The logic is for the players (which includes the DM to find). Any why would a god be logical, or even comprehensible, to a human?
D&D has never told players "how to play". That is why it has such a wide range of players.
You are making generalised assumptions about player moral codes. My players didn't have any problems with necromancy. But if they do, there is no requirement for them to team with the necromancer. Adventures provide stuff that might happen, not stuff that must happen.
Listen Paul
you clearly are happy with how WotC write their material.
Many of us though are not. We are giving a shared narrative/ point of view about these issues.
IF WotC were to
1) give guidance in their campaigns as to how to run their adventure sandbox style
2) to get rid of internal/ logical inconsistencies (which JA has pointed out in his blog - as well as how to fix them)
3) stop assuming player actions for the continuation of a campaign
4) make sure that the total of a campaign is greater than the sum of its parts
would you complain /stop buying their books?
Personally, if they improved on these things, I would be more likely to buy and then also use their material.
Justin Alexander's fix of Baldurs Gate: DiA and of W: DH are both massive - bigger than the original adventures - as in over 400 pages!! EG:
Dragon Heist - the Remix;
Descent into Avernus - Remix. They are great - but this should not need to be done. Great that he has - for free too - since he enables us gamers who want internal consistency in our games (since players will spot the lack of logic/ errors and raise questions)
You stated
"You are making generalised assumptions about player moral codes"
Did you read what I wrote? This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said.
I am not advocating how to tell people to play their game. But take the issue of RotFM - the campaign assumes players will travel with Avarice, the Arcane Brotherhood necromancer - the writers in effect TELL the pcs this will happen but
1) it should never assume this
2) it offers no advice as to how the pcs will find Ythryn otherwise. Not one piece of solid advice - and ideally it should offer many possible routes forward. At points like this, I like JA's '3 clue rule'.
You somehow invert my criticism and claim I am supporting such ridiculous advice of players having no agency! And giving advice does not mean you/ other GMs have to follow it either. BUT for me, as a busy GM, clearly of low ability, I need such advice. You clearly are fine as you are.
Yes - by reading the book, a diligent GM will spot these problems and work on solutions - but with an expensive, professional campaign, all I am asking - and many others - is that WotC a) cut out the errors b) sandbox their games properly and do not assume player decisions/ actions/ outcomes - and instead offer alternative suggestions as to the way forward depending on different player decisions/ outcomes at the table.
Another point - I have to firmly disagree with you about Justin Alexander.
You stated:
"The Alexandrian's entire philosophy is wrong. He is looking at the campaign books as if they are novels, not source material for a game. It's not up to the author to provide meaning, it's up to the players to find it."
Have you actually READ anything he has written?
1) he does NOT want games to resemble replaying a novel (like some games could be accused of) - far from it.
2) he DOES want the material in a campaign to be like source material, eg NPCs with motives, kewl locations, a living breathing environment in which things happen whether or not PCs do anything.
3) if you follow his blog, you will find that he offers advice on maintaining the tension between
A. narrative highs and lows, developing creative / dramatic tension &
B. sandboxing adventures, to give players options and agency - to avoid a railroad.
'Pure' sandboxes - in his - and my - opinion - can fall flat in terms of creating dramatic tension. Whilst some gamers like this approach - and I suspect this is where your sensibilities lie - from my experience, and the people I interact with, folks like at least some dramatic tension.....
One way in which JA encourages sandboxing is via the '
3 clue rule' - as mentioned earlier - to give players multiple ways through a story (and offering them abilities to change the 'story' since JA is against fixed narratives - as he writes in '
Don't Prep Plots'.
4) Many of us gamers like there to be a story/ narrative 'out there' since too often we are tired and need a story to latch onto. Thus, not all players want to have a pure sandbox, as you seem to be advocating, since they lack the energy to create their own meanings/ narrative, and sometimes, without a clear story, it can be tiring / confusing to decide what to do/ what your motivation is as a player. Obviously this is not an issue for you though.
Honestly!
Anyway - I better get back to my work!!
