Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 570660" data-attributes="member: 812">The fact is, you MUST decide what "Good" and "Evil" mean in your campaign, and your player has to abide by those definitions. It's not a question of being heavy-handed, and by all means listen to his ideas on the subject. But if you have one interpretation of alignment and he has another, ultimately you're the DM. Your interpretation is the correct one for your campaign.You see what I'm saying? You don't have to AGREE on moral distinctions. You don't have to have the same world view. What you ACTUALLY think about Good and Evil is beside the point. All that matters in this instance is how YOU choose to define Good and Evil in your campaign.Every DM has to Rule 0 this issue. There's no objectively right or wrong way to go. It's your campaign so you have to decide.Once you've decided, I think you should just let the player know -- from now on, killing people who are doing no harm is EVIL -- regardless of their alignment. If he persists, then he is knowingly performing an act which in your campaign is defined as EVIL, and therefore he is not trying to behave like a good guy.Which is FINE. But you shouldn't allow him to remain a paladin in that case. Or you'll have to Rule 0 paladins as well.Hey, that's what I did.</blockquote>