Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 7811112" data-attributes="member: 467">I am not sure what you mean. By my definition, the Fellowship of the Ring are not Adventurers because they aren't out for fortune and glory, they are actors with a moral imperative to try and destroy the Ring.I thought I was clear in my OP when I said I did not mean just anyone with class levels (and by association, NPC adventurers don't need to be statted up as PCs, but that's a different discussion).If the people keeping the roads clear are hired by local authorities to patrol and protect travelers and such, I would say, No they are not adventurer's. They are effectively police. This isn't to say that the local baron might not hire adventurers to do that job, but if they are adventurers they are only going to do it for as long as it provides fame, fortune, glory or the adrenaline rush. But again, I think this kind of thinly sliced definition inhibits rather that enhances these kinds of discussions.Also, I don't know anything about the Harpers, but I don't think an organization's motivation is important in determining whether individuals are adventurers. Many moons ago when I was a US Army Infantryman I knew lots of guys that were in the Army because they were adventurers, and lots more than were Soldiers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 7811112, member: 467"] I am not sure what you mean. By my definition, the Fellowship of the Ring are not Adventurers because they aren't out for fortune and glory, they are actors with a moral imperative to try and destroy the Ring. I thought I was clear in my OP when I said I did not mean just anyone with class levels (and by association, NPC adventurers don't need to be statted up as PCs, but that's a different discussion). If the people keeping the roads clear are hired by local authorities to patrol and protect travelers and such, I would say, No they are not adventurer's. They are effectively police. This isn't to say that the local baron might not hire adventurers to do that job, but if they are adventurers they are only going to do it for as long as it provides fame, fortune, glory or the adrenaline rush. But again, I think this kind of thinly sliced definition inhibits rather that enhances these kinds of discussions. Also, I don't know anything about the Harpers, but I don't think an organization's motivation is important in determining whether individuals are adventurers. Many moons ago when I was a US Army Infantryman I knew lots of guys that were in the Army because they were adventurers, and lots more than were Soldiers. [/QUOTE]

Verification