I don't think it is fair to pull an old quote from Gygax and say, "This is the way he would view the game now!" Especially since one of the things he always emphasized was that the way he played the game wasn't the way others would play it. He wanted people to make the game their own.
On the one hand I like more nuanced approach. It can lead to some interesting decisions by the party. For example in Out of the Abyss there is the colony of wererats that the party can either exterminate or recruit. It gives the players some choices.
On the other hand it can be really annoying when moral choices bog down game play. When introducing D&D to kids one of my daughter's friends did not want to kill anything. She wanted everything to be revealed as constructs after they destroyed it. It was really frustrating because the other kids were all into it and we had one player dragging their feet at every encounter. And then something snapped. It was like she suddenly realized this was all an organized version of 'lets play pretend' and she got into it. She became one of the most belligerent negotiators, sometimes causing fights when things could have actually gone a different direction.
And yet I think even the kids would get quickly bored it was all about killing everything and taking loot. I'm in favor of more nuanced play...as long as things don't get too bogged down.
A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad.
I personally don't GM DnD, only play it, but I GM 40k RPG. In Dark Heresy GM is encouraged to show players the horrific results of mercy shown by them few sessions earlier to remind them that Inquisition is brutal and inhumane not y choice but by necessity. As both my DnD GMs started as my 40k players they carried that philosophy into their games, so most of the settings we play are rather grim and dark with gray and black morality. If you like noble-bright rainbow-and-hippies fantasy where people miraculously have modern-days morality in a setting way to dangerous to afford it, you do you, but after playing gritty realism for years it feels so fake I struggle to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
Wait, why is this an argument? Can't we just agree that if something attacks you it's okay to say that you can attack it, but if it doesn't you don't have to? Maybe it's better to ask if killing stuff is just an excuse to be a murder hobo. If a PC was playing a goblin character would the party then have to kill them? By them I mean the PC.
A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad.
I personally don't GM DnD, only play it, but I GM 40k RPG. In Dark Heresy GM is encouraged to show players the horrific results of mercy shown by them few sessions earlier to remind them that Inquisition is brutal and inhumane not y choice but by necessity. As both my DnD GMs started as my 40k players they carried that philosophy into their games, so most of the settings we play are rather grim and dark with gray and black morality. If you like noble-bright rainbow-and-hippies fantasy where people miraculously have modern-days morality in a setting way to dangerous to afford it, you do you, but after playing gritty realism for years it feels so fake I struggle to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
Yeah, but 40k is Grimdark and D&D is typically high fantasy. Totally different genres.
It kind of is, because of how it has been framed by the OP.
He has framed it all around concepts of good and evil. He has objected to any alternative point of view. Nothing in his post leads to the conclusion that you have there. His arguments are all "Goblins are all naturally evil, so it is not evil to kill them all".
A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad.
I personally don't GM DnD, only play it, but I GM 40k RPG. In Dark Heresy GM is encouraged to show players the horrific results of mercy shown by them few sessions earlier to remind them that Inquisition is brutal and inhumane not y choice but by necessity. As both my DnD GMs started as my 40k players they carried that philosophy into their games, so most of the settings we play are rather grim and dark with gray and black morality. If you like noble-bright rainbow-and-hippies fantasy where people miraculously have modern-days morality in a setting way to dangerous to afford it, you do you, but after playing gritty realism for years it feels so fake I struggle to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
Yeah, but 40k is Grimdark and D&D is typically high fantasy. Totally different genres.
Yeah, 40k is designed to be absurdly brutal to satirical levels. It is unrealistic in a different way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yeah, but 40k is Grimdark and D&D is typically high fantasy. Totally different genres.
DnD used to be typically high fantasy, but the of the settings they released for 5e few actually qualify for typical High Fantasy, with notable shift into dark fantasy and dungeonpunk. THE setting for heroic high fantasy - Dragonlance - is yet to receive anything from WotC this edition.
This thread is going to be a dumpster fire. Do what your original quote suggests and play how you want without imposing your will or morality on others. If you want everyone to play exactly as you want, play a single player game.
I agree with this. Different people play D&D differently, and there is no right or wrong way to play as long as people are having fun. Whether sparing goblins is idiotic or not should ironed out during session zero, as every campaign is different.
Telling people to keep modern morality out of D&D is no different from telling people to keep phones out the table. Some groups like to include current event to spice up the game and explore racism, sexual abuse, bigotry, political oppression, and a variety of other darker subjects. Some groups like a more chill atmosphere and browse their phones for a while during a lull in play.
I agree, this seems like a non-issue. D&D is literally what you as a tabletop group make it. If the DM rules that committing genocide (even against what sources identify as traditionally "evil" races) is not an act of a "good" alignment because they believe in the free will of every creature and don't want to condone such executions, that's the DM's call.
OR
If the DM decides to say that whole races are, in fact, considered "evil" and may be justifiably slaughter en mass, that's also OK because it's how the DM is ruling things.
Historically, civilizations have experienced divine edicts commanding them to commit genocide because of an offense that the other nation committed in the past. So it is historically appropriate. But if the DM is uncomfortable with that kind of playstyle, it's their table and they ultimately set the tone for how they want the game to go. There's nothing wrong with having a conversation if ur playstyle differs from theirs; but at the end of the day, they have the final say and if differences are irreconcilable, then players are always free to try to find a different table that is more to their liking, right?
Isn't that how that works? Why is this debate being continued?
Yeah, but 40k is Grimdark and D&D is typically high fantasy. Totally different genres.
DnD used to be typically high fantasy, but the of the settings they released for 5e few actually qualify for typical High Fantasy, with notable shift into dark fantasy and dungeonpunk. THE setting for heroic high fantasy - Dragonlance - is yet to receive anything from WotC this edition.
FR is the official setting of D&D and it is generally considered high fantasy. While yes, technically almost every D&D setting ever was technically “post-apocalyptic,” they are so far “post” that it circled back into high fantasy again. (If there are ruins of ancient civilizations and “long lost magic,” then those civilizations must have had their apocalypse at some point, which is how their magic was lost. I mean, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.)
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
And those same natives slaughtered other natives who lived on those lands two or three centuries ago. Who also got hat land the same way. That's just how things went in premodern society - every nation for themselves and those who couldn't fend for themselves get eaten. And so is in most DnD worlds, except with more xenophobia, because others are not just different colour/religion/culture, they're entirely different species. When its kill or be killed hippies go extinct in one generation.
The Iroquois Confederacy consisted of several tribes that achieved peace and had functional relatively modern democracy hundreds of years before Europe did, other than the brief experiment with democracy in Athens. The population levels were low enough that, while there was occasional conflict, they were not the 'ignorant savages' they have been so often portrayed as. They were well behind on metallurgy, which limited their technological development overall, but socially? At least in North America, relatively advanced.
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
And those same natives slaughtered other natives who lived on those lands two or three centuries ago. Who also got hat land the same way. That's just how things went in premodern society - every nation for themselves and those who couldn't fend for themselves get eaten. And so is in most DnD worlds, except with more xenophobia, because others are not just different colour/religion/culture, they're entirely different species. When its kill or be killed hippies go extinct in one generation.
That’s the most absurdly incorrect set of statements I’ve ever read, and I’ve had to grade computer science students’ ethics papers.
A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad.
I personally don't GM DnD, only play it, but I GM 40k RPG. In Dark Heresy GM is encouraged to show players the horrific results of mercy shown by them few sessions earlier to remind them that Inquisition is brutal and inhumane not y choice but by necessity. As both my DnD GMs started as my 40k players they carried that philosophy into their games, so most of the settings we play are rather grim and dark with gray and black morality. If you like noble-bright rainbow-and-hippies fantasy where people miraculously have modern-days morality in a setting way to dangerous to afford it, you do you, but after playing gritty realism for years it feels so fake I struggle to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
That is perfectly fine too. Being merciful might come back at you just as murderhoboing would. The moment things happen as a result of your actions - good or bad - that's when it gets interesting.
However, I think you're wrong about the "modern-days morality". Peace wasn't invented in modern times and there had always been people searching for it. The middle ages wasn't 1000 years of every baby being given a greatsword upon reaching the age of three and thrown into a huge pit called Europe fighting their entire lives non-stop. No, not every person was a fanatic preaching about god and crucifying those who believed in other gods. If you play D&D just to kill everything that moves, that's fine; but being edgy doesn't make others' games fake nor wrong.
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
And those same natives slaughtered other natives who lived on those lands two or three centuries ago. Who also got hat land the same way. That's just how things went in premodern society - every nation for themselves and those who couldn't fend for themselves get eaten. And so is in most DnD worlds, except with more xenophobia, because others are not just different colour/religion/culture, they're entirely different species. When its kill or be killed hippies go extinct in one generation.
That’s the most absurdly incorrect set of statements I’ve ever read, and I’ve had to grade computer science students’ ethics papers.
I am begging you to read a good history book.
My statements, or Mezmerro's? If you meant Mezmerro, I thoroughly agree.
I don't think it is fair to pull an old quote from Gygax and say, "This is the way he would view the game now!" Especially since one of the things he always emphasized was that the way he played the game wasn't the way others would play it. He wanted people to make the game their own.
On the one hand I like more nuanced approach. It can lead to some interesting decisions by the party. For example in Out of the Abyss there is the colony of wererats that the party can either exterminate or recruit. It gives the players some choices.
On the other hand it can be really annoying when moral choices bog down game play. When introducing D&D to kids one of my daughter's friends did not want to kill anything. She wanted everything to be revealed as constructs after they destroyed it. It was really frustrating because the other kids were all into it and we had one player dragging their feet at every encounter. And then something snapped. It was like she suddenly realized this was all an organized version of 'lets play pretend' and she got into it. She became one of the most belligerent negotiators, sometimes causing fights when things could have actually gone a different direction.
And yet I think even the kids would get quickly bored it was all about killing everything and taking loot. I'm in favor of more nuanced play...as long as things don't get too bogged down.
I personally don't GM DnD, only play it, but I GM 40k RPG. In Dark Heresy GM is encouraged to show players the horrific results of mercy shown by them few sessions earlier to remind them that Inquisition is brutal and inhumane not y choice but by necessity. As both my DnD GMs started as my 40k players they carried that philosophy into their games, so most of the settings we play are rather grim and dark with gray and black morality. If you like noble-bright rainbow-and-hippies fantasy where people miraculously have modern-days morality in a setting way to dangerous to afford it, you do you, but after playing gritty realism for years it feels so fake I struggle to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
Wait, why is this an argument? Can't we just agree that if something attacks you it's okay to say that you can attack it, but if it doesn't you don't have to? Maybe it's better to ask if killing stuff is just an excuse to be a murder hobo. If a PC was playing a goblin character would the party then have to kill them? By them I mean the PC.
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
Yeah, but 40k is Grimdark and D&D is typically high fantasy. Totally different genres.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It kind of is, because of how it has been framed by the OP.
He has framed it all around concepts of good and evil. He has objected to any alternative point of view. Nothing in his post leads to the conclusion that you have there. His arguments are all "Goblins are all naturally evil, so it is not evil to kill them all".
Yeah, 40k is designed to be absurdly brutal to satirical levels. It is unrealistic in a different way.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
DnD used to be typically high fantasy, but the of the settings they released for 5e few actually qualify for typical High Fantasy, with notable shift into dark fantasy and dungeonpunk. THE setting for heroic high fantasy - Dragonlance - is yet to receive anything from WotC this edition.
I agree, this seems like a non-issue. D&D is literally what you as a tabletop group make it. If the DM rules that committing genocide (even against what sources identify as traditionally "evil" races) is not an act of a "good" alignment because they believe in the free will of every creature and don't want to condone such executions, that's the DM's call.
OR
If the DM decides to say that whole races are, in fact, considered "evil" and may be justifiably slaughter en mass, that's also OK because it's how the DM is ruling things.
Historically, civilizations have experienced divine edicts commanding them to commit genocide because of an offense that the other nation committed in the past. So it is historically appropriate. But if the DM is uncomfortable with that kind of playstyle, it's their table and they ultimately set the tone for how they want the game to go. There's nothing wrong with having a conversation if ur playstyle differs from theirs; but at the end of the day, they have the final say and if differences are irreconcilable, then players are always free to try to find a different table that is more to their liking, right?
Isn't that how that works? Why is this debate being continued?
Maybe people just like participating in dumpster fire threads
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
Lol fair, given the state of the nation rn and the world TBH
FR is the official setting of D&D and it is generally considered high fantasy. While yes, technically almost every D&D setting ever was technically “post-apocalyptic,” they are so far “post” that it circled back into high fantasy again. (If there are ruins of ancient civilizations and “long lost magic,” then those civilizations must have had their apocalypse at some point, which is how their magic was lost. I mean, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
(offtopic)It maye be just an Illusionist wizard(/offtopic)
And those same natives slaughtered other natives who lived on those lands two or three centuries ago. Who also got hat land the same way. That's just how things went in premodern society - every nation for themselves and those who couldn't fend for themselves get eaten. And so is in most DnD worlds, except with more xenophobia, because others are not just different colour/religion/culture, they're entirely different species. When its kill or be killed hippies go extinct in one generation.
Would you kill a PC playing a LG Goblin Cleric? I think not. It's more of a, if the Goblins attack you they are evil and you can attack them, thing.
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
I fail to see what you're trying to prove here.
That’s the most absurdly incorrect set of statements I’ve ever read, and I’ve had to grade computer science students’ ethics papers.
I am begging you to read a good history book.
That is perfectly fine too. Being merciful might come back at you just as murderhoboing would. The moment things happen as a result of your actions - good or bad - that's when it gets interesting.
However, I think you're wrong about the "modern-days morality". Peace wasn't invented in modern times and there had always been people searching for it. The middle ages wasn't 1000 years of every baby being given a greatsword upon reaching the age of three and thrown into a huge pit called Europe fighting their entire lives non-stop. No, not every person was a fanatic preaching about god and crucifying those who believed in other gods. If you play D&D just to kill everything that moves, that's fine; but being edgy doesn't make others' games fake nor wrong.
Varielky
My statements, or Mezmerro's? If you meant Mezmerro, I thoroughly agree.
They still lost, though.