Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5868178" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Perversely, I could see this as an interesting mechanic in a game focused around a &quot;Law vs Chaos&quot; concept where the PC's are in the Robin Hood role of rebelling against a rigid system, and are at a disadvantage because the Powers of the world favour such rigidity.&nbsp; Similarly, it could be an interesting mechanic in an Evil campaign, where the characters oppose the forces of Good who have an advantage in the karma provided by their Good (and Lawful, maybe or maybe not) Powers who are in ascendance.However, I definitely see it as a mechanic suitable to a world where a certain ethos is rewarded by Higher Powers, giving that ethos an advantage over the rest of the world.&nbsp; I would expect, in the structure provided above, that Law and Good would be in ascendance, as that ethos has a serious advantage over any competition.It might also be an interesting addition if following the precepts of Law and Good places the character at a significant disadvantage, again a very campaign specific issue.&nbsp; &quot;Evil has won, and the followers of Good are much diminished.&nbsp; The Gods of Good are much more active in aiding their followers, provided they demonstrate the precepts of Good and Lawful behaviour.&quot;In those contexts, it could be a very flavourful mechanic.&nbsp; However, if it's just a stick to beat the characters who don't conform to the desired playstyle, not so much.&nbsp; There, I would suggest a discussion between players and GM as to the type of campaign desired is in order.&nbsp; If the GM wants to run a game for noble, self-sacrificing paragons of virtue, and the players want to play a game of hard-bitten, morally ambiguous mercenaries, there's a problem.&nbsp; Adding mechanics to beat the players into line isn't going to solve it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 5868178, member: 6681948"] Perversely, I could see this as an interesting mechanic in a game focused around a "Law vs Chaos" concept where the PC's are in the Robin Hood role of rebelling against a rigid system, and are at a disadvantage because the Powers of the world favour such rigidity. Similarly, it could be an interesting mechanic in an Evil campaign, where the characters oppose the forces of Good who have an advantage in the karma provided by their Good (and Lawful, maybe or maybe not) Powers who are in ascendance. However, I definitely see it as a mechanic suitable to a world where a certain ethos is rewarded by Higher Powers, giving that ethos an advantage over the rest of the world. I would expect, in the structure provided above, that Law and Good would be in ascendance, as that ethos has a serious advantage over any competition. It might also be an interesting addition if following the precepts of Law and Good places the character at a significant disadvantage, again a very campaign specific issue. "Evil has won, and the followers of Good are much diminished. The Gods of Good are much more active in aiding their followers, provided they demonstrate the precepts of Good and Lawful behaviour." In those contexts, it could be a very flavourful mechanic. However, if it's just a stick to beat the characters who don't conform to the desired playstyle, not so much. There, I would suggest a discussion between players and GM as to the type of campaign desired is in order. If the GM wants to run a game for noble, self-sacrificing paragons of virtue, and the players want to play a game of hard-bitten, morally ambiguous mercenaries, there's a problem. Adding mechanics to beat the players into line isn't going to solve it. [/QUOTE]

Verification