, evil, and chaotic deities argue with each other all the time and constantly disagree on what actually best represents their alignment.(Oddly - or perhaps not - there IS a God of Law, Primus).
>>96621145holy based
>>96620775>>96621191I think the correct spelling would "doing the nice thing". That should cover it.
>>96621248I mean good as in alignment good.
>>96619073>ontologically evilStopped reading there.
>>96621269Killing evil is alignment good. It isn't very nice though.
>>96619512It's not badly conceived at all though. Well it is, in the sense that alignments are a rule for something doesn't even need a rule, but the specific event in OP makes 100% perfect sense. There are no innocent Sahuagin, they are all evil from birth and they all should be killed on sight. This is good, ethical, moral, just and lawful.
>>96619031It's Lawful Good, not Lawful Dickless. Utterly genociding evil races is a good deed, both by rules and by the general philosophy by which the game was designed.
>>96619048its an allegory for women. so yes.
>>96621277>Killing evil is alignment goodNot according to the one book on the Good alignment that D&D ever published. Killing an evil person for no other crime then the fact that they're evil is not good. In fact, it's evil. This makes sense when you give it even a modcium of thoguth: if killing evil was innately a good act, then the tanar'ri and baatezu would be among the most exalted creatures in creation thanks to the Blood War.
>>96621336>Not according to the one book on the Good alignment that D&D ever published.Not really a D&D book since it was written after the brand was taken over by WotC sois.
>>96619031Lawful good does not mean perfectly lawful and good in equal measure. Paladins and the like most often are more "lawful" than they are good, on account of being zealots. When you encounter Viconia he approves of her being executed by a mob, at that point she hadn't done any evil and the Beshabans are evil themselves.
>>96621336No, it doesn't.Crime is perpendicular to good or evil, it's law vs chaos, and lies in the legal stuff.You can't maintain evil alighnment without doing evil deeds, even prolonged neutrality will make you neutral. Ergo if a person is evil, he's already done evil deeds or at least intends to.And like I said, killing is contextual. If a violent murderer kills a random evil person, it's an evil deed because it was done for evil reason. Outsiders kill each other for a variety of reasons and none of them is good.Killing evil for the sake of preventing evil depends on how it will actually work. Killing a wrong person would constitute evil. Killing an actively evil person would constitute good. Killing an irredeemably evil baby as an informed choice would be at least neutral.Your book is bullshit.
>>96619043Someone finally understands that Lawful Good is not the same thing as Chaotic Good.
>>96621294Sahuagin are not evil from birth.
>>96619073the fish aren't ontologically evil, they do things like operate in a group, and eat food.Ontologically evil beings would operate only and exclusively evilly, and be incapable of many things such as any kind of beneficial group behavior, survival based activity, and kind of behavior whatsoever that isn't currently maximizing the amount of evil, and so on.
>thread too young to know BG1+2 are based on pre-WOTC, where wiping out cities of evil beings and their spawn & associates was both Lawful and Good by Gygax's own words>Meanwhile, people use 3e era books for their argument, which has never been repeated AND was considered DM prerogative to enactKids. Stop browsing 4chan during class.
>>96619031Wow, I suddenly love this Keldorn guy, where can I know more?
>>96621406 >>96621419>Not really a D&D book since it was written after the brand was taken over by WotC sois.Even if we ignore that, it still wouldn't make sense that killing evil is innately good, because we'd still have the TSR-created Blood War going on where countless infinities of tanar'ri and baatezu kill each other en masse all the time.If killing evil made you good, then Avernus and Pazunia would be the constant site of baatezu and tanar'ri spontaneously developing white feathery wings and halos, since countless of them are exclusively fighters in the Blood War, having never done anything else since the moment of their creation.>it's an evil deed because it was done for evil reasonAnd killing someone who is evil, for no other reason other than the fact that they're evil, is an evil reason for killing someone. >Killing an actively evil person would constitute goodWhat does "actively evil" mean? How is a sahuagin fry with the intelligence of a human toddler "actively evil"?>Your book is bullshit.Not less so than the idea that killing a baby can ever be less than an evil act, which is what you're putting forth.
>>96621578>where wiping out cities of evil beings and their spawn & associates was both Lawful and Good by Gygax's own wordsPoster too dumb to know that Gygax's own words on the subject weren't posted until 2005, half a decade after Baldur's Gate II came out. And were posted 20 years after he willfully left TSR and ceased to have any particular influence over D&D beyond what any other Dungeon Master has. Gygax, by his own decisions, made himself Just Some Guy.
>>96621606you're a pseud and overcomplicating itmorality is not symmetricalmorality is objectivewhat is good for the goose is not good for the ratfuck demon ganderGood killing good is good.Evil killing evil is evil.Good is good.Evil is evil.You are stupid. And probably evil yourself, which is why you kvetch over such a simple concept.
>>96621619>good killing good is goodcare to take a second crack at that, mr. AI?
>>96621625>pedantic fuckwit focuses on typo despite clearly understanding the point but avoiding it anywaysYep. You're evil.
>>96621639>you're EVIL for pointing out my mistake while I was, ironically, pointing out how simple and easy it is to avoid these mistakeslol
>>96621606>What does "actively evil" mean?It means someone who's already commited evil deeds to receive an evil alighnment.>How is a sahuagin fry with the intelligence of a human toddler "actively evil"It can't yet. But you're well aware that it will grow and will do so. If it hadn't tried to kill and eat it's fellow toddlers.>Not less so than the idea that killing a baby can ever be less than an evil act, which is what you're putting forth.Your issue comes from two points, understanding morality from a real-life perspective, which has no ontologic or supernatural evil, and a such is biologically deterministic.And secondly, from perceiving a baby as a helpless waaying thing. If you think about something like mindflayer larva, chromatic dragon hatching, or chestburster, that try to kill you on sight by a virtue of being able to, you'd think much differently.
>>96621647>still avoiding the pointEvil is afraid of Good being violent so dispenses endless propaganda about how Good being violent is actually evil.
>>96621657And you're afraid of spellcheckers, apparently.
>>96621619>Good killing good is good.A Freudian slip if ever I've seen one. Good and evil to you are teams, not moral stances.
>>96621734See >>96621657
>>96621656>But you're well aware that it will grow and will do soI am not. Sahuagin are as imbued with free will as any other mortal creature in D&D's cosmology.>If it hadn't tried to kill and eat it's fellow toddlers.Given that it's arguably not even sapient yet, I'm not actually prepared to call that "evil". Baby birds will kill each other in the nest; are they evil? Baby sharks will eat each other in the womb; are they evil? These choices are being made absent the ability to actually comprehend them or contemplate their morality.>If you think about something like mindflayer larvaWho aren't sentient.>chromatic dragon hatchingCanonically capable of being good.>or chestbursterThat's from a wildly different franchise that's never really settle don how intelligence or unintelligent the xenomorphs are, so I'm not sure we can really use that as an example.>that try to kill you on sight by a virtue of being able toActually I'd leave mind flayer larva alone. The "mind flayer" state is an unnatural condition; the "natural" path for larva is to gradually mature into neothelids. Larva on their own are, in any event, unintelligent and mostly harmless, especially as long as you're not dunking your head into a spawning pool.
>>96621612I think you need to read the Basic and Advanced PHBs.The text supports his words back then.Also notice how the question didn't come up until 3.5's run, which introduced this nonsense 'ambiguity' to alignments that wasn't around previously.
>>96621753No one's saying Good can't be violent, I'm saying it can't be mindlessly violent. It can't kill something that has not actually done anything wrong, not if it wants to keep calling itself "Good". This is especially true with regards to the idea of killing free-willed creatures who are not innately good or evil, like sahuagin.
>>96621771Because everybody became retarded and began trying to use DND alignments to explain real morality instead of taking shit like this at face value as game mechanics over any sort of story.
>>96621771>Also notice how the question didn't come up until 3.5's runThat's cute, you acting like the "orc baby wat do" question isn't as old as the game itself.If the question didn't exist prior to 3.5, then why in Baldur's Gate II, whcih came out before 3.0, is Mazzy telling off Keldorn for wanting to kill sahuagin babies? Mazzy is no less Lawful Good than Keldorn; the only reason she's not a Paladin too is because 2e didn't allow it mechanically.
>>96621791So we agree that this entire conversation is stupid and pedantic, yes?
>>96621788>nooo! you can't just kill mosquitos! did you actually -see- it suck human blood without consent!? you have to do a DNA test on the blood in its stomach first!No.
>>96621802being stupid and pedantic about fiction is a traditional human pastime
>>96621803Poor example, factually all male mosquitoes don't suck blood at all.
>>96621832it's is a good example precisely because of what you are arguing.They aren't all "evil", but they are part of a species whose natural and inevitable behavior is "evil". But we don't have qualms about ensuring if a mosquito is male or female before killing it.
>>96621803Mosquitos don’t have a choice but to be disease vectors. Sahuagin do. You’re using the “nits make lice”‘argument, which works great until some Celestial puts together that the logical end-point of that argument is to wipe out the material plane. Or on other words, until you become the louse. Humans, after all, run the gamut of alignments with no alignment, not even True Neutral, dominating. That means that fully 1/3 are evil, and another 1/3 Neutral.From a celestial perspective, with 2/3rd of humanity being opposed or ambivalent towards the cause of good, aren’t humans lice-like?
>>96621769>I am not. Sahuagin are as imbued with free will as any other mortal creature in D&D's cosmology.Yes you are. Vast majority of evil creatures do, and you're being dishonest in pretending it will go out of it's natural way for the sake of argument.They are likely created by an evil god, follow said evil god, and have natural instincts for evil, savagery and cannibalism. It's that simple.>Baby birds will kill each other in the nest; are they evil? Baby sharks will eat each other in the womb; are they evil?Yes, and yes, and you're still appealing to real-life examples.>Canonically capable of being good.Yes, with predictably rare examples.>That's from a wildly different franchiseIt's simply to illustrate a point. If the baby was trying to kill you, instinctively or not, and especially if it was being able to do so, you wouldn't be having this discussion.>The "mind flayer" state is an unnatural condition; the "natural" path for larva is to gradually mature into neothelids.Yes. By cannibalizing other larva btw.It's semantics anyway. Gary already summed it up like this >>96620345 and clarified that it's not evil to kill evil baby humanoids. Just not inherently good. Just acceptable.
>>96621860>You’re using the “nits make lice”‘argument, which works great until some Celestial puts together that the logical end-point of that argument is to wipe out the material plane.And then that Celestial becomes Evil and everyone Good fights back against it.Evil races are evil because they are Evil. Maybe from their perspective, they may be Good and it is humans that are Evil. We don't care, because we are humans and the story is from a human perspective. And if you think "but it's not fair for a human to be telling human stories to other humans from the human perspective" you're probably an evil degenerate ( possibly homosexual furfag) trying to convince good people that removing evil people is bad.
>>96621860>From a celestial perspective, with 2/3rd of humanity being opposed or ambivalent towards the cause of good, aren’t humans lice-like?No. 2/3 humanity being against evil is proof enough already, has no inborn violent tendencies, and very receptive to conversion. At least for celestials it would be natural to assume the best by their own nature.
>>96621860Trying to do this utilitarian calculus to quantify good and evil to justify not killing evil means you are probably evil or at least believe that you are evil enough to warrant being killed by people acting in good faith.
>>96621860>From a celestial perspective, with 2/3rd of humanity being opposed or ambivalent towards the cause of good, aren’t humans lice-like?Would never happen because humans are the protagonist race and get auto exempted from such discussions.
>>96621964Retarded logic.
>>96621964
>>96619502No guy like that exists.Everyone who hates ACKS has plenty of good reasons. It's one of the easiest systems in the world to hate.>terrible art, including AI art because they didn't get enough money from their kickstarter>horrible writing, with no imagination/creativity>overcomplicated rules that exist only to create busywork, including the worst mass combat rules ever made>instead of editing its rules down to being useful, they just keep adding rules on top, until it's a bloated 1500 page landfill which is severely under-playtested because they're too busy just adding more rules>banned from several websites due to shilling/brigading>its few fans are obnoxious idiots who pretend people can't have a good reason for not liking their game
>>96621988I'm not using logic to arrive at that conclusion. It is observation. I'm simply observing how modern atheistic secular society functions.Most of the problems in modern society is because it is commonly argued that killing evil people is bad. Yet the outcome of that philosophy is not less evil, but evil people not being punished for evil behavior and good people being punished for trying to punish evil behavior.>>96622025More bad faith assumptions of good actually being evil for engaging violence.The Huxley quote assumes that people are actually evil just looking for a chance to mistreat people.
>>96622058>The Huxley quote assumes that people are actually evil just looking for a chance to mistreat people.How is this wrong though when its observable behavior?
>>96622072Goes back to my previous point that good people are being suppressed by secular atheist philosophy while evil is allowed to flourish.Whether humans are innately or inclined to good or evil isn't my call. I just know that I can observe that people who are acting good are being punished while those who are evil are forgiven and allowed to continue being evil.I didn't say the quote was wrong, just that it is a bad faith presumption.
>>96622058Your """observation""" is dumb as shit and you're a psychopath who wants to get away with killing people.
>>96622025Huxley is true, but he's coming from bad faith conclusions about the modern world.His quote refers to the zoyim who decry injustice only to inflict injustice on others and gloat about criminals going free and good people punished.Otherwise you seem to want to deny that righteous indignation can be varranted and just and people shouldn't feel good about themselves for punishing evil.
>>96622120>You want to kill evil people to prevent them from continuing to hurt people? That makes YOU an evil psychopath!Thank you for proving my main point
>>96622120A common noise from monsters about to get PALADIN'D.COM for their crimes.
>>96621606Killing Evil doesn't need to be innately good. More often than not it's a neutral act. If it were innately evil, then a Paladin would fall the first time they kill a goblin.But if it's simply neutral, then not only do Paladins not fall, but devils and demons in your example don't suddenly become neutral, because they commit enough Evil acts to balance out the fact that most of the targets of their killing deserve it.
>>96622132People redefine good and evil all the time to suit their needs. People want to feel they are better than others without putting in the effort. So instead find an easy target and say that all such examples of those with similar qualities are evil. If they are evil, then you are good. Simple.
>>96620210I don't want to be reductive, I want to be intellectually honest and if you don't have any unique ideas, and ACKS doesn't below level 10 or so, skip those levels.>>96620328I'm hating on ACKS because it doesn't have any unqiue ideas until it hits domain play.>>96620065>>96620065BFRPG is $14 before shipping and handling, so its about $15 but I can have the trip to kinkos done in a lunch break.
>>96622204>People redefine good and evil all the time to suit their needs.More bad faith arguments.Because some selfish people, people in denial, and sociopaths will make claims to obfuscate good and evil that means a good person acting in good faith to remove a clearly evil entity is actually...an evil psychopath.Yes I know this isn't perfect. A good person acting in good faith can accidentally harm an innocent person. That is because humans aren't perfect. It's not a justification for evil to get infinite forgiveness and retries because they might eventually become good and also severely punish good for acting in good faith for making a mistake, which is the default case in secular atheistic society.
>>96621920>And then that Celestial becomes Evil Based on what? The entire “nits make lice” argument rests on the idea that exceptions don’t matter and nuance is for suckers. We decide based on perceived likelihood.With 2/3rd of humans set to oppose good, we are nits making lice.>Evil races are evil because they are EvilDemonstrably false. Look at the drow, for example: they were made from the same blood of Corellon Larethian as all other elves. They were drawn to evil by Lolth. But even then, firstly, note that their racial traits in Complete Book of Elves don’t mandate an alignment; and second, note how Vault of the Drow says that the average drow commoner is actually Neutral. Drow aren’t innately evil, they just have a society that rewards evil action and thus only the evil members ever amount to anything. Remove them from that society and you get beings as capable of good, evil, law, and chaos as any human.You can also see this in action with TSR’s Secrets of the Lamp and the efreeti. According to their monstrous compendium entry, Efreeti are Lawful Evil. But according to SotL, your typical efreeti in the City of Brass is, as well, Neutral. Their society just rewards Lawful Evil behavior.TSR itself was rejecting the idea of even elemental beings having an innate alignment, nevermind mortal ones.>>96621964It’s not my logic, it’s yours, just followed to its natural conclusion. Sooner or later, you are the louse.>>96621938Opposed to Evil and supporting Good are two different things, Anon. Primus and the hordes of Slaadi aren’t evil but they’re enemies of the Upper Planes just as much as the tanar’ri and baatezu and yugoloths are, just not as vehement about it.
>Fish are evil>Why?>They steal kidsWhat kind of a stupid reason is that? Are animals evil for eating children? Why should humans be given special attention?
>>96622213ACKS's domain rules are pretty awful. The only unique thing they do is take the fairly simple rules already in the BECMI companion book and bloat them out, making them require several spreadsheets that need to be laboriously generated and then cross-referenced to further generate more useless data, when ironically they accomplish less than what the BECMI rules do.Someone actually did a breakdown of the trading system, and it's laughably broken and nonsensical, a complete amateur shitshow that only succeeds in disguising that fact by being so needlessly overcomplicated that it takes several pages and several charts to try and accomplish what most systems can do with a few lines and maybe some equations.
>>96621803>mosquitosYou basically admit to not having a genuine argument at this point
>>96622244>Opposed to Evil and supporting Good are two different things, Anon.That's why I elaborated further.To answer your stupid reductionism, just answer a simple question, are humans better than saharduin alignment wise? Exactly.The cost-efficient way is to get rid of them. It's no ideal, but it's not evil either."First they came for the communists" isn't an argument. Communists are evil.
>>96621803Okay, this is for the sane people in the crowd for whom responding to this sort of post is so beneath them that it activates lesser animal dna that was probably mixed in with the ground chuck they bought at the grocers. I have posited many arguments. I am not psychic. So therefore, if you're hearing voices in your head not in english mayhaps you should try esperanto. Green texting in that tends to calm down the angry blood and make you stop seeing darkwater on the radar map. I'd give you plenty of arguments if in fact you were smart enough to either hire a healer, make an animatic version of DBA with your own voice actors, call me a fresh pizza to this location within the hour, star actually powering up in the presence of women so the police can honor your warrior people or I don't know stop pretending you matter enough for me to scry single sentence responses as if they matter. Posts such as yours fall into the tier of ' is this from a Playshapes Krystal Fox game ' so utterly does my brain suddenly refuse to use chemical electrical energy once it passes in front of my look seeing eye feelers.
>>96622244>Based on what?Wanting to exterminate all humans, despite humans being a Neutral or Good race.>With 2/3rd of humans set to oppose goodNeutral is not in opposition of Good lmfao. Also notice how I am using capital letters for alignment speak and lower case for morality speak. This isn't an accident. If you don't understand why I'm doing this then this conversation about a children's board game is too advanced for you.>they were made from the same blood of Corellon Larethian as all other elves.And they aren't the same race anymore. Otherwise they wouldn't be Drow.>They were drawn to evil by Lolth.They aren't merely drawn to evil by Lolth, they are a distinct race with a predisposition to be Evil. You can literally tell by their skin color. You might have a point if every elf of every alignment was a random skin color, but they aren't. They became a distinct race defined by their disposition towards Lolth.>Drow aren’t innately evil, they just have a society that rewards evil action and thus only the evil members ever amount to anything.And yet humans are perfectly capable of deciding an evil society is evil and removing or replacing the evil hierarchy, whereas Drow do not. Because they aren't human, you cannot apply human moral alignment conventions onto them.>You can also see this in action with TSR’s Secrets of the Lamp and the efreeti. According to their monstrous compendium entry, Efreeti are Lawful Evil. But according to SotL, your typical efreeti in the City of Brass is, as well, Neutral. Their society just rewards Lawful Evil behavior.If their society rewards Lawful Evil to the extent that Lawful Evil is openly Evil. Then a willing participant of that society that does not attempt to revolt or escape cannot be Good. >It’s not my logic, it’s yours, just followed to its natural conclusion. Sooner or later, you are the louse.More bad faith argument. "You can't kill evil because eventually someone might decide you are evil and kill you!"
>>96622267>Why should humans be given special attention?Because we are humans telling stories about humans to other humans, you degenerate faggot.People did believe that animals with an inclination for preying on humans are Evil. Often they believed that such animals are possessed by evil spirits. Tigers that get a taste for human flesh are hunted down with prejudice, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "it was just getting a meal"
>>96622292>are humans better than saharduin alignment wise?Arguable. No matter how evil a non-human race is, you will always be able to count on a human who can outdo them all in evil and have as well much farther reaching consequences from their actions. There is no setting out there where Sahuagins have taken over entire countries or parts of the world and ruined them, meanwhile there are cases where humans outright ruin the entire world or subjugate it.
>>96622365Inability to deal with per capita and averages is indicative of low IQ.
>>96622383Per capita is not a be all end all, it's just data that can be misused and misunderstood just as any other. And I'd argue averages don't matter much in the context of fantasy, because the exceptions are always pushed to the top extreme in those cases far more than in real life.
>>96619031Sometimes races are intrinsically evil in DnD and in real life
>>96619031he was jewish, wasn't he?
>>96622342> despite humans being a Neutral or Good race.We aren’t. We are specifically stated as running the gamut with no alignment dominating. There are exactly as many Evil humans as there are Good humans or Neutral humans. This invariably means, however, that 2/3rds of humanity are opposed to Good as a universal force, because their choices and actions actively promote Evil and Neutrality.> Neutral is not in opposition of Good lmfaoModrons are more than happy to fight celestials for control of the universe. Modrons oppose the LG celestials just as much as they oppose the LE devils.> And they aren't the same race anymore. Otherwise they wouldn't be Drow.They are the same race. They are a subrace. That’s why they have elf racial traits *plus* some additional drow ones. No one questions if wood elves and high elves are the same race, or hill dwarves and mountain dwarves.> Because they aren't human, you cannot apply human moral alignment conventions onto them.By that logic you can’t even call them Evil. Also, no, historically speaking humans are usually pretty content to live under tyrannies. It takes extraordinary action to topple them, when it happens at all. Russia has literally ever had a moral government, for example. Even in the ‘90s under Yeltsin it was famously corrupt and self-serving.> You can't kill evil because eventually someone might decide you are evil and kill you!It’s not that you can’t kill evil, doofus, it’s that your reasoning for doing so can’t merely be because you think it might one day be evil. “Nits make lice” doesn’t work when we know for a fact that orcs and drow and, yes, even sabuagin, are capable of growing up being any sort of alignment, that what matters is the society they’re raised in.Drow are a great example; there have been entire surface communities of Eilistraeen drow since the TSR days who have kids and raise them just as good as any other surface elf.
>>96622570>It’s not that you can’t kill evil, doofus, it’s that your reasoning for doing so can’t merely be because you think it might one day be evil.It's funny how some of these people will be the first to cry about "thought crimes", and then have this stance.
>>96621277So the Blood War is turning devils and demons toward Good.
>>96621625>>96621734He's right actually, by killing weaker goods you ensure that good will be stronger in the future.
>>96622570>We are specifically stated as running the gamut with no alignment dominating.Oh, so now specified alignment DOES matter, huh?Case closed.>By that logic you can’t even call them EvilI'm not calling them Evil, the cosmology is.>Also, no, historically speaking humans are usually pretty content to live under tyrannies.I literally just said you can't apply human alignment conventions on them.>Russia has literally ever had a moral governmentWow, look how quick you are to malign a real life human race as evil while decrying it in fiction.> it’s that your reasoning for doing so can’t merely be because you think it might one day be evilMy reasoning is that the race is capital E Evil. I'm not the one hemming and hawing about individuality, you are.If they aren't Evil, don't write that they are Evil into canon. Simple as.>that what matters is the society they’re raised in.Meanwhile literally in real life we have evil people who it doesn't matter how many second, third, or fourteenth chances they get they'll still randomly murder a woman in cold blood. Must be societies fault, we just didn't help or forgive him enough, huh? Evil exists, and it is to be destroyed.
>>96622867Found the Ivan.
>>96622922Mindbroken.
>>96622867>If they aren't Evil, don't write that they are Evil into canon. Simple as.You snowflakes cry about that too.
>>96622610Uh-huh. Nice deflection. Also, where when and how have I discussed the idea of “thought crimes”?>>96622867> Oh, so now specified alignment DOES matter, huh?According to your logic, yes. Please try and keep up, I am not arguing my own stance, I am demonstrating the inherent fallacy of your own.> I'm not calling them Evil, the cosmology is.The cosmology is not, however, calling them innately evil. Vault of the Drow and Secrets of the Lamp and so on are making it plain that there is a distinction between *entries in the monster manual* verses *the actual everyday people* of these races.> look how quick you are to malign a real life human raceSaid “Russia”, not “Russians”. This will be a lot easier if you’ve achieved a reading level of at least 8th grade or so; please leave and come back only once you’ve done so.> don't write that they are Evil into canon*They didn’t*. See above about Vault and Secrets making it plain that Monster Manual entries do not represent typical members of a given race, just the typical kinds you’re likely to fight.> Meanwhile literally in real life we have evil people who it doesn't matter how many second, third, or fourteenth chances they get they'll still randomly murder a woman in cold bloodYes, we absolutely do. But you can’t tell if someone’s going to turn out like that when they’re one year old. The *problem* with the “nits make lice” stand is that you are assuming you can. All I’m doing is showing you where that stance ends up were Celestials to actually adopt and apply it: with them slaughtering every human in typical D&D settings since 2/3rds of us end up being opposed to Good.
Side note, shit like this thread is why in my D&D setting, orcs adopt human babies they come across and raise them as their own,Because if the Lawful Good thing for a human who finds an orc baby to do is to kill it…Then the Chaotic Evil thing for an lex to do who finds a human baby must be to give it a loving home.Right? Stands to reason.
>>96623636makes sense to me anon, stealing human babies is chaotic evil to the core
>>96622922Ivans are good-aligned actually.t. Ivan
>>96623636>in my D&D settingLet me guess, in your dnd setting, humans are assholes, angels are evil, and goblins feel SAD?
>>96622267You kinda ignored the part about the torture, didn't you?You know, the fact that they eat the kids alive, kicking and screaming.If you were drawn and quartered, would you think the people responsible good?
>>96624340Not even close, no.
>>96624404No, but nor would I be demanding that their own children be killed.
>>96623527>I am demonstrating the inherent fallacy of your own.Well then you fundamentally misunderstand my argument, because I'm using a tautology. Evil creatures are evil because in the rulebook it says they are Evil. If the race wasn't Evil they wouldn't be Evil they would just be evil sometimes.>The cosmology is not, however, calling them innately evil.Then why is Evil in the stat block?There's no reason to put in alignment or alignment language at all if you're just going to say "depends on the individual" even if it just so happens that every individual you meet in a game of D&D is evil.>See above about Vault and SecretsI honestly don't give a single fuck about Forgotten Realms.I might as well say that in muh setting there is cosmological alignment. It seems we are at an impasse.
>>96619073>>all Paladins are ontologically Lawful Good (until they commit evil acts)This has to be bait
>>96621277So if an evil creature kills another evil creature it is good?
>>96621803>.mosquitos are evilAre you going to argue a tornado is ontologically evil next?
>>96621844Right but the species can't even comprehend what evil is or even what the consequences of its actions are? What's next? Cetain machines are evil because they were only created to commit evil acts?
>>96622292>To answer your stupid reductionism, just answer a simple question, are humans better than saharduin alignment wise? Exactly.I feel like there have been far worse humans than there have been saharduin, and there's examples of entire human societies that are blatantly evil in dnd settings and beyond.
>>96622383So if the evil humans killed all the good humans, would that now make humans an evil race even though nothing has changed about the race itself?
I can respect that BG2 took stereotypes like the LG Paladin who can do no wrong and examined how they were actually flawed.
>>96624459So you identify torture as an evil act.Refer back to where I said the fish children torture and eat kids alive.
>>96624710>>96624720Mosquitos and tornados are not Evil but humans would end them if they could ( ecological impact notwithstanding )>>96624741By definition something changed about the race if all the evil humans killed all the good humans. Just as much as if suddenly demons became Good aligned.
>>96624616>Then why is Evil in the stat block?Because statblocks aren't standardized blocks for every version of that creature. Id you actually played games you would now that stablocks are a suggestion not a rule lol.
>>96624773Then why have alignment in the stat block at all?If nothing in the rulebooks matters and everything is "depends on the setting" then why are you even responding there is no discussion to be had.
>>96624733Do remind me what kind of human societies are worse than evil, literal shark eat shark society of cannibalistic Black Lagoon monsters that eat babies?
>>96624770>Mosquitos and tornados are not Evil but humans would end them if they could ( ecological impact notwithstanding )But why are they not evil anon? If I wrote in a statblock that mosquitos are "evil" but changed nothing about their behavior, are they still evil?>By definition something changed about the race if all the evil humans killed all the good humans. Just as much as if suddenly demons became Good aligned.See now you're conflating race and society. If all the good humans died unless they're a distinct subspecies the race has not changed by definition. The fact that there are only Evil humans in this context doesn't mean a human raised by a non-evil society would be evil or even that it would be more likely to than if the good humans were alive.
>>96624786>Then why have alignment in the stat block at all?If nothing in the rulebooks matters and everything is "depends on the setting" then why are you even responding there is no discussion to be had.Because suggestions are still useful? If I wanted to use an evil version of that monster than I already have something made for it. You do know most systems that give you statblocks for monsters also give you the ability to make your own statblocks right?
>>96624791>Do remind me what kind of human societies are worse than evil, literal shark eat shark society of cannibalistic Black Lagoon monsters that eat babies?I mean cannibalistic human societies that eat babies also exist but specifically in the forgotten realms Thay is notable for not even valuing the lives of its own people and actively working to turn the world into an undead hellscape.
>>96624791Arguably any Aztec inspired society that is any way approximate to historical reality, and certainly any that exaggerated the human sacrifice>But why are they not evil anon?Because they aren't, they are just bugs. Probably Neutral, if they had a stat block.>If I wrote in a statblock that mosquitos are "evil" but changed nothing about their behavior, are they still evil?They would be Evil because you wrote that they are Evil. All it means is that a Good character can slaughter them indiscriminately without feeling insecure about if he is still Good.
>>96624874>They would be Evil because you wrote that they are Evil. All it means is that a Good character can slaughter them indiscriminately without feeling insecure about if he is still Good.So whether or not you're "good" isn't dependent on behavior? It's just a form of arbitrary divine labeling?
>>96619048Have you fucking seen Aboleths? Like yeah, they are not devils or demons, but there are no questions about what side of the fence they are falling on.
>>96624924>So whether or not you're "good" isn't dependent on behavior? It's just a form of arbitrary divine labeling?Yeah, I mean you get paladin players saying all you have to do is detect evil and if they ping evil then you just kill them.
>>96624839Congrats, you found one, not even fully human society that's only mostly evil. Guess all humans are just as bad as sharks, get em!>>96624874Aztecs were cunts, but were certainly better than Saharduins, by the virtue it being the fault their priest cast and religion.You're think of a race where everyone is like that, almost every single shark.
>>96624839But it would be a paradise for undead. And, what a coincidence, Szass Tam is an undead.
>>96624924>So whether or not you're "good" isn't dependent on behavior? It's just a form of arbitrary divine labeling?It is arbitrary divine labeling and behavior.If it pings evil, you're ok to kill it.If you kill an Evil creature and the referee says "gotcha! This particular monster was Good! You fall, paladin!" then you just leave the game.There's a lot of spells and rules that reference alignment, too many to say that it's just a quirky design oversight. Alignment is deliberately in the game.
>>96624768So would human children, if they’d been raised to do so. Remember that public executions used to be community events that people looked forward to seeing. Torture was entertainment. You’re not making a convincing argument against societal pressure being the deciding factor, here.
>>96621518Obviously they are operating in a group and eat food to maximize the amount of evil they can do. If they starved to death, killed each other and died alone they wouldn't be able to do a lot of evil now would they?
>>96619612We're not talking about you. We're talking about the guy who doesn't have a reason.
>>96625301I though everyone who isn't a retarded shill hates acks.
This discussion badly needs some clarity. >Ontological evilThis question as to whether entire races are evil is a question primarily of -edition- not universal truth. The oldest editions conclusively declared that law, chaos, good and evil are fixed attributes for anyone other than player characters. They backed off of this slightly with unique exceptions in 2E and the splatbook for playing monster races. 3E+ converted this to more of a statistical argument (more likely to be evil, unless cosmologically determined), and editions after that (especially the most recent 5.5. have gone straight to "whatever, man." So, to be clear, you are arguing about assumptions formed by the edition in which you discovered the hobby, not something that is always true.>Detect EvilThe existence of this spell and its relatives, however, destroys the ambiguity argument completely. If the alignment of a creature is in doubt, you can receive an objective mechanical answer, regardless of edition. This yields the following principle: "In D&D, magically verify alignment before making alignment-based decisions," not that "alignment-based decisions cannot be made.">Kill 'em all!What is missing from the genocide argument is an understanding of justice. The premise of justice is proportionality. Are they a pickpocket, a baby-eater, or an honorable knight serving an evil liege out of duty? Each of these requires a different response; the punishment should fit the crime (or level of response necessary to prevent harm). Sometimes it is death; most of the time it isn't. To evaluate the justice of one's actions is "good;" to ignore proportionality is "evil." (The lawful versus chaos split here is "do you care about what the rules of society say on the issue, or make the decision yourself).>Deontology vs. TeleologyHere we get to the heart of the matter. The distinction between good and evil is consideration of the intent and level of offense of the individual in order to determine justice.
>>96625339Hate is too strong a word.No ones care at all for it.
>>96625374charlimit, continuing>Deontology vs. Teleology continuedIf you are just concerned with consequences, you are not concerned with -justice-, and therefore your might tolerate an evil act if it "works out" for you.>Baatezu are AngelsFrom the previous, we now understand why Baatezu and Tanar'ri are evil. They are killing the others out of hatred and the fact that they are "not on their team," not out of a measured consideration of "what is just." It just happens to "work out" for them; therefore they are not acting with intent of furthering good.>Why alignment is gayThe nebulous use of terms, shifting definitions between editions and general moral relativism of the present nullifies the utility of alignment as a useful tool. The average players sees this as "blue team vs. red team" as substitutes that heuristic for genuine moral engagement. Real ethical dilemmas involve which values to prioritize over other values. Do you execute a murderer or give him the chance to reform? Do you chase after the villain or stay behind to try to help his victims? Do you keep your word to serve a liege making immoral decisions, or do you make up your own mind? These sorts of dilemmas are not mechanically encouraged by the brute force concepts of "Good" and "Evil" in alignment.
>>96625193>So would human children, if they’d been raised to do so.Yes, if they would be deliberately raised and often broken to do so.Not when it would be their natural compulsion to try beating and eating the weak to death wholly on their own instinct.This is why leftists should be shot. They will defend a literal baby-eating shark, but will ready condemn any man who defends himself from a [REDACTED].
>>96619031>*magics your fellow paladins into evil monsters and hires you to slaughter them*Heh, extremely personell, Keldorn.
>>96625570>This is why leftists should be shotAnd you've just discovered why they would prefer the shark to you.The shark kills far less and says far less dumb shit.
>>96625973He can't help it, the right can't control their omnicidal tendencies.They're ontologically evil, after all.
>>96625973>And you've just discovered why they would prefer the shark to you.Because leftists are as evil as the sharks, I know.>The shark kills far lessI.e. any chance it reasonably gets, just like the right. Oh, wait.Guess you just said dumb shit because you can't argue in good faith. Again.If you could, you wouldn't be leftist.
>>96625994>just like the rightThat is correct, yes. You guys are constantly lynching, killing, assassinating, etc. It happens so much than when a leftist gets assassinated, it doesn't even make the news any more.
>>96626000You'd love for it to be true, sure. Sadly, the truth is opposite. And right is humourously excessively tolerant even while leftists kill or let animals kill.But like I said, you can't argue in good faith.
>>96626019No, you guys are constantly killing, and now you're lying about it while claiming -I- am the one speaking in bad faith.I was correct to start- you're a hypocrite, and ontologically evil.
>>96626027>>96626019Upon thought, even the presidential assassination attempts turn out to be right wing.Fuckers just can't stop killing to save their life.
>>96626027No, you aren't. You know you aren't. You know I know you aren't. And you still keep lying to my face even after being told. Guess you're that mad you lost an argument.
>>96626048Note how, when confronted with the fact that his party is directly responsible for the last presidential assassination attempt and constant other assassinations, the evil creature has no defense.It's rich you call anyone else arguing in bad faith when you've never argued in good faith a single time.
>>96626038Presidential assassination attemps are inherently apolitical - sure the useful idiot that actually pulls the trigger might believe in something or the other, but the on fundamental level it happens because feds allowed it, and feds don't have loyalty to anyone but themselves.
>/pol/ tangent out of nowhereThis thread was almost decent
>>96626077The feds STILL have trouble defeating an RC car with a grenade taped to it.
>>96626081well, >>96625570Just couldn't help himself. Too much of an SJW and all that, had to virtue signal against those meanie liberals.
>>96626038>>96626061Again, evil creature argues in bad faith, pretending it's even the first time a leftist pretended to be a Republican before committing an attack.And don't think we forgot about Blackrock ad he starred it. Total coincidence as usual.You've arguing in bad faith this whole time, because how else are you gonna defend baby-eating sharks, Epsteins, Hillary or any other evil creatures?
>>96626099>Yes, all evidence DOES point to the right committing these attacks>But I will say it's a leftist because it would really hurt my argument to acknowledge the evidencelol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626104First, it doesn't, however much you pretend. And second, what attackS? Majority of shooters belong to a meme percent these days.I will say it's a leftist because he attacked a Republican Icon and there's literally nothing pointing him to the right except a token party he never participated in.But feel free to keep lying, just like with the sharks.
>>96626134>Yes, the right DOES shoot each other all the time, but I will call them leftists because of itlol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.What, are you too busy jacking it to trannies to think properly?
>>96626141>Yes, the right DOES shoot each other all the timelol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626145>Okay, he was right wing, but he shot a right winger which makes him automatically left!lol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626147lol, stop arguing in bad faith retardGuess you have nothing better after all.
>>96626156>Fleeing from the discussion when someone points out his lieslol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626164>Fleeing from the discussion when someone points out his liesYou mean like grasping at the sole party membership argument to avoid admitting he was leftist? Yes.lol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>the likelihood of leftist masquerating as a Republican is lower than a chance of baby-eating shark to be good in leftist mindYou can't cure these people. Just pure evil.
>>96626174>Okay, he may have in fact been republican and voted republican and did everything republicans do, but he was leftist honestlylol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.>>96626178The shark eats less babies than conservatives I'm afraid.It's why SIDS shoots up in conservative ruled areas.
>>96626181>The shark eats less babies than conservatives I'm afraid.That's what "arguing in bad faith" is. Also fuck off, ontologically evil retard.
>>96626189Sids go up anywhere conservatives hold power.Those fuckers love the dead babies, it seems.
>>96626181>Okay, he had leftist interests, leftist worldview and joined Republican party just like a bunch of other leftists, but he's right wing, guys, trust me!lol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.This is getting tiresome, you won't stop clowning even after caught on lying, so whatever.
>>96626198>Okay, I may have just admitted I will retroactively call anyone that shoots a rightist a leftist, but trust me, this guy really was onelol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626202>Okay, other leftist shooters are caught joining Republican party before, but this is totally a rightist, did I ever lied to you???lol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626205>Look, I have no ability to counter the fact that the right was right wing, right voting, and behaved in a right wing manner, so I'm just going to pretend that evidence isn't publiclol, stop arguing in bad faith retard.
>>96626178> is lower than a chance of baby-eating sharkAgain, if the sahuagin fries eat each other (is that actually mentioned anywhere, or are we just assuming?), I’m nevertheless not going to hold it against them alignment-wise, because as babies they aren’t capable of rational thought, only instinctual. D&D is VERY clear that animal intelligence = True Neutral or, in the case of editions with it, Unaligned. If it’s completely. Ariel’s for sahuagin babies to eat each other and they literally don’t have a choice in the matter because they’re not smart enough to make choices, then it’s definitionally not evil.If anything I’d blame the parents for not stopping them and letting them get hungry enough that cannibalism is on the table.
>>96626210> If it’s completely. Ariel’s for sahuagin babies*if it’s completely natural for sahuagin babies. Mea culpa.
>>96626210I think you're missing the point retard. Sahaguin both have the culture and natural drive for cannibalism, pretty much like leftists.Killing and eating the weak is considered good and proper.Kids attacking other kids consciously would be considered evil, even if they aren't aware of the definitions. They just like causing pain because it's fun.
>>96626208>Okay shooter behaved in left wing manner, chose right wing target, but he's totally right because he did opsec!Yeah yeah, you're going to keep denying even after Democrat party will come with an apology.
>>96626232> Killing and eating the weak is considered good and proper.What do you think the Aztecs did with the bodies of those they sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, Anon? Their god only wanted the hearts.You have not actually advanced an argument for why sahuagin should be considered innately evil, only societally so. But as the example of both drow and efreeti prove, even TSR - hell, even Gygax given that Vault of the Drow came out during his tenure at TSR - acknowledged that races that are listed as “evil” in the Monster Manual aren’t necessarily innately evil in practice in their everyday societies.
>>96626279>What do you think the Aztecs did with the bodies of those they sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, Anon? Their god only wanted the hearts.Nice assumption. Except Sekolah doesn't ask for sacrifices or in general barely cares what they do.They like him because they ARE like him.>You have not actually advanced an argument for why sahuagin should be considered innately evilDo you know what a dark triad is? That's why. I already explained it above.Not necessarily evil is semantics. If a creature requires specific nurturing to - theoretically - not become evil, it's evil.And for the sake of argument, it's a safe assumption in regards to an evil race, ergo not evil to attack preventatively.
>>96626271>He behaved in a leftist manner(shooting republicans)! Ignore all that other right wing shit like voting right wing, or acting right wing, or having tranny porn
Okay but what's wrong with ontologically evil races
>>96626319>And for the sake of argument, it's a safe assumption in regards to an evil raceExcept both drow and efreeti prove this wrong. Efreeti are particularly notable for doing so because they're not even mortal, material plane beings.
>>96626319>Do you know what a dark triad is? That's why. I already explained it above.Ctrl+F reveals no other instances of the phrase, so rather than making me slog through a few dozen posts of you being wrong, you post it again so I can more concisely tell you why you're wrong?
>>96626441Nothing, really, it's just that sahuagin aren't and the game even has another character call Keldorn out on being wrong.
>>96622570Where can I find the TSR Eilistraee surface Drow?
>>96620158Maybe he was talking about a book
>>96622213Wasn't that kind of the point? A system with domain play and a more balance martial/caster and all.>>96622276So hating a system for extra steps. Could be better maybe, however if you don't like it. You can simply just take it out
>>96624340And what's wrong with that? I put a lot of work into this setting.
>"I-it's evil to kill things that are evil! Even evil babies!" posters as soon as they step outside in the summer.
>>96628423>t. buddhist
>>96628298You didn't elaborate much on this setting to say more.The only thing you described comes across as subversive, unless it's just your wording.
>>96628423>non-sequitur
>>96622267>Are animals evil for eating children?Yes. The universal neutral designation has always been bullshit cope.
>>96626663On Hallowed Ground (1996), pg. 99Also Demihuman Deities (1998), pg. 11, which notes her having a following around Silverymoon.
>ohhh wehhh but it doesn't know it's doing evil things!!Who gives a shit? It's evil whether it knows it or not.
>>96621518Why would being evil preclude group mentality?
>>96625244>>96628916working together requires traits humans almost universally have labelled as good, like cooperation, long term planning, and resource allocation.
>>96628929>like cooperation, long term planning, and resource allocation.Just like the Nazis.
>>96628951Less ontologically evil groups often adapt a number of good traits, like being alive and breathing.
being alive requires traits humans almost universally consider neutral, like breathingguess there's no evil in the world
>>96628957>being alive and breathingI can pretty much assure you that Nazis were alive and breathing.
>>96628959There's no ontological evil, no.Such a being would rapidly cease to exist, as it operates entirely for evil, rather than survival.
>>96628967>trust me there's no such thing as evil :)
>>96628966Yes, that is the point, are you slow?
>>96628972You seem to have trouble with the difference between ontological evil and regular evil.
>>96628982Evil is evil.
>>96628985You seem to be having trouble with the concept of differentiating features in general.
>>96628985BASED
>>96629004>>96628985Anyway, now that that's done, the thought experiment of some kind of purely evil creature IS interesting.Unbound by the requirements of survival or practicality. Perhaps such a thing could be made, with the right mindset. I can imagine short lived creatures, like a missile, being able to sustain this kind of mindset.
>>96629030A missile that doesn't die when it explodes, and can just keep on exploding anything that might look like it could suffer, would be a good start.
>>96628957You can't be "less ontologically evil"
>>96628951Nazies are not ontologically evil, a nazi can stop being a nazi or even do good things despite being nazi.
>>96625193A fish person operating on instinct isn't under any sort of societal pressure.Deflect again.
>>96619031You see Anon, in a world where there are actually demon-worshipping cannibal fishmen, the sort of dumb bitch with a Quokka soul who would NOT exterminate them on sight would have been winnowed out of the gene pool by said fishmen, and other sundry threats.You enjoy the privilege of living in a world where the closest thing to a fishman you're going to meet in your life is some blond guy from the Baltic. The closest thing to true evil you are ever likely to encounter personally, be victimized personally, is a phone scammer or MAYBE a petty street criminal who robs your car. Imagine that guy who pez-dispensered that Ukranian chick on a subway a few weeks ago were an entire species and every encounter with them led to that kind of outcome. Anyone who advoacted sympathy for them would be murdered by his own family, and they would be right to kill him. Keldorn over here's facial expressions are about 40% scar tissue by volume because he lives in a world where cannibal fishmen and orcs are actually real, where demons regularly bleed into the material plane to eat peoples' souls, and where sociopathic psychic squid people from the future are trying to conquer the world. Please do not impose your fragile luxury beliefs onto fantasy settings.
everytime I wash my hands with soap and water, millions of little bacteria die a fragrant, watery death and I am happier and healthier because of it
>>96629962>Imagine that guy who pez-dispensered that Ukranian chick on a subway a few weeks ago were an entire species and every encounter with them led to that kind of outcome.They know. They know all that and they've been told that ad nauseam this whole thread.But they would rather deny everything and grasp at straws, pointing at harmless fish babies who're just not old enough to be a threat, yet.They will jail you for life, cancel your entire family out of work if they protest, and will viciously defend woman rights to kill babies.It's just these kinds of people.
>>96629962>Please do not impose your fragile luxury beliefs onto fantasy settings.So you're saying genocide is justified sometimes??
>>96619031If all fish guys were evil or even an overwhealming majority of them, yes you would be. I had to wait 120 seconds for this shit. >Arts fine, better then freakshit>Solid writing, its a ruleset. Creativity is in it's expression at the table not the presentation of its rules>Overcomplicated - Warning Brainlet detected>Banned form several websites because they're butt hurt faggots who thought they could slander with no pushback>There are good reasons not to like Acks, you just haven't said any yet retard.
>>96630087Yes>Like Gaza, 100% Justified
>>96628876But that’s the thing, *is* it evil? TSR made it clear that there’s a difference between monster stablocks and everyday members of the race. Drow in the Monstrous Compendium as monsters the PCs fight are Chaotic Evil. But in Vault of the Drow, the everyday, average drow schmuck is Neutral. How do you know this doesn’t apply to sahuagin too?
>>96630171It is evil.
>>96629743"Ontological Evil" is a terribly misused term.When you say that any quality is Ontological you are saying that it is part of the Ontos of that thing. Its actual being.Ergo, the Ontos of a square is that it has four sides of equal length which are parallel to its opposites. If the square does not have four sides of equal length which are parallel to its opposites, it isn't a square.In order for something to be Ontologically evil, it would have to be impossible to describe the thing practically without including that it is evil. This would mean that evil is, literally, an objective quality (I.E. something that exists beyond the subjective human experience) and something which is integral to the being of the thing.It's very rare to actually find ontological evil--which is different from being evil, or even from a species being 100% evil, because even if they ARE 100% evil, it's usually possible to imagine or conceive of one not being so.The Sranc, for example, from R. Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse. When the Dunyain capture one and vivisect it, they discover that it is engineered to be so smooth-brained that there is just nothing conscious there, it is an animal instinct to rape and violate with a bare glimmerof intelligence but no actual sense of self, no "soul" if you will. They aren't even people, they're an act of evil in and of themselves, a self-committing rape, the only agency involved was whoever created them--and that person did something evil. If you took a Sranc and removed this quality from it it wouldn't be a Sranc anymore, it would be something else.
>>96630087Yes, would you like a concrete real world example?Screw Worms. The US Government has been ruthlessly exterminating them for decades now, and that by itself has reduced the level of pain and suffering in the world by orders of magnitude more times than any other project in the history of the human species.The Screw Worm annually inflicted more suffering than Joseph Stalin did in his entire career. Billions of animals eaten alive, in hideous anguish, so that a nonsentient maggot can reproduce. The Genocide of the Screw Worm is not only entirely justified, but upon it being possible it became moral insanity NOT to do it. So we do it, and now getting a scratch in the woods doesn't result in you being eaten alive by insect larvae.A Genocide that is entirely justifiable, and in fact, is the only moral choice, and becomes more moral the more you understand it.If Screw Worms were intelligent, it would be even more important to exterminate them.
>>96630173Detect Evil?
>>96630217Yes, actually.
>>96630215Same goes for Tsetse Fly. They've tried everything from literally gassing to actual radiation and it seems to be finally working. They aren't even themselves "evil" but serve as unwitting hosts for terrible parasites.That was more than enough of a reason to exterminate them.
>>96629796True, but if they’re an unthinking baby, then it’s difficult to call them evil given how the rules of the game itself treat Evil. Again, baby birds will kill each other in the nest, or male lions will kill cubs from other fathers when they take over a pride, but D&D is very clear that they’re nevertheless Neutral (or Unaligned in editions with that option), which would seem to make it clear that Evil requires conscious thought that sahuagin babies do not have.
>>96630215>>96630251These are bad examples because they’re always unthinking animals. We can’t negotiate with them or raise them to be different. That isn’t the case with sahuagin.
>>96630293You keep tacking conditions onto it but it doesn't actually matter.
>>96630293We aren't obligated to give evil a chance it doesn't even ask for.
>>9663030Pretty sure it does when you’re arguing from an attempt to reduce human suffering. Everything we know about sahuagin tells us that genocide isn’t necessary to do that.
>>96630310But what about something that isn’t evil, and could grow up to be good, but right now isn’t asking because *it’s a baby and isn’t capable of language yet*?
>>96630326I cast detect evil. It pings evil.Btw, what are you ping as, Anon?
>>96630326
>>96630293The intelligence of a thing changes nothing, you are under no onus to negotiate with intelligent things that have made it a way of life to murder you.To a Paladin the question of whether or not he could theoretically negotiate with and change Sahaugin or Mind Flayer society or whatever is completely irrelevant, every second that you are not killing them, they are killing innocent people or plotting to do so, not in some vague political way but in a DIRECT and TANGIBLE way. They are intelligent? Well this means they have put a lot of thought into how to kill and eat you or sacrifice you to their devil-gods. This is luxury belief poisoning at work, immense narcissism and an unearned belief in one's ability to forcibly fix something that you have no evidence whatsoever that you can fix.Maybe you want to talk to the Sahaugin or something, but killing them is at least equally rational and justifiable of a response--And you would have to be delusional to actually hold someone at fault for choosing this far more practical option.
>>96630419NTA but thank you for teaching me about the luxury belief term
>>96630419> every second that you are not killing them, they are killing innocent people or plotting to do soThat’s ridiculous just on the face of it. What about when they’re sleeping? Taking a dump? Diving for pearls? Designing public works? No sapient species could possibly be spending every second of every day doing nothing by but evil or plotting evil.
>>96630505>see, they have to sleep sometimes! they're not evil!???
Is making excuses to allow for the continued existence of evil also an act of evil?
>>96630519They also form relationships, friendships, rivalries, and it cannot possibly be 100% dedicated to committing evil. This came up in World War Z. The book, not the movie. A general points out that “total war” is, or used to be, bullshit because it’s impossible for human beings to dedicate 100% of their time to warfare. But the zombies by contrast actually were capable of Total War, specifically because they weren’t sapient and because every aspect of their nature was geared towards killing animal life.Sahuagin aren’t zombies. They have a lot more in common with humans than with zombies. They are not capable of 100% dedication to the cause of evil. If nothing else, simple endless repetition would make them grow bored with it.
>>96630551>look, they poop! they can't be evil!lmao
>>96630551>>96630558Typical leftoid vs rightoid conversation.
>>96630591>say completely retarded shit>get made fun of>"NOOOO STOP MAKING FUN OF ME"
>>96630598It’s not retarded to point out that this stance:> every second that you are not killing them, they are killing innocent people or plotting to do so, not in some vague political way but in a DIRECT and TANGIBLE wayIs retarded when you give it even a modicum of thought.
>>96630598>resorts to thinking everyone responding to him is the same person
>>96630620>stop calling them evil! they're pooping!!! >>96630626it's obviously still you someone who argues for such demented shit is definitely mentally ill enough to samefag
>>96630620They are fictional creaturessaying>this is irrational and illogicalis not a counterargument.It's fantasy. They can be whatever the writer damn well pleases.
>>96630620It's a technically correct stance, but it just highlights how truly limited and lame pure evil beings per DND are.
>>96621619>Semetobot finds a way to make it about the sand warsRemember when /pol/tards were wrong about everything? What simple times
>>96630634>he thinks I'm arguing for any particular side and not just laughing at both of you literally personifying stereotypes to a T
>>96630639Okay, then engage with the fiction as it was published:1. Monstrous stat blocks don’t necessarily represent everyday people in their society2. Actions by unintelligent creatures, no matter how vile-seeming, do not impact alignment since they are literally incapable of choice3. It has been consistently shown in D&D that changing society changes alignment tendencies in material races, I.e., no one is “born” into an alignment unless they have Outsider influence in their blood.
>ackshually... nothing is evil>i am very intelligent
>>96630175so demons and devils then would be examples of ontological evil. they are literally made of Evil the stuff, and if they ever stop being Evil, they change creature type, in the same way Zariel became a Devil when she swapped to LE.
>>96631075this is so fucking stupidif you can accept that demons and devils are inherently evil, why can't you accept that any other fantasy creature can be inherently evilMost of the arguments that fishmen can't be inherently evil is because they have free will, but the same thing could be said for demons and devilsIf the evil fish guys weren't evil man eaters then they wouldn't be evil fish guys anymore. Their existence would be redundant.Of course freakshitters will have a hard time understanding this because they think reskinned humans that are just humans except furry existing just for the sake of it is heckin valid
>>96631124>if you can accept that demons and devils are inherently evil, why can't you accept that any other fantasy creature can be inherently evilBecause that's the whole point of stuff like demons, devils, robots, etc. They are programmed a certain way and have no true will until they do. It's a fundamental point usually that material beings are not that way.
>>96631124>if you can accept that demons and devils are inherently evil, why can't you accept that any other fantasy creature can be inherently evilBecause one is supposedly MADE out of Evil Magical Bullshit, the other is a living organism that has to feed and fuck to propagate its species.
>>96630639>It's fantasy. They can be whatever the writer damn well pleases.You still have yet to show that what is written supports your argument. It's within the writing that they factually are not spending every single moment focused on perpetrating evil as is being claimed.
>>96630175>They aren't even people, they're an act of evil in and of themselves, a self-committing rape, the only agency involved was whoever created them--and that person did something evil. Right but the paradox in this that removing all the agency from the thing means it is now no longer an actor that can be part of a moral argument, just a tool that was created to do something.
>>96631124Because the issue is calling something that can't act morally like a demon or robot because it functionally can't choose to do anything besides evil is as nonsensical as calling a disease "evil".
>>96628929you can cooperate to do evil lmao
>>96629030>>96631075Mindless undead too. They aren't made of Evil Planes, they're made of Negative Energy Plane, but their core and only mental trait is an all-consuming violent, destructive hatred for all living creatures.Which is why animation necromancy is at best incredibly negligent recklessness and desecration of a corpse, and at worst inherently evil.You are literally bringing something constructed exclusively of evil to the material plane and giving it humanoid remains with which to act. Even if your own intentions and orders to them are exclusively the best possible good that could be achieved, you're risking other people's lives on the fact that you'll be able to always maintain control of them until such time as they're all destroyed. Because the moment that control slips for even the briefest second for any reason, you've permanently lost all control forever and unleashed a roving band of 25-some-odd insatiable, tireless, indiscriminate mass murderers on the world. Forced by circumstance to run out of slots to renew control? Get stuck in an AMF? Die? Oversleep one morning? Can't get to all your skeletons in time? RIP little timmy jenkins.
Cultural and technological development also doesn't make sense if they're too evil. Like do they have musicians? Artists? How did their language, architecture, etc. come about? Orcs in the LOTR work purely because they reference everything to Melkor and Sauron. Much of human development for example was the result of mundane peacetime advancement.
>>96631150>>96631148>>96631187>>96631223So you're saying the demons can't actually be evil because they don't have free will to make decisions, much like insects.
>>96621336>outlaw being evil>?????>profit
>>96631257Who says you need free will to be evil?that's not how evil is defined in D&D.
>>96631266Reread the thread. If animals can't be evil because they don't have intellectual agency, then demons aren't evil because they don't have existential agency.
Free will is how a human comes to evil. A demon already is evil.
>>96631300you didn't even make an argumentyou're literally making the same argument that was being made about the fishmen"they are evil because they are evil"so you admit that the fishmen are evil and its okay to kill them because they are evil
>>96631312>the fishmen are evil and its okay to kill them because they are evilyes
>>96631300>Free will is how a human comes to evil.Do Sahuagin have free will?
>>96631266"Evil" in DND however is not a statement of morality in most cases, just a cosmic Friend/Foe identitier. "Detect Evil" doesn't tell you whether or not a creature has committed Evil acts as there's nothing that actually states that Evil behavior makes your alignment "evil" or what the threshold for that might be outside of Paladins.
>>96631395thought experiment on how to define what would cause an alignment shift to evilany ideas?
>>96631395it's both
>>96631423It has never been both, it has been a way to detect things with an evil alignment or a way to detect something with evil intentions toward the caster.
>>96631412genocide would probably do the trick
>>96631455it's always been both and always will be
>>96631466Post a version of the spell from an actual boom where it reveals immoral actions then.
>>96631487are you still the evil-is-not-evil guy? you're deranged dudeprobably smear your own shit on walls
>>96631502Dude, just fuck off. You have the weakest arguments in this thread, anytime you might have to prove or back something up you just resort to ad-hom or some other nonsense.
>>96631537>ackshually thing isn't thingnot an argument no matter how hard you cry and stomp your feet lol
>>96631487>degree of evil and general nature can be noted>nature includes "expectant, malignant or gloating" as examples>expectant = about to do evil>malignant = wants to do evil>gloating = just did evil>gives examples of ki-rin and rakshasas as monsters that "send forth emanations of good or evil, even if polymorphed," i.e. it is ontological>animals are explicitly not good or evil, even if about to attack (viper example)
>>96631537beware arguing with retards or risk becoming one yourself
>>96631599surely someone will be fooled by this samefagging!
>>96619084>>96619502based lmao>>96622050hi, fishfag! here to bitch like a faggot some more?
>>96622050>banned from several websites due to shilling/brigadinglying tranny lmao. Just drop the act and say its because macris is a nazi already
>PROVE IT LOGICALLY!Passion is truth. Logic is folly. Emotion and intuition are superior modes of thought for making value judgements. Logic leads to stagnation, death, and degeneration or the admission of pure evil. There is no other way for life to exist.
>>96630591Rightoid is in yellow shirt, isn't he?
>>96620065its a dogshit game and you couldnt pay me $10 to take a copy
>>96631692Leftoids aren't using logic either. They just want to drown you in endless semantics to avoid admitting being wrong.Particularly vile set of natural traits and inclinations flatly indicate the entire race as being evil. With outlier proving absolutely nothing except highlighting how rare it is.Logical conclusion would be to exterminate them all just as well for being dangerous liability.>>96622050>terrible artSee they're stooping to outright lying in hopes they won't be outed.These "people" defend literal evil, using dishonest arguing, try to attack you back and lie.And then they have the audacity to get offended at the desireto kill them.
>>96631354Yes.They culturally all follow an evil religion, and the have an innate predilection for predatory cannibalistic murder because they are shark people.But if you could ever convince one to see other races as anything other than prey, it could conceivably choose to behave differently.Of course, much like Gygax's the orc baby example, it would be best to then kill it immediately while it's had a turn of heart to prevent the chance of backsliding due to the siren all of their true nature, thereby saving their immortal soul.>>96631395>Detect Evil" doesn't tell you whether or not a creature has committed EvilIn 3.5 specifically it does ping someone who is just alignment evil, provided they're of a high enough level (10+), as well as pinging clerics of evil gods and anti-paladins and even evil objects and spells.In 2e they had to be 9th or higher and actively intending at that moment to commit an act of the appropriate alignment.
>>96631896>Rightoid>MinorityWhy would anyone support a party that thinks they're 3/5th a person?
>>96631547Anon none of that refers to actual actions or behavior at best it mentions intent. Following this rule if a character turned down an orphanage but thought it was "good" it wouldn't ding them unless they otherwise had a strong alignment toward evil forces.>>gives examples of ki-rin and rakshasas as monsters that "send forth emanations of good or evil, even if polymorphed," i.e. it is ontologicalIgnoring the sentence immediately after that explains this is because they draw on negative or positive energies not because of inherent morallity.>>degree of evil and general nature can be notedWell no it expressly says it's only if it's notably strong conviction for either.>>nature includes "expectant, malignant or gloating" as examples>expectant = about to do evil>malignant = wants to do evil>gloating = just did evilNothing about the context in which these terms are used points to anything besides intents>animals are explicitly not good or evil, even if about to attack (viper example)This reinforces that things that can't understand morals and just rely on instinct aren't inherently evil regardless of their actions.
>>96631692>being retarded is good actuallyWell at least you conceded you're retarded and illogical
>>96632251Because living as nigger in a white society is better than living as a nigger in black society, I presume.
>>96631692If you'd ever met a BPD you'd understand how fucking retarded your position is.
>>96632239>In 3.5 specifically it does ping someone who is just alignment evil, provided they're of a high enough level (10+), as well as pinging clerics of evil gods and anti-paladins and even evil objects and spells.Right but if you can have the alignment evil before you've even done anything, than what alignment you have isn't defined by what you have done>In 2e they had to be 9th or higher and actively intending at that moment to commit an act of the appropriate alignment.Right what they INTEND to do which both means someone could have already done somehing evil or might simply not believe their actions are evil.
>>96631075Demons and devils no, because from the earliest account of demons in the world, it's been known that they are just fallen angels.
>>96631963>seething about leftists because he used ontological wronglol
>>96632389>because he used ontological wrongWhat?I'm seething because leftist sees a blatantly evil evil, non-ontologically evil race, and pretends that it isn't by pathetic nit-picks and gotchas.It's bad faith arguing.And then he will go back and keep cheering for mass shooters.
>>96632425>The leftists argue in BAD FAITH! It's not about how I keep using words wrong!lolEverything you /pol/fags say applies doubly to you, it's great.
>>96632429>>96632425On this note, have the right wing ever argued in good faith? Bad faith arguments seem to be their primary tactic to the point where I'm concerned they have no other.
>>96632425You are the only person here arguing in bad faith.
>>96632429>>96632433>>96632434>no you no you!!Nice, and unexpected seething. No rebuttal, as expected though.
>left right left right left right left left right right right LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFTshut the fuck up
>>96632447>Why aren't people taking me seriously after seething about politics and making bad faith arguments?lol, get fucked faggot
>>96632466>leftist makes bad faith arguments whole thread>seethes about being called out>NO YOU ARE BAD FAITHI'm not taking you seriously actually.
>>96632504>I never took any of this seriously!lol, fag even admits he was in bad faith the whole time.
>>96632518Thank you for finally admitting it.
>>96632531>I'll just pretend I can't read! That's a great bad faith tactic!lol, seethe harder faggot
>>96632371Lol, that's neither true for DnD, nor for "real life". What a fucking retard.
>>96632546No, demons are almost universally fallen angels in real christianity.
>>96632555Demons predate christianity.
>>96632565That truly doesn't matter for this conversation, and it confuses me that you think it would.
>>96632576It confuses me too why would you bring christinity into discussion when it clearly was of dnd demons, who are explicitly metaphysical incarnations of evil unrelated to good whatsoever.And in regards to real world myths, demons aren't necessarily fallen something, since they started as neutral spirits.
>>96632590Because D&D is based on and riffs off of real world shit, of course.Hence why D&D demons are constantly being redeemed in every other canonical instance of using them.
>>96632595Yes, aesthetics-wise, and not cosmology.And constantly, as in a few ass-pulled examples because it's muh rule of cool and not any sense of logic.
>>96632630There's one in nearly every single vidja they put out, anon.Hell, the demon redemption is so popular it spread to pathfinder.
>>96632729I agreed with you, but like I said, it makes zero sense for embodiment of literal element of evil to be redeemable.And, as you know, most of them are just coomer bait.>pathfinderWhy wouldn't it, it's pozzed to the balls.
>>96632790Even one or two examples proves the core logic is wrong, anon.
>>96632790>And, as you know, most of them are just coomer bait.yeah, i can't think of a single redeemed male fiend.
What a dogshit threadThanks to >>96630215 >>96629962 for interesting posts>>96622058>>96621657>>96621639>>96619073>>96631963Absolute retards
>>96632259Thanks for the constructive discussion, anon.>Viper exampleYes, we agree on this.>Degree and general nature... "well no"Well, yes, actually. It's literally a quote. "The degree of evil (dim, faint, moderate, strong or overwhelming) and possibly its general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted." The section that limits it to "strong alignment" refers to "Character Alignment," i.e. player characters. The previous sentence allows the spell to work generally on any other "creature, object or area." This discussion of the ambiguous limitations of the first level "Detect Evil" spell are overcome by the second level "Know Alignment" spell, which "enables the priest to exactly read the aura of a creature or an aligned object." Same for the "True Seeing" spell. Therefore alignment is a knowable thing (although the Detect Evil spell has limitations for targeting other player characters).>Expectant, Malignant, Gloating "natures"These are "intents," but intents tied directly to action. I guess the proper term for them would be a mens rea. The ability to go backwards in time to get hard detail about someone's actions doesn't exist for Priests, but you can do it with Wiz6's Legend Lore. >this is because they draw on negative or positive energies not because of inherent morallity.You misunderstand. If positive energy is synonymous with "good," and negative energy is synonymous with "evil," then that strengthens the claim that "good" and "evil" are physical and objective phenomena within the universe (in this edition).
>>96632371Literally only a Christian thing, no other religion has this (technically not even the bible itself has this, the closest is it says that Satan fell from heaven but never expressly calls Satan a demon, nor calls demons in any way related to angels. Jewish apocrypha even claims the "Rephaim" are the lost souls of the nephilim), and decidedly not in any way related to D&D lore for any setting.>>96632595>Hence why D&D demons are constantly being redeemed in every other canonical instance of using themName 3.
>>96632937I can't even name three demons to you, period, those shits are almost never used unless they plan on being redeemed.
I'll never forgive Keldorn for raping her :(
