Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jacob Marley" data-source="post: 6247950" data-attributes="member: 89537">I often run and play in campaigns set in morally Grey(hawk). Our last campaign, for example, featured a cold and calculating NE wizard who venerated Istus, Incabulos, and Nerull; an honorable, but CN(E), barbarian/warblade who was searching for a lost heirloom of his clan; and a N cleric of Skoraeus Stonebones who was actively opposing Tiamat's activities in the Yeomanry. What made this game work so well -- and what I'd recommend doing -- is it set up a complex web of alliances amongst the characters, NPCs, organizations, and deities. In turn, each of these entities had fairly nuanced personalities and very specific goals which caused the web of alliances to remain in a constant state of flux. Example: The wizard venerated Nerull who was allied with Tiamat who opposed the cleric who was allied with the wizard. This lead the wizard and cleric to agree to negotiate when encountering agents of Nerull, and to fight agents of Tiamat.Example: An NPC merchant supported the PCs with information and magic items in their attempts to engage Tiamat, but actively worked to thwart their attempts to find the barbarian's lost heirloom; which the NPC merchant wanted for himself. This lead the PCs to eliminate a number of the merchant's agents (some of which were good innocent people); the merchant then rallied the locals to oppose the PCs, but found himself back in an uneasy alliance with the PCs when threatened by Tiamat.I find when the game contains a highly complex and nuanced series of alliances, then morally grey D&amp;D is the result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jacob Marley, post: 6247950, member: 89537"] I often run and play in campaigns set in morally Grey(hawk). Our last campaign, for example, featured a cold and calculating NE wizard who venerated Istus, Incabulos, and Nerull; an honorable, but CN(E), barbarian/warblade who was searching for a lost heirloom of his clan; and a N cleric of Skoraeus Stonebones who was actively opposing Tiamat's activities in the Yeomanry. What made this game work so well -- and what I'd recommend doing -- is it set up a complex web of alliances amongst the characters, NPCs, organizations, and deities. In turn, each of these entities had fairly nuanced personalities and very specific goals which caused the web of alliances to remain in a constant state of flux. Example: The wizard venerated Nerull who was allied with Tiamat who opposed the cleric who was allied with the wizard. This lead the wizard and cleric to agree to negotiate when encountering agents of Nerull, and to fight agents of Tiamat. Example: An NPC merchant supported the PCs with information and magic items in their attempts to engage Tiamat, but actively worked to thwart their attempts to find the barbarian's lost heirloom; which the NPC merchant wanted for himself. This lead the PCs to eliminate a number of the merchant's agents (some of which were good innocent people); the merchant then rallied the locals to oppose the PCs, but found himself back in an uneasy alliance with the PCs when threatened by Tiamat. I find when the game contains a highly complex and nuanced series of alliances, then morally grey D&D is the result. [/QUOTE]

Verification