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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5401458">Irrelevent. The players are playing their characters in the game. The loot from the King is in the game. It doesn't matter what the players think if they're playing their characters, it's what their characters think that matters. Of course, and he would likewise have fun turning the rogue in. As much as I would like to get into a theoretical political discussion, my point was for illustration, not a stepping stone into my favored past-time, political debate. The point can be summed up as a variation of "never split the party". Don't split characters up in-game, as it's a great way for them all to die. Likewise, splits between players are a good way for the game to die because there will be a lack of cohesion, resulting in the game locking down and nothing being accomplished, or the majority siding against the minority. D&D is as much a social gathering as it is a game. If you don't preserve the enjoyable social atmosphere, then you're left with a very barren game. I was under the impression we were discussing D&D. I readily admit there are other games that do things differently because IMO they were designed to function that way. IMO D&D is not. I'm not sure what world you live in, but I've yet to find a single D&D game, even the most incredibly sandboxy, in which the DM is not in charge. "RPGs" are not what I'm concerned about. I'm talking about D&D. I'm certain we can come up with other games that are played differently, because they are in general, different games. Great! We're agreed that different games are different.  Great! We agreed different games are different!  In every edition before 4.0, by lawful good HE MUST, or he was no longer a paladin. Though 4.0 has changed that, players playing "lawful good" understand that "good" and "lawful" means they don't support robbing people. Of course he can. These make for all sorts of interesting conferences. They weren't included in my previous example. But I certainly agree that extenuating circumstances can change the way things would be expected to happen. I included none because we can add ANY extenuating circumstanes. What if the rogue is really the King's son? Certainly, he could, he may likewise choose to not look in the sack and cover his ears until someone comes over and shows him the thing. At which point he may reconsider his stance. I kept my example simple for a reason. Because it was simple, adding "what ifs" to get out of the original problem created by it simply ignores the whole point and premise. As I said, I do not. What if the lawful good player does? How do I reconcile that? Certainly I could do something as you suggest, cause the paladin to question his support for the law.  That however, can come out looking like I'm supporting one player against another, why must he be forced to question his morality when the guy who has none is not questioning his? Likewise, I could prevent the rogue from stealing from the King to begin with, and thus, never create a problem, sure, the player may be bummed he couldn't rob the King, but there are plenty of ways to do so without forcing a player to re-evaluate their character's moral standing because of the actions of another. In my situation, I force the rogue's player to learn his limits.  In yours, you force the paladin to re-evaluate his morals.  One way or the other, someone is getting forced to do something they'd rather not do.</blockquote>

Verification