Rechan said:
So, a general question.
I've noticed that to some extent, a game needs some sort of monster or race that is Irredeemably Evil. The kind of creature that you can feel no qualms about putting to the sword. This even includes its young. Because if you add too many shades of gray, the game becomes "We can't attack anyone because we don't know if we're justified!" But in many a game, people like kicking in doors and killing bad guys. To aid that, sometimes you need to let the players breathe and go "Okay, we DON'T need to ask questions about THOSE guys, we can DESTROY them." Sort've like fighting Nazis. They're nazis, so it's okay.
There's another way to avoid the "we can't attack anyone because we don't know if we are justified" problem (as in, game problem). Just work on what constitutes "justified".
My current campaign does have truly evil stuff, but most opponents are not irredeemably evil, many are neutral, and some are good.
But that doesn't really matter much, what matters most for the PCs is: Are you with or against us? If you oppose us, then we're justified to take action, and what action is taken depends on the circumstances.
If some barbarians raid their country's borderlands, they feel no qualm about killing the raiders. If they find out that there's some trouble farther north, and the raids will stop when that problem is solved, fine. But if they can simply kill every raider and the border's safe again, that works too.
If a foreign noble is blocking a trade agreement they want, they might look into what service they can do for the noble, to sway his opinion. Maybe help reconcile him with his brother. Or they might blackmail the noble, or arrange an accident for him. Whatever works best.
It comes down to what's more beneficial over all for them, their gods, friends, and country. That's all the justification (most) of the PCs in my campaign need.
