D&D General D&D memes thread discussion…

[jmartkdr2]

i don't deny that some players still level via RP and social encounters but i suspect it is a far far smaller fraction in comparison.

That's where I disagree - I think "milestone" leveling where xp is not tracked is far more common, and many games do not allow for buying magic items at all - you get the ones that fit the narrative arc of your character, at appropriate moments.

So neither combat nor loot are necessary, even if they remain common.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's where I disagree - I think "milestone" leveling where xp is not tracked is far more common, and many games do not allow for buying magic items at all - you get the ones that fit the narrative arc of your character, at appropriate moments.

So neither combat nor loot are necessary, even if they remain common.

that is my point, they remain common, i still think the majority of the actions that occur within milestone are likely to be combat based and would still define a milestone campaign that bases itself on combat milestones as a combat campaign, how many campaigns focus on social/political accomplisments as their primary measure for party leveling? and i never stated purchasing magic items was required, i merely stated it as one of multiple ways a party might aquire them.

 

[Oofta]

that is my point, they remain common, i still think the majority of the actions that occur within milestone are likely to be combat based and would still define a milestone campaign that bases itself on combat milestones as a combat campaign, how many campaigns focus on social/political accomplisments as their primary measure for party leveling? and i never stated purchasing magic items was required, i merely stated it as one of multiple ways a party might aquire them.

My games do not require combat to level, although there typically combat. In my game yesterday my players came up with a clever way of ending an encounter without fighting. I'm not going to punish them for that.

I have no idea how common that is, but rewarding XP (if you use it) by clever play has been around for a long time.

 

[deadman1204]

I think there's a pretty significant difference between "we go fight evil, and occasionally get paid / rewarded / training / notice our skills increasing" and "lets go kill some bandits so we can practice fighting and take their stuff."

Even if the mechanics aren't really any different, it's a wildly different narrative.

A good way to look at it is that any opposition is conviently labeled as "evil" by the narrative. The "evil" label means they cannot be good. They are non-people, and the only just response is to murder them. In dnd, virtually ALL problems and conflicts are solved via violence and murder. Yes, you might have a diplomatic plot point, but 99% of all disagreements in dnd are solved by murdering the other side. We say "fighting evil", and they are evil because we need something to murder, and its ok to murder and rob evil "creatures".
Consider the idea of "bad guy" or "creatures". When was the last time you kicked down a door and murdered 5 women? Bet it never happens. When was the last time you kicked down a door and "fought" or "dealt with" 5 goblins or 5 guards? The generic "bad guy" is just a placeholder meatbag who is irredeamably "evil" for us to fight, conquor, and rob. We arbitrarily label them as "Evil". We do not "murder" goblins, because they are bad and evil. We "deal with" them instead. Notice the wording?
I'm not trying to judge you or any one player, I play dnd too. I'm just aware that in dnd we solve all our disagreements by murdering people, and that the people we kill are not "people", they are "evil" or "monsters". Even though they are intelligent and obviously have culture and families and lives too.

 

[Oofta]

A good way to look at it is that any opposition is conviently labeled as "evil" by the narrative. The "evil" label means they cannot be good. They are non-people, and the only just response is to murder them. In dnd, virtually ALL problems and conflicts are solved via violence and murder. Yes, you might have a diplomatic plot point, but 99% of all disagreements in dnd are solved by murdering the other side. We say "fighting evil", and they are evil because we need something to murder, and its ok to murder and rob evil "creatures".
Consider the idea of "bad guy" or "creatures". When was the last time you kicked down a door and murdered 5 women? Bet it never happens. When was the last time you kicked down a door and "fought" or "dealt with" 5 goblins or 5 guards? The generic "bad guy" is just a placeholder meatbag who is irredeamably "evil" for us to fight, conquor, and rob. We arbitrarily label them as "Evil". We do not "murder" goblins, because they are bad and evil. We "deal with" them instead. Notice the wording?
I'm not trying to judge you or any one player, I play dnd too. I'm just aware that in dnd we solve all our disagreements by murdering people, and that the people we kill are not "people", they are "evil" or "monsters". Even though they are intelligent and obviously have culture and families and lives too.

Are Ukrainian soldiers evil for killing Russian invaders?

 

[deadman1204]

Are Ukrainian soldiers evil for killing Russian invaders?

Wow, your so far past missing the point and into blatant trolling. Go away

 

[Oofta]

Wow, your so far past missing the point and into blatant trolling. Go away

How so? It seems like you're stating that combat with other people for any reason is always for profit and always evil.

 

[Necropolitan]

A good way to look at it is that any opposition is conviently labeled as "evil" by the narrative. The "evil" label means they cannot be good. They are non-people, and the only just response is to murder them. In dnd, virtually ALL problems and conflicts are solved via violence and murder. Yes, you might have a diplomatic plot point, but 99% of all disagreements in dnd are solved by murdering the other side. We say "fighting evil", and they are evil because we need something to murder, and its ok to murder and rob evil "creatures".
Consider the idea of "bad guy" or "creatures". When was the last time you kicked down a door and murdered 5 women? Bet it never happens. When was the last time you kicked down a door and "fought" or "dealt with" 5 goblins or 5 guards? The generic "bad guy" is just a placeholder meatbag who is irredeamably "evil" for us to fight, conquor, and rob. We arbitrarily label them as "Evil". We do not "murder" goblins, because they are bad and evil. We "deal with" them instead. Notice the wording?
I'm not trying to judge you or any one player, I play dnd too. I'm just aware that in dnd we solve all our disagreements by murdering people, and that the people we kill are not "people", they are "evil" or "monsters". Even though they are intelligent and obviously have culture and families and lives too.

That is not the case at all.

 

[Voadam]

I would say the game being generally based around combat does not equate to PCs being "literally the most evil people on the planet."

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Ok, this is taking a turn. Not a Mod; but maybe we can stay on track and talk about the funny memes? Discussions of Good and Evil and ethical relativism - while potentially worthy topics - maybe could go in a new thread?