• TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 年前

    Situations like this give me the inclination to treat D&D Good™ and Evil™ as physical properties rather than moral tendencies. D&D Good™ that is a little too eager to murder beings labeled as Evil™ falls short of what I would consider good. If someone used such power to kill someone who is a pathological liar and petty thief, that wouldn’t seem good to me even if that person could be classified as Evil™ as the system defines it.

    Then again while to me such act seems evil, I don’t think I could call the caster Evil™ because D&D explicitly endorses killing Evil™ creatures as a Good™ act. Since the 1st edition, the purest paragon of Good™ that is the Paladin wields a weapon to kill.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 年前

      5th edition has done it better with the addition of “unaligned” to the mix, IMO. In order to have an alignment - even a neutral one - you need to explicitly dedicate yourself to that alignment, or be supernaturally bound to it such as with angels and demons. I would rule that these spells don’t affect the unaligned.

      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 年前

        It is definitely more convenient for players, especially now that they dropped class alignment requirements, but there is so much worldbuilding tied to Good and Evil and such, it feels a little strange to treat it like something most characters ignore.