D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Flamestrike]

But you decided to apply your visions of orcs as a free willed species which they are not in my games.

Thats not MY vision of Orcs, thats THE vision of Orcs. As I tried to explain to you, and as JC and co came out a week later in a timely post and confirmed for the both of us.

And by refusing to engage in genocide, I dont have 'blood on my hands'. Should the descendants of those Orcs grow up to be monsters, that blood is on their hands.

Id be extremely uncomfortable playing in a game where 'genocide' is the morally good choice, and 'refusing genocide' is a morally bad choice, because it 'leaves you with blood on your hands.'

You do you though. If you want to HR Orcs as fundamentally evil creatures lacking in free will, go nuts.

 

[Helldritch]

Thats not MY vision of Orcs, thats THE vision of Orcs. As I tried to explain to you, and as JC and co came out a week later in a timely post and confirmed for the both of us.

And by refusing to engage in genocide, I dont have 'blood on my hands'. Should the descendants of those Orcs grow up to be monsters, that blood is on their hands.

Id be extremely uncomfortable playing in a game where 'genocide' is the morally good choice, and 'refusing genocide' is a morally bad choice, because it 'leaves you with blood on your hands.'

You do you though. If you want to HR Orcs as fundamentally evil creatures lacking in free will, go nuts.

It is evident that you play a game where modern morality is applied. Fine for you.
I apply medieval and dark age mentality. What we see as evil today was quite fine then. Nobility had all the rights and could get away with almost everything. The word of a knight/noble was always better than that of a commoner. Just challenging the word of a noble could lead to the death penalty if you were not noble. If you were, it could mean a duel to the death. Today it would not be accepted (and rightly so). So was the standards of goodness. I have read and studied a lot of history before applying these mentalities. The crusades were quite enlightening about what was good and what was not. By today's standards we would be horrified. King Richard did many things that would make him a war criminal by today's standards. And yet, king Richard was seen as a saint... And I am not talking about witch hunt, inquisition, the eradication that Muslims did in India, The conquest of Gengis Khan and his rutheless rule (and enlightened some would say), the War of the thirteen kingdoms or the Ming dynasty.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I apply in my games. We use this for many reasons but it is mainly to recognize the extremists views that we come accross even in today's days of enlightenment. For there are views in our world that disguise themselves with civility but that are evil to the core. They just hide themselves now because in our age of modern communication, they have to be cautious. But this is another debate...

In addition, I use orcs as irredeemable evil only in two different worlds. In Eberron, they are quite Heroic. Context and its application matters in these discussion. As I said, in my Greyhawk you would have been seen at best as a fool, a criminal at worst for letting these orcs escape. In Eberron, you would have been applauded, praised for your wisdom. In the Realm, you would simply have done the job without too much bloodshed. A good thing too.

The you do you comment shows that you do believe me to be a monster. This is far from the truth. You've never been in one of my games so you can not judge. Nor can you judge me by my choices of reality escapism. There is one quote in Vampire the Masquerade that I really like: "Monsters we are lest monsters we become." To this I add: "Monsters we pretend to better recognize monsters even in ourselves".

 

[Guest 6801328]

We use this for many reasons but it is mainly to recognize the extremists views that we come accross even in today's days of enlightenment. For there are views in our world that disguise themselves with civility but that are evil to the core.

Wait...lemme get this straight...you're the saying that the primary reason you run a dark, gritty game is so that your players are better able to recognize evil in the real world?

Here's something you wrote elsewhere:

why do I prefer, in general, mono cultured foes and racial ability bonuses? Mono cultured foes are great. You don't ask yourself if this or that foe is good or not. You know it is a foe.

Is that also training for the real world? Because in the real world you can identify evil by the culture it comes from?

 

[Helldritch]

1) Wait...lemme get this straight...you're the saying that the primary reason you run a dark, gritty game is so that your players are better able to recognize evil in the real world?

Here's something you wrote elsewhere:

2) Is that also training for the real world?
3) Because in the real world you can identify evil by the culture it comes from?

1) Yes and no. As with everything it is a bit more complicated than that. It is one of the reason but it is not the only one. It shows that PoV can change over time (be it decades, centuries or millenia) and that we must always try to understand our forebears not with the lenses of the present but the lenses of the past. We should not deny what was before so that we do not make the same mistakes today. But if you want to be picky that is your choice.

My players do like this dark world we play in. But it is not always this type of campaign that we do. When we want a change of pace, we go to a game in Eberron or the Realms. Wildemount looks like a good choice too. I am reading it and I really like what I see in the book.

2) Bold assumptions from your part. It is not the foes we explore. It is the heroes of the stories. The evil is often in our midts and we often willingly blind ourselves to it. But I think you failed to see that. And the gritty isn't there all the time. It depends heavily on the campaign. We are currently doing Dragonheist. It's a campaign like any other you could see on Youtube.

3) Are you mad???? Never have I said that. To imply this is bordering on infamy. I do not mix fantasy with reality. If you imply what I think you are implying... I don't know what to say. I have always fought racism and promoted open mindedness in the real world. If you imply that I am one of those monsters, I would like you to excuse yourself. If you chose your line of questioning poorly, I can understand. But man, this is mad...

 

[Flamestrike]

It is evident that you play a game where modern morality is applied. Fine for you.
I apply medieval and dark age mentality. What we see as evil today was quite fine then. Nobility had all the rights and could get away with almost everything. The word of a knight/noble was always better than that of a commoner. Just challenging the word of a noble could lead to the death penalty if you were not noble. If you were, it could mean a duel to the death. Today it would not be accepted (and rightly so). So was the standards of goodness.

That wasn't the 'standard of goodness'. That was a consequence of tyranny and classism.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I apply in my games. We use this for many reasons but it is mainly to recognize the extremists views that we come accross even in today's days of enlightenment.

Extremist views that your game encourages and actively promotes.

For there are views in our world that disguise themselves with civility but that are evil to the core. They just hide themselves now because in our age of modern communication, they have to be cautious.

Yet you're the one saying a civilised Paladin, on orders from a King, should be engaging in genocide.

You're disguising genocide (something evil to its core) in the trappings of civility.

As I said, in my Greyhawk you would have been seen at best as a fool, a criminal at worst for letting these orcs escape.

And a good man happily wears the label of fool, as opposed to the label of murderer, genocidal monster and child killer.

There is one quote in Vampire the Masquerade that I really like: "Monsters we are lest monsters we become."

And the point of that quote seems to be entirely lost on you seeing as you advocate genocide to deal with an evil menace.

 

[Flamestrike]

2) Bold assumptions from your part. It is not the foes we explore. It is the heroes of the stories.

Heroes that are tasked with engaging in genocide, and who are ridiculed as fools and blamed for the consequences of not engaging in that genocide.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

CE murderhobo also restrict the agency of the party as much as the LG paladin?

The simple fact is that the desire to associate with groups restricts agency. Image being a pacifist in Fight Club or a kleptomaniac at a law enforcement convention.

 

[Helldritch]

That wasn't the 'standard of goodness'. That was a consequence of tyranny and classism.

Part of it yes. Yet IF you have the courage to read about medieval and dark age society around the world, you will see that we have evolve. Better know where you're from to know where you are and where you are going.

Extremist views that your game encourages and actively promotes.

Wow... Self blindingness from your part. Bad accusations. It never dawned on you that by showing what was; we can see and avoid doing it? By showing that modern mentality evolved from these ideas we can avoid doing it ourselves. Open your mind and you'll see.

More over. By saying that I am promoting these you are entirely wrong. Do not apply what goes on in an RP game to the real world. What you are saying is diffamatory. I do not encourage this in the real world, far from it. A game is a game. And these views are on one campaign type. I maybe more simulationnist than you, but that does not make me the monster you are trying to put me in.

Yet you're the one saying a civilised Paladin, on orders from a King, should be engaging in genocide.
You're disguising genocide (something evil to its core) in the trappings of civility.
And a good man happily wears the label of fool, as opposed to the label of murderer, genocidal monster and child killer.

You seem to have a problem in differiencing role playing and dark age simulations with reality. These things did happen, again, read a bit about the crusade. Some crusaders were killed for not doing what they were ordered. Some were banished and branded as cowards. Just like you did in the post you so much love to refer to. Need I remind you again that it was one world, one campaign? And this campaign (done by two different group) was done with adults that perfectly knew and choose to do it? You keep ignoring the fact that in a world like Eberron you would have been praised. You are the one that seems unable to take a step back and analyse. You seem unable or unwilling (maybe both?) to put yourself in the mindset of darkage mentality. In most of my campaigns, you would see that the knight in shining armor and modern faerie tales are the thing. But you keep hanging on on this one post as if I was a one post, one opinion person.

Did you know that archer were put in the back of the infantry for two reasons? One was tactical, the second? Archers were under order to shoot at their infantry men if they would try to leave the front line without the sound of retreat. The same was done with last ranks of musket lines.

And the point of that quote seems to be entirely lost on you seeing as you advocate genocide to deal with an evil menace.

Again you are confusing role play and reality. If for you a game promotes such a thing, you have a problem. Context matters and you never ask questions but only makes accusations. And these accusations have repercussions in the real world. I urge you to reconsider what you are saying and think carefuly. What is in a game, is a game. I play with adult that can separate fiction from reality. Can you?

 

[TheSword]

I’m confused, is Flamestrike playing in one of Helldritch’s campaigns? You’re talking like you barely know each other.

 

[Helldritch]

I’m confused, is Flamestrike playing in one of Helldritch’s campaigns? You’re talking like you barely know each other.

LOL. I doubt Flamestrike would ever be willing to play into one of my campaign. But yes, it seems that we are sparring with words with each other. We should do this in private but he keeps coming at me because of one stance that I had. He seems unable to get over it.