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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9785272" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Interesting thread!Like many people have said, I think it is the best to avoid either extreme. I usually go somewhere in the middle, especially for a game like D&D. In D&D the characters routinely engage in lethal vigilante violence. If we want to present such people as even somewhat decent, this to me implies that the world cannot be quite OK. It means the world at large is brutal, chaotic and lacking in just and functional law enforcement. But there are also decent people, and they're worth defending.But I often depict those in power as corrupt, weak or indifferent to some degree. There are no good kingdoms of goodness ruled by noble, just and wise kings and protected by shiny paladins of goodness. Because in addition of being nauseatingly boring, this is a poor setup for an adventure. The world needs to be a bit broken so that the characters have to be the ones to handle the things. And I like my worlds to be a bit punk this way. The decent people are more likely be the downtrodden and the outcasts, rather than the ones with most clout and authority.I want my worlds feel real and have shades of grey. Not every conflict needs to be about clear good and evil, there should be nuance. And this also gives the players more agency on choosing sides. Though sometimes you just need proper villains too, and then the shades of grey come in play in choosing your allies, none of which are necessarily morally perfect either. And even though my belief in this certainly has been shaken when it comes to the real world, in my fiction most people have at least tiny bit of decency in them, and can be convinced to do the right thing once in a while; but often it needs the PCs to inspire or push them to do it.</blockquote>

Verification