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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darkness" data-source="post: 426881" data-attributes="member: 13">Note: Please cut out [Edit for clarity] unless really, positively, necessary[/edit] the comments about contemporary atrocities (e.g., machine-gunning teenagers or whatever) from now on, everybody; we are talking about D&D here - not contemporary real-world stuff.[Edit for clarity]See, more recent atrocities (up to and including WW2, at the very least) are more personal - and thus, can provoke flame wars more easily.[/edit]Also, the ancient times and the middle ages are better examples for D&D anyway - so let's use them instead. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That may be so, but I'm not necessarily talking about them.Being a rapist, torturer, child-killer or whatever has little to do with a person's combat prowess.Many Roman emperors (and other military leaders over the ages) ordered - or committed - unimaginable atrocities. But, other than you (apparently, at least), I would consider an RPG campaign that has the ultimate goal of deposing your fantasy world's equivalent of, say, Caligula or Nero (etc.) quite interesting.Also, many military leaders of old were rapists, torturers, murdered their own relatives, or killed their enemies' children. Yet more than a few of them also were skilled warriors and leaders.And know what? Their enemies probably feared them.So tell me - what do you have against using such characters as the villians of your campaign? I can see it if you despise them, but I can't imagine why you would consider them (all of them, that is) unworthy enemies.No. Some are, of course, but others are not - and might even be megalomaniacs. And as for them actually being weak, refer to what I wrote above. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I can't imagine that that's a correct conclusion... Could you explain that a bit more clearly? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I totally agree that that happens, but I also have to point out that these despicable practices don't exist merely because of crappy storytellers; not only do they exist in reality, but there are also many good authors/movie-makers/etc. who use them appropriately and "effectively" (for their story, that is). Maybe you just haven't seen these yet, but I certainly have. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification