D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CreamCloud0]

is what TVTropes would call "Then Let Me Be Evil"--namely, the process where a character who thought they were doing good realizes they were actually really evil...and thus decides "well screw it, then I'll be evil!" Because that would be precisely the process of becoming unrepentant evil--knowing, intentional, embraced evil.

this is besides the point but that's not what the 'then let me be evil' trope is, TLMBE is where a good character who is perpetually accused of 'being evil' regardless of their actions suggesting otherwise stops trying to prove to people they are actually good and decided to become evil for real.

zootopia had a nice clean example with nick wilde the fox, an attempted boyscout turned conman: "If the world is only going to see a fox as shifty and untrustworthy, there's no point in trying to be anything else."

 

[ECMO3]

I believe that over the past nearly 40 years, much FR material has been published, and much of that was not written by Ed Greenwood.

But I don't think it was designed by committee. You have some new characters and a select few new areas, like Icewind Dale, but overall it is Greenwoods creation and the reason it replaced Greyhawk is it was so well fleshed out originally.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yes, I decide what is evil in my campaign. If a PC is about to torture someone to get information I point out that I consider torture evil. They're still free to do what their PC would do, but I reserve the right to make that PC an NPC. I don't care what alignment they have on their character sheet, I only care about what they say and do in context of the game.

yes you decide what is Evil, and what's written on their sheet is secondary to their character's actions but i'm saying that in my opinion you've moved the bar so far to qualify for Evil characters in the first place that if you'd done it to the same extent to qualify for Good you'd need to be a saint, a philantropist and all around altruist to everyone you meet to begin to be considered Good.

but i don't think the discussion of 'can evil characters successfully exist in a campaign' is going to come to much if you insist on calling every shade of grey shy of black itself 'Neutral'

 

[Oofta]

yes you decide what is Evil, and what's written on their sheet is secondary to their character's actions but i'm saying that in my opinion you've moved the bar so far to qualify for Evil characters in the first place that if you'd done it to the same extent to qualify for Good you'd need to be a saint, a philantropist and all around altruist to everyone you meet to begin to be considered Good.

but i don't think the discussion of 'can evil characters successfully exist in a campaign' is going to come to much if you insist on calling every shade of grey shy of black itself 'Neutral'

There's a massive difference between not risking your life by running in to a burning building to save innocents and willingly causing direct suffering harm/killing innocents. I would consider the former neutral and the latter evil for game purposes. I don't see what the issue is.

 

[Jaeger]

This seems an unfruitful way of looking at situation described.
Both parties got what they wanted:

• the DM doesn’t have tortles in their world: they are willing to live with lake elves that dovetail with established elf communities;
• the player got what they wanted: a character that is “close enough” to the tortle they wanted to play.

Both also gave something up:

• the DM created a new race of lake elves;
• the player doesn’t get to play a turtle-based humanoid.

I did quote the following in my response:

But what happened was, the player was only interested in tortle mechanics and so we found a way to make it happen to the satisfaction of all.

The player got the Tortle mechanics that they wanted. They gave up nothing fundamental from what they really wanted to play.

All the actual concessions were made by the GM.

So not unfruitful. Simply accurate.

They've also stated that there is never a good enough reason, or at least that no one has ever provided one that they deem worthy.

In the responses I was able to elicit:

They stated that they flat-out don't care about setting integrity in any way. It is simply not meaningful to them.

In some cases due to personal experiences with Bad GM's, the idea of PC restrictions to preserve setting integrity has become anathema.

So for those of us that value setting integrity, for whom it is something meaningful; No explanation we can give for restricting PC options will ever be adequate, or worthy.

Thus making the two opposing positions completely irreconcilable.

When no explanation of your position is acceptable, there is simply nothing more to discuss.

 

[Oofta]

...
In the responses I was able to elicit:

They stated that they flat-out don't care about setting integrity in any way. It is simply not meaningful to them.

In some cases due to personal experiences with Bad GM's, the idea of PC restrictions to preserve setting integrity has become anathema.

So for those of us that value setting integrity, for whom it is something meaningful; No explanation we can give for restricting PC options will ever be adequate, or worthy.

Thus making the two opposing positions completely irreconcilable.

When no explanation of your position is acceptable, there is simply nothing more to discuss.

I was just pointing out that they are effectively saying "there is no reason to limit races". Whether they try to give themselves plausible deniability by saying that they just want to have a conversation, the end result is the same. Always say yes to what the player wants to play as a race.

Which, if being allowed to play any race you want is a criteria you filter potential games you will join on, that's fine. It's the categorical demonization of any DM who has a curated list that I have an issue with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I did quote the following in my response:



The player got the Tortle mechanics that they wanted. They gave up nothing fundamental from what they really wanted to play.

All the actual concessions were made by the GM.

That's an odd definition of "compromises", to me.

We didn't say the player said: "I want a +3 bonus to natural armor and +2 Strength" or whatever Tortle stats might be in whatever system they are using. They said he wanted to be a Tortle. Which might imply a lot of other things, like looking like a humanoid turtle, hailing from a tortle culture, maybe being born from an egg, his family not being defined by his parents but the clutch of eggs that survived, or whatever tortles do (I have no naughty word clue what tortles actually are, other than turtle humanoids). This might all have been part of the reasons they were interested in it, or stuff the player he thought about was going to part of.

But after talking with the DM, they drilled down to the thing that seemed most interesting and sensible for the purpose of the campaign.
It could very well have been instead that if the coming-from-an-egg thing could have worked as a Gythianki instead, or the tortle culture was the most interesting part, but there is a place in the campaign where a humanoid or half-orc culture with similar concepts could fit or already exists, or they wanted to be a reptiloid but Dragonborn didn't fit because of the campaign's dragonborn story or the connection to dragons. Or maybe other players asked him to play a Healer again, even though he already played a Dragonborn Cleric before and and he was willing to abide, but he wanted it to feel notably different from what he had played before and a Tortle Cleric build was the one that he saw had the most potential to feel different and still satisfy the group's need for a Cleric.

 

[Oofta]

That's an odd definition of "compromises", to me.

We didn't say the player said: "I want a +3 bonus to natural armor and +2 Strength" or whatever Tortle stats might be in whatever system they are using. They said he wanted to be a Tortle. Which might imply a lot of other things, like looking like a humanoid turtle, hailing from a tortle culture, maybe being born from an egg, his family not being defined by his parents but the clutch of eggs that survived, or whatever tortles do (I have no naughty word clue what tortles actually are, other than turtle humanoids). This might all have been part of the reasons they were interested in it, or stuff the player he thought about was going to part of.

But after talking with the DM, they drilled down to the thing that seemed most interesting and sensible for the purpose of the campaign.
It could very well have been instead that if the coming-from-an-egg thing could have worked as a Gythianki instead, or the tortle culture was the most interesting part, but there is a place in the campaign where a humanoid or half-orc culture with similar concepts could fit or already exists, or they wanted to be a reptiloid but Dragonborn didn't fit because of the campaign's dragonborn story or the connection to dragons. Or maybe other players asked him to play a Healer again, even though he already played a Dragonborn Cleric before and and he was willing to abide, but he wanted it to feel notably different from what he had played before and a Tortle Cleric build was the one that he saw had the most potential to feel different and still satisfy the group's need for a Cleric.

So your version of compromise would have been to just let him play a tortle? I don't really care what other DMs do, but if it is what you meant then compromise is not the right word to use.

 

[CleverNickName]

Sometimes I think this whole thread can be summed up in two lines:

"We can come to a compromise if we work together."
"Nah, that's admitting defeat. I'm here to win!"

 

[Oofta]

Sometimes I think this whole thread can be summed up in two lines:

"We can come to a compromise if we work together."
"Nah, that's admitting defeat. I'm here to win!"

Maybe try

"If you allow any race, potentially changing fluff, just say so. Don't pretend it's a compromise."

"I curate races because it helps me run the best campaign I can."