Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3829894" data-attributes="member: 24970">You're right that a Paladin really shouldn't have been adventuring with an evil dude in my previous example, but the &quot;party of neutral or evil dudes who kill prisoners, ignore peasants begging for help, and generally act unheroic&quot; has a longstanding tradition in D&amp;D. Most of the early adventures were about getting treasure and glory, not doing good heroic stuff, after all. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in fact, I think it's better to write adventures which are open to both good and evil motivations on the part of the adventuring party.Personally, though, I do have one sore spot, and that's when players have their characters kill or torture hapless NPCs. This always strikes me as such unheroic, unsympathetic behavior that I have trouble not getting pissed off out-of-character when it happens.Now... on the other hand, if a player's character concept is &quot;necromancer&quot; or &quot;warlock&quot; or &quot;assassin&quot; or &quot;cannibal barbarian&quot; or something, if they are playing an explicitly over-the-top evil character, then I don't mind if they engage in torture and villainy. But when ostensibly neutral characters do &quot;pragmatic&quot; torture &amp; stuff, and say &quot;it's not evil, my character just got mad and cut off the prisoner's ear because he was lipping off at us&quot;, that really pisses me off.Is this what people mean by &quot;different values of good and evil&quot;? I don't know, you tell me. I'm just going based on the idea that &quot;good&quot; equals what we think of as &quot;good&quot; in classic white-hat good-guy novels and movies. I tend to dislike &quot;morally pragmatic&quot; characters and prefer characters who are either (1) really good, (2) really evil, or the classic movie-type (3) &quot;they act a little self-centered but they're really good guys inside.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 3829894, member: 24970"] You're right that a Paladin really shouldn't have been adventuring with an evil dude in my previous example, but the "party of neutral or evil dudes who kill prisoners, ignore peasants begging for help, and generally act unheroic" has a longstanding tradition in D&D. Most of the early adventures were about getting treasure and glory, not doing good heroic stuff, after all. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in fact, I think it's better to write adventures which are open to both good and evil motivations on the part of the adventuring party. Personally, though, I do have one sore spot, and that's when players have their characters kill or torture hapless NPCs. This always strikes me as such unheroic, unsympathetic behavior that I have trouble not getting pissed off out-of-character when it happens. Now... on the other hand, if a player's character concept is "necromancer" or "warlock" or "assassin" or "cannibal barbarian" or something, if they are playing an explicitly over-the-top evil character, then I don't mind if they engage in torture and villainy. But when ostensibly neutral characters do "pragmatic" torture & stuff, and say "it's not evil, my character just got mad and cut off the prisoner's ear because he was lipping off at us", that really pisses me off. Is this what people mean by "different values of good and evil"? I don't know, you tell me. I'm just going based on the idea that "good" equals what we think of as "good" in classic white-hat good-guy novels and movies. I tend to dislike "morally pragmatic" characters and prefer characters who are either (1) really good, (2) really evil, or the classic movie-type (3) "they act a little self-centered but they're really good guys inside." [/QUOTE]

Verification