Dungeonomicon

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Username17 »

Gervan wrote:How do you reconcile this idea with, for example, The Illiad, in which Homer pretty clearly praises the Greeks for killing or enslaving all the Trojans.


He doesn't. Homer's Iliad ens with the death and funeral of Hector (a Trojan), which is itself a tragic note. The burning of the city and possible genocide/enslavement/scattering of the citizens is foreshadowed heavily, but not even chronicled let alone praised.

And that's the deal. You can enslave everyone in a city if you want. But if you actually kill everyone in the city, you don't even talk about it.

But that is also part of my problem: isn't the genocidal character a pretty standard "revenge for my family" adventurer? Shouldn't that be playable without being evil?


D&D conveniently has groups that it is OK to commit genocide upon for that very purpose. The Ilithid, the Vampires, the Werewolves, and the Tanar'ri are all homophagus and as close to irredeemable as makes no odds.

You can declare your character's goal to be the elimination of those races and old women in taverns will attempt to dissuade you only with statements like "It's not right for a hansome young man like you to court death like that." which you can laugh/shrug/grunt/smile self depracatingly in response to as befits your heroic idiom.

But the days of "I'm going to kill all the orcs because I really hate orcs being a valid character concept are long over - even for evil characters nine times out of ten. The Orcs are people, and the end of any story that involves the destruction of an Orc tribe is the feast at the end of the funeral for the greatest champion of that Orc tribe. Even if that story is written by Elves.

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by User3 »

Could someone please explain how the thief acrobat is in the same boat as the jester, since both get hosts of nifty abilities, but the latter gains spellcasting on top of them?
Endovior
Knight-Baron
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Endovior »

Well, that's the trick.

The Theif-Acrobat is a better Rogue, while the Jester is a Bard-ish type. The two don't directly compare.
FrankTrollman wrote:We had a history and maps and fucking civilization, and there were countries and cities and kingdoms. But then the spell plague came and fucked up the landscape and now there are mountains where there didn't used to be and dragons with boobs and no one has the slightest idea of what's going on. And now there are like monsters everywhere and shit.
User avatar
Cielingcat
Duke
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Cielingcat »

The Thief Acrobat isn't actually a better Rogue. They get some neat abilities, but they have less skills, delayed Sneak Attack, and pre-set Skill Mastery that doesn't include Use Magic Device. They also can't get "take any feat ever" or whatever other abilities are worth taking. The Thief Acrobat is your traditional thief, while the Rogue is the guy who whips out a Staff of Whatever and tricks it into thinking he's a high level Wizard. However, the Thief Acrobat is a cooler Rogue.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by User3 »

Frank: according to the best place for a swashbuckler class being here (despite RoW needing to be released), couldn't it just be indeed put here? It surely would be noticed quickly (especially with AlphaNerd updating his PDF).
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Catharz »

Isn't Fighter a swashbuckling class?
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by User3 »

I have to admit the best answer I have is: is it? It surely doesn't do everything swashbucklers ought to do: which leads me to a heinous idea: fighter/jester or fighter/thief-acrobat come close to being it (unfortuantely, the former has the everpresent multicaster problem). Still, I went from their own quotes, which were about they already having ideas for a swashbuckler (Maybe they went to the fighter; who knows?).
Amra
Knight
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Amra »

Hello everyone, and before I begin could I just say "Thanks for existing"... this place is the spiritual home I never knew I was missing. I'm starting to adjust, but it's still a little disconcerting to read through a thread without seeing:

1) "No sane DM would allow <thing I disagree with>"
2) "You're accusing me of something I never said / making a straw man argument" (Translation: I did say it, either because of poor writing or because I am a genuine dumbass, but now I'm going to do a pointless half-assed job of pretending that you've misinterpreted my cacky writing)
3) "You're a powergamer and ipso facto cannot roleplay"
4) "You believe in good roleplaying and ipso facto are missing the point of D&D / should be playing something else / are spoiling the fun for people / cannot develop a decent character"
5) Ur dumba$$ im DM al my friends say I r00lz
6) Fighters are just as good as wizards because a buck-naked 20th-level Wizard in a dungeon with no equipment or spells memorised isn't good at very much (unless he is)

...however, I think I'll manage.

As to the article I'm commenting on (stick to the point, man!) I'd like to say, firstly, "Wow". Just, like, wow. How's that for coherence? Excellent writing, fantastic concepts. Love it to bits. I couldn't be more in love with your description of Myconids; that's a piece of writing of which I am truly envious!

But (and there had to be a 'but', didn't there?) I have a few questions:

Spell Resistance: where did you find the rules for that? In particular, the rules on stacking from multiple sources. The SRD says:

"Spell resistance does not stack. It overlaps."

You posit a complicated mechanic for stacking spell resistance so I presume there's another source that overrules the description in the SRD.

Spellbooks. You say: "In reality all spells copied by powerful wizards are created with the secret page spell. That spell allows you to "hide" whatever is on a page with any writing you want – even (specifically) spells."

This is not so, or at least, doesn't look like it to me. The Secret Page spell description states:

"Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell." (Emphasis mine)

The grammatical horripilance of that latter sentence aside, it doesn't say that anything other than the text of a spell can be changed to display a spell. There's nothing in the FAQ clarifying this and I can't find an answer on the Wizards site. So as far as I can tell, you still need to have - for instance - 7 pages of cantrips as a minimum to overwrite with a single 7th-level spell. Thus, the notional cost of owning a spellbook wouldn't change at all...

Of course, in reality, you'd just find yourself some first-level wizards and kick the crap out of them for their "free" spellbooks (containing all known cantrips) and just use Secret Page over the top. However that's less elegant and will eventually get a big can o' whup-ass emptied onto your head by some Wizard College that resents their undergraduates getting robbed blind.

I'm presuming that I'm missing something, so where did you get this particularly neat trick from, and what backs it up?

Wizards learning Cleric spells.

"As written, a Wizard can learn a spell from any spellbook page or scroll she has deciphered."

Not so, at least not that I can see. I totally follow the argument that a Wizard can scribe a spell "from any source" into their spellbooks, which is fine.

What the text around learning spells actually says is:

1) "A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook"

This is not logically equivalent to "A Wizard can prepare any spell that is in her spellbook", nor can I find that sentence anywhere. The fact that a spell must be in your spellbook before you can learn it does not mean that you are able to learn the spell because it is in your spellbook.

Consider the Wizard who has lost a level or two and thus the ability to learn spells of a particular level. S/he has still "understood" them and transcribed them into a spellbook, but cannot prepare and cannot cast them.

Of course, one of the things that makes such a discussion ugly is the apparent conflation of "learn" and "understand", which seem to be used interchangeably in the text on spell preparation and arcane writings. This is further compounded by the conflation of "prepare" and "learn".

As a result, it's possible to argue that the Wizard could, in fact, "learn" these spells... but that's not the same as being able to cast them.

"Deciphering a page or scroll is a spellcraft check that, among other things, tells you whether it is arcane or divine."

Yup.

"That means that under the rules as written, a Wizard can take Cleric Scrolls and copy them into her spellbook"

Looks that way.

" and then they become Wizard spells of the same level."

I don't see why. Again, I might be missing something, but the Rules As Written do not appear to state that transcribing something you understand into your spellbook automatically turns it into a Wizard spell that you can prepare and cast.

You also say "Many DMs put in the additional restriction that to learn a spell it must be Arcane, or even that it must be a Sor/Wiz spell." No, they don't, assuming that by "learn" you mean "prepare and be able to cast" it's right slap bang there in the core rules: "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." It even appears in several different places, for great justice...

Even if your case is made for the Wizard being able to "learn" (assuming "learn" is the same thing as "prepare") divine spells, s/he couldn't cast them. Now wouldn't *that* be a royal pain in any extremity you care to mention?

The point about Naga is interesting, but doesn't appear to hold water: the creature description states "The cleric spells and domain spells are considered arcane spells for a [type] naga", (emphasis mine) which is not functionally or logically equal to "are considered arcane spells", full stop, and certainly not equal to "are considered arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list".

Not terribly important as you point out that the best way to cast Cleric spells is to be a Cleric, but in a generally fabulous article I thought a couple of niggles were worth pointing out, even if it's just so's I get an almighty smackdown and a direction to read the right sources!

You guys possess ALL the awesome, so much awesome that there's no awesome left for anything else, and I'm going to make my players read your chapter on languages at gunpoint if necessary because it explains why I run things the way I do so much more eloquently than I've ever managed!
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Username17 »

You posit a complicated mechanic for stacking spell resistance so I presume there's another source that overrules the description in the SRD.


What we did is back-figured the changes in Spell Resistance from those creatures which do stack spell resistance (some SR stacks, others does not in the basic rules), and then made a couple of best-fit curves and used the one which was least broken mechanically. Once we had a relatively non-broken curve we fiatted that it should simply work like that every time you had multiple sources of SR.

The grammatical horripilance of that latter sentence aside, it doesn't say that anything other than the text of a spell can be changed to display a spell.


By that logic, only a map can be turned into a treatise on burning ebony walking sticks. It's an example. The effect is:

"Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different."

Examples of inputs and outputs follow, but it is folly to believe that the specific inputs in the examples are required for the specific outputs in those examples.

---

Not that it matters of course, since you can layer secret pages on the same page. If you seriously required a spellbook page to make a spellbook page you could still take the one page of mend and cast secret page on it over and over again so that multiple command words could cycle it through the entirety of cloudkill.

As a result, it's possible to argue that the Wizard could, in fact, "learn" these spells... but that's not the same as being able to cast them.


You can argue a number of things. It is quite true that the statement "A Wizard can only cast spells she knows" is not logically equivalent to the statement "A wizard can cast spells she knows."

There are indeed a number of restrictions on what a wizard can prepare and cast. She needs to have he spell in her spellbook. She needs to have a sufficient Intelligence. She needs to have an open spell slot, and so on and so forth. However, having the spell appear on the Wizard spell list is not actually a requirement of preparing or casting spells - which is why a Wizard can research new spells that do not appear on any list.

-Username17
Amra
Knight
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Amra »

FrankTrollman wrote:[
What we did is back-figured the changes in Spell Resistance from those creatures which do stack spell resistance (some SR stacks, others does not in the basic rules), and then made a couple of best-fit curves and used the one which was least broken mechanically. Once we had a relatively non-broken curve we fiatted that it should simply work like that every time you had multiple sources of SR.


Mmmm, nice. Science: I like science!

By that logic, only a map can be turned into a treatise on burning ebony walking sticks. It's an example.


Actually, having now read the original spell text rather than the garbled SRD description I posted, I agree. Sorry to waste your time on that one...

Not that it matters of course, since you can layer secret pages on the same page. If you seriously required a spellbook page to make a spellbook page you could still take the one page of mend and cast secret page on it over and over again so that multiple command words could cycle it through the entirety of cloudkill.


"You are able to reveal the original contents by speaking a special word. You can then peruse the actual page, and return it to its secret page form at will."

The command word reveals "the original contents", not any other Secret Page spells that may have been layered, and you can then peruse "the actual page", not "another Secret Page".

Of course, this means that Secret Page is an automatic counter for Secret Page, because if you layer it over another caster's casting, saying your own command word will reveal the original contents, not the other caster's Secret Page.

Hmmm... how silly.

Actually, again, I've just noticed that this is a discrepancy between the SRD copy I'm holding locally and the PHB spell text, which says:

"The caster is able to reveal the original contents by speaking a command word, perusing the actual page, and then returning it to its secret page form. The caster can also remove the spell by double repetition of the command word."

This is entirely different to my first quote and I wholeheartedly both retract my objection and curse whoever did the transcription of the copy of the spell I was using.

You can argue a number of things. It is quite true that the statement "A Wizard can only cast spells she knows" is not logically equivalent to the statement "A wizard can cast spells she knows."


Heheh...

However, having the spell appear on the Wizard spell list is not actually a requirement of preparing or casting spells - which is why a Wizard can research new spells that do not appear on any list.


No, a Wizard can research new spells that don't appear on any list because the rules specifically state that a Wizard can do that. Whether or not the Wizard can then *cast* a spell that has been researched is not described, but we assume s/he can or they wouldn't have bothered. Whether or not that spell then appears on "the Sorceror/Wizard spell list" is another question and you can likewise assume anything you like because the rules don't describe it...

Making the assumption that the character can't do something because the rules don't say they can is not functionally the same as assuming that a character can do something merely because the rules don't say they can't! I tend to be more wary of the latter than the former.

You are choosing to assume that Wizards can use this ability to learn and cast Cleric spells, which is fine, but it doesn't say that they can in the rules. It doesn't say they can't either, true enough. It seems to me *more* reasonable to say that a Wizard can learn and cast a spell they have researched even though that spell doesn't appear on any list than to say that they can learn and cast a Cleric spell from a divine scroll: a spell that exists but explicitly does not appear on the Wizard list. However, that's how it seems to me; the rules don't actually say that you can or can't do either!

The rules do explicitly say that Wizards cast arcane spells. The rules do not say that Wizards can cast divine spells, and they don't even suggest that spells copied from divine scrolls become arcane spells.

I think if I have trouble with your otherwise marvellous posts and great advice, it's that I sometimes (note: sometimes) find it difficult to tell from the text whether you're:

1) making a definitive assertion on something that's explicitly written into the rules/FAQ/errata/official clarification, or;

2) you've calculated or extrapolated something yourself that's implicitly in the rules and logically *must* be there somewhere (vide the spell resistance metric), or;

3) you're making assumptions that make sense to you and are logically consistent with the rest of the picture you present but aren't necessarily supported by the rules, or;

4) you are deliberately and with intent flatly contradicting the rules in order to replace them with something better and more consistent

That said, I'm entirely prepared to believe that it's just me, and that my language comprehension skills have been rotted away by years of reading corporate drivel!

Anyway, whether any criticism I have made is even remotely justified or not, my general feeling is: :bow:


EDIT: It occurs that the entire point of the "nomicon" series might be to spell it out like it should be rather than how it is, in which case that last set of comments is pretty redundant :blush:
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Starmaker »

Dear Mr Frank and Mr K,

I haven't really seriously considered running D&D as something beyond a dungeon-crawling minigame, but you have given me renewed hope. Which brings me to the question:

Since lots of people in my country are unfortunately bereft of the ability to peruse your magnificent works as they are, can I translate them into my native language and post them online? (Giving full credits of course.)

Because, seriously, some of them behave as if D&D originated not when Gary Gygax decided to add wizards to Chainmail, but when a LARPer got sick and couldn't attend. They even have an idiotic term for "character background", which makes me very sad. Others are reasonable people, though, and I do want to enlighten them, not to mention bring some good news to my own gaming table.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by tzor »

Generally speaking one can argue that LARPs developed from role playing games not vice versa. However one can argue that the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) which started in 1966 predates table top role playing games.

(Side note, where I live I get a lot events from the SCA from my public radio station and it wierds me out. They are referring to the Standford Center for the Arts.)

Role playing evolved from war gaming. Back in the early 80's the infamous steam tunnel incident gave live action a real black eye in the eyes of many table top role players because we were constantly explaining to others that we weren't running around like crazy idiots in steam tunnels.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Bigode »

Starmaker, what's your native language? Should it be Portuguese, I might help (at least assuming permission is given).
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Starmaker at [unixtime wrote:1184860827[/unixtime]]They even have an idiotic term for "character background", which makes me very sad.


Can you please tell us the term and best translation, should be good for a laugh. :D
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Username17 »

We're completely OK with having our works translated into any language. I'm still pleased as punch that my old Necromunda Tactics articles got translaed into French.

-Username17
Captain_Bleach
Knight-Baron
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Captain_Bleach »

If you're lucky enough, you could get noticed and possibly hired to be a professional game designer. If you are, I am sorry for my lack of research.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Bigode »

Bleach: do you mean hire Frank? If yes, look in page 4.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Captain_Bleach
Knight-Baron
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Captain_Bleach »

I just remembered! Thank you for reminding me!
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Starmaker »

Bigode wrote:Starmaker, what's your native language? Should it be Portuguese, I might help (at least assuming permission is given).

Thank you for the offer, but, unfortunately, we can't help each other - I'm Russian. But the good news are we have permission!

Draco_Argentum wrote:Can you please tell us the term and best translation, should be good for a laugh. :biggrin:


Well, the word itself is quite okay, if used in a proper context. That's "quenta". No, we're not playing Lord of the Rings (and I specifically checked, the folks at Decipher call character background "character background"). Yeah, immortal Elves in Middle-earth sing songs about 1st level characters stabbing Faerunian elves in the face. These folks are #1 on my Annoying Top 10 list, followed by those who shout Harry Potter-esque spell names in combat.

FrankTrollman wrote:We're completely OK with having our works translated into any language. I'm still pleased as punch that my old Necromunda Tactics articles got translaed into French.

Thank you. I, in turn, will try to do your magnificent work justice and not mess up the translation.
norms29
Master
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by norms29 »

The part in the empiranomicon about the Kuo-Toa has been bugging me for months. does the 'dying race' motif in any way derive from a TSR product or is it something Frank made up because there was nothing interesting to say about them? Because I don't have anything in my D&D liberary to say conclusively.
After all, when you climb Mt. Kon Foo Sing to fight Grand Master Hung Lo and prove that your "Squirrel Chases the Jam-Coated Tiger" style is better than his "Dead Cockroach Flails Legs" style, you unleash a bunch of your SCtJCT moves, not wait for him to launch DCFL attacks and then just sit there and parry all day. And you certainly don't, having been kicked about, then say "Well you served me shitty tea before our battle" and go home.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Catharz »

norms29 at [unixtime wrote:1188533406[/unixtime]] does the 'dying race' motif in any way derive from a TSR product or is it something Frank made up because there was nothing interesting to say about them?


Yes, that's the D&D cannon for Kuo-toa. Much like the lizard men, except with the lizard people it seems to have been downplayed or ignored.

On the other hand, Frank did go beyond any of the D&D material I've seen, and made them rather more explicitly Cthulhuanian than I've seen. I don't think there was a mention of Blibdoolpoolp, although I haven't read it recently.
norms29
Master
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by norms29 »

Really? What books/modules should I look to for more on this?
After all, when you climb Mt. Kon Foo Sing to fight Grand Master Hung Lo and prove that your "Squirrel Chases the Jam-Coated Tiger" style is better than his "Dead Cockroach Flails Legs" style, you unleash a bunch of your SCtJCT moves, not wait for him to launch DCFL attacks and then just sit there and parry all day. And you certainly don't, having been kicked about, then say "Well you served me shitty tea before our battle" and go home.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Username17 »

AD&D Fiend Folio, page 57, (c) 1979 wrote:The ancient kuo-toa people once inhabited the shores and islands of the upper world, but as the race of mankind and its associate species grew more and more numerous and more powerful, the 'men-fish" were slowly driven to remote regions. Continual warfare upon these evil, human-sacrificing creatures threatened to exterminate the species, for a number of powerful beings were aiding their sworn enemies - mankind. Some kuo-toans sought refuge in sea caverns and secret subterranean waters, and while their fellows above were being slaughtered, these few prospered and developed new characteristics to match their lightless habitats. However, the seas contained other fierce and evil creatures with designs of their own, and the deep-dwelling kuo-toans were eventually wiped out leaving only those in the underworld to carry on the species.

...

Now the kuo-toans are haters of sunlight and are almost never encountered on the surface of the earth. This, and their inborn hatred of discipline, prevent the resurgence of these creatures, for they have become numerous and once again and have gained new powers. However, they have also become somewhat unstable, and insanity is not uncommon amongst the species.


It's pretty weird in places. How can their resurgence be prevented if they have become numerous? But you get the idea. The original kuo-toa were very much a dying race driven to the edge of extinction and the ends of the world.

-Username17
Captain_Bleach
Knight-Baron
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Captain_Bleach »

I have a question about D&D, pertaining to Dungeons.
Even though the d20 system is supposed to be a "versatile" game, what kind of "play style" did the developers of 3E have in mind? On one hand, it appears that they wish to inject moral debates and philosophies (good, evil, law, chaos), yet the game is about looting dungeons and corpses, and "Good" characters are frequently close-minded and genocidal, such as Greyhawk's Pholtus? Seriously, what kind of game do the developers want to make?
So is the game about Dungeon Delving for riches and selfish pursuits, or is it about spreading an easily misinterpreted and contradictory moral absolute by killing those who conflict with your views, i.e. the typical adventuring Cleric/Paladin?
OR... Is it about justifying selfish and barbaric (by our standards) behavior by using "alignment" to back it up?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeonomicon

Post by Username17 »

3rd edition was pretty much designed with the backdrop of the adventures starting with The Sunless Citadel and proceeding through with The Forge of Fury, The Speaker in Dreams, The Standing Stone, Heart of Nightfang Spire, Deep Horizon, and Lord of the Iron Fortress.

The idea is that the characters would basically wander around like hobos and then big Evil dudes would start some shit for no damn reason and then the PCs would hulk out and take the homes of the evil-doers apart board and nail and Greyhawk everything of value. That you wouldn't genocide a village of goblins for no reason - you'd do it because they were slightly inconveniencing a village of humans you happened to be staying in.

In short, the morality is pretty much what you see in the books of the late Renaisance. Jews, or orcs, or whatever will start some shit for no reason and as the "heroes" it is your responsibility to steal all their swag and possibly kill all their grown men.

-Username17
Post Reply