Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6673838" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure, but that doesn't really help the OP. Just assume that s/he is asking for advice on what the PC's church's doctrine is!For me, it depends a lot on the campaign background and how the players (and therefore their PCs) hook onto that.In my 4e game, the reflexive hatred of hobgoblins from the one PC I mentioned has been a (mild) source of conflict in the party - another PC, the drow sorcerer, has a habit of taking pledges of good conduct from defeated humanoid opponents and sending them on their way.And in my BW game, it's pretty much taken for granted that an instinct like &quot;Attack orcs and goblins on sight&quot; will get you into trouble - that's the way the game is meant to work.On the other hand, I think a game that was based around GDQ would run completely fine with PCs playing elves who have no qualms about killing drow, and generalise about all of them in a hostile way.For me, this is another thing where campaign tone and approach makes a huge difference. On these boards, in past conversations where I've suggested that Tolkien's treatment of orcs and Easterlings in his fictions is deeply racist, I've had replies that, because orcs are fictional, literary treatment of them can't be racist, nor relate to real political concerns in the real world. I don't think that reply shows great insight into Tolkien and his literary aspirations, but I can imagine very light-hearted/thematically fairly shallow D&amp;D campaigns where that sort of reply would make sense.That's why, when I say to the OP that there's no correct answer, I really mean it. It depends so much on the tone and aspirations of the campaign, the views and expectations of the other participants, etc.Thanks. It's mutual.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6673838, member: 42582"] Sure, but that doesn't really help the OP. Just assume that s/he is asking for advice on what the PC's church's doctrine is! For me, it depends a lot on the campaign background and how the players (and therefore their PCs) hook onto that. In my 4e game, the reflexive hatred of hobgoblins from the one PC I mentioned has been a (mild) source of conflict in the party - another PC, the drow sorcerer, has a habit of taking pledges of good conduct from defeated humanoid opponents and sending them on their way. And in my BW game, it's pretty much taken for granted that an instinct like "Attack orcs and goblins on sight" will get you into trouble - that's the way the game is meant to work. On the other hand, I think a game that was based around GDQ would run completely fine with PCs playing elves who have no qualms about killing drow, and generalise about all of them in a hostile way. For me, this is another thing where campaign tone and approach makes a huge difference. On these boards, in past conversations where I've suggested that Tolkien's treatment of orcs and Easterlings in his fictions is deeply racist, I've had replies that, because orcs are fictional, literary treatment of them can't be racist, nor relate to real political concerns in the real world. I don't think that reply shows great insight into Tolkien and his literary aspirations, but I can imagine very light-hearted/thematically fairly shallow D&D campaigns where that sort of reply would make sense. That's why, when I say to the OP that there's no correct answer, I really mean it. It depends so much on the tone and aspirations of the campaign, the views and expectations of the other participants, etc. Thanks. It's mutual. [/QUOTE]

Verification