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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NoWayJose" data-source="post: 5531898" data-attributes="member: 84810">I still forsee many chances for a conflict of interest. ie the paladin has a choice to carry a dying woman to a hospital, or a sack of gold to be donated to a church, but he can't carry both. A serious Aragorn-type warrior focused on completing a mission, and can't be distracted by treasure-hunting (ya, he could donate to a church, but he has a world to save!) How about the implications of greed -- ie., that scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade... reach for the Holy Grail in the chasm and die trying. The player is arguably punishing himself when his ascetic monk or paladin or otherwise single-minded PC ignores the purchasing power of gold for the sake of a greater personal goal/motivation. With the introduction of this metagame rule, the PC is effectively punished twice. Then maybe the rule would work for a homegrown campaign, but I think it's way too fidgety to succeed on a greater scope. I forsee the possibility of DMs and players arguing over whether this or that is considered 'frivolous' when it falls into a grey area. Also, if a PC donates a large sum of money to a church without any expectation of reward in exchange for xp, but months later, a priest recognizes the hero's name as a great philanthroper and insists on returning the favor, then does the PC accept the favor and retrotractively lose the xp for the original frivolous-cum-non-frivolous spending, or does he decline the beneficial favor for purely metagame reasons? You have to rename this thread to "House Rules Designing MY Perfect D&D" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification