Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4658129" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's all well and good, and I'm positive that D&D should continue to provide a place for that, because it's very mythic and very archetypal. I enjoy that on occasion, too, and I'm glad I can turn to D&D to provide that for me (even if, for me, it's usually things like demons and devils providing it more often than orcs and goblins). Normally I think videogames do it better, but every once in a while, even in a campaign filled with shades of gray, you just want to take ALL the mofos out. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I don't really think ANYONE, even in a "shades of gray" campaign, is interested in tackling The Nature of Evil in Reality or anything. I mean, that's the virtue of D&D being fiction -- whether or not the orcs are justified is a fictional consideration, made by a fictional character, who then does fictional things based on his fictional beliefs. Rather, the "player challenge" of adhering to a character's belief system -- even when it might harm innocents or thwart the party's goals -- or of abandoning that belief system and dealing with those consequences, is an interesting challenge to me. Is it cool if Scott and I go play a game where PC's have to make difficult moral choices? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I mean, I know you might not enjoy it, but hey, we don't need to be Shakespeare to deal with a little fantasy relativity any more than you need to be Tolkien to deal with a little fantasy absolutism. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Aw, c'mon, man! <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 don't think he was trying to be insulting, just kind of describing why it's not for him, which is fair enough. Sometimes your cultists of evil ARE mislead, after all. Or in it for different reasons. After all, in one of my games, the PC's may start by fighting the cultists, but they might end teamed up with those cultists against the thing which is CAUSING the cultists to form in the first place, which will solve the problem of the cult without forcing the PC's to hunt down and kill every individual cultist. Jas isn't a fan of that kind of challenge. For me, that's okay -- just like it's okay if people don't like puzzles (for instance), or if combat is boring for a player or two. Part of what is generally cool about D&D in principle is that it can adapt to different play styles like that.</blockquote>

Verification