Enough is enough!


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if this belongs in this category here in the forums, but here goes.

I have had it with the senseless bashing of the people who prefer to have some examples of non-evil Orcs, non-evil undead and other such things in their campaigns. Hell, I had an alignment argument concerning Orcs with my group yesterday, but instead of bashing left and right, we came to the conclusion that orcs aren't naturally inclined to evil, but they are naturally inclined to aggression. Their cultural upbringing makes a majority of them rather evil, but even if it didn't, they'd still grow up to be violent and somewhat frightening. That's why Orcs in the 3.5e books were "Often Chaotic Evil" and not "Usually Chaotic Evil" or "Always Chaotic Evil", though I am quite sure the other part of them was either Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil, depending on the tribe in question.

Some people have cried about Mass Effect 3 having the option of a homosexual male Shepherd. You know, to those who have complained, I say that said option WAS NOT MADE FOR YOU. It was for the people who wanted it. You can be a straight or a lesbian Shepherd if you want, but unless you want those things to be judged, don't judge the ones who wanna go for the male-on-male love option. Nobody's forcing you to take it! The same damned thing applies here: You can have your Evil Orcs and I can have my non-Evil ones (or even a Good-aligned Orc!), but you can't complain as if we were forcing these things down your throats, especially when you do the same thing for us. You like what you like, we like what we like. Neither has the right to complain to the other, which seems to be the thing that some people here just don't understand.

Anyway, to wrap this up, let's just all try to get along, regardless of race, gender, class or sexual preference, okay?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As long as there are no good-aligned drows.


Drow are not evil outsiders. Yes, 99% of them are evil. Yes, they are naturally inclined to being evil. But unless it has the Evil Sub-Type, it cannot be ALWAYS evil. In Golarion it would make sense for them to have the Evil sub-type as they are more or less infused with demonic power, and are a corruption of the elf. Outside Golarion, I can tolerate some non-evil ones, maybe even a good one.

But such things are beside the point. Some people want non-evil drow, others don't.

Dark Archive

It has not to be always evil. But it can be, oh yes. *grin*

And such things are well within the point. People may want to have this or that or even both of those things, but if they don't fit with the setting canon (Golarion or otherwise or homebrewed), they'd better suck it up.

The setting features evil-only orcs and undeads? Well, OK. Evil only for them.

The setting features orcs, undeads (and drows, too) that could be not necessarily evil, and in some cases even good-aligned? Well, OK. Mostly evil, but not as a given.


I respect canon, but Golarion as a setting DOES have exceptions to the evil-only. Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Just because there aren't any examples in the books doesn't mean such things aren't canon. Of course a good-aligned Drow in Golarion is an impossibility due to how Drow are created, but the problem I have with that is that the Drow lack the Evil sub-type. But my point from the start has been that some people have asked for examples of these possible exceptions, and have received ridicule, trolling and more for their troubles even when we can just as well mock the unfortunate implications of sentences such as "of course it's okay to kill baby orcs, they're EVIL!!".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:

Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Direct quote on that?


Gorbacz wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Direct quote on that?

1. Do you have a direct quote that says I'm wrong? Because if you don't, I wouldn't have even needed to quote that one book in the first place.

2. All sentient beings (aside from non-Native Outsiders) with an Intelligence score that is 3 or higher have the freedom of choosing an alignment. If they were any lower than that, they'd be True Neutral just like wild animals or Golems. Outsiders like angels and proteans have the sub-types that tie them to certain alignments.

3. A quote on the Medusa, from Mythical Monsters Revisited: "While not innately evil, medusas are driven to pursue their dark desires out of spite, scornful of those who shun them for their curse." It's not their fault they are literally born cursed, but people hate them anyway, and they hate back because they can't do much about it.

(Also, I knew you'd eventually show up here to cause trouble, you silly bag of devouring.)

Dark Archive

Icyshadow wrote:

I respect canon, but Golarion as a setting DOES have exceptions to the evil-only. Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Just because there aren't any examples in the books doesn't mean such things aren't canon. Of course a good-aligned Drow in Golarion is an impossibility due to how Drow are created, but the problem I have with that is that the Drow lack the Evil sub-type. But my point from the start has been that some people have asked for examples of these possible exceptions, and have received ridicule, trolling and more for their troubles even when we can just as well mock the unfortunate implications of sentences such as "of course it's okay to kill baby orcs, they're EVIL!!".

OK, I get your point. However the "lack of evidence" considered as a valid counter to positive evidence (in one sense or the opposite) is a risky premise.

And given the fantasy genre attitude of choices getting twisted and causing disaster and guilt in the near future, moral relativism when dealing with goblin or orcish infants brings along some heavy-duty trouble.
Which is a useful tool for role-playing, but not something to count on by default.


I'm not willing to get drawn into this fight, because frankly, I don't care enough one way or the other. You want good orcs? Have fun. You want no good drow? Have just as much fun. If you're not playing at the same table, then it doesn't matter.

However, from the point of view of someone who enjoys a good argument from time to time:

Icyshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Direct quote on that?
1. Do you have a direct quote that says I'm wrong? Because if you don't, I wouldn't have even needed to quote that one book in the first place.

As the one who made a contentious statement in the first place, Icyshadow, the onus is on you to prove that it's true. You can't say that there is a rule that says this, and then when challenged say, "Well, find me a rule to the contrary and I'll admit you're right." That's not how arguments work.

Your argument to the contrary, drawn from points 2 and 3, has merit. But Golarion is an established campaign setting, and I believe the intent of the canon version that setting (as established in a few other forum posts by the Paizo peeps that I'm too lazy to look up) is that there are no good orcs or drow, for example. Not that you can't have them if you want them - but your original statement implies that there's a precedent. G was asking for that precedent.


The main point of this thread was "can't we all just get along", but apparently now I'm forced to defend people who think the way I do. And where has it been said there are no good orcs, AT ALL? I know it has been said that there are no good drow, and I won't go lying and say that's not true. Feegle, no offense, but you almost sound like you didn't read the posts in all their content, and merely skimmed through them.

Liberty's Edge

I searched through the 'Ask James Jacobs' thread for a quote on this, and found this one about Orcs but he's explicitly stated that the same is at least somewhat true of even Drow (as long as they were born Drow) in Golarion. There are absolutely a few Good or Neutral orcs in the world they just aren't putting them in the books as a rule, or without a hell of an explanation, anyway, because it would dilute the thematics of the creatures as monsters.


Icyshadow wrote:
The main point of this thread was "can't we all just get along", but now it's me having to fight for something here.

Well, Golem101 threw a gauntlet at you. You picked it up. Are you sure you're surprised by the results?

This having been said, I am with you when it comes to objecting to the 'always evil', or 'always whatever' absolutes. Heck, even aligned outsiders may stray from their alignment subtype on occasion (after all, the 'fallen angel' stereotype is pretty much widespread).

However, just because you could break these limitation does not imply you always should. These stereotypes are in the game for a reason. They contribute to the look-and-feel of the scenario. They act as a form of orientation aids. Simply breaking them just because you can is not likely to achieve much.

If you want some individual breaking the norm, don't do it just because you can. Do it because this will be a seed for an interesting plot, or an epic story. Do it in a way that actually matters.


Midnight_Angel wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
The main point of this thread was "can't we all just get along", but now it's me having to fight for something here.
If you want some individual breaking the norm, don't do it just because you can. Do it because this will be a seed for an interesting plot, or an epic story. Do it in a way that actually matters.

That's actually how I would want to do it in most cases. The problem is, to some people, even that is badwrong.

Also, after seeing so damned many fallen angels, I'd love to see a few ascended fiends for once. Would be pretty interesting...


golem101 wrote:
As long as there are no good-aligned drows.

Not sure if that's a joke or not, but there was Drizzt Do'Urden the CG Drow.

Personally on the issue of the alignment argument spoony argued about it and pointed out what happened in his own experience of that argument.

I won't go into a indeph discussion for several paragraphs, but the way I see it is that Orcs are lumped in the same catagory as Tieflings and Aasimar. Tieflings have fiendish blood inside them which draws them to violence, but it isn't strange to have one who is a LN monk or LG paladin who has been raised in a strict environment and you can even have countless roleplaying potential on how he has a ever present temptation to start breaking rules and refuse to be ordered around by the higher ups.

Same with the Aasimar, you could have one who in his town was ridiculed and often bullied and beaten, growing a deep-rooted hatred for everyone around him so much that he becomes a LE Cleric or, more likely from a life of learning to hate all CE Anti-paladin if taken in by a cult.

With the whole orc thing it can be extended to half-orcs. More prone ot violence, but not nessacerily evil. Just my 2 cps

On the ME3 discussion, this is something that start up a bit of a fire and senseless screaming on the SWTOR forums as many people wanted to know why Bioware hadn't implimented same sex relationships and then you have people screaming for it not to be there because it didn't fit the universe, whatever that means. So cross species between aliens and humans is fine but not same gender? Weird. Anyway I won't start an argument but I'll say what everyone else said on the issue. There is a option, if oyu don't want the option then don't choose it. It's like flicking through channels if something is on you don't like, you don't switch onto the channel.

In the words of Stan Lee "'nuff said.".


Icyshadow wrote:
That's actually how I would want to do it in most cases. The problem is, to some people, even that is badwrong.

*laughs* These people having moral authority over you exactly how?

Icyshadow wrote:
Also, after seeing so damned many fallen angels, I'd love to see a few ascended fiends for once. Would be pretty interesting...

Looks like a hell of a story to me, if done right.

DM Aron Marczylo wrote:
Same with the Aasimar, you could have one who in his town was ridiculed and often bullied and beaten, growing a deep-rooted hatred for everyone around him so much that he becomes a LE Cleric or, more likely from a life of learning to hate all CE Anti-paladin if taken in by a cult.

Umm... you mean, like a certain

Spoiler:
character in Rise of the Runelords

I'm with the OP. Since I don't know the 'canon' on what makes drow evil I can't comment on it. But that won't stop me. As a player of Descent into the Depths when it first came out all those years ago I remember when drow were just two lines in the monster manual saying they were rumoured to exist as weak fighters and strong magic users. Drizzt has a lot to answer for (see the first few chapters of the Goblins web-comic for the best, best parody of this), but 'renegade drow who have turned their back on evil and become good' are a trope which I don't think any canon can hand-wave away. Hell, Buffy the Vampire slayer had good demons. However, good drow won't last very long in the Underdark (do they call it the Shadowlands now?), and ANY drow won't last very long on the surface. So there are probably no good drow below tenth level because if they did exist, they'd be dead.

I remember in an old White Dwarf the suggestion that orcs were a staple of fantasy games (or goblins or whatever) because if the creatures in the role of orcs were bestial, aggressive humans it would create all sorts of moral difficulties that "they're just orcs" hand waves away.


Elinor, the thing is that in Golarion canon a good-aligned Drow is impossible because only evil elves can be drow. They are literally infused with evil to the point that they probably should have the Evil Sub-Type, as if they were Fiends. The same does not apply to Orcs or Goblinoids, though.

Using a Wish or a Miracle spell on a Derro can cure it of its insanity, but can those spells (or Atonement) turn a Drow good, I now wonder...


Icyshadow wrote:
The main point of this thread was "can't we all just get along", but apparently now I'm forced to defend people who think the way I do. And where has it been said there are no good orcs, AT ALL? I know it has been said that there are no good drow, and I won't go lying and say that's not true. Feegle, no offense, but you almost sound like you didn't read the posts in all their content, and merely skimmed through them.

It sounds like I skimmed them because I did. I skimmed them because, as I said earlier, I don't care. My opening paragraph was intended to support your "can't we all just get along," but I'm sorry if I was unclear.

My point had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I just take mild offense when someone puts forth an argument as you did:

"This is true."
"Can you show me proof of that?"
"Can YOU show ME proof that it's not? Until you can, I don't need to."

No response required; I won't be back to this thread, as I feel that this discussion is derailing the original topic, which is still worthwhile.


Midnight_Angel wrote:


DM Aron Marczylo wrote:
Same with the Aasimar, you could have one who in his town was ridiculed and often bullied and beaten, growing a deep-rooted hatred for everyone around him so much that he becomes a LE Cleric or, more likely from a life of learning to hate all CE Anti-paladin if taken in by a cult.
Umm... you mean, like a certain ** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I read through that ap but must've missed that. Eitherway, glad you see the point :)

Dark Archive

DM Aron Marczylo wrote:
golem101 wrote:
As long as there are no good-aligned drows.

Not sure if that's a joke or not, but there was Drizzt Do'Urden the CG Drow.

Not a joke, rather a reference to a bunch of many-paged threads that we've seen on the Paizo boards since the Second Darkness AP and mostly to a neat sidebar in The Armaggedon Echo that basically says "no good drow on Golarion" - or at least not a survivable one, hunted both by elves and drows alike.

And yes, it was mostly prompted by that famous dual scimitar wielding archetype, by the proliferation of such clones, and the late canonization of whole communities of unorthodox drows in its original setting.

Dark Archive

Midnight_Angel wrote:

This having been said, I am with you when it comes to objecting to the 'always evil', or 'always whatever' absolutes. Heck, even aligned outsiders may stray from their alignment subtype on occasion (after all, the 'fallen angel' stereotype is pretty much widespread).

However, just because you could break these limitation does not imply you always should. These stereotypes are in the game for a reason. They contribute to the look-and-feel of the scenario. They act as a form of orientation aids. Simply breaking them just because you can is not likely to achieve much.

If you want some individual breaking the norm, don't do it just because you can. Do it because this will be a seed for an interesting plot, or an epic story. Do it in a way that actually matters.

Pretty much my point. Which stems from the fact that I've seen a good many players breaking the racial archetype mold, regardless of setting, for cool factor alone and not for any reasonable, constructive motivation.

Sorry, sometimes it's just no.

The Exchange

As long as everyone knows you are playing a furry game where everyone is a human in a different skin. Players often have different assumptions and context for their characters and actions, the GM should try to make sure everyone is playing the same game way before it comes up.

Especially with racial hatred due to constant war, I mean letting the goblin go just means more dwarves will die due to more goblin mouths to feed. Even if this one is good, he can't vouch for his children and their children and their children who are a serious concern for a long lived race. The Golarion goblins are very different from Terry Pratchett goblins.

In one PFS game I had to let a Mite go free so someone could complete a faction mission. Mites have a hatred for dwarves, it's not alignment it's who they are, they train to kill my people. yeah she was not happy we killed all the rest, but I could not in good conscious let them all go free (they did attack us first and could not communicate with us due to no shared language, we didn't pull our blows except on the one we let get away with the note). If there was an negative alignment change for this I would have been confused and "angry" due to a different understanding of the world.


~Sigh, It's so hard to find a good thread on these forums anymore. Most of them are people ranting and screaming atop their own little soap box in self-righteous indignation.


I have no idea what you are talking about. The folks here seem rather civilized in spite of the somewhat provocative title.


Icyshadow wrote:

Elinor, the thing is that in Golarion canon a good-aligned Drow is impossible because only evil elves can be drow. They are literally infused with evil to the point that they probably should have the Evil Sub-Type, as if they were Fiends. The same does not apply to Orcs or Goblinoids, though.

Using a Wish or a Miracle spell on a Derro can cure it of its insanity, but can those spells (or Atonement) turn a Drow good, I now wonder...

There seems to be plenty of evil Angels, or at least the books make it seem like there are. There also seems to be some cross over in the evil to good outsider department, although that is either far less common, or it is just because I have read more books on evil creatures then good ones that I have fewer examples. I guess my point being, given enough time and maturity anything can change its alignment (with the exception of possibly undead). If an Angel can turn evil or a Succubus can turn good, then I see no reason why orcs could not do the same, and should be able to do so with more easily. I still assume they would be very rare though, and probably hated by all sides.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:

Elinor, the thing is that in Golarion canon a good-aligned Drow is impossible because only evil elves can be drow. They are literally infused with evil to the point that they probably should have the Evil Sub-Type, as if they were Fiends. The same does not apply to Orcs or Goblinoids, though.

Using a Wish or a Miracle spell on a Derro can cure it of its insanity, but can those spells (or Atonement) turn a Drow good, I now wonder...

This isn't technically true. Evil elves can become Drow, and they are irredeemable once that occurs...but they then make more little Drow in the conventional way (and most Drow on Golarion are the latter sort), and a Good aligned one of those is possible (though rare and likely klled on sight by Elves).


RAgathiel is an ascended devil and he is a emperyel lord. Ragatheil pf wiki info


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Elinor, the thing is that in Golarion canon a good-aligned Drow is impossible because only evil elves can be drow. They are literally infused with evil to the point that they probably should have the Evil Sub-Type, as if they were Fiends. The same does not apply to Orcs or Goblinoids, though.

Using a Wish or a Miracle spell on a Derro can cure it of its insanity, but can those spells (or Atonement) turn a Drow good, I now wonder...

This isn't technically true. Evil elves can become Drow, and they are irredeemable once that occurs...but they then make more little Drow in the conventional way (and most Drow on Golarion are the latter sort), and a Good aligned one of those is possible (though rare and likely klled on sight by Elves).

Doesn't that "kill-on-sight" thing also apply to the Drow in other settings? I know that in Forgotten Realms (before 4th edition at least), the good-aligned ones were a vast minority (though supported by one Drow goddess) and usually were killed on sight by Elves and Drow alike unless they proved their (relative) innocence to the former. Even then, the Elves had this one Chaotic Neutral deity who's whole dogma was basically "kill ALL the Drow, NO EXCEPTIONS" and these guys would have killed them anyway.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Sure, other settings don't, but Golarion as a setting HAS the fact that any mortal humanoid beings, and even monstrous humanoids, can choose to be non-evil or even good.

Direct quote on that?

1. Do you have a direct quote that says I'm wrong? Because if you don't, I wouldn't have even needed to quote that one book in the first place.

2. All sentient beings (aside from non-Native Outsiders) with an Intelligence score that is 3 or higher have the freedom of choosing an alignment. If they were any lower than that, they'd be True Neutral just like wild animals or Golems. Outsiders like angels and proteans have the sub-types that tie them to certain alignments.

3. A quote on the Medusa, from Mythical Monsters Revisited: "While not innately evil, medusas are driven to pursue their dark desires out of spite, scornful of those who shun them for their curse." It's not their fault they are literally born cursed, but people hate them anyway, and they hate back because they can't do much about it.

(Also, I knew you'd eventually show up here to cause trouble, you silly bag of devouring.)

I can directly contradict that with the fact that Gods and Magic explained that Pharasma is acutely aware of the fact that mortalkind upon Golarion have no free will, meaning that in a manner of speaking, they do not possess the ability to "choose." More to the point, however, particularly for drow (undead and others are slight exceptions), is that Golarion expressed that Drow were corrupted (possibly) by some fell magic of the Vault Keepers, and this twisted their souls. If that's their society, and someone like, say, Drizzt was born into it...they'd kill him at about the time he started saying stuff like "but I don't wanna eat this kitten..." out of hand, especially if he started becoming a nuisance (but remained dangerous). Such is the sad state of affairs of a truly evil culture. You can choose to be good...but unless it says otherwise, your chances of surviving long enough with your philosophies and beliefs intact to escape into the outside world are so slim that you may as well not bother. Also, realistically, such characters would be taken for evil and attacked left and right. Drizzt got away with it because he so rarely did anything to earn malice, had the in-world equivalent of a Stealth check up the A, and was talented enough to keep back random crusaders that wanted to stab him. A level 1 character couldn't...


@Drunkendragon: Gods and Magic is an out-dated book, and that info might no longer be valid, just as there cannot be Paladins of Asmodeus anymore and some other facts have changed. Mythical Monsters is a newer source book, and thus the claim in it holds more weight since unless the developers change their minds, Medusas not being inherently evil is completely canon. I know the problem the Drow have on Golarion, and I have said that a few times already, but the natural-born Drow CAN choose. It's just that the choice usually kills them, like you said.

Silver Crusade

It would be nice if folks didn't give others grief over having different preferences in the game, and could live and let live without always making tired Drizzt/Twilight jokes or otherwise reducing what other people prefer to an inaccurate caricature and maybe not threadcrap when people are trying to come up with material to support their play when official sources fall short.

That'd be nice.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

It would be nice, indeed.

We gamers often get into streaks of "you're playing it wrong!" I don't care how you play it, but if the GM says it exists and has a good story for it, then it exists, end of story. I may not agree, but that's why I GM my own games when I have the opportunity, to show my take on things.

(For the record, I definitely pull for the "all humanoids have free will" in my world. Societies can enforce certain mores--or lack thereof. Orcs in my world teach their little ones the best things in life are fighting and blood and the lamentations of the women etc. etc. One group of drow teaches they are superior beings, strive to prove each are and to conquer and enslave the weak at all costs. Because of societal influences, most orcs and drow are evil or at best, neutral. But they are free willed and can decide for themselves what's right, just as humans and dwarves and elves can. By my logic, if you cannot have good or neutral orcs or drow, you also cannot have evil elves or dwarves or halflings, and I'd rather not draw those kinds of absolutes. My preference, YMMV. If I want an "ultimate evil" enemy I will go Abberation or Outsider.)

Silver Crusade

What needs to be understood is the fact that Golarion was written with the "default" in mind. There is nothing there that is stopping you from implementing good drow and good orcs but don't be surprised when nobody in the world has read a Drizzt novel and they don't treat you with kindness. Now a great campaign would be trying to convince the world that you are good and develop a reputation for it but that's not the norm. Golarion works like a living, breathing world that has all three bestiaries in mind unless there is something there that specifically says so. If you run into a drow it is 99.9% going to be evil, same with orcs.

Not that there is anything wrong with it you are just arguing against the default.


I used to agree with you. Then I decided the game's more fun with mostly-evil races. And if you're going to make, say, a Chaotic Good goblin, he'd better still be fairly goblin-like.
But yeah. No reason to hate on either side. It's just a way to play.


I like how Evil hat presented the good-evil thing. Humans have FREE-WILL, they can choose to be and do 'evil' or 'good' as it suits the individual; everything else MUST follow their NATURE. As for the OP, it's in an Orc's nature to be aggressive and violent. It's the Orc's choice to use that nature for the defense of others or to dominate others.


shallowsoul wrote:
Not that there is anything wrong with it you are just arguing against the default.

The default is that any given Humanoid (Monstrous ones, too) has its own free will, and isn't tied to its alignment like an Outsider would be.

Gendo wrote:
I like how Evil hat presented the good-evil thing. Humans have FREE-WILL, they can choose to be and do 'evil' or 'good' as it suits the individual; everything else MUST follow their NATURE. As for the OP, it's in an Orc's nature to be aggressive and violent. It's the Orc's choice to use that nature for the defense of others or to dominate others.

That's kinda like forcing people to go with whatever stereo-types are attatched to their heritage, and you can see how wrong that is even without me telling you.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Not that there is anything wrong with it you are just arguing against the default.

The default is that any given Humanoid (Monstrous ones, too) has its own free will, and isn't tied to its alignment like an Outsider would be.

Gotta quote from the Bestiary, or another book for that matter?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Bestiary wrote:

Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Silver Crusade

DeathQuaker wrote:
(For the record, I definitely pull for the "all humanoids have free will" in my world. Societies can enforce certain mores--or lack thereof.

Same'd for mine.

Honestly, if there's a need for an Always Evil group of beings for players to fight, organizations do the job just fine without requiring entire races of sapient mortal beings being tagged as okay to genocide.

Especially since genocide is one of the hallmarks of Always Evil groups...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
The Bestiary wrote:

Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Fixed that for you ;-)

...my bold.


Mikaze wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
(For the record, I definitely pull for the "all humanoids have free will" in my world. Societies can enforce certain mores--or lack thereof.

Same'd for mine.

Honestly, if there's a need for an Always Evil group of beings for players to fight, organizations do the job just fine without requiring entire races of sapient mortal beings being tagged as okay to genocide.

Especially since genocide is one of the hallmarks of Always Evil groups...

...amen.


...please note that even 'outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual'.

Unusual.

Which, last time I checked, didn't equal impossible.

Silver Crusade

Midnight_Angel wrote:

...please note that even 'outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual'.

Unusual.

Which, last time I checked, didn't equal impossible.

Yep, like fallen angels and risen fiends.

And Golarion canonically has both!

And one of them is an Empyreal Lord. :D

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Just use the hide thread button if you don't want to see it.


Then why is ralantar's post still there? It was obviously baiting, and my reply to it should be removed as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
@Drunkendragon: Gods and Magic is an out-dated book, and that info might no longer be valid, just as there cannot be Paladins of Asmodeus anymore and some other facts have changed. Mythical Monsters is a newer source book, and thus the claim in it holds more weight since unless the developers change their minds, Medusas not being inherently evil is completely canon. I know the problem the Drow have on Golarion, and I have said that a few times already, but the natural-born Drow CAN choose. It's just that the choice usually kills them, like you said.

The hark to metaphysics was just a minor support anyhow, and as far as I can tell, has not yet been contradicted by newer source material in which her religion is mentioned (like the Inner Sea Guide, for instance, which has had plenty of time for errata...and whereas the Paladin of Asmodeaus idea is a game idea, Pharasmian myth is fluff that Mr./ Jacobs probably made up years ago...anyhow...back to the original point, I suppose it is easily allowable. A couple other things I just realized one should consider. Firstly: misconception. Oftentimes, when a person is subjugated to enough stereotyping and expectation, they will actually revert into it. If enough people expect you to be a monster and be horrible and treat you likewise, you might eventually have to fit the bill just to live your life unmolested.

On the other hand...it is perfectly allowable, but the amount of work that has to be done to make the concept realistic is...well, there's a reason I've sworn off ever taking another Philosophy class...ever again...
It is possible to have a good drow, but the fact is that his backstory would require a very, very well-written plot, that's well thought out and carefully considered from all sides. There's such a reputation for such things being arbitrary that judgment starts off as naturally harsh whenever someone starts their character concept "he's an evil race but he's not evil..." You have to work thrice as hard to justify an alignment, which you wouldn't even have to do in most cases...I dunno, I usually just drop the morality aspect. Too much work.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Enough is enough! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.