So, you can always identify an evil person by approaching them in the street. If the say "good morning" they are obviously good, and if they say "evil morning" they are clearly evil.
@Fardragon You can make a real life detect evil by just saying "morning!" If they reply with "evil morning", they are clearly evil. So it's a bit like how the Germans would discover British spies in WW2. They would say "thanks", and a Brit would always reply with "you're welcome."
So, you can always identify an evil person by approaching them in the street. If the say "good morning" they are obviously good, and if they say "evil morning" they are clearly evil.
And if they say "Morning", they're neutral?
Not a morning person, I will NEVER say "Good morning." If I do, the pod people got me.
I usually just say "good" ("buenas") because that way I don't have to remember what time of the day is it before I talk (also it works both for formal and informal contexts in Spanish, which is nice).
hehe, yeah you all got the point. I always thought it was bit jarring when neutral or evil alignment characters would still greet you warmly sometimes with Well Met or some other variations. Sometimes there is people who don't want to talk to you no matter what you are, sometimes it is good to have a variety of voiced lines in situations like that.
I would say "Adventurer" dates back at least as far as 1937, Bilbo Baggins.
I think the proper term is 'Expert Treasure hunter'. jk
As far as the thread goes, to each their own. I see it this way.
The term Adventurer is a positive term depicting someone who goes on Adventures, which is what the overwhelming majority of games are supposed to be about. While it is true that some adventures turn into, or are motivated by more mercenary motivations, by no means all of them are.
From personal experience, my Wizard doesn't adventure out of a need for coin. Coin is really REALLY low on his interests. He adventures because he seeks magical tomes and spell books or other magical items. He travels and goes on quests to gain knowledge and power that he can't find in libraries.
My thief, for whom the all mighty coin is important, would never hire himself out to anyone if he can avoid it. He's all about stealing from monsters and the unwary. Plundering crypts is fun an profitable. And there is no profit in working for anyone.
My Bard has a wanderlust. Coin is nice but he is more about finding the story in it all.
I could go on but none of these are mercenaries. They all seek adventure for their own reasons.
And as far as it goes, being an old gamer from way back when Advanced was out, I've never heard anyone complaining unduly about the term Adventurer. I'd be interested to see cited where "the general consensus with older DnD fans is that they despised that term ". news to me.
...most people in a DnD world wouldn't just decide to go up, and "adventure" to put themselves in harm's way with no general purpose other than for fame & bragging rights.
And there lies the problem. If your character's backstory is "they are an adventurer, they are looking for fame and loot" then that's a lazy character.
No sane person does that. They might go out and adventure out of necessity or for a real purpose. And I think that the word "adventurer" is a description that was originally given by others.
-Here come those adventurers again. -We're not adventurers, we're trying to uncover the truth of what is happening in-- -Yeah, they're adventurers alright.
There's usually a good reason why someone would put their lives in danger instead of being a farmer or fisherman. A "Thief" or "Fighter" that says that they're adventuring for the loot, might be doing it because they want to help their family or because they're ambitious and want to live a more luxurious life with respect.
Now why would "looking for fame and loot" be lazy? Those are two fairly good motivations for going out and adventuring. By far not the only ones or even necessarily the most common, but I would argue that they're not lazy by any means.
...most people in a DnD world wouldn't just decide to go up, and "adventure" to put themselves in harm's way with no general purpose other than for fame & bragging rights.
And there lies the problem. If your character's backstory is "they are an adventurer, they are looking for fame and loot" then that's a lazy character.
No sane person does that. They might go out and adventure out of necessity or for a real purpose. And I think that the word "adventurer" is a description that was originally given by others.
-Here come those adventurers again. -We're not adventurers, we're trying to uncover the truth of what is happening in-- -Yeah, they're adventurers alright.
There's usually a good reason why someone would put their lives in danger instead of being a farmer or fisherman. A "Thief" or "Fighter" that says that they're adventuring for the loot, might be doing it because they want to help their family or because they're ambitious and want to live a more luxurious life with respect.
Completely disagree. There's always been people who wanders off just for the sake of not being rooted. Some do it because they didn't fit in in their community, others because of wanderlust, others because of curiousity, others because of.. etc etc. Saying that it's lazy is a bit narrow-minded, in my humble opinion. Even today on Earth, where pretty much everything has been explored, huge amounts of people who have time and money go out on adventures. Some are called backpackers but might just as well be called adventurers, because really.. isn't that what they are?
Exploring a forest or mountain because you're bored, is different to going to an orc camp or dungeon filled with zombies and skeletons. Or far worse if you're really unlucky. Those are also quite different from the occasional wild animal you might encounter.
This is what I mean when I said "really good reason".
If a zombie outbreak happened and the world turned into a zombie apocalypse, not many would go from mall to mall (dungeons) to kill zombies for fame and glory.
Any said loot would be for survival or necessity. Most wouldn't even be able to handle the horrors they would encounter.
Many soldiers suffer from PTSD for life after killing other people. You don't see many soldiers go "I'll go adventure and kill other people for fame and because I'm bored." Now imagine if monsters were around and they were trying to kill/eat/sacrifice you.
My point is, that risking your life and killing other people/monsters on a regular basis isn't something you do out of boredom. It takes a good reason to do so and keep doing it after everything you see.
This is also how an old offical WotC article put it: "Most modern folks would never take up adventuring in the first place, and the few who might be willing to do so would probably retire at about 2nd level and count themselves lucky. Furthermore, anyone who made it to a reasonably high level would likely choose to retire, since he would probably have accumulated more wealth than he could spend in a lifetime. And why shouldn't he?"
Modern times are not a good framework for this argument. I doubt any of Alexander the Great's soldiers suffered from PTSD. Might made right back in those times and they believed they were in the right. The soldiers forced him to stop because they were homesick and tired of fighting, not because they felt guilty about it. If you turn the calendar back in time to those days, adventuring was glorious and profitable.
Modern times are not a good framework for this argument. I doubt any of Alexander the Great's soldiers suffered from PTSD. Might made right back in those times and they believed they were in the right. The soldiers forced him to stop because they were homesick and tired of fighting, not because they felt guilty about it. If you turn the calendar back in time to those days, adventuring was glorious and profitable.
You really have no basis to make the claim that the soldiers didn't experience PTSD. Also, PTSD is trauma rather than guilt.
That said PTSD is not really part of the genre conventions in fantasy (I mean I've seen it used but in general it doesn't come up). RPG adventurers typically don't experience extreme trauma as a result of their adventures.
I'd say mental breakdowns are just not much used in heroic fantasy. I blame the targeted age ratings of developers for that. In other fantasy subgenres however, especially darker ones, it's actually rather common to encounter things like that.
The Dead Trenches questline of Dragon Age: Origin was *full* of it, for example. The d20 system and even later D&D editions also have a couple of Sanity systems a' la Call of Cthulhu to traumatize its players as well.
@Archaos "If a zombie outbreak happened and the world turned into a zombie apocalypse, not many would go from mall to mall (dungeons) to kill zombies for fame and glory."
Probably not, but I can see groups springing up to do so safety and land reclamation reasons.
@Archaos "If a zombie outbreak happened and the world turned into a zombie apocalypse, not many would go from mall to mall (dungeons) to kill zombies for fame and glory."
Probably not, but I can see groups springing up to do so safety and land reclamation reasons.
The problem with the zombie outbreak scenario @Archaos describes is that it's not really comparable to the kind of societies one sees in fantasy RPGs (which admittedly cover a lot of conceptual ground). Very few fantasy settings qualify as survival horror.
My point is, that risking your life and killing other people/monsters on a regular basis isn't something you do out of boredom. It takes a good reason to do so and keep doing it after everything you see.
You are assuming that the intent is to go out and kill. I joked about the Hobbit reference earlier, but Bilbo was an adventurer and went not out of (his own) necessity, but because it was an Adventure. Gandalf more or less suggested that adventuring was in the Baggins blood.
I didn't say it couldn't be done. I mean my current favorite games are the Dark Souls series, which is pretty much survival horror in a fantasy setting.
But most fantasy settings are not survival horror, and the assumptions that go with it would not necessarily be present.
Depending on the person asked, marriage would also qualify as survival horror. And most fantasy settings feature marriage. The conclusion drawn from this is everyone's guess. I'm only half-joking here of course.
wet-behind-the-ears numpties from extremely privileged backgrounds who go on a glorified holiday
I can think of lots of player character back-stories who would fit that description. It is also a pretty good fit for Bilbo Baggins. Being an adventurer doesn't automatically make you good at adventuring.
The core issue I'm trying to get here is that certain terms & writing are feeling more like a running gag that never stops, and it also baffles me that every character must say "well met" for the 100th time.
And how many times have you said "Hello" to someone in your life? "Well Met" is just another variation, and a stock greeting that all cultures have when meeting someone.
Modern times are not a good framework for this argument. I doubt any of Alexander the Great's soldiers suffered from PTSD. Might made right back in those times and they believed they were in the right. The soldiers forced him to stop because they were homesick and tired of fighting, not because they felt guilty about it. If you turn the calendar back in time to those days, adventuring was glorious and profitable.
You really have no basis to make the claim that the soldiers didn't experience PTSD. Also, PTSD is trauma rather than guilt.
That said PTSD is not really part of the genre conventions in fantasy (I mean I've seen it used but in general it doesn't come up). RPG adventurers typically don't experience extreme trauma as a result of their adventures.
You are right in that to claim that soldiers didn't suffer from PTSD back them is probably not accurate. But it is also true that values were different back then and that which constitutes trauma was probably likewise different back then.
Never the less, the very nature of D&D (and by extension most fantasy role playing game), most adventurers end up mass murderers. It just isn't apples to apples with reality. That's why it is fantasy.
Comments
Not a morning person, I will NEVER say "Good morning." If I do, the pod people got me.
What does this say about me? Am I Neutral Good?
Good =/= friendy, for that matter.
But it's quite possible to use the culturally appropiate greating in an unfriendly manner. It's addressed specifically in "The Hobbit". Good morning.
As far as the thread goes, to each their own. I see it this way.
The term Adventurer is a positive term depicting someone who goes on Adventures, which is what the overwhelming majority of games are supposed to be about. While it is true that some adventures turn into, or are motivated by more mercenary motivations, by no means all of them are.
From personal experience, my Wizard doesn't adventure out of a need for coin. Coin is really REALLY low on his interests. He adventures because he seeks magical tomes and spell books or other magical items. He travels and goes on quests to gain knowledge and power that he can't find in libraries.
My thief, for whom the all mighty coin is important, would never hire himself out to anyone if he can avoid it. He's all about stealing from monsters and the unwary. Plundering crypts is fun an profitable. And there is no profit in working for anyone.
My Bard has a wanderlust. Coin is nice but he is more about finding the story in it all.
I could go on but none of these are mercenaries. They all seek adventure for their own reasons.
And as far as it goes, being an old gamer from way back when Advanced was out, I've never heard anyone complaining unduly about the term Adventurer. I'd be interested to see cited where "the general consensus with older DnD fans is that they despised that term ". news to me.
No sane person does that. They might go out and adventure out of necessity or for a real purpose.
And I think that the word "adventurer" is a description that was originally given by others.
-Here come those adventurers again.
-We're not adventurers, we're trying to uncover the truth of what is happening in--
-Yeah, they're adventurers alright.
There's usually a good reason why someone would put their lives in danger instead of being a farmer or fisherman.
A "Thief" or "Fighter" that says that they're adventuring for the loot, might be doing it because they want to help their family or because they're ambitious and want to live a more luxurious life with respect.
Those are also quite different from the occasional wild animal you might encounter.
This is what I mean when I said "really good reason".
If a zombie outbreak happened and the world turned into a zombie apocalypse, not many would go from mall to mall (dungeons) to kill zombies for fame and glory.
Any said loot would be for survival or necessity. Most wouldn't even be able to handle the horrors they would encounter.
Many soldiers suffer from PTSD for life after killing other people.
You don't see many soldiers go "I'll go adventure and kill other people for fame and because I'm bored."
Now imagine if monsters were around and they were trying to kill/eat/sacrifice you.
My point is, that risking your life and killing other people/monsters on a regular basis isn't something you do out of boredom.
It takes a good reason to do so and keep doing it after everything you see.
This is also how an old offical WotC article put it:
"Most modern folks would never take up adventuring in the first place, and the few who might be willing to do so would probably retire at about 2nd level and count themselves lucky. Furthermore, anyone who made it to a reasonably high level would likely choose to retire, since he would probably have accumulated more wealth than he could spend in a lifetime. And why shouldn't he?"
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050516a
That said PTSD is not really part of the genre conventions in fantasy (I mean I've seen it used but in general it doesn't come up). RPG adventurers typically don't experience extreme trauma as a result of their adventures.
The Dead Trenches questline of Dragon Age: Origin was *full* of it, for example. The d20 system and even later D&D editions also have a couple of Sanity systems a' la Call of Cthulhu to traumatize its players as well.
The thing about D&D is that those sanity systems are a) often terrible and b) not often used.
Probably not, but I can see groups springing up to do so safety and land reclamation reasons.
Also https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/the-end-of-the-world/products/zombie-apocalypse/
But most fantasy settings are not survival horror, and the assumptions that go with it would not necessarily be present.
Never the less, the very nature of D&D (and by extension most fantasy role playing game), most adventurers end up mass murderers. It just isn't apples to apples with reality. That's why it is fantasy.