D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Paul Farquhar]

hey DM I've been goofing around on my phone for the last two hours, tell me the name of that king because my character would know

If a player was goofing around on their phone for two hours rather than being actively engaged with your game it sounds like your game was boring.

 

[Mind of tempest]

If a player was goofing around on their phone for two hours rather than being actively engaged with your game it sounds like your game was boring.

or they have phone problem

 

[Mind of tempest]

Can you point me to an example of this from WotC's adventures? I get what you're saying, but, I'm really struggling to think of a single example here. Or, are you simply saying that D&D leans into the idea that the adventurers are actually good people? I mean, that's been pretty basic to D&D since virtually day 1. Dragonlance is all about that and that's about as early in the history of the hobby as anything.

it was i think back in 2e from what I hear

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Things like: "Evil shall never be portrayed in an attractive light and shall be used only as a foe to illustrate a moral issue. All shall focus on the struggle of good versus injustice and evil, casting the protagonist as an agent of right."

Er...

You do realize that that was the way things were done...back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? That's not "political correctness". That's literally conservative censorship rules. The Hayes Code and the Comics Code Authority were enforcing stuff like this. Rod Serling had to dodge the censorship board by making Twilight Zone a sci-fi show.

"Political correctness" has nothing to do with that.

Sure you might agree with it. Others won't and might want a little ambiguity or some other things.

I don't agree with it. I outright dislike its polar opposite much, much more though: "Good and evil shall be portrayed in 100% identical lights, that is, rank awfulness, and shall be used only as an object lesson in how horrible people are. All shall focus on the struggle of petty jerks versus malicious jerks, casting the protagonist as merely one sinner out of hundreds."

The term I use for the kind of fiction I like a lot is "chiaroscuro". It comes from art, referring to a particular style of painting (the French equivalent is "clair-obscur"; both mean the same thing, "light-dark"), where the artist uses both very, very dark shadowed/unlit areas, and bright areas with bold colors, to throw the brightly colored things into dramatic relief. The idea, in painting, is that a chiaroscuro work creates a dramatic, impactful impression in the viewer because the eye is instantly drawn to the bold figures in blazing color, who might otherwise get washed out if they did not have the contrasting deep shadow/darkness.

So, for me, much of the best fantasy is chiaroscuro fantasy: a world full of bright and beautiful things....but also full of genuine, deep darkness. Darkness that absolutely can win--can snuff out the light--but which is not guaranteed to win. The world is full of good things worth saving and bad things worth resisting...and human-like creatures aren't inherently on either "team".

This is true. Few outside historians and fans know much about historical facts. I'm a keen eye myself for all the "nostalgia". Like having characters playing 'Sonic the hedgehog' game in 1986.

I don't really see the relevance of the example? My point was that historical accuracy is a commonly-discussed goal, but all too often it is sacrificed, on the regular, for things that look or feel "historical" when they demonstrably are not. Hence, if we are already--guaranteed--getting something that is adulterated, often pretty heavily, with totally ahistorical frippery solely for the purpose of making it "look right", why is it a problem to include other ahistorical things that aren't frippery, but are being done consciously and overtly in order to

I shall leave it to you to find your own list.

That's...why should I do that when you're the one who asserted there was a list? A list that, very specifically, WotC is currently using to shut down voices you think shouldn't be?

If you're going to tell me there's a list, you cannot follow that up with "I'm sure you can find a list yourself." That's not how discussion works. If you tell me there's a list, and you won't tell me what's on it, I'm not going to take that list very seriously!

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Er...

You do realize that that was the way things were done...back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? That's not "political correctness". That's literally conservative censorship rules. The Hayes Code and the Comics Code Authority were enforcing stuff like this. Rod Serling had to dodge the censorship board by making Twilight Zone a sci-fi show.

"Political correctness" has nothing to do with that.

well, no, that is absolutely and definitionally a form of political correctness. it's just not modern political correctness. it's outdated, but for the time it'd be correct.

...that said, i'm not sure wizards of the coast even does that (in the sense that i think they've been shying away from depicting evils they used to be ok with depicting even though everyone would still agree it's evil), so i have no clue what @bloodtide's point was.

I don't agree with it. I outright dislike its polar opposite much, much more though: "Good and evil shall be portrayed in 100% identical lights, that is, rank awfulness, and shall be used only as an object lesson in how horrible people are. All shall focus on the struggle of petty jerks versus malicious jerks, casting the protagonist as merely one sinner out of hundreds."

god, YES, THANK you. i hate overly nihilistic gray-gray morality. it's so BORING.

The term I use for the kind of fiction I like a lot is "chiaroscuro". It comes from art, referring to a particular style of painting (the French equivalent is "clair-obscur"; both mean the same thing, "light-dark"), where the artist uses both very, very dark shadowed/unlit areas, and bright areas with bold colors, to throw the brightly colored things into dramatic relief. The idea, in painting, is that a chiaroscuro work creates a dramatic, impactful impression in the viewer because the eye is instantly drawn to the bold figures in blazing color, who might otherwise get washed out if they did not have the contrasting deep shadow/darkness.

So, for me, much of the best fantasy is chiaroscuro fantasy: a world full of bright and beautiful things....but also full of genuine, deep darkness. Darkness that absolutely can win--can snuff out the light--but which is not guaranteed to win.

sounds like nobledark.

The world is full of good things worth saving and bad things worth resisting...and human-like creatures aren't inherently on either "team".

eh, i'm okay with human-like creatures having inherent alignments. i think they can, if used correctly, make very interesting stories - in some cases more interesting then if they didn't. but yeah, humans shouldn't have inherent alignments, i'd agree with that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

According to Hollywood, English people are lawful evil.

I don’t think that’s okay, and there are much worse real life examples.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

According to Hollywood, English people are lawful evil.

...are...are you implying english people...aren't human? or something? i'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Bae'zel]

The way I see it is that if, as history has proven time and time again, fallible humans are able to manipulate great masses of people into committing or condoning atrocities, deities could do it even better.

Which is why I don’t find Lloth-Sworn Drow “problematic”. A goddess has enslaved and gaslit an entire society into being selish, sadistic and xenophobic. Politicians do that all of the time.

Inherently good or evil? Naw that’s saturday morning cartoons. Actual evil is far more insidious and tragic than that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

...are...are you implying english people...aren't human? or something? i'm not sure what your point is.

Dehumanising is applied to any group identified as "not one of us".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

well, no, that is absolutely and definitionally a form of political correctness. it's just not modern political correctness. it's outdated, but for the time it'd be correct.

Perhaps. I find it more useful to not spread the term too thinly.

...that said, i'm not sure wizards of the coast even does that (in the sense that i think they've been shying away from depicting evils they used to be ok with depicting even though everyone would still agree it's evil), so i have no clue what @bloodtide's point was.

Agreed.

god, YES, THANK you. i hate overly nihilistic gray-gray morality. it's so BORING.

The bigger problem is that in the race to the darkest-and-edgiest, it's almost always black-and-black morality, every side is villainous, one just gets to be the designated hero. Full-on black-and-white morality is boring and usually pretty propagandist.

sounds like nobledark.

It can be, but I find "nobledark" has to make the world SO dark that it's a bit outside of what I'm aiming at. In most nobledark contexts, the world actually does suck, but it is possible for heroes to be part of what puts things on a path to success. I generally prefer ones where the world is actually pretty good, it just has real and serious threats, and the risk of people choosing to do some wicked things because the world is already so good nobody will really notice.

eh, i'm okay with human-like creatures having inherent alignments. i think they can, if used correctly, make very interesting stories - in some cases more interesting then if they didn't. but yeah, humans shouldn't have inherent alignments, i'd agree with that.

Depends. As noted, doing this with orcs is fundamentally rooted in very very crappy Orientalist racism.