Difference between revisions of "Talk:Werebear (3.5e Class)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Spanambula (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::Huh. Rats I get as evil, but it's weird that the larger animals who are legit man-eaters (bears, tigers) are neutral or good, and wolves (who hardly ever attack humans unless diseased or starving) get the evil end of the stick. --[[User:Spanambula|Spanambula]] ([[User talk:Spanambula|talk]]) 06:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | :::Huh. Rats I get as evil, but it's weird that the larger animals who are legit man-eaters (bears, tigers) are neutral or good, and wolves (who hardly ever attack humans unless diseased or starving) get the evil end of the stick. --[[User:Spanambula|Spanambula]] ([[User talk:Spanambula|talk]]) 06:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::It's actually something I find really annoying. Demons, devils, angels... made of essence of alignment, makes sense. Dragons. They are stubborn so making them affixed to their alignment strongly makes sense. Lycans? I never found any link to lycans and alignment. Even with "rats are disease, wolves are scary, therefore muh evil", they don't even seem consistent. Bears. Lawful good. BEARS. I could think of several alignments, ranging from flavors of neutrality, chaos, and evil, but cannot imagine bears being essence of paladin flavored. It's not the only example, but it's that, plus the "always X" alignment, that bugs me. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:48, 21 June 2015
According to the SRD, Werebears are Lawful Good. They don't lean towards Chaotic at all. LenKagetsu (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Very true. I wanted this to be a less restrictive version, alignment-wise. I never really understood the idea behind making different animals different alignment types. But I was writing this pretty late at night, and now that I've slept on it I'm not sure why I wrote chaotic, aside from thinking that most wouldn't fit in with civilization. I'll change it. --Spanambula (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Lycanthrope alignment is actually based on how people perceive the animal itself. LenKagetsu (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Huh. Rats I get as evil, but it's weird that the larger animals who are legit man-eaters (bears, tigers) are neutral or good, and wolves (who hardly ever attack humans unless diseased or starving) get the evil end of the stick. --Spanambula (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's actually something I find really annoying. Demons, devils, angels... made of essence of alignment, makes sense. Dragons. They are stubborn so making them affixed to their alignment strongly makes sense. Lycans? I never found any link to lycans and alignment. Even with "rats are disease, wolves are scary, therefore muh evil", they don't even seem consistent. Bears. Lawful good. BEARS. I could think of several alignments, ranging from flavors of neutrality, chaos, and evil, but cannot imagine bears being essence of paladin flavored. It's not the only example, but it's that, plus the "always X" alignment, that bugs me. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
