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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5574277" data-attributes="member: 18280"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />So, let me get this right.You think that the player was in the right, because the GM failed to provide enough information for him to make a meaningful decision.  You also think that the GM providing meaningful information is railroading.I am not at all sure what you mean here by "an ingame matter".  Are you suggesting that the GM providing additional information as it becomes relevant during actual game play is somehow worse than providing all possible relevant information before the game begins?Again, take a look at the OP.  The GM wanted to ensure that the player understood the value of the objects, and understood that there was no moral dilemma present a priori from the game world.  In D&D, at least by RAW, "evil" is more than a metaphysical concept.  It is "real", and it can be detected.  Whether or not something is "evil" in that sense can be a known factor within the context of the world.Whether or not that context is the sole definition of "evil" is, of course, then open....leaving lots of space for grey matters.  In RCFG I solved this, and opened up more grey area, by simply declaring that "Evil" within the metamagical context merely means "connected to the lower planes".But, be that as it may, "evil", in the sense of the Detect Evil spell, is not an open question.  And, within the tradition of D&D, necromancy is, far more often than not, considered "evil" in that sense.  It would have been irresponsible of the GM not to have ensured that the player understood that things were different in her campaign milieu before he destroyed the artifacts.  Had the GM not made sure that the player understood the context, the entire group would have been (rightly) upset.Not at all certain what you are after here.Clearly, there was a decision to destroy the artifacts.Perhaps (depending upon how you look at it), there was a decision to betray the party.But no decision is meaningful without both context and consequence.  It seems to me that you are trying to claim that context and consequence -- the things that make decisions meaningful -- are railroading.  In fact, from your posts on this thread, I am at a loss how one can have a GM and not be railroading.....it seems as though depriving the players of any decision related to context or consequence is too much of a straight jacket for you.Which is cool, if you and your players enjoy that.  However, not everyone rolls that way!RC</blockquote>

Verification