Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint" data-source="post: 1194868" data-attributes="member: 2283">Let me humbly offer my campaign as an example of an interesting Good campaign.We started out as a simple Good vs. Evil campaign, but is now really a Good vs. Good campaign.There's a ton of Evil stuff under the large city that is the setting, locked in a vault (the Banewarrens, by Monte Cook). After PC efforts, it's mostly contained and sealed, but still mostly unopened and unexplored. The largest, most powerful organization (LG church) wants to open it to get a long-lost relic of theirs back. The party, which is NG/CG, disagrees and thinks that it's too much of a risk to the people of the city to unlock an unknown but definitely large quantity of evil. The LG church says that they're going to open it with or without the party, and retrieve their lost relic. The party is now working against the LG organization. The party scurries around town, looking to make as many friends as we can to hinder the LG church, while trying to slow down their &quot;noble&quot; intent. These characters get their divine magic from the same source as our clerics. To me, that's interesting. All of our campaigns find similar, significant nuances in play; it's never just, &quot;There's the bad guy. Get him, heroes!&quot;In short, Good campaigns can be incredibly interesting and extremely fun. It's much more complicated and satisfying game when you have to remove &quot;physically attack your enemy&quot; from your list of options.And I agree with the statements on party harmonics. It matters much more than Good/Evil. I prefer when morality isn't a game rule, but D&amp;D can work despite that. Good doesn't have to be railroading or uninteresting, it's just one option of... well, three. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-Clint</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint, post: 1194868, member: 2283"] Let me humbly offer my campaign as an example of an interesting Good campaign. We started out as a simple Good vs. Evil campaign, but is now really a Good vs. Good campaign. There's a ton of Evil stuff under the large city that is the setting, locked in a vault (the Banewarrens, by Monte Cook). After PC efforts, it's mostly contained and sealed, but still mostly unopened and unexplored. The largest, most powerful organization (LG church) wants to open it to get a long-lost relic of theirs back. The party, which is NG/CG, disagrees and thinks that it's too much of a risk to the people of the city to unlock an unknown but definitely large quantity of evil. The LG church says that they're going to open it with or without the party, and retrieve their lost relic. The party is now working against the LG organization. The party scurries around town, looking to make as many friends as we can to hinder the LG church, while trying to slow down their "noble" intent. These characters get their divine magic from the same source as our clerics. To me, that's interesting. All of our campaigns find similar, significant nuances in play; it's never just, "There's the bad guy. Get him, heroes!" In short, Good campaigns can be incredibly interesting and extremely fun. It's much more complicated and satisfying game when you have to remove "physically attack your enemy" from your list of options. And I agree with the statements on party harmonics. It matters much more than Good/Evil. I prefer when morality isn't a game rule, but D&D can work despite that. Good doesn't have to be railroading or uninteresting, it's just one option of... well, three. :) -Clint [/QUOTE]

Verification