Goblins and the evolution of Gaming Morality

[Kish]

The point, and the relevance of my post, was that in their original incarnation the goblins were indeed as I described them. Yet we make assumptions about behavior of players of the past using our present sensibilities. My question was not intended to generate angst, but to provoke thought. Do we have the moral high ground to assert that people of the past, playing what was essentially a war game, were morally inferior because they made decisions based on the way the game was played then?

Oh, and from your lofty perch, may I ask how many times you asked your opponent to surrender in Call of Duty?

D&D is a roleplaying game.

"But it had its roots in miniatures combat"--does not lead to "is essentially a war game forever." If you're truly not interested in talking about roleplaying games, then there's no reason for you to get defensive; no one has suggested that white chesspieces and black chesspieces are obligated to negotiate. If you're taking offense at the implications of the story then it follows that only games that have story are relevant.

I have asked my opponent to surrender 0 times in Call of Duty. Coincidentally, that's the number of times I've ever played Call of Duty. Thanks for the anti-recommendation. Might I suggest trying more (genuine, not rhetorical-point-scoring) questions and fewer assumptions?