Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tom Cashel" data-source="post: 100371" data-attributes="member: 321">Whoa...everybody's all authoritarian in here...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> First, I'd like to say that I had a great player in my campaign until just recently.&nbsp; He played a CN fighter, who also had a low wisdom score, and role-played it very well.&nbsp; He claimed to worship Tempus, god of war, but tended to run away from fights that seemed to be going badly.&nbsp; He volunteered to climb 100' cliffs (and was saved only by the timely intervention of the party wizard with a feather fall), but his one and only motivation for adventuring was &quot;loot.&quot;&nbsp; The reason he doesn't play anymore?&nbsp; Because I had to kick his supra-disruptive wife out of the group; her putative alignment was CG.&nbsp; When she left, he (with no hard feelings) had to quit as well.This leads me to my second point: role-playing in a group requires a certain amount of maturity and a certain amount of meta-thinking.&nbsp; You might be CN or CG, but a &quot;properly played&quot; chaotic alignment is unlikely to share the group ethic.&nbsp; Since the player wants to play D&amp;D, it is advisable that they find some reason to embrace the party.&nbsp; Players have to be mature enough to want to play as a group, not &quot;play alignment correctly&quot; at the expense of a fun game.&nbsp; DMs have to be willing to explain their conception of chosen alignments when the game begins.&nbsp; That said, a mix of alignments in such a group can lead to interesting personality dynamics and fun role-playing (more fun, IMO, than a pack of like-minded heroes advancing toward the goal...what fun would the X-Men be if Cyclops and Wolverine didn't have their jabs at each other?)...but the players have to be willing to keep the group together, and not let petty rivalries invade real life.Disruptive players will disrupt your campaign, no matter what alignment they choose.&nbsp; The solution is not to ban a game mechanic, but (as others have said) to ban the player who consistently disrupts the game.Or just kill a few of their offending characters first; see how they like that.&nbsp; Instead of &quot;the town guard follows you around with spears,&quot; how about &quot;a town archer gets a lucky shot--a 20!--and you're dead.&nbsp; Make another character while we continue the game.&quot;&nbsp; Perhaps a gentle reminder that they might want to avoid inanity if they'd like to see 2nd level...Good luck!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tom Cashel, post: 100371, member: 321"] Whoa...everybody's all authoritarian in here... ;) First, I'd like to say that I had a great player in my campaign until just recently. He played a CN fighter, who also had a low wisdom score, and role-played it very well. He claimed to worship Tempus, god of war, but tended to run away from fights that seemed to be going badly. He volunteered to climb 100' cliffs (and was saved only by the timely intervention of the party wizard with a [i]feather fall[/i]), but his one and only motivation for adventuring was "loot." The reason he doesn't play anymore? Because I had to kick his supra-disruptive wife out of the group; her putative alignment was CG. When she left, he (with no hard feelings) had to quit as well. This leads me to my second point: role-playing in a group requires a certain amount of maturity and a certain amount of meta-thinking. You might be CN or CG, but a "properly played" chaotic alignment is unlikely to share the group ethic. Since the [i]player[/i] wants to play D&D, it is advisable that they find some reason to embrace the party. Players have to be mature enough to want to play as a group, not "play alignment correctly" at the expense of a fun game. DMs have to be willing to explain their conception of chosen alignments when the game begins. That said, a mix of alignments in such a group can lead to interesting personality dynamics and fun role-playing (more fun, IMO, than a pack of like-minded heroes advancing toward the goal...what fun would the X-Men be if Cyclops and Wolverine didn't have their jabs at each other?)...but the [i]players[/i] have to be willing to keep the group together, and not let petty rivalries invade real life. Disruptive players will disrupt your campaign, no matter what alignment they choose. The solution is not to ban a game mechanic, but (as others have said) to ban the player who consistently disrupts the game. Or just kill a few of their offending characters first; see how they like that. Instead of "the town guard follows you around with spears," how about "a town archer gets a lucky shot--a 20!--and you're dead. Make another character while we continue the game." Perhaps a gentle reminder that they might want to avoid inanity if they'd like to see 2nd level... Good luck! [/QUOTE]

Verification