D&D (2024) Heroes of the Borderlands

[Micah Sweet]

But D&D has not had a very consistent view of them even in the earliest days. Orcs were nightmare creatures, but also creatures of flesh and blood who birth and raise children. They aren't undead or unnatural beings, nor are they beasts with no capacity to think or reason. They were evil because the Monster Manual said they were evil, and the excuses for why (evil society, dominated by evil gods) came later.

I don't want to litigate the orcs debate again, because I still accept the notion that most orcs you would meet are evil is a valid play style. My concern though is that then being evil justified a lot of actions we would consider heinous war crimes. Even if they are creatures bent towards evil, they are living natural creatures and that alone should warrant certain rules of engagement. The idea that you can barge into their homes, kill their families and take their stuff because they are evil just seems so... Repellent when you consider ** gestures vaguely at several world conflicts **.

So I think KotB, even keeping the idea that the humanoids of the Caves are majority evil-intended and malicious to the keep, should be redone to remove the overt colonial elements from the story. Several people have suggested good alternatives to why the Caves would have various humanoids and not their families. (A staging ground for an invading army, gathered by the Temple of Chaos, is perfect in its simplicity).

Those are good story ideas. Why does it have to be KotB?

 

[Remathilis]

Those are good story ideas. Why does it have to be KotB?

Why not?

 

[Greg Benage]

Far too often "edgy moral dilemmas" are really just "f*** you if you decide to play anything other than a neutral or evil PC". Because frequently there simply are no good options in real life.

I don't think edgy moral dilemmas should be simple gotchas in which a character tries and inevitably fails to come up with the "right answer" (because there isn't one). They're situations the character should struggle with and then make a decision that reveals something (hopefully interesting) about the character. I love moral dilemmas in fiction and in RPGs.

I agree that they can easily be misused and abused, but that goes for a lot of things in this hobby.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think edgy moral dilemmas should be simple gotchas in which a character tries and inevitably fails to come up with the "right answer" (because there isn't one). They're situations the character should struggle with and then make a decision that reveals something (hopefully interesting) about the character. I love moral dilemmas in fiction and in RPGs.

I agree that they can easily be misused and abused, but that goes for a lot of things in this hobby.

I agree to a point. The Spelljammer adventure Light of Xarysis presents a dilemma where, spoiler:

Spoiler

in order to save your home world, you have to extinguish the sun of the Astral elf Empire. The latter end up homeless and scattered across the stars if you do it, but if you don't your world is dead.

It's a moral choice, and it's certainly slanted in a particular direction, but it does require the pcs to understand one side has to lose for the other to survive.

It's a far better question than "what do I do with kobold babies"

 

[Oofta]

I don't think edgy moral dilemmas should be simple gotchas in which a character tries and inevitably fails to come up with the "right answer" (because there isn't one). They're situations the character should struggle with and then make a decision that reveals something (hopefully interesting) about the character. I love moral dilemmas in fiction and in RPGs.

I agree that they can easily be misused and abused, but that goes for a lot of things in this hobby.

I have no problem with dilemmas and choices. The problem is that far too often there really is no good choice. I remember modules in LG (Living Greyhawk, the 3.x public play) in particular that really leaned into this. In one our party literally had to choose between a devil and a demon or we all died and the region was destroyed if the DM had followed the module. In another case we started a game only to be told that we had to help an obviously evil NPC do some dastardly deed or we couldn't continue. The game, a typical 4 hour slot, ended after 15 minutes because we refused. In that case, the intro scene where we refused to cooperate? We learned later that it had nothing to do with the rest of the module.

I don't have a lot of faith that people are able to set up moral dilemmas that actually add to the game. When I play I want to play a hero, I want to always have at least the option to do the right thing even if there is high risk and chance of failure. I don't care if it's not realistic.

 

[The Glen]

I guess not many people here have seen the horror of what those children could do. When our paladin turned his back to try to defend the children he died to over a dozen kobald baby rattle shanks. Their parents weren't protecting them they were keeping them in check. Nothing is more terrifying than feral humanoid children. Having to hide from dozens of goblin children that skeletonize a dwarf in seconds. They move like a swarm of army ants consuming anything that falls before them. If you didn't come out of KotB with a thousand yard stare your dungeon master wasn't doing it right.

 

[Scribe]

Frequently there simply are no good options in real life and I don't want to deal with it when I'm playing a game for fun and relaxation.

This is why the meme of the Bandit with his kid's art, or the Mindflayer with the potion of Cure Disease are so great.

We can absolutely make pretty much any scenario one that gives us pause. We can absolutely go down the moral rabbit hole and find that the conclusions dont give us the warm and fuzzy feelings of being big hero's doing big things.

Or, we can just accept the fact that its a game, roll dice, and kill some orcs.

I know which path I'm taking.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Aren’t there ways to focus in an adventure that don’t double down on cruelty to noncombatants in the part of main characters?

In one of my favorite fantasy films, Conan, the adventure is a bloodbath but I don’t see ongoing murder of children.

Conan’s people are cut down early on…saying you have an urchin background d or whatever fast forwards through a lot of that. Sure they made the kids work in chains…again background.

When the adventure kicks off Conan is fighting cultists and warriors. I don’t particularly enjoy having to handle humanoid children in game.

Frequently if warriors are dispatched we sent the noncombatants out or move on after a search of the area. But I would be equally entertained if it was an outpost and there are no children present at all…or they fled off camera or whatever.

The game is ours to mold. If it bothers you, there are so many easy ways around it. It’s a game and we control the camera pan.

The ranger sees tracks of the noncombatants into the woods. OK, moving on.

In the LOTR movies and as far as I can remember books as well…there is not mention of goblin children though there are insinuations the orcs can breed in the wild (not always consistent lore but still).

Just don’t set up what u don’t like. It’s a minor tweak to suggest something exists but not here right now.

Or kill em all. Your choice

 

[Oofta]

This is why the meme of the Bandit with his kid's art, or the Mindflayer with the potion of Cure Disease are so great.

We can absolutely make pretty much any scenario one that gives us pause. We can absolutely go down the moral rabbit hole and find that the conclusions dont give us the warm and fuzzy feelings of being big hero's doing big things.

Or, we can just accept the fact that its a game, roll dice, and kill some orcs.

I know which path I'm taking.

Consider how many enemies characters typically kill on a regular basis. It don't want to have to deal with PTSD if I'm playing something other than a neutral or evil PC. Because that's the issue to me ... if I play that kind of game I'll just play someone who doesn't give a fig and move on. As a person I may be disturbed by that kind of thing which is why real world soldiers frequently suffer but my character? My character is Grom the Barbarian who doesn't give a fig.

I just find that the so-called moral dilemmas just mean people limit every character they play to thugs and at best borderline sociopaths.

 

[Scribe]

Consider how many enemies characters typically kill on a regular basis. It don't want to have to deal with PTSD if I'm playing something other than a neutral or evil PC. Because that's the issue to me ... if I play that kind of game I'll just play someone who doesn't give a fig and move on. As a person I may be disturbed by that kind of thing which is why real world soldiers frequently suffer but my character? My character is Grom the Barbarian who doesn't give a fig.

I just find that the so-called moral dilemmas just mean people limit every character they play to thugs and at best borderline sociopaths.

Exactly. I remember a screenshot I took in BG3, my party looked like a ragged band of madmen, covered in filth and blood, looking for I believe its the spirit of nature, a child.

I mean if we wanted to really have a deep think, nobody is going to enjoy playing this game, because we are engaging in things that rightly mess people up. (I again think of LotR...but anyway)

I dont mind the moral dilemma, but folks need to remember its an Elf Game.