Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 900382" data-attributes="member: 259">Interesting! I'm seeing a problem with Z's roleplaying, too -- but in the opposite direction.If I were playing a PC who believed in the possibilty for salvation for anyone, and my travelling companion starting killing babies because they'd grow up to be evil, I would not keep travelling with him.  I might try to kill him in order to save the babies, but I definitely would not fight alongside him in the future.Intra-party conflicts are interesting and can spice up gaming.  But I'd see this conflict as so divisive that I'd have trouble maintaining the party after it occurred.It's hard to think of a more divisive issue, really, than whether to kill the babies of one's enemies.Not that I'm condemning the Vallorean player's actions:  that's good stuff, RPwise, even if I'd find the attitude odious in real life.  But I wouldn't want that level of conflict IMC:  I believe that characters with such a fundamental moral disagreement are unlikely to cooperate with one another, absent major metagaming.Do y'all feel like you're metagaming when you have your characters work together, despite disagreeing over whether to slaughter the children of your enemies?Daniel</blockquote>