Shattered Kingdoms

You may think of it as evolution. That does not change the fact that scholars support the idea that an elf cannot live being while being evil or an aid to evil and a deep-elf cannot live or work for the cause of good. All of this is based on ideas and myth. There is no one authority to be trusted. But these two beings recognize that there is a fundamental difference between them no matter how they choose to make it into an intelligible concept. Those differences set them against each other.

It is up to the players of these races and those around them to see how the conflict plays out.

Scholars used to think the Earth was flat too.

Cha-ching.

In Pyrathia, it is.

That doesn't change the fact that "because this book says so" is a stupid reason.

Not to mention it's written by a gnome. Wtf.

I have had it argued to me that an elf literally CAN not do evil, that they are mystically incapable of it. That deep-elves literally cannot do good, either. They are magical creatures who are incapable of doing anything outside their alignment.

This leads no where good. If an elf cannot commit an evil act without dying, then the reverse stands to reason. "I killed an innocent, and I'm not dead. That must have been a good thing to do!"

No one is all good or all bad. Playing such a one-note character would be boring anyway, but it's simply not possible. Good aligned characters have bad days; evil characters often have one glimmer of light in their soul.

Elves are no more immune than anyone else to the occasional screw-up, nor do the helpfiles suggest that they are magically incapable of doing wrong. They are just held more responsible, because they have both the genetics and the heritage that should encourage them to be good. Not because they are magically forced to be, but simply because that's how they were raised.

If an elf screws up it is because their good intentions lead to a negative result. If a deep-elf does something good for someone else it is likely because they find use for themselves or their goals in that person being better off.

You are allowed to be creative with the interpretations of the concept. I only posted to clarify why enmity was needed. The answer was that it explains why there are two different races rather than one race with a spectrum of alignments. The very core of their beings are so different and opposing that they are in a constant state of conflict.

How you reflect that conflict is almost entirely up to you. There are few instances where immortal intervention is needed. The entire debate was blown out of proportion.

Some of us roleplay it out without intervention. My elf lied once and got terribly physically ill because of it.

That must have been one super principled elf!

I am really sick and tired of (some) people trying to find arguments against enmity, especially when my experience of the game dictates that in most (if not all) cases, that is because it doesn't fit them playing with their buddies and exchanging in-game aid.

Please, grow up. This is supposed to be a kind of game that demands some elementary maturity from its playerbase. If you put spoiled kids take over it, you get a set of broken playschool cubes.

Arguing with a spoiled kid is a bit like wrestling with a pig. You and the kid will get covered in poop.... and the kid will like it.