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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 5821941" data-attributes="member: 14159">Yeah, that was well over a decade ago and I wouldn't do that again.However, at the time I felt justified, since I was using an official AD&D sourcebook and setting book.  Do you remember the "green book" series for 2e?  I ran this campaign based off The Crusades book for that series.  To be fair, they didn't really take sides in that book, and in the campaign I ran, it was eventually revealed that the Crusades were the result of manipulations of a primeval deity of chaos and destruction (Tiamat, as in the mythological version but the D&D connotations of the name made for a great way to mess with the Player's heads) seeking to increase death and destruction in the world. The AD&D sourcebook even presented Saladin as Lawful Good, perhaps even a Paladin (providing the only 2e example I can think of where officially the campaign villain might be a Paladin).  In the few quasi-historic games I've done since then, I've taken great liberties with the level of realism.  They have only nominally "real world", with big disclaimers about realism, and there are significant fantasy elements added, though typically geographically roughly where those elements came from in folklore and literature and being more liberal about allowing anachronisms so players could have all their various D&D staples (Dwarf Barbarian Vikings alongside Wood Elf Druid & Ranger Celts and Human Paladin & Fighter Britons, ect.).It's only very, very loosely historic, but the players liked it.</blockquote>

Verification