1) If there is a religion that forms the foundation of popular society, it must be controlled by corrupt bastards.
I think this is generally more about any organization that forms the foundation of popular society. There just do not seem to be any powerful societal forces for good in most campaign settings.
Factol Rhys wrote:
2) ……paladins, archons, and other agents of Lawful Good believe entirely in Law, but hardly at all about Good.
Of course, I agree with this statement, and the previous one except for the one factor I mentioned.
I think, however, I do understand why those things are done, though I strongly disagree with using them. It seems to be that setting designers believe no setting should have truly successful Good in it without the PCs there to prop it up. So no setting has any place where Good can win on its own, necessitating (because of the need for "internal consistency") to nerf both the societal forces for Good (churches) and the agents of Good (the angels, etc.) to explain why Good doesn't win.
Technology and culture never advances. Why are there sets of full plate armor and rapiers in 1,000 year old tombs?
Total agreement there. I have no problem with people playing in a medieval setting of course, that is there choice, the choice of many, and many times has been my choice, but why must it have ALWAYS been at that level? Technology rose and fell many times in our world's history and it is a popular misconception that there were no advancements in the Middle Ages. Many things appeared in the Middle Ages, such as the university that awards diplomas, the early origins of the novel, the concept of guilds, great advances in construction in castles and cathedrals, armor construction (which advanced and improved throughout the era), sword construction, mining, milling...the list goes on. Perhaps part of the problem is the morbid fear and/or extreme dislike of dreaded GUNS and GUNPOWDER rearing their ugly heads in the setting, people seem adamantly opposed to that.
I think this is generally more about any organization that forms the foundation of popular society. There just do not seem to be any powerful societal forces for good in most campaign settings.
Of course, I agree with this statement, and the previous one except for the one factor I mentioned.
I think, however, I do understand why those things are done, though I strongly disagree with using them. It seems to be that setting designers believe no setting should have truly successful Good in it without the PCs there to prop it up. So no setting has any place where Good can win on its own, necessitating (because of the need for "internal consistency") to nerf both the societal forces for Good (churches) and the agents of Good (the angels, etc.) to explain why Good doesn't win.
***Yes, it seems all D&D settings and indeed all fantasy settings in novels or games seem to shy away from power forces for good. All sorts of evil ones, from evil empires to evil city states with far-reaching aims and abilities (such as Zhentil Kheep in the FR) to evil churches and cults (Eberron is full of them) exist, and that's good, they provide great villians and make for great adventures. But why no good? There are a few here and there, such as the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron (though as disucussed elsewhere in this thread, how good it is in practice, really, plus look what they did to the shifters), the Harpers in the FR, the Bladesingers to an extent, but many of these organizations are pretty weak. 1. If there were too many (or any?) strong good organizations do writers and game designers fear that the PCs/main characters would have no one to fight as the fight would already be over or the PCs would be basically bystanders in some epic world war? (Don't like that one, there is plenty of evil in the D&D universe and lots of battles to fight, the good guys, no matter how powerful, can't be everywhere and do everything). 2. Do they fear that a good organization would not let the PCs have much freedom of choice, that if they joined one they wouldn't be able to chose to go adventuring as they like? Basically akin to joining the army (don't like that model, as look at Star Trek or the Rebellion in Star Wars; sure the main characters are members of organizations of good and have missions and orders and chains of command, but they sure have plenty of discretion and adventures). 3. Would it provide too many crutches for the PCs, too many people to call upon when they were in need, the idea being if there is a good organization, why do they send low level parties sans magic items to tackle evil? (Again, don't like this one, they can't be everywhere, this organiztion for good).
Anyway, yes, add that to my list of pet peeves, a setting should have strong and real organizations for good, preferably several. Maybe one could model them off of real world organizatons. Instead of Doctors Without Borders, there could be some fantasy Healers Without Borders for instance. Instead of environmental organizations like we have, there could be one of rangers and druids but with roughly similiar aims (and so much more power). What would a Red Cross type organization be like in a fantasy setting with magic? Several of the knightly orders such the Knights Templar and Hospitlar could provide good models, international orders of paladins, fighters, and supporters with some stated transnational goal.
Good aligned churches should have real bite in a fantasy setting. I mean think about it...they would have the support of true beleiving peasants, craftsmen, farmers, sailors, ranchers, townsfolk, all their alms going into the collection plate to pay for magic item creation, training priests and paladins. What temporal lord wants beholders, mind flayers, vampires, or evil dragons on their land? Why wouldn't they donate profusely to some good church who just LOVES to go after such things?
Wow, it seems like my pet peeves are the opposite of everybody else's. well, here goes anyway.
1. High magic settings
I hate setting where there is a magic store on every corner, an epic level character in every town, and every rich guys can go down to the local temple to get his buddies brought back to life. I love magic in a campaign, but when its common its just not magic anymore. I prefer games where medieval lifestyles and technology are still valid.
2. Politically correct fantasy
I don't like setting that are free of sexism, racism, poverty, oppression, and religious persecution. I cannot suspend disbelief when I see pre-industrial societies that are more progressive and tolerant than modern nations are.
3. Fearless peons
I can understand that zombies will fight to the death, or religious fanatics, or any number of creatures or elite soldiers. But far too often I see a group of petty bandits fighting the party to the death even when its obvious that they are outmatched. Real people, particularly those who aren't trained soldiers and are mentally stable, tend to try to avoid certain death.
4. Bland religion
The real world has tremendous religious diversity - and each religion has its dogma, taboos, legends, rules, ranks (or formalized religion), rituals, history, morals, etc. Why then are clerics expected to simply be field medics with not concern for practicing his religion and why must all the deities be so mind numbingly generic?
5. Stereotypical generic demihumans
Of course, in playing D&D one must come to tolerate stereotypical demihumans to some degree, but as the years have past I have become increasingly intolerant of every elf civilization being the same as every other and every dwarf having the same personality.
6. Fan boism
When the DM creates a nation, culture, or NPC he should not like that creation too much. He shouldn't make them the coolest thing he can imagine and represent all the things he thinks are awesome. No matter what details the DM puts into his creation, if absolute adoration of what the creation represents is the primary motivator then its going to suck for the players who encounter it. This also goes for NPC's that represent an idealized version of the DM.
Yes, yes, and yes. I was seriously worried when I started reading this thread that I was the only one that thought this way. :D
1) Absolutely can't stand all of these extra humanoid races that get created for the sake of looking pretty, extending from the fan boyism experience. To top it off, if they're races with wings and beaks and differing limbs and all of that jazz, and all of this is fully functional, sometimes in a superior way to humans, it has no purpose except when a human and said race are competing and said race needs to show off for its creator and/or fans - the different physical features seem to have brought on NO consideration from their creator/user as to how they might have affected their cultural development.
I'm working on a sci-fi setting called Dystopian Universe that tries to address that issue at least partially - I take the basic concept of a race and try and build up from the basic body chemistry and skeletal structure, etc. to that point. I've got reptilian humanoids of the conspiracy theory fame that have eight fingers so their mathematics system is different, they have internal sex organs and regurgitate food for children like birds, etc., all of which affects their culture and mindset.
2)Nonhuman races that except for this or that piece of stereotypical, horribly poor flair that separates them, follows a certain culture and period of human development as its own culture. This is similar to #1. Ironically the only thing I think is good about them is something no one else likes; that the races are all good at something specific and have their own niches, when humans are "jack-of-all-trades" sort-of individuals - what's wrong with this? Humans should be the basis where everything else is built from. They're pretty good at everything because they've done it all in history or myth. I like the concept of nonhumans being extreme versions of humans, especially if they're not "natural" to the point of being unsuitable as common player races. IMO either they should be more on the monster side and should either exist as the aforementioned extremities that come from human imagination or from some sort of supernatural/biological catastrophe.
PC's are above the law - slit the waitress's throat in front of a packed tavern cos she spilled your beer? Go for it. You're ****ing heroes wielding artifacts. You're untouchable.
PC's are demi-gods - everyone's a freaking chosen of this god or that god. And that bad guy chasing the party? Yep, another god... No one is tougher than you, of course, except gods.
Party's alignments make no sense whatsoever - so you got a holier than thou LG paladin and an insane CN servant of Primordial gods sitting around a table, taking orders from the evil mofo warlock party leader? MMmmmkay. And why aren't they killing each other?
PK Party - every PC background was designed to kill another PC in the party.
Monty Haul - the entire party wields multiple artifacts like Pokeballs.
Deus Ex Machina - the party is so over the top out of control that nothing short of repeated divine intervention by the DM can progress the plot.
Next Door climates: Most places are apparently temperate. Go a kingdom or two north, and it is frigid cold. Go a kingdom or two south, and it is baking hot.
A kingdom is hardly the size of a modern nation-state in Europe, let alone something like the USA and Canada. On something the size of earth, you have to go a long, long way before latitude makes a difference in temperature.
Northern hemisphere / west coast biases Why is north cold and south hot? Why isn't it that the south is cold and the north is hot? Why do a rather large number of setting have an important western coast, and a theoretical eastern coast?
Weird weather / weird terrain: Okay, now I'm being a bit of a nut, but half the time the weather patterns have nothing to do with the placement of mountains, ocean currents, etc. Additionally, the mountains that do exist don't seem to have any geological basis. At least some people have the good sense to make their terrain and weather outright artificial. But I've gotten a bit sick of having a river valley (V-shaped) actually look more like a glacial valley (U-shaped). But I'm a social science student, so it's probably just me that cares about physical geography?
My biggest pet-peeve: Fan Exploitation. The setting designed with this ideal in mind is a confused jumble of incongruous and often ridiculous themes and ideas, all of them having but one element in common: that they are, by fanboy standards, "totally badass." The players are expected to be impressed by the sweetness of the setting's hackneyed, one-dimensional NPCs; every protagonist is an antihero, and every villain has a scheme to destroy/conquer the world. They will dual-wield wands whilst perching atop speeding Lamborghinis, if the setting allows for it. To the trained eye, this setting is revealed as a blatant and cynical attempt to pander to the fandom of its target audience.
I charge a certain well-known published setting - which shall remain unnamed - of falling squarely into this category.
"The real hero is always a hero by mistake; he dreams of being an honest coward like everybody else." -Umberto Eco, from Travels in Hyperreality
"The first adventurer was a nuisance. I am sure he acted against his mother's, his wife's, and the council of old men's strict orders when he did it; but it was he that found where the mammoths die and where after a thousand years of use there was still enough ivory to equip the entire tribe with weapons. Such is the ultimate outline of the adventurer; society's benefactor as well as pest." -William Bolitho, from Twelve Against the Gods
1) Absolutely can't stand all of these extra humanoid races that get created for the sake of looking pretty, extending from the fan boyism experience. To top it off, if they're races with wings and beaks and differing limbs and all of that jazz, and all of this is fully functional, sometimes in a superior way to humans, it has no purpose except when a human and said race are competing and said race needs to show off for its creator and/or fans - the different physical features seem to have brought on NO consideration from their creator/user as to how they might have affected their cultural development.
I'm working on a sci-fi setting called Dystopian Universe that tries to address that issue at least partially - I take the basic concept of a race and try and build up from the basic body chemistry and skeletal structure, etc. to that point. I've got reptilian humanoids of the conspiracy theory fame that have eight fingers so their mathematics system is different, they have internal sex organs and regurgitate food for children like birds, etc., all of which affects their culture and mindset.
2)Nonhuman races that except for this or that piece of stereotypical, horribly poor flair that separates them, follows a certain culture and period of human development as its own culture. This is similar to #1. Ironically the only thing I think is good about them is something no one else likes; that the races are all good at something specific and have their own niches, when humans are "jack-of-all-trades" sort-of individuals - what's wrong with this? Humans should be the basis where everything else is built from. They're pretty good at everything because they've done it all in history or myth. I like the concept of nonhumans being extreme versions of humans, especially if they're not "natural" to the point of being common player races. IMO either they should be more on the monster side and should either exist as the aforementioned extremities that come from human imagination or from some sort of supernatural/biological catastrophe.
Um, aren't these two ideas mutually contradictory? If you design a race based upon logical outgrowth of its biology shouldn't there be a chance that it would be just as, if not more, "jack-of-all-trades" than humans?
