Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7906855" data-attributes="member: 6895991">Still, even if you do allow evil characters (i would not allow that at all for  some campaigns), what do you think is more invasive, prohibiting a race/class or prohibiting a certain RP concept?For me it is clearly the second, i hope you get what i try to express:E.g. a) Lets say the character wants to play a dragonborn rogueThe DM says no dragonborn please chose another race.b) Let's say the dragonborn rogue is allowed and he is a bit on the shady side, and decides to lift a shop in the homebase city of the PCs which could lead to ruining the reputation of the whole partyThe DM says, no now you go to far, you won't do thatc) Let's say the dragonborn rogue is of CN alingment and gets caught while shoplifting. He decides to off the shopkeeper to prevent him fro mcalling the city guard.Now the good/neutral party he is associated with would eventually be handled by officials as complicit with a murderer, if things come to light.The DM says your character is CN, he might do that but in the end he decides not to(That is big meta of course, to prevent to ruin the setting for everyone else)How would you rule in b) or c) (I know you would allow the character so a) is not an issue for you) and if you would intervene in these cases isn't that a much harsher intrusion on the PC than denying a) ?</blockquote>