Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6250123" data-attributes="member: 22424">On a slightly different tack, my preference when dealing what characters with "a code" is to agree with the player a half-dozen or so specific things he is sworn to. My go-to example is the Knight of the Old Code from "Dragonheart":A knight is sworn to valourHis heart knows only virtueHis blade defends the helplessHis might upholds the weakHis word speaks only truthHis wrath undoes the wicked.Obviously, if the character egregiously violates the code, then he falls as per normal, and may or may not be able to gain atonement. But that would be obvious when it happens - if said Knight instead turned and attacked the helpless, there's little doubt over what's happening.However, for the more common case of minor infractions, questioned interpretations, and all the other "grey area" stuff, what I do is as follows:If the character makes any infraction against one of these points, regardless of his reasons, regardless of circumstance, regardless of rationalisations or justifications... for any infraction, place a mark against that point in the code. And then carry on as before. As long as at least one clause remains un-marked, he doesn't fall.However, once the character has a mark against every clause in the code, at that point he is judged to have broken the code. He falls from grace, but can recover his status by seeking atonement. At which point all the marks are erased, and he starts again with a clean slate.(I recommend not allowing the character to benefit from atonement unless and until he falls - otherwise, the whole exercise becomes just that bit too easy.)The benefit of this approach is that it both reduces arguments over interpretation (since any violation counts), but also reduces the importance of a single minor infraction (because the character has "six strikes"). It also means, of course, that you can have a Paladin who suffers from a besetting weakness and simply cannot stick rigorously to one of the points of the code - provided it's a question of slipping, rather than of violation, he wouldn't fall.</blockquote>

Verification