Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vexed" data-source="post: 2554505" data-attributes="member: 7361">---hmm I never understood dm's who restricted alignment. (I can see CE, because in game, they don't have to justify anything.&nbsp; Unless you have an intelligent player who is willing to do it).&nbsp; In a meta game sense its like &quot;ok, you are evil.&nbsp; But a lot of people in the party are not.&nbsp; You have to get a long with them for us to have a gaming session that isn't filled with internal squabbling and doesn't degenerate into out of game arguments.&nbsp;&nbsp; Come up with a reason your charter will keep a handle on &quot;evil&quot; acts around the PCs.&nbsp; If they can't grasp that concept, then maybe they are not mature enough to be in the group.&quot;&nbsp; In any event.&nbsp; If this new players started the game and there was an established PC that has a Paladin they should know &quot;moral dilemmas&quot; are going to arise.&nbsp; They shouldn't be playing a character that is going to be at odds with him, knowing what most Paladins are going to have issues with...(my thoughts for the DM)In this instance, if the Paladin doesn't detect evil on the goblin children, and he assumes responsibility for them.&nbsp; And the dwarf still wants to kill them on the grounds they are inherently evil creatures, and are irredeemable. I would have to side with the Paladin for the fact he 1)took responsibly of the situation, what to do with them now isn't an issue... and 2)He should be the de facto person to go to on who can be &quot;saved&quot;.&nbsp; Insisting on killing the children in spite of this is unreasonable in my opinion to a group of &quot;good&quot; PC's in the above scenario.(My thoughts for the Player Characters)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vexed, post: 2554505, member: 7361"] --- hmm I never understood dm's who restricted alignment. (I can see CE, because in game, they don't have to justify anything. Unless you have an intelligent player who is willing to do it). In a meta game sense its like "ok, you are evil. But a lot of people in the party are not. You have to get a long with them for us to have a gaming session that isn't filled with internal squabbling and doesn't degenerate into out of game arguments. Come up with a reason your charter will keep a handle on "evil" acts around the PCs. If they can't grasp that concept, then maybe they are not mature enough to be in the group." In any event. If this new players started the game and there was an established PC that has a Paladin they should know "moral dilemmas" are going to arise. They shouldn't be playing a character that is going to be at odds with him, knowing what most Paladins are going to have issues with... (my thoughts for the DM) In this instance, if the Paladin doesn't detect evil on the goblin children, and he assumes responsibility for them. And the dwarf still wants to kill them on the grounds they are inherently evil creatures, and are irredeemable. I would have to side with the Paladin for the fact he 1)took responsibly of the situation, what to do with them now isn't an issue... and 2)He should be the de facto person to go to on who can be "saved". Insisting on killing the children in spite of this is unreasonable in my opinion to a group of "good" PC's in the above scenario. (My thoughts for the Player Characters) [/QUOTE]

Verification