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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 2985097" data-attributes="member: 3887">Are you really suggesting that there are times when groups shouldn't try and work together to make the game enjoyable for everyone? That can't be what your saying, because it wouldn't make any sense.What's wrong with the players and DM conspiring to create a context in which good and evil characters can work together? And how does that equate to 'redefining Good and Evil'? Even if it did, so what, if we're all having a good time?In every campaign I've played in, people have had to redefine their characters to some extent in order to accomodate the other players. I've always felt that was a skill to cultivate when playing RPG's, since so much of the game involves negotiations and compromise, in the both the in-game and metagame sense.As for Paladins... well, yeah, they're screwed.Not to wax all "Matrix-y", but... there is no peg, there is no hole, and there sure as hell isn't any chisel. Finding reasons for a group to work together is only as hard as you make. Consider how fraught with improbability the iconic party is; knight, priest, heathen wizard, and guy who steals things. And the iconic meet-up scenario; "Uh... you all meet in a tavern". No-one complains too loudly about the logical loopholes required to make that work, so why is it so different when it comes to rationalizing why differently-aligned characters can adventure together?What should be done is easy; the players should talk, find a workable compromise, then go forth and have kick-ass adventures...</blockquote>

Verification