Today, Kristen Lamb put up a
post about character alignment and antagonists based on
Dungeons & Dragons 2
nd edition…
old school. [Note: the rest of this paragraph rambles a bit] For those of you that don’t know, fourth edition was released a few years ago. Second edition was released
the year I was born. There is a lot of debate by hardcore
D&D players on whether fourth edition still captures the essence of the game, and most people dismiss it. Whatever. I love it. I came into the game at 3.5, and while third edition has a lot more focus on the details, fourth edition is easier to pick up and play a
quick game. I
do miss a lot of what 3.5 had to offer, but as the rules change, the game changes, and the players have to change too.
I’ve been leading a party through a fourth edition draconic-based campaign. Right now the antagonist to the party is the band of chromatic (red, blue, green, black, and white) dragons and dragonborn between them and their destination, the ruined castle of Rustir. The next antagonist is the dragonborns’ leader, the Lady of Eialda, and above even her, the god of the chromatic dragons, Tiamat herself. How did they get into this predicament? On their way to answer the desperate call of the king, the party met an inept paladin who died at the claws of a white dragon. Turns out, that paladin was the prince of the kingdom, and his older brother led a campaign against the Lady of Eialda in order to restore peace to Toringad. By unknown reasons, the elder brother, Eindride, and his men never returned. The king offers the party their weight in gold if they can bring his son home. A worthy reward. Especially since the entire party of players I’m working with is unaligned (or in old D&D, chaotic neutral). Not a single one of them would step up and offer to go after the missing paladin out of the goodness of his heart. But for a share of 10,000 gold, I would go find the dumb paladin.