Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 2816070" data-attributes="member: 17550">The tone is very clearly so, yes.Let me clarify, since you seem to miss the point - it is not morally acceptable, and doing so is an moral failing.  That's pretty well accepted in the Western mode of thought, thus not really subject to debate.'Honesty is the best policy,' I believe.  It may not be the most expedient policy, but it does wonders to avoid trouble down the road when combined with communication.  They're both based in dishonesty, thus being morally and ethically suspect, yes.I offered another hypothesis to the one you presented.  And it would be the character nearly dying or being dead, I hope, not the player.When I speak of actions leading to disruption of the group, we're talking basic behaviors that have nothing to do with metagaming - running far ahead of the party and provoking encounters to the detriment of the group, playing 'lone wolf' characters in group-oriented campaigns, etc.  Those are player behaviors, and if they lose their supposedly valued playing piece engaging in disruptive behavior, it's best for them to learn from the experience.Well, as paralogic goes, that's still a weak argument - you have yet to provide evidence that supports a situation where being dishonest, be it by fiddling with your character sheet, cheating on die rolls, metagaming, is something that's acceptable.  You keep falling back on social lubricant arguments (the 'little white lie'), when the issue is nothing of the sort.  We're speaking violation of social contract, violation of trust and disruptive, damaging behavior at the game table that leads to other people not having fun.  That's the opposite of social lubricant, diplomacy and manners - it's selfish, unsupportable behavior at the expense of others.  And no, I don't abide that.</blockquote>

Verification