Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes and no. The problem with AD&D (and Rolemaster to a lesser extent) is characters gain experience by killing. A player is not rewarded to be a good roleplayer by the book, a player is rewarded to be a combat monster. This flaw cannot be fixed unless the GM heavily modifies the rules. Compare this with DragonQuest or Champions where you get rewarded for being a good rp'er.
Yes and no. The problem with AD&D (and Rolemaster to a lesser extent) is characters gain experience by killing. A player is not rewarded to be a good roleplayer by the book, a player is rewarded to be a combat monster. This flaw cannot be fixed unless the GM heavily modifies the rules. Compare this with DragonQuest or Champions where you get rewarded for being a good rp'er.
A lesser problem that could be contained is the prevalence of magical items - many of those items are very powerful. This can be avoided by limiting the number and power of magical items.
When all the Orcs are evil, your character is free to kill them, right?
First, orcs are not outsiders, so (unlike demons or slaadi,etc) are not defined as always evil. I believe the monstrous manual either says "usually evil" or "often evil," I don't remember.
Second, even if the orc is evil, most of the good players I have played with base more on actions than nebulous alignment. There are many ways to play any alighnment, so it must be assumed that orcs play many variations of the evil alignment. Not all evil creatures fit into the "grrr, I'm evil, so I hate all life" category.
Third, even orcs are other beings and even if you don't respect that morally it's generally a very bad choice to go all jihad on their ass whenever you see one, for the sake of not being a wanton butcher and for the sake of the plotline. They might know something, or have something that is needed.
My experience is otherwise. As I pointed out before, there are virtually no noncombat skills in AD&D before, while the list of skills in 3rd edition is sill very incomplete, with some skills too generic and some others too restrictive.
Comment