Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ppaladin123" data-source="post: 6190388" data-attributes="member: 60923">Yeah...especially if they are coming from a video game-shaped conception of fantasy, the players may assume that anything they meet is &quot;their level,&quot; and thus a worthy opponent who can take and dish out damage appropriate for the players' abilities. In a sandbox style game you can find yourself facing opponents of far greater or lesser power....sometimes you should run away and sometimes you should pull your punches.4e, by the way, had a simply kludge for this: if you reduce an opponent to 0/negative hit points with an attack you can decide if that attack simply knocked them out/subdued them or actually killed them. 3e let you switch certain attacks to nn-lethal damage but then you had to keep track of separate damage pools. Anyway the player didn't seem have intended the death.Once they understand the game better I'd treat alignment in this way: you have a self-conception of yourself as &quot;good&quot; or &quot;justified&quot; and you have ideas about what behavior counts as &quot;good&quot; or &quot;justified.&quot; Everyone has different ideas and they may disagree. A player may act in a way she feels is morally right or she may act in a way that disappoints herself and feel the need to atone. Regardless, other people (PCs and NPCs alike) will have opinions about her behavior and will respond accordingly. Don't worry about whether team good or team evil or the platonic form of law approves of her behavior...just make sure that her behavior has consequences (beneficial or harmful) appropriate to the situation. And remember that players may have a reason to be together but their PCs might not...an adventuring band needs more than just plot shackles to keep it together.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ppaladin123, post: 6190388, member: 60923"] Yeah...especially if they are coming from a video game-shaped conception of fantasy, the players may assume that anything they meet is "their level," and thus a worthy opponent who can take and dish out damage appropriate for the players' abilities. In a sandbox style game you can find yourself facing opponents of far greater or lesser power....sometimes you should run away and sometimes you should pull your punches. 4e, by the way, had a simply kludge for this: if you reduce an opponent to 0/negative hit points with an attack you can decide if that attack simply knocked them out/subdued them or actually killed them. 3e let you switch certain attacks to nn-lethal damage but then you had to keep track of separate damage pools. Anyway the player didn't seem have intended the death. Once they understand the game better I'd treat alignment in this way: you have a self-conception of yourself as "good" or "justified" and you have ideas about what behavior counts as "good" or "justified." Everyone has different ideas and they may disagree. A player may act in a way she feels is morally right or she may act in a way that disappoints herself and feel the need to atone. Regardless, other people (PCs and NPCs alike) will have opinions about her behavior and will respond accordingly. Don't worry about whether team good or team evil or the platonic form of law approves of her behavior...just make sure that her behavior has consequences (beneficial or harmful) appropriate to the situation. And remember that players may have a reason to be together but their PCs might not...an adventuring band needs more than just plot shackles to keep it together. [/QUOTE]

Verification