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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9678396" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't fundamentally disagree, but I also don't think it's 100% effective here, at least from the quickstart. But I can't fully judge the situation without seeing the full game, and I suspect it'll look a little better in full context. And I do appreciate that they at least tried to make it significantly less "colonial violence"/"hooray for genocide!" than was somewhat common in 1980s and to some extent 1990s (and even a bit later), with the Orcs both being actual invaders (though the timeline is slightly confusing here) and resembling Norse/Saxon culture rather than a non-white culture (I once before suggested if I did Arthurian D&D I'd cast the Saxons as Orcs so makes sense to me!). I think to be fully effective you'd want to use an fantasy species that doesn't have a long history of being used as sort of "free genocide target", but that conflicts with the nostalgic appeal of "Dwarves vs Orcs", so I guess a decision had to be made (I'd have considered making elves the evil invaders - but again maybe there are evil elves - hopefully not dark-skinned - in the main product).I do like that the oaths kind of force the PCs into being like, actually good - the meanest you could make a PC from the codes in the quickstart is Justice and Purity, but you'd still need a third. And as you're probably looking at 3+ PCs, probably with little/no overlap on their oaths, and with serious consequences if they break them (which seems like it includes allowing others to act adversely to them when they could do something about it), the party as a whole is probably operating under much stricter rules than even most LG/NG-filled early edition parties.</blockquote>

Verification