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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8530428" data-attributes="member: 6901101">But what, as per my examples, the NPC motive has been set into motion? I get the, oh we are dungeon delving and going into a cave... oh no, there are kobolds! Attack! But, even in those situations, there is a setup, no? I mean, heck, even modules as old as The Keep on the Borderlands had a setup. In the games you play, do they have a story? If so, is there already a precedent of things that are inherently evil? If not, does your table still attack blindly? Again, that seems like a misrepresentation.How many babies do you come across in your campaigns that need slaying? In all my years, at all my tables, with all different groups, I have heard of it happening once. I have yet to see it with my own eyes. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it seems rare.Correct. They all have a motive. Do none of the PCs at your table have a motive or are they just entering random wandering monster fights?Sounds like you understand this very well. This DM's lore for their table establishes orcs to be just as bad as the cultists or slavers. It just sounds like to me, you don't agree with his lore.Orcs are "kill on sight" at some tables because - the lore establishes it. Hence - motive.If it is okay for a party to kill human cultists because they are bad, and the lore of a world says orcs are bad because they too do evil things, then it is okay to kill them. Again, I challenge you to find a player that kills orcs on sight without a lore motive or a character motive. It doesn't exist. This is why I said the statement is a misrepresentation.  I am going to end with a bit of a rant: This is why I find the non-prepared, seat-of-their-pants DMs to be the primary culprits for these types of misinterpretations. The DM who has put in the time and effort into their world, so as to establish lore and setting and culture would never even have to bother with this sort of criticism.</blockquote>

Verification