Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5117280" data-attributes="member: 80487">I disagree as to the bolded part. First, the original set defines, as far as I recall, only humans -- Anti-Clerics, specifically -- as evil (implied in level titles such as the Evil High Priest, infamous for the Finger of Death). Good? No such thing, that I recall, until Supplement I (see Paladins).The alignments are Law, Neutrality and Chaos. Among the potentially Neutral in OD&D are Ogres and Orcs.Second, it is absolutely not necessary to consider anything "worthy of extermination" in TSR-D&D. At least prior to 2E AD&D, it is more advantageous -- in terms of pursuing XP -- not to adopt anything of the sort as a goal. The objective in game terms is to get treasures.Now, there are some ideologies (including some that figured in medieval Europe, as well as 20th-century ones) that have made such demands. If anyone chooses to lay anything like those on the game -- even 3E or 4E, as far as I can see -- then that is his or her own choice.As a practical matter, it should suffice for the most sanguine campaign that there are creatures that make themselves enemies by standing violently between adventurers and their goals.It appears to me that most wars in our thousands of years of history have been fought for the sake of material wealth. There are other reasons as well that involve no concept of the foe as "evil" or "worthy of extermination".I would say that we are going through a period in which ideological wars are in vogue, often with such "Good vs. Evil" (and sometimes even "Death to them all!") rhetoric, so it may be hard to remember that there are other kinds of conflict.</blockquote>

Verification