Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Wasn't there some quite (related to 4E, I think): "Being good should be defense against evil, not a weakness!". Well, these spells certainly don't fit into that...amethal said:
EGG on 'The Spirit of AD&D'
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Jack7 said:
Fantastic post. Needless to say, I side 100% with Gary on this.
RC
IMC (altered FR), the humans are the predominant race, and control much of the world, the older races having lost their power of old times in countless wars, and lacking the human drives, ambition and birthrate to recover. Humans also are more flexible, and more creative, able to adapt quickly where tradition-bound dwarves and elves cannot.
The even more popoulos goblinoids on the other hand lack the organisation, and intelligence/knowledge/skill to topple the humans - so far - and their birthrates are not that much better than humanity's.
Neither humans nor elves or dwarves are generally "good", as in altruistic, they are out for themselves, their family, clan, nation.
The even more popoulos goblinoids on the other hand lack the organisation, and intelligence/knowledge/skill to topple the humans - so far - and their birthrates are not that much better than humanity's.
Neither humans nor elves or dwarves are generally "good", as in altruistic, they are out for themselves, their family, clan, nation.
Whisper72
Explorer
To add my own to cp, in most of my game worlds, humans are the dominant race in terms of numbers and when speaking of the civilized area's.
There, the average human is essentially good/neutral. That is to say, the average peasant wants to be left alone, but has at heart the will to be helpful and just, even if only slightly. The majority will not be out to steal from the PC's sleeping in the barn etc.
I think it should be this way. After all, why be heroic and 'rescue the poor peasants' if they are in general a bunch of mean spirited neutral leaning towards evil bastards?
I mean: If the civilization which is threatened is not inherently good, why should the hero try to stop it's destruction? The heroes should egg on (pun intended) the nasty villain, in the hopes of a better world rising from the ashes!
Thus, even though a majority of RULERS may be pragmatic tending towards evil, this is merely a function of the corruptive power of power. Magistrates embroiled in the power struggles of the game politic would be more tempted to use evil means (bribery, assassination etc.), even if their end goal was in the beginning a lofty one.
So at 'conception', most humans in my worlds would be 'good', but over the course of their lives, some may be tempted towards evil. Most common folk face little temptation, and so retain their 'inherent' good tendencies. (Naturally all manner of exceptions exist etc.)
There, the average human is essentially good/neutral. That is to say, the average peasant wants to be left alone, but has at heart the will to be helpful and just, even if only slightly. The majority will not be out to steal from the PC's sleeping in the barn etc.
I think it should be this way. After all, why be heroic and 'rescue the poor peasants' if they are in general a bunch of mean spirited neutral leaning towards evil bastards?
I mean: If the civilization which is threatened is not inherently good, why should the hero try to stop it's destruction? The heroes should egg on (pun intended) the nasty villain, in the hopes of a better world rising from the ashes!
Thus, even though a majority of RULERS may be pragmatic tending towards evil, this is merely a function of the corruptive power of power. Magistrates embroiled in the power struggles of the game politic would be more tempted to use evil means (bribery, assassination etc.), even if their end goal was in the beginning a lofty one.
So at 'conception', most humans in my worlds would be 'good', but over the course of their lives, some may be tempted towards evil. Most common folk face little temptation, and so retain their 'inherent' good tendencies. (Naturally all manner of exceptions exist etc.)
Raven Crowking
First Post
I am always amazed by the number of DMs who bemoan the unheroic actions of their players, while providing them with a world in which heroism is not only not encouraged, but is actively punished.
It is not only true that the average person must be worth protecting in order to make heroic play rewarding, but it must be true that the players see this in action. NPCs should offer the PCs what little they have, not just as a reward, but because it is the right thing to do. They should offer to sleep in the barn so that the PCs can take their house (and they should be grateful when the PCs opt to sleep in the barn themselves). They should offer simple, but good, food, without expecting anything in return.
We may live in a culture where deceit and selfishness are virtues, but for the average commoner in a D&D world, deceit and selfishness are deadly.
First off, most commoners don't travel very far from their homes -- they have to live with, and rely on, the same folks for all their lives. A reputation for lying or stealing will not serve them in good stead. It is hard to overstate the importance of reputation in a pre-industrial world. Secondly, most commoners in a D&D world rely on shared resources: grazing commons, mill, millpond, storage facilities, and even to some extent arable land (for hay, if for nothing else). Thirdly, most commoners in a D&D world live in areas where punishment for infractions is swift, seldom codified, and can be made to fit the crime; there is a real imperative not to steal your neighbour's pig when the local lord can take all your livestock as a result. Finally, reliance on each other is necessary for protection in a D&D world. Not only is a group of commoners more effective against wolves than a single commoner, but by fulfilling their obligations to their local lord, they gain the right to his protection.
Among other things, this allows you (as DM) to demonstrate:
(1) The city, with its relative anonymity, is different than the country. Because everyone in a village knows each other, they behave in a certain way. In a city, it is easier to fleece the unsuspecting and still get the support you need to survive.
(2) Reputation matters. Threaten Bob the Innkeep, and you discover that you've threatened the whole village. Doors close to you that might otherwise have been open. Prices inflate everywhere. No one likes you, except that shady guy who was socially ostracized before.
(3) Feudalism is a protection racket. Actually carry out your threat against Bob the Innkeep, and all hands are against you. You are a wanted outlaw, with soldiers combing the local woodlands for your capture.
(4) Reputation matters (part 2). When Scuzzbert the Thief steals your magic sword, and it is your word against his with the local lord, it is gratifying that the entire village rises to defend your word. More gratifying still is the moment that Scuzzbert's feet stop twitching on the gallows, and he is left to the ravens.
(5) That protection racket goes both ways. As a party rises in power, the local political players/powers woo the PCs with gifts and honorifics. If the PCs return these overtures, they can make strong alliances that lead to increased security at home (and more adventure as they aid their allies to deal with problems they are having). Players can certainly be encouraged to begin this process, btw.
Another bonus is that the treacherous NPC, when used sparingly, is actually effective. This factor alone makes Gary's methodology worthwhile, IMHO.
This is very similar, btw, to DMs who want their players to talk to monsters instead of just wading in with spells and swords blazing. If you want that, you have to provide an environment that nurtures and rewards it. You have to demonstrate that it is worth doing. You have to demonstrate the pitfalls of the opposite approach.
IMHO, at least.
RC
It is not only true that the average person must be worth protecting in order to make heroic play rewarding, but it must be true that the players see this in action. NPCs should offer the PCs what little they have, not just as a reward, but because it is the right thing to do. They should offer to sleep in the barn so that the PCs can take their house (and they should be grateful when the PCs opt to sleep in the barn themselves). They should offer simple, but good, food, without expecting anything in return.
We may live in a culture where deceit and selfishness are virtues, but for the average commoner in a D&D world, deceit and selfishness are deadly.
First off, most commoners don't travel very far from their homes -- they have to live with, and rely on, the same folks for all their lives. A reputation for lying or stealing will not serve them in good stead. It is hard to overstate the importance of reputation in a pre-industrial world. Secondly, most commoners in a D&D world rely on shared resources: grazing commons, mill, millpond, storage facilities, and even to some extent arable land (for hay, if for nothing else). Thirdly, most commoners in a D&D world live in areas where punishment for infractions is swift, seldom codified, and can be made to fit the crime; there is a real imperative not to steal your neighbour's pig when the local lord can take all your livestock as a result. Finally, reliance on each other is necessary for protection in a D&D world. Not only is a group of commoners more effective against wolves than a single commoner, but by fulfilling their obligations to their local lord, they gain the right to his protection.
Among other things, this allows you (as DM) to demonstrate:
(1) The city, with its relative anonymity, is different than the country. Because everyone in a village knows each other, they behave in a certain way. In a city, it is easier to fleece the unsuspecting and still get the support you need to survive.
(2) Reputation matters. Threaten Bob the Innkeep, and you discover that you've threatened the whole village. Doors close to you that might otherwise have been open. Prices inflate everywhere. No one likes you, except that shady guy who was socially ostracized before.
(3) Feudalism is a protection racket. Actually carry out your threat against Bob the Innkeep, and all hands are against you. You are a wanted outlaw, with soldiers combing the local woodlands for your capture.
(4) Reputation matters (part 2). When Scuzzbert the Thief steals your magic sword, and it is your word against his with the local lord, it is gratifying that the entire village rises to defend your word. More gratifying still is the moment that Scuzzbert's feet stop twitching on the gallows, and he is left to the ravens.
(5) That protection racket goes both ways. As a party rises in power, the local political players/powers woo the PCs with gifts and honorifics. If the PCs return these overtures, they can make strong alliances that lead to increased security at home (and more adventure as they aid their allies to deal with problems they are having). Players can certainly be encouraged to begin this process, btw.
Another bonus is that the treacherous NPC, when used sparingly, is actually effective. This factor alone makes Gary's methodology worthwhile, IMHO.
This is very similar, btw, to DMs who want their players to talk to monsters instead of just wading in with spells and swords blazing. If you want that, you have to provide an environment that nurtures and rewards it. You have to demonstrate that it is worth doing. You have to demonstrate the pitfalls of the opposite approach.
IMHO, at least.
RC
Raven Crowking said:
Maybe we have different definitions of heroism. IMC, heroes do not have to be good at all - being a hero, slaying the foes of the realm, and so on, nets lots of rewards, from fame to fortune. Achilles, Hercules, etc., never struck me as particularly altruistic heroes.
Also, even most evil people usually care for their clan, family, or country, even if only because that's their ticket to power.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Fenes said:
Perhaps so, but it doesn't change the basic [oint: If you know what kind of game you want to run, make sure that the setting nurtures and rewards that type of play.
RC
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
Can't say I entirely agree with this.
Personally I think good roleplaying is its own reward.
I also think heroism is at its most heroic in a brutal, cold, bleak and nasty universe.
You know the kind of thing I mean? When the hordes of darkness overwhelm the party, and the paladin stands against evil and holds the cave-mouth against the tentacled Elder Thing while the NPC mother and daughter flee to safety?
When the paladin dies doing that... it's the pinnacle of heroism and chivalry. Getting saved by GM fiat cheapens his deed.
But then, I like things gritty.
Similar Threads
- Locked
- Locked
