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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4138673" data-attributes="member: 2205">Oh, I know.  I just thought it was funny that you said "I agree with Hobo" and then went on to disagree with me completely. <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=":)" />I agree; thinking that what they're doing is actually justified and that they can call their characters good is the problem.  Thinking that the PC's actions don't have any consequences.  Good or evil, or even no alignment whatsoever (actually my preferred way to play) are all viable playstyles, but clearly the entire group has to be on the same page on how the game is going to go down.  I think that's the sticking point; if the DM thinks these actions are clearly evil (as do I) and the players think that they're good, then they need to talk it out and say, "hey, if you wanna play this way, here's what could happen to you: loss of paladin status, loss of cleric spells (for clerics of a good god), outlaw status if their role in the murders become well-known and the countryside is relatively settled and lawful... etc."  But if they don't think there are consequences for those kinds of actions and the DM does, then one way or another, it's going to come to a head at some point, and someone will be disappointed in the way the campaign turned out.</blockquote>

Verification