Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cbwjm" data-source="post: 7940272" data-attributes="member: 6788732"><p>Weird how many people who say they are in disagreement with the article come across as actually being in agreement with the article. Ed mentions that in your campaign it is absolutely fine to kill off an important NPC, it's your campaign, you don't need anyone's permission to kill of Elminster or King Azoun or whoever. It's only if writing for the company that produces the IP that you might need to take care about what happens. Even in the scenario with the dying king, it would suck if I was a player and the party did everything right, no delays to side quests, only to return and have the DM say &quot;Too late, the king died.&quot; People might disparage the vizier killing the king but then that gives the party a new goal, they were thwarted not by poor writing but by a twist in the plot. I'd think that would be a great conclusion to the current adventure and a springboard into the next.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="cbwjm, post: 7940272, member: 6788732"] Weird how many people who say they are in disagreement with the article come across as actually being in agreement with the article. Ed mentions that in your campaign it is absolutely fine to kill off an important NPC, it's your campaign, you don't need anyone's permission to kill of Elminster or King Azoun or whoever. It's only if writing for the company that produces the IP that you might need to take care about what happens. Even in the scenario with the dying king, it would suck if I was a player and the party did everything right, no delays to side quests, only to return and have the DM say "Too late, the king died." People might disparage the vizier killing the king but then that gives the party a new goal, they were thwarted not by poor writing but by a twist in the plot. I'd think that would be a great conclusion to the current adventure and a springboard into the next. [/QUOTE]

Verification