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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6696576" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I don't see players take levels in Commoner.  I think, to the extent one has an objective to gain levels, it is to gain power.  This is also a reason to gain wealth in 3e, where magic becomes commoditized.  It was a reason, in 1e, to fiddle with the Artifact that had a 95% chance of executing the character and a 5% chance of granting him vast power - I can keep running new characters in until that 1 in 20 shot paid off.  If playing purely for power, that is "good play".  If one had objectives such as portraying a reasonable, thinking character, this was  not such great play.  Tossing pure random dungeon encounters in was not viewed as great play in some circles, even back in 1e, but was viewed as the whole purpose of the game in others.It need not be.  Celebrim provides many examples.  I also know people who enjoy monopoly, scrabble, etc. but do  not play to win.  They enjoy the game.  Failure to win does not diminish their enjoyment of the game.  Their objective, then, is not to achieve the defined victory conditions of the game, but instead to enjoy the game play itself.  Those game, however, lack any in-game morality element. 1e referred to "defeat" of foes, as I recall.  There was a 1e module where the goal was not to kill the inhabitants of the area, and it suggested a revised xp model that rewarded killing less than other means of defeating foes, but the game at its core definitely assumed the common means of defeating one's foes was violence.  Just as it was in the source material - LoTR, Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser solved problems at the point of a blade, not with clever negotiation.  It did not mean that they sought power by any means possible - in fact, LoTR defined both virtue and victory in the opposite fashion.I don't find mindless pursuit of xp wherever it may be found to be a major objective of play in any edition, from 1e on.  I have not played 4e or 5e to any extent, but I don't see them as any different.That would be the character who most rapidly gathers power and xp, wouldn't it?  By your own definitions, that would appear to be the height of 'good', if gaining power and xp is the objective, and the objective must, by definition, be good.I find these discussions are often conflated by players projecting themselves on their characters.  The characters behave in this fashion. The character is an extension of self.  I perceive my self as good, and by extension want a 'G' on my character sheet.  Thus, I must rationalize that the behaviour my character engages in is 'Good', lest I myself be classified as "not Good".  Sorry, mindless pursuit of personal power and self-interest is not "Good".Lan-"and to my way of thinking munchkins are every bit as evil as anything else you'll ever see in the game"-efan</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

Verification