Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="navriin" data-source="post: 1164495" data-attributes="member: 1045">Hong...Generally people don't play paladins in my campaign because I tend to deal with a lot of moral ambiguities, which makes it difficult to play a paladin.  My players know that when their paladins do an evil or chaotic act, they will be punished for it, and that is how it should be, IMO *and* in their opinion.  Now if the group as a whole decided to play LG characters, I would probably see more paladins, but my players tend towards the neutral alighments.I disagree with you about the player/character motivation thing.  I feel it is the *players* responsibility to make their characters desire coincide with theirs, not the DM's.  A player who wants to kill lots of people and get treasure should not play a good character hoping he coincidently finds evil wherever he goes, he should just play a neutral or evil character.  Otherwise, you get a situation where the supposedly good character is always trying to manufacture situations where he can 'expose' evil so he can smite it and take their stuff.  This leads to bad roleplaying, which leads to a bad game.  (Unless you are playing a game where their is no roleplaying, in which case this is not a problem).(And no, I'm not accusing anyone of or not of roleplaying, I'm just stating that my campaign involes RP, and thus my decisions are based on it).As far as the comment about players being whatever they say they are, that is untrue.  A player can make a character stating he is LG, but if he goes around       ing people, he is not LG.  The DM is the one who ultimately knows a players alignment, not the players (detect alignment spells notwithstanding).</blockquote>

Verification