D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Vaalingrade]

My goddaughter I just referenced was 13 when I taught her, by the way, and having enemies "defeated" and no longer an issue was fine.

10, 13. As long as it's a young age so as to imply not doing that is inherently more mature. As if worrying about how mature you are is mature at all.

 

[MGibster]

When I started a thread about loving having an evil race I can stomp with impunity, and some others have expressed their agreement with that sentiment, you saying that such a thing "might also be morally bankrupt" it feel very directed. Maybe that is not what you meant but that is very much how it comes off.

I appreciate you bringing that up. I apologize. It was never my intention to suggest that you were morally bankrupt.

 

[Krachek]

Stomping goblins and like it should be a fundamental right! At least in DnD universe.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Stomping goblins and like it should be a fundamental right! At least in DnD universe.

People keep talking about stomping, but have you actually seen the unarmed fighting rules? You will not be the victor if you try stomping people.

 

[Reynard]

People keep talking about stomping, but have you actually seen the unarmed fighting rules? You will not be the victor if you try stomping people.

Especially if they are the 2nd Edition unarmed rules. Woo boy.

 

[Krachek]

People keep talking about stomping, but have you actually seen the unarmed fighting rules? You will not be the victor if you try stomping people.

Use the wizard, and get polymorph into a t-Rex, can be a good start for stomping goblins.

 

[Oofta]

Use the wizard, and get polymorph into a t-Rex, can be a good start stomping goblins.

T-Rexes are all about the chomping. Wooly mammoth is better, they have a trampling charge.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your truly evil villain can also be nuanced and complicated and still be totally ok to kill. I don't understand why you are equating nuance with "can't be inherently evil."

There’s no nuance in inherent evil.

 

[Umbran]

When I started a thread about loving having an evil race I can stomp with impunity, and some others have expressed their agreement with that sentiment, you saying that such a thing "might also be morally bankrupt" it feel very directed.

It is, perhaps, poor wording.

But consider - if you just paint some figures as Evil and Stompable... how much moral content is there going to be in the resulting play?

We were told upthread that much of the point was to distance the players from the heavy needs of everyday moral decisions, to stop thinking about that stuff for a while! So, yeah, while we can note that "bankrupt" was a colorful term that might push buttons, in honestly we should not expect the resulting play to have a whole lot of moral value.

This is not saying that the players are morally bankrupt overall. The instances of play are a small part of their overall lives. But those instances of play aren't going to be fodder for Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood either, now are they?

 

[Charlaquin]

There is enough of this sort of thing going around in this thread that I thought I might point out to all the other people that like pretending to be elves and grave robbers that making moral judgements against other people based on their preferences in same is not just the height of absurdity, it is the epitome of hypocrisy. People in this thread strongly implying other people in this thread are racists for liking stock enemies, and others blatantly calling other people morally bankrupt hardly seems like the sort of discourse meant to engender good faith discussion or a sense of community.

1. No one has called anyone racist.
2. Come on, what did you expect the response to this thread to be?