Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="silburnl" data-source="post: 1079878" data-attributes="member: 13560">An interesting debate. Personally I don't think Centaur should be thinking of this situation as a problem - rather its an opportunity to launch a sub-plot centred upon Chris' character and his falling out with the church.Firstly I think there has to be be some form of negative consequence for the PC - they have offended against all sorts of legal, religious and societal norms and it is flat-out not plausible that the church could let this pass; the PCs have been given a relatively painless way to make ammends by the church and if the PC throws this back in their teeth then they *have* to escalate to retain credibility and authority.Personally I would suggest that there should be a process of escalating ostracism - starting with simple withdrawal of clerical services to the PC. As time passes this ban should extend (allied churches withdraw favour, associates of the PC included in the interdict, sanctions applied by the secular authorities),  intensify (paladins and similar zealots make life unpleasant, curses imposed) and the penances required to put things right should become more onerous. Mix and match with political divisions and splits within the offended church, their allies and enemies and the PC's allies and enemies and you've got a storyline chock full of opportunities for skullduggery, intrigue, moral quandries and (eventual) PC triumph.We now turn to issues of play style and maximum gaming fun. As others have suggested it could be that a 'kick down the door' player might become frustrated and annoyed by this sort of thing happening to their character; certainly this is a consideration, but the wider group is also an issue here - if I was playing in this game then Chris' character literally getting getting away with murder (or whatever you call a killing reversed by a Raise Dead) would break my WSoD in a major way. I like to play in a world which is somewhat plausible and where actions have consequences - piss off a major church, expect to be in a world of grief. If another player is able to break this internal consistency simply by threatening a sulk then that player is ruining *my* fun and that isn't something that I should have to put up with just to keep the peace.The answer, as usual, is communication. The GM needs to talk some of these issues out with Chris and the other players and separate the IC issues from OC issues. Is Chris so recalcitrant because *he* thinks the situation is whacked and unjust or is he actually role-playing an outraged vigilante? Do the other players expect to see consequences flowing from this dispute? Are the group as a whole comfortable with potential splits (say if there's a player cleric or paladin who is going to be pulled both ways by this feud)? A dialogue whereby the GM lays out what he thinks should be happening, why it should be happening and what the potential consequences are for the characters (and the gaming group) is usually very useful for making sure everyone is on the same page and identifying potential play-style conflicts before they manifest in the game. Some players can find this sort of troupe-style play uncomfortable (especially if they have mostly played in 'old-school' adversarial games) but on the whole, once they get over the weirdness of being *consulted* by their DM, they like having the opportunity of getting a longer term steer on the direction and themes of the campaign.RegardsLuke</blockquote>

Verification