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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7815589" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ooh, I like it, but you left something out.  Let's add it back in and see if it looks differently:"The man has also just discovered the cure for cancer and he and his wife are on the way to deliver the research to the world.  If they both die, the research dies with them.  Cancer may still be cured by someone else, but this cure will be lost."Now, does that change anything at all?  Is one life worth the cure for cancer?Look, this was essentially a version of the trolley problem.  There's not a right moral answer.  It's all bad.  I'd, perhaps, encourage the player to consider the action and what it means to their character -- ie, what the player wants to do about it, but the moment I, as DM, start deciding what should happen between this player and their character, I'm stepping across the line and playing their character for them.  Now, I can have the world react, but altering the character is bad mojo.  I can apply external NPC pressure, but I should not be in the business of changing anything on the PC's character sheet.  This holds even outside needing to correct for the bad scenario presented.  A player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall.  The worst I can do (and, honestly, it's pretty bad) is have the world treat them appropriate to their actions.  This archaic idea of what a paladin should be or that paladin actually have DM enforceable roleplaying levers is best left in older editions or in your table rules.</blockquote>

Verification