Re: Re: Terror in war

From: oswaldtrimling_at_0AxfyIUK0W5LA21yTZ1okvCOqDPdz_7WXZSprbVng3x_NKk5ekYX74rdBl6u8 <oswaldtrimling_at_0AxfyIUK0W5LA21yTZ1okvCOqDPdz_7WXZSprbVng3x_NKk5ekYX74rdBl6u8gEd>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:59:52 +0100


Jeff Richard wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I guess for me Glorantha struck a heroic chord with me, and I am not
> > interested in the moral ambiguity angle which I do enjoy in real
> > world history. Maybe its because for me I get to roleplay these
> > cultures (as GM or player) and I just don't dig on those themes.
>
> There has always been moral ambiguity in Glorantha. Neither the
> Lunars nor the Heortlings are objective good or evil. They are just
> people. The Lunar Empire is hubristic (and doomed) but not evil. The
> Heortlings are the underdogs (at least initially) but they commit acts
> of unbelievable destruction and devastation in their efforts to free
> Glorantha.
>
>

Moral ambiguity, yes, and I think that's a good thing. But its more in the sense of 'these are both good guys, in their own way' than 'these are both utter bastards and who cares which of them wins?' Not that the latter isn't a valid approach if you like that sort of thing, but its not the only way to include moral ambiguity in Glorantha. I like my games to be enjoyable, and having both sides commit atrocities doesn't do that for me.

Or, at least, I can see how I might use that sort of concept, but it wouldn't be in the way it seems you prefer. If somebody commits atrocities - regardless of which side they are ostensibly on - it would be the role of the player characters to try and do something to destroy those people. So, if Kallyr did things like that IMG, it would be a sign to the players that Kallyr Must Be Defeated. Which they'd be free to ignore, of course... but that would be my intent when/if I included such a thing.            

Powered by hypermail