Campaign Standards: Are the characters heroes?

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Dannager]

That's why 4e doesn't have playable githyanki, because they're generally evil, and evil things can only be monsters, and monsters cannot be PCs.

You're taking this sort of thing too far in an effort to make 4e appear more restrictive than it actually is. Githyanki are perfectly playable by PCs. Their racial traits appear in the back of the Monster Manual. No, they don't have a full player write-up with racial feats and the like, but then again they are evil. From a content perspective, it makes perfect sense to provide races that are most likely to be used at the game table. Given that most D&D games are of the heroic (read: not evil) sort, it makes much more sense to provide plenty of non-evil races for PCs to take advantage of than evil ones.

 

[renau1g]

You're taking this sort of thing too far in an effort to make 4e appear more restrictive than it actually is. Githyanki are perfectly playable by PCs. Their racial traits appear in the back of the Monster Manual. No, they don't have a full player write-up with racial feats and the like, but then again they are evil. From a content perspective, it makes perfect sense to provide races that are most likely to be used at the game table. Given that most D&D games are of the heroic (read: not evil) sort, it makes much more sense to provide plenty of non-evil races for PCs to take advantage of than evil ones.

I do believe that Githyanki are playable in PHB3?

The non-evil deity worship is something I believe the PHB mentions.

Also Minotaurs & GNolls have received full write-ups

 

[Desdichado]

A few thoughts. I obviously think about this a bit, since that's my post that Joe's riffing off of, and I just blogged here recently on the topic of evil PCs.

1) The whole "what do you mean by hero?" discussion is, I think, a bit of a tangent. Sure, there are esoteric definitions of the word hero, including all kinds of stuff related to Greek stories and whatnot, but do we really want to go there? I think we all know what the most common relevent definition of hero is in regards to D&D.

2) I think the heroic paradigm was pushed during the era of 2e, when there was a real desire by TSR to not be percieved as "that Satanic game" or whatever. Since then, that emphasis has faded. Plenty of the novels do not feature heroic (necessarily) protagonists either, particular in the Eberron novel line. So, I disagree with your perception of emphasis on heroics. If there is one, it's very weak and very subtle, and certainly there's nothing inherent in the game that forces or even necessarily encourages you to be a do-gooder.

3) How does a streamlined alignment system make it more convenient to not be heroic? The clunky nine point alignment system has a much older vintage than 3e or even 2e, which goes back to your mercenary PCs days.

 

[rogueattorney]

2) I think the heroic paradigm was pushed during the era of 2e, when there was a real desire by TSR to not be percieved as "that Satanic game" or whatever. Since then, that emphasis has faded.

I agree with this. The TSR products of the mid-80's into the early 90's certainly pushed a more "heroic" mode of play. While some of it, I'm sure, was spurned on by sensitivity towards the Mad Mothers, I think it had more to do with following the style of the epic quest fantasy literature that was in vogue at the time. I think as the 90's wore on and angsty anti-heroes became the vogue in pop-literature, the emphasis did fade.

 

[Desdichado]

That's a good point; the emphasis matches pop-literature, movies, comic books, etc. quite well in timing too.

 

[The Ghost]

In my campaigns, it is a decision left up to the players. I provide opportunities for both heroism and knavery and it is up to them to choose what they wish to engage in.

I find that assumptions one way or the other leads to anticipation of player action.

Exactly. Although, playing with the same guys for ten plus years gives me a pretty good idea of how they will react (more often heroic) to any given situation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My players' characters are opportunists at best, psychopaths at worst.

I try to give them the freedom to choose, and to have a shades-of-gray approach to these kinds of things.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

What's a hero?
- It depends on what the players want for their PCs in the context of the campaign.

Are the PCs heroes?
- It depends on what the players want for their PCs in the context of the campaign.

There's nothing in any D&D mechanics I've seen (I've never played 4e) that assumes one thing or another. Regardless of what Gygax, WOTC marketers, Vin Diesel, or Bahamut himself ever said on the matter, what a hero is and whether a PC is run that way is purely for the each group to decide. Always has, always will.

 

[Chainsaw]

Now I'd argue that with a lot of the alignment system streamlinned, 4e is probably closer to older editions in allowing a wider base of assumed play, but from my readings, I still get the idea that players are supposed to be heroes.

What about other people?

Probably true, but probably more for political and marketing reasons than any sort of designer interest in mandating player ethics, morals and motivation. I don't think it would be too difficult to use the rules to play in an evil-only campaign.