Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 8856071" data-attributes="member: 42856">Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is &quot;choosing&quot; to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the &quot;evil&quot; unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&amp;D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones. The alternative is to have a group argument not to mind and have a lighter game.Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations.Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome.They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it:[spoiler]A schlorp had their sun fading, so they &quot;fueled&quot; it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, nova'ing the schlorp's sun. Which is explained as destroying entirely the schlorp's homeworld. It is more palatable if that schlorp was &quot;always, irredeemably evil&quot;, not &quot;people desperate for survival who put their own survival by condemning others&quot;. If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome of the adventure is player comitting genocide on a Alderande scale, and the PC not being better than the ones who designed the life-sucking device in the first place. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld, and the adventure suggesting the PC could next race to save a few people from their world with their spelljamming ship.[/spoiler][USER=94626]@codo[/USER]: how would your group deal with this kind of proposed ending in a recent published adventure?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 8856071, member: 42856"] Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones. The alternative is to have a group argument not to mind and have a lighter game. Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations. Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome. They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it: [spoiler] A schlorp had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, nova'ing the schlorp's sun. Which is explained as destroying entirely the schlorp's homeworld. It is more palatable if that schlorp was "always, irredeemably evil", not "people desperate for survival who put their own survival by condemning others". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome of the adventure is player comitting genocide on a Alderande scale, and the PC not being better than the ones who designed the life-sucking device in the first place. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld, and the adventure suggesting the PC could next race to save a few people from their world with their spelljamming ship. [/spoiler] [USER=94626]@codo[/USER]: how would your group deal with this kind of proposed ending in a recent published adventure? [/QUOTE]

Verification