NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Madfox" data-source="post: 1228094" data-attributes="member: 1714">Doesn't the main problem stems from different opinions on what action belongs to what alignment? Several of the examples given in this thread are more neutral in my opinion then evil (e.g. the so-called lawful evil warlord whose name was cleared by his paladin buddy). Since there is little discussion on the extremes of alignments, most DMs prefer to set down those alignment restrictions to prevent long winded discusions on whether something was evil or neutral. Personally, I tend to limit alignment to good only as well, especially when I don't really know the players involved. Perhaps this due to some very bad experiences with these so-called evil characters (never met a player who could portay a chaotic neutral character to my satisfaction) and perhaps it is because I personally feel more comfortable running and playing in heroic campaigns. It certainly has NOTHING to do with me being a control freak. Even then, I might allow a player to try to play neutrals or evils if they came with a good concept. I prefer to work with what the player wants <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> If there is one thing I will never accept: a character concept that will ultimately lead to violence within the party. That just ruins the fun for all involved. I have no problems with a bit of friction (though even that can get out of hand), but basically characters within one group should get along. I just cannot imagine a good character being able to be able to stay with an openly evil character.</blockquote>

Verification