Bulwark: Difference between revisions - Tabletop Gamer's Guild

Line 21:

The game of Dungeons and Dragons is inherently built around a number of regressive reactionary concepts, most notably the idea that there are objective good and evil, and the notion that some creatures are inherently so. I generally reject this, apart from creatures that are literally semi-sentient manifestations of concepts (demons, daemons, devils, angels, rakshasa, devas and qlippoths, for example). One of the reasons that goblins, orcs, gnolls and other sentient "monstrous" races are used as adversaries is that we, as humans, tend to view non-human things as ''other'' in a way that we find easy to handle. We don't have to focus overmuch on the ''nature'' of our battles with these creatures, because they're there for the purpose of being slain. Killing a goblin, to most players, seems to carry less moral weight even than killing a wolf or bear.

It isn't my goal to perpetuate the notion that these creatures are somehow permissible to murder, given that they are ''different'' (something explicitly suggested in early editions of the game, incidentally). Furthermore, I have always disliked the trope that "primitive" = "bad."

It isn't my goal to perpetuate the notion that these creatures are somehow permissible to murder, given that they are ''different'' (something explicitly suggested in early editions of the game, incidentally). Furthermore, I have always disliked the trope that "primitive" = "bad." However, games need adversaries, and gnolls, kobolds, trolls, goblins, ogres and the like are recognizable as such. By and large, their cultures will be treated as ''evil'' in the D&D sense, and they will be adversarial, although not every encounter should end in death. At the very least, it will have the sort of moral ambiguity one finds in a feudal world, wherein it is by might and show of arms that plunder and land are claimed from those too weak or foolish to defend it.

However, games need adversaries, and gnolls, kobolds, trolls, goblins, ogres and the like are recognizable as such. By and large, their cultures will be treated as ''evil'' in the D&D sense, and they will be adversarial. At the very least, it will have the sort of moral ambiguity one finds in a feudal world, wherein it is by might and show of arms that plunder and land are claimed from those too weak or foolish to defend it.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 The game of Dungeons and Dragons is inherently built around a number of regressive reactionary concepts, most notably the idea that there are objective good and evil, and the notion that some creatures are inherently so. I generally reject this, apart from creatures that are literally semi-sentient manifestations of concepts (demons, daemons, devils, angels, rakshasa, devas and qlippoths, for example). One of the reasons that goblins, orcs, gnolls and other sentient "monstrous" races are used as adversaries is that we, as humans, tend to view non-human things as ''other'' in a way that we find easy to handle. We don't have to focus overmuch on the ''nature'' of our battles with these creatures, because they're there for the purpose of being slain. Killing a goblin, to most players, seems to carry less moral weight even than killing a wolf or bear.
-It isn't my goal to perpetuate the notion that these creatures are somehow permissible to murder, given that they are ''different'' (something explicitly suggested in early editions of the game, incidentally). Furthermore, I have always disliked the trope that "primitive" = "bad."
+It isn't my goal to perpetuate the notion that these creatures are somehow permissible to murder, given that they are ''different'' (something explicitly suggested in early editions of the game, incidentally). Furthermore, I have always disliked the trope that "primitive" = "bad." However, games need adversaries, and gnolls, kobolds, trolls, goblins, ogres and the like are recognizable as such. By and large, their cultures will be treated as ''evil'' in the D&D sense, and they will be adversarial, although not every encounter should end in death. At the very least, it will have the sort of moral ambiguity one finds in a feudal world, wherein it is by might and show of arms that plunder and land are claimed from those too weak or foolish to defend it.
-However, games need adversaries, and gnolls, kobolds, trolls, goblins, ogres and the like are recognizable as such. By and large, their cultures will be treated as ''evil'' in the D&D sense, and they will be adversarial. At the very least, it will have the sort of moral ambiguity one finds in a feudal world, wherein it is by might and show of arms that plunder and land are claimed from those too weak or foolish to defend it.