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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MG.0" data-source="post: 6695415" data-attributes="member: 6799436">Of course someone would take it literally.  *sigh*  The phrase "that's what my character would do" is often the rallying cry of the disruptive player, trying to argue a point. It is intent that matters.  It has nothing to do with bonds, paladin oaths, or any other aspect of the game. It is perfectly fine to have those characteristics and intend for your character to follow them. It is NOT ok to use them to beat the rest of the players over the head with your choices. Say you have a lawful good paladin and a chaotic evil assassin in a party and they have captured a prisoner. Prisoners seem to be a common cause of disruption when it comes time to finally deal with them. The paladin may want them spared, while the assassin may want them dead, or it might even be the opposite (the assassin isn't getting paid, the paladin sees the prisoner as irredeemable). They both have reasons. I ask that the players work out the narrative of what should happen and then the characters follow suit. Anyone at the table unwilling to work with the other players because "that's what my character would do" would be summarily removed from the game.   Edit: It's not like the player can claim surprise. I make this rule known at the start of any campaign. We are here to have fun. Anyone jeopardizing that fun is a problem. You are free to develop your character however you wish, but not to the point of stomping on the other players' fun. If characters have a disagreement on what should happen, the players should decide. If they cannot reach an agreement, then I will decide for them, up to and including removing one or more players. As a result, I've only ever had to remove a couple players, and that was a long time ago.</blockquote>

Verification