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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7963803" data-attributes="member: 4348">People have different styles of play.  This can be flavored by how they were originally introduced or how they wish to play the game.  For example, in the 1e AD&D manual it saysFor many, they would play the orcs just like that but with the emphasis that Orcs hate every living thing and thus are a plague upon anything that isn't an orc. The goblin entry is not better, but does not make them hate all living things, just a step better where it statesIt sort of states ALL of them in that inclusion.  Many groups played goblins and orcs in this manner, irredeemable creatures.Many still play this way.  That doesn't mean EVERYONE plays that way.  In fact, if anything I think the various discussion shows that some groups play it very differently with some having it where simply killing creatures can be an evil act in and of itself. There are many different interpretations and ways of playing the game.  What may be irredeemable orcs that kill all things in a Mystara Campaign may be completely different than where orcs might be good and have characteristics of a good individual in the occasional find with a Icewind Dale game. People have different types of games they want to play and monsters may be defined differently in how they are, their substance, and what they are composed of in different games and campaigns.  Even games based on the core rulebooks can have very different interpretations from each other. Take the AD&D descriptions from above.  While many groups interpreted it as irredeemable characteristics that meant these monsters were to be slain on sight, others may have taken it to mean that these traits were not the ONLY traits and incorporated other cultural ideas and essences into theses monsters in their adventures.  Perhaps the goblins loved torture and slavery, but there was a tribe that loved to torture and enslave evil creatures more than good, or any other variables. It really falls upon the group to determine what type of game they wish to play at the beginning and ensure all participants know the expectations of the game.  I don't see a problem with any of the various different styles of gaming, from the type where all monsters are to be slain (if they even can be slain) to where all things must be negotiated and talked to in order to find where on the spectrum of good an evil they lie on as long as all the group is in agreement and understand what the gaming expectations of the table (or in this current time of pandemic, their online gaming buddies) are.Edit:  I also do not think it has to be an either/or type situation.  It does not have to be one end of the spectrum or the other.  There are endless variations between the two.  As long as the ENTIRE group understands and agrees upon the interpretations, I think any type of game in this manner is okay.  The only time it is NOT okay is when the DM is trying to force them to play one way and the players understand it to be another and the DM plays dirty tricks on them due to these misunderstandings (causing Paladins to fall unexpectedly, causing AD&D assassins to suddenly become good, causing Clerics and Druids to lose their spells and powers due to actions that players thought were acceptable but a DM decided to say they weren't to the surprise of the players...etc...etc...etc).  If the group agrees and understand to play one way or the other, it should be an acceptable way to play.</blockquote>

Verification