Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6249936" data-attributes="member: 6669384">We have a player in our game who brought in a character with a PRC from a third party book.&nbsp; The PRC is called &quot;Golden One&quot;, and according to the Web Book of Prestige Classes, there's an Alignment requirement similar to a Paladin's.I'd like to sort of think out loud about what that means to me:1) Obviously, no Evil acts.2) Chaotic acts are allowable, so long as the over all alignment stays Lawful.3) No lies, gratuitous killing, theft. ect.My player (yes, I'm the DM now) has his character referring to himself in the third person.&nbsp; &quot;He'll have to answer to the Golden One for that&quot; kind of thing.To me that's fine.&nbsp; As far as I know, humility isn't on the list of requirements.One trend I've seen with him, though, has been the game of playing along with the group on something, accepting the benefits of whatever we were doing, but later declaring, &quot;Well I didn't actually agree with anything.&quot;&nbsp; as a way of avoiding moral or social consequences or responsibility.Another has been with regards to deals made and things said:&nbsp; &quot;Does he have that in writing?&nbsp; If not...&quot;.I can't say that that last part isn't Lawful.&nbsp; To me though, it's more like Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil.&nbsp; It's &quot;lawful&quot; like a lawyer, not like a Paladin.It's not exactly a lie, and it's hard to say that it's &quot;Evil&quot;, in a rules-of-the-game sense, but it sure doesn't sound like the kind of thing a Paladin should/would do.I've mentioned these issues to him before, when we were both players and someone else was DM.&nbsp; But now I'm the DM.I could arrange an opportunity for him to do that, then slap him down, but that's kinda cold.&nbsp; In the same line as a DM targeting a PC for death.&nbsp; Really bad form.So I think I'll kind of set it aside in my mind, run the campaign and see where things go.&nbsp; Hopefully we'll be able to avoid that kind of conflict.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6249936, member: 6669384"] We have a player in our game who brought in a character with a PRC from a third party book. The PRC is called "Golden One", and according to the Web Book of Prestige Classes, there's an Alignment requirement similar to a Paladin's. I'd like to sort of think out loud about what that means to me: 1) Obviously, no Evil acts. 2) Chaotic acts are allowable, so long as the over all alignment stays Lawful. 3) No lies, gratuitous killing, theft. ect. My player (yes, I'm the DM now) has his character referring to himself in the third person. "He'll have to answer to the Golden One for that" kind of thing. To me that's fine. As far as I know, humility isn't on the list of requirements. One trend I've seen with him, though, has been the game of playing along with the group on something, accepting the benefits of whatever we were doing, but later declaring, "Well [I]I[/I] didn't actually agree with anything." as a way of avoiding moral or social consequences or responsibility. Another has been with regards to deals made and things said: "Does he have that in writing? If not...". I can't say that that last part isn't Lawful. To me though, it's more like Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. It's "lawful" like a lawyer, not like a Paladin. It's not exactly a lie, and it's hard to say that it's "Evil", in a rules-of-the-game sense, but it sure doesn't sound like the kind of thing a Paladin should/would do. I've mentioned these issues to him before, when we were both players and someone else was DM. But now I'm the DM. I could arrange an opportunity for him to do that, then slap him down, but that's kinda cold. In the same line as a DM targeting a PC for death. Really bad form. So I think I'll kind of set it aside in my mind, run the campaign and see where things go. Hopefully we'll be able to avoid that kind of conflict. [/QUOTE]

Verification