5e

[Shadow Reaper]

I am a long time fan of D&D, playing on and off since about 1980. Over the years I have taken an interest and kept an eye on the changes, and been skeptical about many of them. I was playing during the "satanic panic" which was much more real a thing than players these days ever admit. In the late 70's I actually met a pair of kids who were later locked up because they decided to act out their fantasies, and gang raped their younger sister. It's absolutely true that left with no moral boundaries, D&D promotes the worst in a person. I often feel alone in my opinions on this matter.

Hence why I am so very disappointed with what has been done to the Paladin character. No change in the game has been so radical as to take the Holy Knight of Gary Gygax--easily the most powerful character designed into the game--and made it every form of evil. If you watch Critical Role or any of the other TTRPG games available online, you'll see one of the most striking things is there are never any "good" characters. None. There are plenty of Paladins to be sure, but players choose them exclusively so they can smite, and then refuse to play the parts of the character that hitting so hard and healing were designed around. I've watched more than 20 groups over the last few years, and not one of them includes a single good character. Why is that, I wonder? There are Clerics with no gods. Every group always includes a Warlock. No groups ever include even a single character committed to doing what is good, right and just.

I really like some of the changes over the years. The advantage/disadvantage game dynamic is an obvious improvement. I have to wonder though, how we got to the point we are at that simple morality is no longer a thing. Ethics has been discarded as too cumbersome to cope with. Monks used to be required to be lawful. Critical Role had their Monk dump acid down the throat of a sleeping guard for laughs--something that is as chaotic evil as can be. How did this happen?

While I'm asking about the changes in the game, I'll note one other thing, though it is not so much a change in the characters as a change in the players. I am enticed by the IceWind Dale setting since it is a survival setting, where players need to cope with the dangers of exposure each day. I grew up winter backpacking and know a great deal about such things. What I can tell you is there is a complete dearth of understanding about that mechanic. I've watched more than a dozen attempts at the FrostMaiden campaign, and not even a single DM understands simple exposure. I'm accustomed to observing players that don't understand climbing gear and can't pronounce "piton" correctly. Okay. Most players don't know a bridle from a yoke, nor how fast or far a mount can carry them. They don't understand any of the nuances of archery, nor swordplay, nor even how to cook. They can't tie a knot, so they can't explain what they're doing when handling rope. They can't sail, so are useless aboard ship. They can't ski, and in what is supposed to be a nordic setting, that's a serious problem. They all walk through several feet of snow everywhere they go and seldom have snowshoes, yet their DMs don't treat the terrain as difficult. They think sitting atop a 2-wheeled cart superior to riding horseback, this in every setting; which is utter madness. They presume they could pull 2,000 lbs of steel ingots 10 miles on a wheeled cart or wagon through 10' of fresh snow. I get it. They don't really understand the simplest real world analogs to the things they're portraying. I also get every one of these players is a candidate for a Donner Party type demise. (Despite what Wiki says, the cannibalism is well documented.) They navigate by map, on featureless terrain, with no access to the sun nor stars, nor a compass, nor any other aid, in and out of blinding whiteout conditions. This is stuff you would get lost by moving three feet off a guidance rope and die ten feet from your toilet. What I don't get is why their DMs can't be bothered to do a simple online search and figure out how these things work. So here is my second question: why are today's DMs so very much more inept than they were forty years ago? It's not like Boy Scouts don't play D&D.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

I am a long time fan of D&D, playing on and off since about 1980. Over the years I have taken an interest and kept an eye on the changes, and been skeptical about many of them. I was playing during the "satanic panic" which was much more real a thing than players these days ever admit. In the late 70's I actually met a pair of kids who were later locked up because they decided to act out their fantasies, and gang raped their younger sister. It's absolutely true that left with no moral boundaries, D&D promotes the worst in a person. I often feel alone in my opinions on this matter.

Hence why I am so very disappointed with what has been done to the Paladin character. No change in the game has been so radical as to take the Holy Knight of Gary Gygax--easily the most powerful character designed into the game--and made it every form of evil. If you watch Critical Role or any of the other TTRPG games available online, you'll see one of the most striking things is there are never any "good" characters. None. There are plenty of Paladins to be sure, but players choose them exclusively so they can smite, and then refuse to play the parts of the character that hitting so hard and healing were designed around. I've watched more than 20 groups over the last few years, and not one of them includes a single good character. Why is that, I wonder? There are Clerics with no gods. Every group always includes a Warlock. No groups ever include even a single character committed to doing what is good, right and just.

I really like some of the changes over the years. The advantage/disadvantage game dynamic is an obvious improvement. I have to wonder though, how we got to the point we are at that simple morality is no longer a thing. Ethics has been discarded as too cumbersome to cope with. Monks used to be required to be lawful. Critical Role had their Monk dump acid down the throat of a sleeping guard for laughs--something that is as chaotic evil as can be. How did this happen?

While I'm asking about the changes in the game, I'll note one other thing, though it is not so much a change in the characters as a change in the players. I am enticed by the IceWind Dale setting since it is a survival setting, where players need to cope with the dangers of exposure each day. I grew up winter backpacking and know a great deal about such things. What I can tell you is there is a complete dearth of understanding about that mechanic. I've watched more than a dozen attempts at the FrostMaiden campaign, and not even a single DM understands simple exposure. I'm accustomed to observing players that don't understand climbing gear and can't pronounce "piton" correctly. Okay. Most players don't know a bridle from a yoke, nor how fast or far a mount can carry them. They don't understand any of the nuances of archery, nor swordplay, nor even how to cook. They can't tie a knot, so they can't explain what they're doing when handling rope. They can't sail, so are useless aboard ship. They can't ski. They think 2 wheeled carts superior to riding horseback. They presume they could pull 2,000 lbs of steel ingots 10 miles on a small sled through 10' of fresh snow. I get it. They don't really understand the simplest real world analogs to the things they're portraying. What I don't get is why their DMs can't be bothered to do a simple online search and figure out how these things work. So here is my second question: why are today's DMs so very much more inept than they were forty years ago? It's not like Boy Scouts don't play D&D.

You keep talking about morality in media and ppl you watch and so on getting worse. Humans are Not inherently good beings. We are taught morality, we are not born with it. There's no such thing as objectively measurable morality. From my viewpoint yes, I agree it is shifting in the wrong direction. From someone else's viewpoint, it's okay because that's what they were taught is okay. Morality is a belief, you make up whatever you want. It's shifting into a "words hurt, but real violence is okay" territory. I don't like it either, but it will correct itself over time.

I never had the chance to play ttrpg-s, it just wasn't a thing in this part of the world.
That said, I really enjoy watching some ppl play, and come to think of it, I only saw one campaign where one guy chose a Paladin and followed through in being "good". I say "good" as in he was committed to serving his god and serving the law and what he believed was justice. This ended up with him siding with the supposedly evil leaders of a town, jailing, and then executing half the party. Even though they re-rolled, the whole campaign lasted like 5 sessions because of him. It was a fun and interesting twist of events that's for sure.
What I'm trying to say is, "good" in a ROLE playing Game depends on the point of view of the character, not us the viewers. He did what would be considered lawful good, while from the outside we saw him incarcerate his friends and execute them. A perfectly justified action from a holy lawabiding warrior, a totally hellish thing to do irl.
I also remember watching quiet a few episodes of some uk xbox channels crew playing, they were all over the place with their characters but they were mostly morally good, even ignoring their characters' alignment and going with what a normal person would do.

What I'm getting from a glimpse at some other larger channels is that they first and foremost want to have constant action, Content that Sells.
The age of heroes on the internet is over, has been for a while, what sells is edgy teenager levels of evil and anything beyond. They will ignore their "role" and just play for the laughs because that brings the clicks. Same goes for the DM's. If they bog down a game with "stupid details" like spending minutes calculating and arguing how far you can pull a sled in 10 inches of snow on a mountain, the pace dies. Viewers drop off. Frankly, I think those minutia would be fun while playing, but I have watched multiple hour long arguments about how many crocs a river can support on a small island and such nonsense. No one cares! It's boring AF to watch, just get on with it!

As to why is being evil so popular? Because being good is mundane. It's what's expected of you every day. It's boring as fuck! While boring AF is preferable in real life, especially if you are trying to be a real grown up, it's not entertaining, and certainly not fulfilling as escapism! Even if you don't want to do it yourself, you can now easily watch others do it for you.


TLDR.: We are hunters, killers, the top of the food chain, and we didn't get there just by flashing a smile at everything that comes at us. We always were, always will be.. Doing what you or I consider evil goes with being alive and staying that way. We can't do those things in real life. As such, playing it out as a fantasy is the easiest option with no risk and it doesn't hurt anyone. Whether through playing CoD or DnD, same thing.

Edit: oh and I never saw anyone play 5E rules, it's considered to be just cancer.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I can agree with most of that and won't quibble about each issue we might disagree on. I'll just single out one issue I would challenge you on.

I do not agree in any way that "There's no such thing as objectively measurable morality." That's a Post-Modernist belief that cannot withstand even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. It leads to all manner of absurdity. If you think about it, those who believe that cannot say that the genocide of the Nazis with their gas chambers was objectively evil; and I think we all know it was. There's no way around it. Post-Modernism relies upon a profound skepticism about the nature of truth itself, that you seem to adopt. Just saying, therein lies madness. You might want to do a little personal investigation on ethics in general. BTW, the rise of the Nazis gas chambers was a direct result of those people wrestling with Post-Modernism. The Nazis agreed with what you're saying completely. You can't believe in objective truth and morality and do the things the Nazis did. They did what they did because of their Post-Modern beliefs.

I think we could have a long discussion about the structure of story and how drama requires conflict. Drama does not require evil per se, but it does require conflict. Just noting that watching a character wrestle with the moral conflicts that arise when her supposed friends are doing evil creates great drama. Ethical theories find their test when we see a values conflict, and that's what you're describing. I certainly would not come to your conclusion about this, but then again, I still call evil what it is, and make no excuses for preferring it to good. I take the precise opposite view that you take. I think the best stories clearly portray loyalty, honor, duty, sacrifice, love and the cost of doing what is right. Stories that don't present these kinds of things bore me. People seeking their own good at the cost of everyone else is just evil doing what evil does, and THAT is boring.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

I can agree with most of that and won't quibble about each issue we might disagree on. I'll just single out one issue I would challenge you on.

I do not agree in any way that "There's no such thing as objectively measurable morality." That's a Post-Modernist belief that cannot withstand even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. It leads to all manner of absurdity. If you think about it, those who believe that cannot say that the genocide of the Nazis with their gas chambers was objectively evil; and I think we all know it was. There's no way around it. Post-Modernism relies upon a profound skepticism about the nature of truth itself, that you seem to adopt. Just saying, therein lies madness. You might want to do a little personal investigation on ethics in general. BTW, the rise of the Nazis gas chambers was a direct result of those people wrestling with Post-Modernism. The Nazis agreed with what you're saying completely. You can't believe in objective truth and morality and do the things the Nazis did. They did what they did because of their Post-Modern beliefs.

I think we could have a long discussion about the structure of story and how drama requires conflict. Drama does not require evil per se, but it does require conflict. Just noting that watching a character wrestle with the moral conflicts that arise when her supposed friends are doing evil creates great drama. Ethical theories find their test when we see a values conflict, and that's what you're describing. I certainly would not come to your conclusion about this, but then again, I still call evil what it is, and make no excuses for preferring it to good. I take the precise opposite view that you take. I think the best stories clearly portray loyalty, honor, duty, sacrifice, love and the cost of doing what is right. Stories that don't present these kinds of things bore me. People seeking their own good at the cost of everyone else is just evil doing what evil does, and THAT is boring.

So after writing and re-writing the post like 5 times, as I thought about you calling me nazi-adjecent lol, I clicked the button and I got an error message instead and lost the post. I'll rewrite what I remember.

Objective Truth, yes. I believe that too.
Objective Morality, yes but it's on a personal level. Not a global level. It's based on what you learn to be right or wrong.
A kid will happily torture an animal unless told that it's morally wrong to hurt others, including animals.

You believe you Know what is moral and what is not, and your knowledge is all encompassing, constant, unquestionable because you Know the objective truth at all times. So 'murican... lol
I believe I know what is moral and what is not, but I know I can't always know the objective truth to base my judgment on. I know that by learning more of the truth what I found morally right / wrong may become wrong / right. thus morality changes.

Ah yes, the Nazis, such an easy bait... Ofc they were evil. But how many ppl believed they were doing the right thing back than, based on the things they thought to be the truth? Including countries like the UK, and the USA...
Also, would you consider the slaughter and internment of Native Americans, basically holocaust pre-alpha, morally right? The invading europeans sure as hell did back then...
Doing the 40 or how ever many years of war in the mid east, is that still morally justifiable? I bet it was perfectly justifiable back then, teh alter it was absolutely after 911, but the millions of ppls lives turned into hell for a bit of oil and to keep the war machine going for so long.. is that still morally okay with you? I'm asking as I'm not following what's the official truth on this these days... There's still a whole section of earth that thinks it was morally wrong and 911 was morally right.... just saying, not agreeing with them, just an example.

Your own morality is your own based on what you learnt. It's not globally objective. It should be, but it isn't. We would still be in our caves though if it was though...

Morality on a global scale is hindsight.
Morality on a personal scale is learnt and ever changing. The issue is todays kids don't learn shit from their parents whom are too self absorbed to care and do actual parenting. The media is blasting them with morally ambiguous or outright evil "heroes" (Galadriel comes to mind as the latest one), while the government is making it even worse. So yeah, not a good outlook.
Personal responsibility is not a thing anymore, which I find unbelivalbe. How can anyhting work like this? I wrote about how I can't call out anyone at work when they fuck up and I get told about it, then I just get told to stfu, nobody is to blame. That shit doesn't fly with me. Never will.

I wrote a pretty long rant about how the west, and us here in the EU's eastern flank with it, are being pushed into the Cyberpunk Dystopia and I'm very much not happy about it to say the least. I'm also glad to live inwhat western media calls a "fascistic dictatorship" of a country where I can say or vote whatever I want without getting canceled or jailed, I own all my stuff incl house and cars and not the banks, and I get to eat steaks instead of bugs still. Well, when I can afford to, which is getting more and more rare.
I'm also not happy about having a fucking war right next door where a madman decided to unite the lost parts of his empire under the pretense of hunting nazis or whatever this weeks flavor text says.
I wonder if it will be morally justified that half of us here freeze to death cos the EU spent the gas money on weapons for Ukraine instead (and also banned us from buying extra gas reserves for winter, cos we can't have more than the others. And They call fascistic lol...) Unless this global warming thing comes through and we get a warm winter! Keep those coal plants burning Hans, we need more CO2 for that greenhouse effect!

Anyways, I spent waay too long on this. I'll tell you this much, unlike in some "superior" western countires, I'm still alowed to take personal responsibility for my kids, and I can teach em whatever I know as right and just. This includes teaching them how the OG Star Wars is right, and how the new ones are evil.
Make of that what you will.
If my differing world view, and being in love with a jewish girl once, makes me Hitler reincarnate, then so be it. lol



Oh and the drama stuff, I agree as in it doesn't need evil for conflict. I didn't mean that I myself enjoy the stuff I wrote, I meant the global audience thinks that way. Evil sells better. Why is that? cos of read above, lack of responsibility, death of traditional values, purging of Christianity, killing the nuclear family model... you said it yourself already plenty of times. You are not wrong on that at all.
They want what you don't, and they bring in the numbers, that brings in the sponsors, so they get catered for, regardless of morality. Greed is the way! (ofc I do not condone such thinking, but that's how it is, thus you get bored, and I don't watch it either. I keep finding new up-and coming small youtubers who stay true to themselves, or larger ones that present things factually as best as they can)

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I didn't call you "Nazis adjacent" nor anything else. I offered the standard response to the notion that morality is relative, which is to show an example we can all agree is immoral. I did not make up the illustration of the Nazis death camps. You can find it in any philosophy text on ethics.

We all agree that the Nazis genocide is evil because morality is not relative. Moral values are objective. Our apprehension of them is flawed, so at certain times and places people will en mass move to do immoral things. One of the keys to large groups of people doing things they know are horrible, is for that group to first start acting as if truth is not an objective thing. Hence we speak of "my truth" and "your truth" and "his truth" instead of "the truth". These are sure signs of the depravity to come. We are headed down the same path as the Nazis. These are Post-Modernist beliefs that the Nazis held, and that are increasingly being adopted across Western Civilization today. As a result, we see the loss of tolerance and growth of perversion both at once. People are far less kind, but try harder to appear kind. They are far less tolerant, but work hard to appear more tolerant. These are all things that are the natural results of lack of humility, and failure to grasp truth; especially but not limited to truth about right and wrong. It is not only that people are arrogant yet failing to grasp truth--they are failing to see it as an objective thing to be grasped. It should terrify us all when this happens.

BTW, this dynamic is in my opinion a much more plausible reason why we no longer have Paladins. The powers that be don't want us to have examples of Holy Knights nor holy anything else, because that facilitates against the narrative that truth is relative. People who believe morality is relative are easy to control. Conversely people who believe in right and wrong are terrifying to those who do wrong.

Bad men are easy to predict and manipulate. Good men are impossible to predict--they're liable to do anything at any moment. Good men terrify bad men.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

I didn't call you "Nazis adjacent" nor anything else. I offered the standard response to the notion that morality is relative, which is to show an example we can all agree is immoral. I did not make up the illustration of the Nazis death camps. You can find it in any philosophy text on ethics.

We all agree that the Nazis genocide is evil because morality is not relative. Moral values are objective. Our apprehension of them is flawed, so at certain times and places people will en mass move to do immoral things. One of the keys to large groups of people doing things they know are horrible, is for that group to first start acting as if truth is not an objective thing. Hence we speak of "my truth" and "your truth" and "his truth" instead of "the truth". These are sure signs of the depravity to come. We are headed down the same path as the Nazis. These are Post-Modernist beliefs that the Nazis held, and that are increasingly being adopted across Western Civilization today. As a result, we see the loss of tolerance and growth of perversion both at once. People are far less kind, but try harder to appear kind. They are far less tolerant, but work hard to appear more tolerant. These are all things that are the natural results of lack of humility, and failure to grasp truth; especially but not limited to truth about right and wrong. It is not only that people are arrogant yet failing to grasp truth--they are failing to see it as an objective thing to be grasped. It should terrify us all when this happens.

BTW, this dynamic is in my opinion a much more plausible reason why we no longer have Paladins. The powers that be don't want us to have examples of Holy Knights nor holy anything else, because that facilitates against the narrative that truth is relative. People who believe morality is relative are easy to control. Conversely people who believe in right and wrong are terrifying to those who do wrong.

Bad men are easy to predict and manipulate. Good men are impossible to predict--they're liable to do anything at any moment. Good men terrify bad men.

Fair enough. That's a simple enough explanation even I could follow and mostly agree with.
Look I never had a philosophy class, and English isn't my first language. I believe we are agreeing on something just not the same way.

I do agree with your observations and conclusion though, even if I don't get there the same way. I often think we are living out the "fall of Rome" again. This is not the forum to go into detail over that though.
Btw I just had some fun with the Nazi-adjecent thing, it's what is trendy to call ppl who still have their values intact to try and vilify them. The word has been watered down so much over the last couple of years, it's hard to take it seriously anymore (which is a serious problem in itself, but again, that's politics...)



Interesting point about the Paladins. The push against Christianity probably has something to do with being holy anything is considered a bad look these days. It's sad really.
From what I've seen on youtube the ttrpg players are more about serving their audience more than they are about following a role they think is right, but I can see your reasoning is probably a large part of it as well.

I usually play a Paladin in every RPG that has one, or the closest thing to it, because I find the general idea appealing to me the most. The clear sense of purpose, serving for the good, and helping (healing) aspects. It's an uncomplicated, no nonsense class I feel comfortable with. Also they usually have the heaviest armor and big shiny weapons, I'd be lying if I said those are not part of my choice, but that just goes with the territory. You need a big sledge to cave in all those skeleton heads!

For exampIe I played WoW for over 14 years, and I stuck with my dwarf Paladin healer, even though it was one of the weakest classes throughout most of it and probably the most boring to play (you spent most of your time waiting for autoattacks to land instead of pushing buttons).
It just made more sense than playing a rogue or warlock fighting against the evil demon hordes.
I know I know, WoW is one of the worst examples kinda where you keep slaughtering innocent pigs for guts so you can turn those in for a quest reward and other horrible things, but that was not the point of playing a paladin. All players had to do that. The point was the versatility in dungeons in helping out with taking hits when the tank was down, healing up the party when there was no priest (or druid), curing poisons and other ill effects and removing crowd control, and ensuring everybody could do their best. Meanwhile the high armor and health meant you could take the punishment when others couldn't. All the while there was no doubt why your class would do these things, it's a holy paladin, fighting evil. Simple and straightforward.
Then they introduced Horde side Paladins and started retconning the Horde (orks, trolls, undead...) into being actually the victims and the good guys. It was terrible writing, still ongoing...


Question:
That said, I do see a trend even in myself when I play games to choose the easier path when allowed to, even if it means doing something we would consider wrong. It's a game, I have less and less time to get to the end, I sometimes will choose to hurry up and just get on with it, even if it means killing some NPC who did nothing wrong. I chalk this up to the increasingly rushing modern world, changing priorities that come with growing up and having a family, and that I've seen it all before. Most games can't provide anything new, they can't make me care for the characters, and I see less and less of a reason to go the often longer and more tedious "good guy" route. The rewards for the right thing are getting less and less with every new game that comes out. And by rewards I don't just mean loot, but story-wise as well. You'd expect to be rewarded for being the good buy, but they often subvert those expectations and the ending , the reward, is still something bad happening.

Do you think this trend of "less rewards for being good" a real thing, or is it a consequence of me playing all the RPG PC games since the 90s and getting burnt out?

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Do you think this trend of "less rewards for being good" a real thing, or is it a consequence of me playing all the RPG PC games since the 90s and getting burnt out?

I dunno. I haven't seen anyone play a good character in years. Certainly, there are none in Icewind Dale. BTW, the proliferation of deliberately evil characters is just as telling. Look at Critical Role. Certainly they are playing to the audience, just as you suggest. They're very successful at it. Years ago they landed about $14M in a crowdfunding campaign, so I think it's fair to call them "professional D&D players". They're all voice actors from Hollywood, and they really put on a great show. Their DM is super-skilled and has become the single person for all game masters to compare against. Matt Mercer is brilliant, and a great benchmark for just how great one can be at the game. Does he reward evil more than good? There's no way to tell. In three campaigns spread out over most of a decade, there has never been a single good character. Even the Paladin portrayed by Travis Willingham for several years, was thoroughly evil. He started out evil as a Warlock, transferred to a Paladin to pick up the skills and made no character adjustments, and when he retired the character it rode off into the sunset to become a pirate. Evil from start to finish. With guests, Critical Role has portrayed 20+ characters in depth, and none of them are good. Currently they have an undead character in the group.

The worst element of this high mark in 5e (Critical Role) is that the players ascribe commitments to their characters they could not possibly have. None of them are trustworthy, but they trust each other because if they didn't there would be no game. This kind of meta-gaming is ubiquitous today, because each player wants the freedom to act however they like with no consequences, and that's what is being portrayed--evil, with none of the consequences of evil and all of the benefits of good. This is my essential objection--the role playing is as bad as it could be, because there are no consequences to evil. In Campaign 2, when the Monk poured acid down the throat of a sleeping guard, what were the consequences? None. She did that in her home town, and the party was caught in action, and there were no consequences.

So this isn't empty moralizing--it goes to the most injured parts of the game and why DMs and players alike need to start roleplaying real morality instead of infant-ethics that make no sense.

 

[Sky Captain]

An interesting topic. I used to wonder if the failure of 'good' aligned D&D character development stemmed from dungeon masters failing to set up fun stories in which those traits could meaningfully play out. Did straight up 'good' roles somehow become 'same old' and boring? But, watching this trend over the years, I concluded that its not just been about that. The advent of evil has been propelled as much or more with games, films, and comics all looking to distinguish themselves from older incarnations by creating new brands in the market by experimenting with the 'anti-hero'. That the role of 'good' becomes muddled as we grow to enjoy the anti-heroes on-screen is the end result. Arguably its creating new 'room' for a return to the traditional paladin again though I think.

 

[Thalstan]

First off off, our personal definitions of good and evil greatly depend on a person’s point of view and the truth as they see it. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was described as the Evil Empire by a sitting US president. I am sure the Soviets felt similar about the US, and from their point of view, they were probably justified in that belief. After all, the people in both countries had incomplete pictures of the other, in addition to being told lies or exaggerated tales about the other by media, government, and business leaders. (Both sides). In Star Wars, Vader probably don’t feel like he and the empire are bad. They have taken a system that was broken and struggling and fixed it and brought order to Chaos. Yes, even Grand Moff Tarkin may not be wholly evil, because he was trying to bring about the swiftest end to the rebellion he could. Again, points of view matter.

in D&D, as well as many other games, it is felt that Min Maxing is more important than role playing, because the game now demands it. Make a check for this, make a check for that. Is this with advantage or disadvantage? Much of this is because the game was adapted to be more friendly to computer designers and make a lot of the role playing something that could be quantified into a roll of the dice.

I have played D&D and other RPGs (and MMORPGs) since the mid 80s. I have seen some of the changes that you mentioned, but I have seen players play “good” characters as well. We had one player that played a cleric In one game and a Monk in another. In both cases, this person took their share of the treasures obtained and used that to do “good”. In one instance, they started trade schools in the poorer parts of town, arranged for training and encouragement of artisans, set up facilities for a trade route, funded libraries, secured resources, etc., so that what was once a poor town now became a center of enlightenment. His only payback was a repayment of the initial funds used to start a business. and then the business would need to provide 10 percent of their net profit to the temple elders, and took not a copper for himself. In another, he setup a monk temple and brought in priests (clerics) of his order. Part of the training of any student was for them to go help the townsfolk. He also,paid top coin for local supplies. He setup a system to help those in need, and ensured his temple had sufficient supplies to provide for the town in an emergency. In this same group. We had paladins who were exactly as you said…only doing it to min max. The differences between those characters were astounding, but one players actions was what allowed the players to remain as other actions would have gotten them kicked out Of town.

I think if you start telling stories and let the dice help, rather than drive the game, you will have people that can play a good character.

 

[Sirus7264]

Walls of text.... here is an owl for a break @Blind Owl

 

[Blind Owl]

Walls of text.... here is an owl for a break @Blind Owl

I resemble this!