PDA

View Full Version : Goin' right to Hell.



TimeWizard
2007-10-11, 10:30 PM
It occured to me, and probably all of you, and probably all your friends, that PCs are goin' right to hell. How many times can you get away with slaughtering "usually chaotic evil" cave dwellers and taking their stuff? Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore? By the end of one campaign PCs are practically the four horsemen. Destabalizing empires, summoning demons, deliberately meddling in extra-planar events, and even dei-i-cide. Help me ease my Jimminy Cricket... why aren't all of our beloved characters taking the express elevator down?

<obligatory Do Not Pass Go remark>
<obligatory Do Not Wig Out It's Just For Fun statement>

Solo
2007-10-11, 10:31 PM
It occured to me, and probably all of you, and probably all your friends, that PCs are goin' right to hell. How many times can you get away with slaughtering "usually chaotic evil" cave dwellers and taking their stuff? Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore? By the end of one campaign PCs are practically the four horsemen. Destabalizing empires, summoning demons, deliberately meddling in extra-planar events, and even dei-i-cide. Help me ease my Jimminy Cricket... why aren't all of our beloved characters taking the express elevator down?

<obligatory Do Not Pass Go remark>
<obligatory Do Not Wig Out It's Just For Fun statement>

W to the TF?

slexlollar89
2007-10-11, 10:34 PM
I take diplomacy every chance I get... and know a ton of players who do the same. Besides, it's not lke PCs clearing out the "usually CE" cave dwellers are exalted, so they can kill whatever presumably CE probably CN, NE creatures they want. AND get away with it.

Irreverent Fool
2007-10-11, 10:37 PM
Well, the reason all my well-loved characters aren't going to burn forever is that they either die before 6th level in a still roleplay-heavy rather than hack-n-slash world, they achieve immortality, or they die with at least one other party member alive who brings them back to life.

But yes, I see your point. I think my next PC is going to be very, very concerned about the afterlife or --- even worse --- what might eat his soul, despite the fact that he's not exactly a good person. Yes, I like this idea.

bluish_wolf
2007-10-11, 10:38 PM
I don't believe that killing someone who attacks you without warning is considered evil. You don't have to reason with someone who is clearly unreasonable.

TimeWizard
2007-10-11, 10:47 PM
I don't believe that killing someone who attacks you without warning is considered evil. You don't have to reason with someone who is clearly unreasonable.

This is true, but it's offset by the fact you entered their home for shineys.

Edit: Wait, wait... isn't this the perfect logic for those cave dwellers? Some crazies entered your home and attaced you, for your shineys and green skin? Oh god, now I feel even worse!

Ralfarius
2007-10-11, 11:13 PM
They don't go to hell because the gods they (usually) worship do not disprove of the continued slaughter the player's characters produce.

Frosty Flake
2007-10-11, 11:20 PM
My characters DO go to hell...

For a nice summer vacation! OH!

Irreverent Fool
2007-10-11, 11:21 PM
They don't go to hell because the gods they (usually) worship do not disprove of the continued slaughter the player's characters produce.

They do, however, have a tendency from time to time to attract the attentions of inevitables for the things they've done.

Xefas
2007-10-11, 11:24 PM
Well, I have a group of players that *is* very inclined to run into random caves filled with creatures that *might* be evil and kill them. Whether they're evil or not, I still count this as an evil action. The players don't really care. I've had celestials show up and tell them they're going to Hell or the Abyss if they continue to do what they do. They don't really care. I've had demons show up and actively try to steal their souls, or devils show up and bargain and/or blackmail for their souls. They don't really care.

Why would characters care where they're going? D&D cosmology has it so you always go to the place your character is best fit for. Even in Hell, after the first few agonizing <time unit>s, you become a Lemure, who then evolves poke-style into a badass devil.

My players actually *wanted* to go to Hell so they could play devils.

Alleine
2007-10-11, 11:26 PM
"We're not gonna die. You wanna know why? Cuz we're just too darn pretty for God to let us die"

I know someone's going to get that reference. Anyway, They don't go to hell because by the time they can kill gods, they are probably immortal, or would ransack Hell if ever dragged in.

Icewalker
2007-10-11, 11:36 PM
This is true, but it's offset by the fact you entered their home for shineys.

Well, this depends on your DM. If (IMO) your DM is bad, the adventure may amount to "go to the cave, kill the evil, get the shineys" but I think that DMs are able to create real adventures, where the plot describes every reason to kill something. The closest I think you'd get in these is something non-sentient harnessed as a weapon, or being misinformed and ending up doing the wrong thing. In the great campaign I play, I can't remember the last time we killed something at random. Usually our fights are with the BBEG party, or a single-adventure EG.

Jarlax
2007-10-11, 11:57 PM
this is why i love feindish codex II. your going to hell, accept it. now sell me your soul and i will give you stuff.

the truth is your only going to hell if your lawful evil in alignment. most of the monsters that live in caves get their treasure from their victims because they are evil creatures. and killing an evil creature is not an evil act, you can argue as to if it counts as a good act or not, but that is a separate discussion.

meanwhile even though PCs topple governments, meddle in interplanar conflicts and run around messing up the multiverse you can at best describe them as chaotic which means even if they were evil. there going to the abyss, not hell.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-10-12, 12:23 AM
It occured to me, and probably all of you, and probably all your friends, that PCs are goin' right to hell. How many times can you get away with slaughtering "usually chaotic evil" cave dwellers and taking their stuff? Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore? By the end of one campaign PCs are practically the four horsemen. Destabalizing empires, summoning demons, deliberately meddling in extra-planar events, and even dei-i-cide. Help me ease my Jimminy Cricket... why aren't all of our beloved characters taking the express elevator down?

<obligatory Do Not Pass Go remark>
<obligatory Do Not Wig Out It's Just For Fun statement>

Here, folks is a prime example of Jack Chick's influence on the gamer population.

In all seriousness, most groups I DM consist of chaotic stupid (just plain old greedy, but willing to do some morally upright acts...for a price) and the one guy. The one guy is practically the only one who ends up roleplaying and his alignment varies from campaign to campaign. Heck, hell wouldn't even be able to stop the players with a Reverance/Rivivify combo for a 5th level spell equivalent to True Res. for like a 1/10th of the cost.

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-10-12, 02:15 AM
....So you think Diplomancers are GOOD?

SoD
2007-10-12, 04:14 AM
Well, if I have my characters go into a den to kill and take the shiney stuff...I give them a reason. Maybe the orcs have stolen some strong weapon. Maybe the kobolds are stealing from everyone to give stuff to their ally in the lair...the dragon. Maybe the bugbears have kidnapped the major. Maybe the goblins have been raiding a nearby town.

Even so, I like the players to roleplay for a bit.

Oh, and a question...a CN character...killing an unconcious, and tied up creature, who tried to kill the party...and is evil (not that they knew it officially)...CN? Or some sort of E? And yes, I know the whole ''1 act shouldn't change an alignment without extrenuating circumstances'' and the ''it's what the characters intentions were, not the actions'' arguments. But if the player continued to do this...?

TimeWizard
2007-10-12, 08:57 AM
Here, folks is a prime example of Jack Chick's influence on the gamer population.

Yeah. After I convince everyone that we're going to hell I'll start giving bonus xp to converts.

SilverClawShift
2007-10-12, 09:07 AM
How many times can you get away with slaughtering "usually chaotic evil" cave dwellers and taking their stuff? Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore? By the end of one campaign PCs are practically the four horsemen.

Please don't take my comment as offensive, as I have no intention whatsoever of being rude here.

But do people really play D&D like that? I mean, do you just start as a group of classes outside a cave with "There's orcs in there. They have green skin and gold, KILL KILL KILL?". Do the PLAYERS want that? Does the DM offer up anything more?

I don't think I've ever played a session of D&D that involved wading through gore for the sake of killing things. If combat comes up, it's always for a reason, and usually a darned good one.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 09:38 AM
But do people really play D&D like that? I mean, do you just start as a group of classes outside a cave with "There's orcs in there. They have green skin and gold, KILL KILL KILL?". Do the PLAYERS want that? Does the DM offer up anything more?

Been there. Done that. Early adolescence is now over. Don't do it anymore. :smallwink:

Seffbasilisk
2007-10-12, 10:16 AM
"We're not gonna die. You wanna know why? Cuz we're just too darn pretty for God to let us die"

I know someone's going to get that reference. Anyway, They don't go to hell because by the time they can kill gods, they are probably immortal, or would ransack Hell if ever dragged in.

Malcolm Reynolds. Battle of Serenity Valley.

I think the fact that the dwellers are normally C-E, and will most likely attack you the second you make your presence known sorta bypasses that. They're in the way, and the only way to get through them effectivly is to kill them. Mi apologeto, but if they came for you, they'd do the same.

kemmotar
2007-10-12, 11:35 AM
Well...next time they do that call upon your powers as DM and summon a high CR dragon+ minions...give them ofc a chance to escape the much higher CR encounter...if they don't try to flee then they are unworthy of characters. Assuming they survive they will think twice about going into a cave next time. Then give them a few chances to get out the situation with diplomacy so that they will understand its worth...

If none of the PCs got then add a DMPC to the group, a bard maybe with bluff diplomacy until the can see the worth of social skills and how they can escape situations without killing the obstacle...as soon as they get it have the DMPC die or leave and your objective has been achieved.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-12, 11:43 AM
Here, folks is a prime example of Jack Chick's influence on the gamer population.

In all seriousness, most groups I DM consist of chaotic stupid (just plain old greedy, but willing to do some morally upright acts...for a price) and the one guy. The one guy is practically the only one who ends up roleplaying and his alignment varies from campaign to campaign. Heck, hell wouldn't even be able to stop the players with a Reverance/Rivivify combo for a 5th level spell equivalent to True Res. for like a 1/10th of the cost.

That sounds like lawful neutral to neutral evil, not chaotic stupid.

Indon
2007-10-12, 12:40 PM
My characters DO go to hell...

For a nice summer vacation! OH!

Mine go there for a series of CR-appropriate challenges.


Here, folks is a prime example of Jack Chick's influence on the gamer population.


_We_ aren't going to an Evil afterlife... our _characters_ are, because of how the standard adventurer plays.

Really, personally I think Ayn Rand would be proud at how most D&D players (including me) play their characters.

Swordguy
2007-10-12, 01:20 PM
It occured to me, and probably all of you, and probably all your friends, that PCs are goin' right to hell. How many times can you get away with slaughtering "usually chaotic evil" cave dwellers and taking their stuff? Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore? By the end of one campaign PCs are practically the four horsemen. Destabalizing empires, summoning demons, deliberately meddling in extra-planar events, and even dei-i-cide. Help me ease my Jimminy Cricket... why aren't all of our beloved characters taking the express elevator down?

<obligatory Do Not Pass Go remark>
<obligatory Do Not Wig Out It's Just For Fun statement>


<Obligatory Your Morality is NOT in any way the Morality of the D&D universe comment.>

Killing Evil-aligned creature is an inherently Good act, regardless of thier age or intentions. You can slaughter a village full of Orc babies all the live-long day and, as per the alignment rules it's a Good Act. D&D is based on Absolute Morality. That's the way the rules work. Don't like it? Go away and play something else.

...GOD I'm sick of this debate...

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-12, 01:31 PM
Does it matter? Does it really matter???? Come on, the game is to have fun, not question the morality of your characters deeds compared to the real world!! Stop with all the alignment questioning already! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
*huffhuffhuffhuff*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[this post intentionally left blank]

NecroRebel
2007-10-12, 01:46 PM
<Obligatory Your Morality is NOT in any way the Morality of the D&D universe comment.>

Killing Evil-aligned creature is an inherently Good act, regardless of thier age or intentions. You can slaughter a village full of Orc babies all the live-long day and, as per the alignment rules it's a Good Act. D&D is based on Absolute Morality. That's the way the rules work. Don't like it? Go away and play something else.

...GOD I'm sick of this debate...

Incidentally, you're wrong. The definition of "Good" has NOTHING about opposing Evil, or about killing Evil, or about doing a damned thing to an Evil creature. You are good if and only if you make personal sacrifices for others and display altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Incidentally, slaughtering a village full of Orc babies (who, mind you, are sentient beings) means utterly disrespecting the lives and dignity of those Orc Babies. Ergo, it does not, in any way, shape, or form, resemble a Good act by the way the rules work. In fact, it happens to fit the criteria for an Evil act (namely hurting and killing others).

Mind you, if an Orc village has been attacking and raiding and raping and pillaging, getting them to stop doing these things isn't an Evil act. You're attempting to uphold the dignity and lives of those the Orcs are harming, and sacrificing your time and possibly life to do it. If the Orcs refuse to stop, it may become necessary to hurt them. If they attack you, defending yourself isn't Evil, even if you do it with deadly force.

Dausuul
2007-10-12, 01:47 PM
<Obligatory Your Morality is NOT in any way the Morality of the D&D universe comment.>

Killing Evil-aligned creature is an inherently Good act, regardless of thier age or intentions. You can slaughter a village full of Orc babies all the live-long day and, as per the alignment rules it's a Good Act. D&D is based on Absolute Morality. That's the way the rules work. Don't like it? Go away and play something else.

No, it's not how the rules work. Show me where it says it's a Good act (not just non-Evil, but actually Good) to kill Evil creatures.

The rules that determine alignment are in fact quite fuzzy. Which would be fine if the rules that depend on alignment weren't so important.

Swordguy
2007-10-12, 02:29 PM
[pimp] Book of Exalted Deeds,[Scrubbed]
Than come crying back, saying, "but...but...it's a splatbook! It doesn't count!"

To which I respond, "It's a rule in a book published by WOTC to clarify exactly what an "exalted deed" might be. That makes it official. Don't use it if you want, [Scrubbed]

Dausuul
2007-10-12, 02:37 PM
[pimp] Book of Exalted Deeds,[Scrubbed]
Than come crying back, saying, "but...but...it's a splatbook! It doesn't count!"

To which I respond, "It's a rule in a book published by WOTC to clarify exactly what an "exalted deed" might be. That makes it official. Don't use it if you want, [Scrubbed]

As I recall, it was linked by someone making the claim you did. Then several other people actually went and looked in the book and discovered that what it really says is it's never an Evil act to kill an Evil outsider.

Give me an exact, word-for-word quote supporting your position, sourced to a published WotC rulebook with the page number (and yes, the BoED counts), and I'll concede the point. I'll continue to say it's a stupid rule, but I'll concede that it is a rule.

Headless_Ninja
2007-10-12, 02:49 PM
"We're not gonna die. You wanna know why? Cuz we're just too darn pretty for God to let us die"
Firefly!

Anyway, well, many of my characters believe that they won't die, or are trying very hard not to... So hell doesn't come into it. Some of them, of course, will burn blah blah blah. Point is, I let the characters worry - I don't worry overly out of character. Sometimes it's fun to see a character you know is a jerk be punished, even if it's your fault.

Swordguy
2007-10-12, 02:50 PM
As I recall, it was linked by someone making the claim you did. Then several other people actually went and looked in the book and discovered that what it really says is it's never an Evil act to kill an Evil outsider.

Give me an exact, word-for-word quote supporting your position, sourced to a published WotC rulebook with the page number (and yes, the BoED counts), and I'll concede the point. I'll continue to say it's a stupid rule, but I'll concede that it is a rule.

Fair enough. I'll check it tonight. If I'm wrong, you'll have my full apology.

PaladinBoy
2007-10-12, 05:40 PM
As it happens, my BoED was readily available, and I find it impossible to ignore a morality debate.

According to the section on violence, starting on page 9, violence is not inherently evil, but it must have some limits.

The first limit mentioned is that the violence must have a just cause. Thus, attacking a trible of evil orcs without provocation is not good, since the suffering and destruction of a war against the orcs will just create unnecessary suffering. It is, of course, an entirely different matter if there is a provocation.

The second limit mentioned is good intentions. In short, it's best if the violence is intended to stop evil deed from being committed.

The next limit is discrimination. Here I'll actually quote, from page 10:

Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants.
I believe that pretty well and truly answers the debate at hand.

The final limit is good means. No torture, no evil spells, no anything that causes undue suffering on the part of the enemy.


Now to actually address the point of this thread. I agree that the adventurers that just go into a dungeon and kill some things with green skin for their shineys is proabaly going to hell. I've never played like that, though. My paladins (and every other character I play for that matter) are Good to a fault, and that means no violence unless there's a very good reason for it. And sometimes not even then, pending a Diplomacy check and some heavy-duty RPing.

SillyRobot
2007-10-12, 05:46 PM
A group I'm running have fallen into this trap. Currently, they are exploring the fringe of a large Druegar city (usually LE dwarves).

So far they have ganked a CG exile after capturing him and are making their own lives miserable by refusing to deal/trust anyone/thing in the area. A few of the party are getting close to the point where I'm going to give them some alignment warnings.

Guildorn Tanaleth
2007-10-12, 06:11 PM
Oh, and a question...a CN character...killing an unconcious, and tied up creature, who tried to kill the party...and is evil (not that they knew it officially)...CN? Or some sort of E? And yes, I know the whole ''1 act shouldn't change an alignment without extrenuating circumstances'' and the ''it's what the characters intentions were, not the actions'' arguments. But if the player continued to do this...?

Evil. A neutral character would just leave the guy there, bound but alive (or in some similar state).

bosssmiley
2007-10-12, 09:07 PM
OP's logic confuses me. Why would Neutral Greedy characters end up in the Nine Hells? That's reserved for Lawful Evil characters innit? :smallconfused:

Read the Trollmans' "Book of War" (Google it, you won't be disappointed) on why raiding goblins and dungeon bashers are actually socially laudable in the cultural context of the D&D-verse.

"Honour and virtue are what the powerful define as right and good."
(for "powerful" in D&D read "people with class levels")

Devils_Advocate
2007-10-13, 10:56 PM
OP's logic confuses me. Why would Neutral Greedy characters end up in the Nine Hells? That's reserved for Lawful Evil characters innit? :smallconfused:

Read the Trollmans' "Book of War" (Google it, you won't be disappointed) on why raiding goblins and dungeon bashers are actually socially laudable in the cultural context of the D&D-verse.

"Honour and virtue are what the powerful define as right and good."
(for "powerful" in D&D read "people with class levels")
Socially laudable = Lawful
Breaking into people's homes, killing them, and taking thier stuff = Evil

Not too complicated.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-10-13, 11:52 PM
I tend to stick with CE and CN as far as alignments go. I sometimes play LG or NG characters, and they only act out against those who are obvious foes. An aasimar paladin I had had the opportunity to lawfully let a band of criminals be excecuted but insisted they be jailed instead.
It wasn't as much fun as having my CE sorcerer collect organs and blood, but I got loot anyway.

Kyle
2007-10-14, 09:36 AM
An interesting position, which I've decided to apply to each of the members of my current party.

The Wizard will not be going to hell because he's recently sacrificed his humanity to become a demi-lich, and is now a lawful good horrid mockery of life. So, unless he's destroyed along with his phlactory, he's not too worried about any sort of afterlife.

The Cleric has been working towards the goal of becoming a demi-god of some variety and himself up as the ruler of an abyssal plane. He's willing to murder, torture, usurp and generally do whatever he thinks will be funny at the time. Likely not hanging out Celestials when the time comes.

The Ranger/Rogue, though lacking in social graces, and not afraid to get his hands dirty, maintains a naively innocent quality despite the horror's he's seen. He not only frees prisoners and slaves, but often offers them well paid employment. Probably going to end up in gnome heaven.

The Paladin has fallen from grace on more than one occasion, and only regained his class features due to a lienent bit of DMing. Guilty of the crimes of torture, murder and power-gaming. Probably going to roast.

The Fighter/Kensai (my character) attempts to balance his acts of cruelty, tendancy towards racisim and over-reliance on the intimidation skill, with heavy tithing and much volunteer work at the church. He's progressed from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good, though occasionally backslides. Frequently takes the law into his own hands, but always keeps his word and attempts to act in an honorable fashion and for the good of his homeland. Probably going to have a lot of explaining to do before he even gets in sight of the celestial realms.

Jayabalard
2007-10-14, 10:07 AM
Book of Exalted Deeds, biatches. (99% positive it's there - but I'm at work and can't check.) It's been linked to and quoted SEVERAL times in these very same "discussions". Go look for them.

Than come crying back, saying, "but...but...it's a splatbook! It doesn't count!"

To which I respond, "It's a rule in a book published by WOTC to clarify exactly what an "exalted deed" might be. That makes it official. Don't use it if you want, but be aware you're ignoring that rule rather skulk around mewling that it doesn't match your view of alignment."/shrug

It's a splatbook, and it doesn't count; being "official" is rather meaningless.

bosssmiley
2007-10-14, 10:11 AM
Socially laudable = Lawful
Breaking into people's homes, killing them, and taking thier stuff = Evil

Not too complicated.

Quick, clean, simply-explained. Cheers DA. :smallwink:

Felius
2007-10-14, 06:22 PM
An interesting position, which I've decided to apply to each of the members of my current party.

The Wizard will not be going to hell because he's recently sacrificed his humanity to become a demi-lich, and is now a lawful good horrid mockery of life. So, unless he's destroyed along with his phlactory, he's not too worried about any sort of afterlife.

The Cleric has been working towards the goal of becoming a demi-god of some variety and himself up as the ruler of an abyssal plane. He's willing to murder, torture, usurp and generally do whatever he thinks will be funny at the time. Likely not hanging out Celestials when the time comes.

The Ranger/Rogue, though lacking in social graces, and not afraid to get his hands dirty, maintains a naively innocent quality despite the horror's he's seen. He not only frees prisoners and slaves, but often offers them well paid employment. Probably going to end up in gnome heaven.

The Paladin has fallen from grace on more than one occasion, and only regained his class features due to a lienent bit of DMing. Guilty of the crimes of torture, murder and power-gaming. Probably going to roast.

The Fighter/Kensai (my character) attempts to balance his acts of cruelty, tendancy towards racisim and over-reliance on the intimidation skill, with heavy tithing and much volunteer work at the church. He's progressed from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good, though occasionally backslides. Frequently takes the law into his own hands, but always keeps his word and attempts to act in an honorable fashion and for the good of his homeland. Probably going to have a lot of explaining to do before he even gets in sight of the celestial realms.

and how in hells (pun intended) this group can work together? A paladin and a demi-lich?

Also, a few of my characters my are going to hell AND back probably destroying it while on it. The Doom way. :smalltongue:

Kyle
2007-10-14, 06:29 PM
Most of the characters are unaware that the Wizard has transformed himself into a Demi-Lich. He uses various illusions to hide his appearance. For the most part, is still the same prissy, self-centered blaster we've all come to know and attempt to avoid friendly fire from.

Besides, the paladin isn't very good at paladining.

Yeril
2007-10-14, 06:31 PM
Does anyone actually attempt diplomacy anymore?

Because Dm's never allow it.

Dm: The two shadowy figures kick over a table and raise crossbows towards the party. "You are wanted by the Order of the Four Ace Assasins!"

My paladin: I make a hastened diplomacy check to convince them to put their weapons down... ahem.. "<instert roleplaying here> *rolls* Wow a natural 20 and a natural 18, even with the -10 penalty I still score a 38 and a 36.

Dm: ..... "Muahah we are loyal to our order! also we now get attacks of oppertunity against the paladin!"

Paladin: :smallannoyed:

why123
2007-11-07, 01:02 AM
I tend to stick with CE and CN as far as alignments go. I sometimes play LG or NG characters, and they only act out against those who are obvious foes. An aasimar paladin I had had the opportunity to lawfully let a band of criminals be excecuted but insisted they be jailed instead.
It wasn't as much fun as having my CE sorcerer collect organs and blood, but I got loot anyway.

Doresain
2007-11-07, 02:50 AM
start as a group of classes outside a cave with "There's orcs in there. They have green skin and gold, KILL KILL KILL?".

this is still fun...if youre playing an evil group that doesnt question the morality behind getting cash and having the chance of killing demi-humans...

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 03:21 AM
I suppose this is a little presumptuous, but I'm going to guess that the sort of group that actively enjoys going on unprovoked dungeon raids and killing everything that lives there usually encounters a very particular kind of dungeon:

It has no non-combatants. They aren't raiding living quarters; they're going into what are functionally war-camps (if raiding humanoids) or eliminating dangerous monsters such as hydras, chimera, manticores, and other things the world is generally better off without. Also, everything that has an Alignment entry of 'usually Evil' is Evil. If one happens to be Neutral (they'll never be Good, because that might cause the party Paladin to fall), well, that weirdo knew the risk when he picked up his falchion and tried to attack the invading SWAT team.

Which is to say, if a group of players are really only looking for a hack'n'slash excursion, it's probably going to be set up so they don't have to worry about the moral implications of that action.

Khanderas
2007-11-07, 03:57 AM
Here, folks is a prime example of Jack Chick's influence on the gamer population.
Jack Chick has influence ?:smallwink:

Alex12
2007-11-07, 09:12 AM
Please don't take my comment as offensive, as I have no intention whatsoever of being rude here.

But do people really play D&D like that? I mean, do you just start as a group of classes outside a cave with "There's orcs in there. They have green skin and gold, KILL KILL KILL?". Do the PLAYERS want that? Does the DM offer up anything more?

I don't think I've ever played a session of D&D that involved wading through gore for the sake of killing things. If combat comes up, it's always for a reason, and usually a darned good one.

Yes, some do. Your DM just happens to have the Awesome DM and Epic DM PrC's at the highest possible levels.