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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 4823606" data-attributes="member: 3887">My impression was that most D&D players wanted to play 'the good guys', who also happened to loot and kill a lot (why hello alignment system!), that the archetypal D&D character was a semi-moral looter, or an amoral looter with an ability to rationalize their deeds at the cosmic level <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.Ultimately, D&D PC's are just corpse looters. Even the ones in sweeping, epic high fantasy campaigns full of Manichean struggles where good triumphs over evil. They also do bad thing to live flesh with flaming oil. Note that being hard to kill is also a characteristic of popular swords and sorcery heroes. I ran a sweeping epic using 2e for many years, but it bore little resemblance to Zul's definition. It certainly wasn't Judeo-Christian, it certainly was tough, there was a overarching set of stories, but nothing was plotted out, and I didn't run it because of Dragonlance, I had just gotten sick of the disconnected dungeon-crawls of my youth. BTW, I think too much gets made of Dragonlance. While it's certainly the D&D version of the Lord of the Rings (for better or worse... wait, make that worse), I see it primarily as a reflection of what a lot of D&D players were already doing; running high fantasy in the D&D idiom. Dragonlance didn't introduce high fantasy to D&D. Tolkien did.</blockquote>

Verification