Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1210470" data-attributes="member: 13654">It's not either/or, it's both.&nbsp; They smite anything that smells of evil AND they promulgate mercy and redemption.&nbsp; And the DM swings it regardless of the deity because the DM can outright overrule what might otherwise be suggested by the deity and can still interpret the tenets of the religion differently than the player.&nbsp; Example: Paladins always kill Evil.&nbsp; Paladins never kill children.&nbsp; Does a paladin kill an Evil child or not?&nbsp; The player may focus on the first statement, the DM on the second.&nbsp; Since the DM is the one who swings the alignment-conformity mallet it is the DM's interpretation that matters most and it is the DM who must inform the player of that interpretation BEFORE it has even the potential to become an in-game issue.NO!&nbsp; Because YOU, as DM have the sole power of enforcing YOUR interpretations you MUST inform the player - in no uncertain terms - when you percieve that he may be endangering paladinhood, rangerhood, druidhood, alignment status, etc.&nbsp; You cannot read the mind of players and know innately if their actions are deliberate for roleplaying reasons, deliberate based on false assumptions, or entirely unintentional.&nbsp; To then whack the PC with the behavior-enforcement mallet when they are NOT YET AWARE of their peril is more than mere bad form.After all, you could say to the player, &quot;Your paladin feels bad about this - are you sure you want to do it?&quot;&nbsp; The player could then think, &quot;Of course he feels bad about it, but it's a necessary and correct thing to do.&quot;&nbsp; He then says &quot;I do it anyway.&quot;&nbsp; You hit him with the mallet and the argument starts.Your first statement should be, &quot;Your paladin feels bad about this.&nbsp; He WILL lose his status if he does it because of the following reasons...&quot;&nbsp; The player can then respond either, &quot;Oh.&nbsp; Since you put it that way...&quot; or he can say, &quot;Well the characters reasoning is thus... so that's why he's doing it.&quot;&nbsp; All open.&nbsp; All above board.&nbsp; And if the DM has done his job and made his interpretations in the matter clear WELL ahead of time it may not even be an exchange that occurs at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D+1, post: 1210470, member: 13654"] It's not either/or, it's both. They smite anything that smells of evil AND they promulgate mercy and redemption. And the DM swings it regardless of the deity because the DM can outright overrule what might otherwise be suggested by the deity and can still interpret the tenets of the religion differently than the player. Example: Paladins always kill Evil. Paladins never kill children. Does a paladin kill an Evil child or not? The player may focus on the first statement, the DM on the second. Since the DM is the one who swings the alignment-conformity mallet it is the DM's interpretation that matters most and it is the DM who must inform the player of that interpretation BEFORE it has even the potential to become an in-game issue. NO! Because YOU, as DM have the sole power of enforcing YOUR interpretations you MUST inform the player - in no uncertain terms - when you percieve that he may be endangering paladinhood, rangerhood, druidhood, alignment status, etc. You cannot read the mind of players and know innately if their actions are deliberate for roleplaying reasons, deliberate based on false assumptions, or entirely unintentional. To then whack the PC with the behavior-enforcement mallet when they are NOT YET AWARE of their peril is more than mere bad form. After all, you could say to the player, "Your paladin feels bad about this - are you sure you want to do it?" The player could then think, "Of course he feels bad about it, but it's a necessary and correct thing to do." He then says "I do it anyway." You hit him with the mallet and the argument starts. Your first statement should be, "Your paladin feels bad about this. He WILL lose his status if he does it because of the following reasons..." The player can then respond either, "Oh. Since you put it that way..." or he can say, "Well the characters reasoning is thus... so that's why he's doing it." All open. All above board. And if the DM has done his job and made his interpretations in the matter clear WELL ahead of time it may not even be an exchange that occurs at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification