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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charles Rampant" data-source="post: 7232857" data-attributes="member: 32659">I don't agree on the whitewashing front - that seems a stretch, to be honest - but I myself removed the Uthgart Mounds stuff. The reasons were simple. Firstly, it feels kinda weird. More concretely, this section feels mostly like a way to stretch stuff out before the party go to the first Giant stronghold; since I've combined it with Tyranny of Dragons, I don't want it stretched out any more. Thirdly, I think it casts the party in a somewhat strange light, one which slaughtering Giants doesn't; the Uthgart are isolationist, genocidal, and hateful, but the party would be just invading and slaughtering them to get a bit of plot, rather than to save people from rampaging Giants. This isn't the only morally ambiguous part of Storm King's Thunder, I've found. I set my party on the sidequest for the Giant Slayer sword in Yartar (mentioned on page 62, under Triboar Quests), and it really sets the party up to just murder a captain of the watch, which is especially odd when you consider that Yartar may be a dump, but it's still a member of the Lord's Alliance (important in my campaign, since they're working with the Alliance). I had my party get into a big row over whether they should just steal the sword in the night, or steal it and slit the guy's throat. In the end they didn't go for the murder, but I have to admit that I spent the whole conversation wondering whether I'd hand out alignment changes for it, and whether handing out alignment changes for a sidequest I introduced would be unfair.</blockquote>

Verification