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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 5575584" data-attributes="member: 9037">I guess I am being a blond here but I don't get it. Yes we shadowrunners decided that murder is bad for us. But the DM of that game runs the game based on the world and in that world murder is bad and is illegal and can get you thrown in jail or worse for doing it. If we murdered someone in game I am sure that depending on how well we covered our tracks we might get caught and have Lone Star or one of the other law enforcement corps try to capture us or take us out. Or worse have the corporation hire other runners to take us out.It is not the only way to play a lot of groups have no hesitation about killing and do it all the time. It does not change the fact that under the laws of the game murder is illegal. In DnD the only characters who lose abilities are paladins and maybe clerics. And in DnD if played by the RAW evil and good are not just concepts they are a tangible force. I guess I look at it this way the DM gets to decide what is good and what is evil in their world. That is part of their job. The players get to decide how they approach the world. Take for example the players find out that a baby is destined to grow up and destroy the world. If in this world killing innocent babies is evil. Then killing that baby now could be an evil act. The party could be caught and prosecuted for it. The paladin and clerics may lose their powers over it. Depending on how the god views their actions.Or the DM may decide that it was the paladin's god was who sent the message and killing the baby while getting the paladin in trouble with the secular authorities will not cost him his paladinship in the eyes of the god.The point is the DM has set up a moral dilemma and has let the players know what is considered good and what is considered evil in the world. The players then have to make a choice a very hard choice on what to do. That is what makes moral dilemmas challenging. Using a paladin as an example say killing the baby is going to cost him his abilities but he feels that it is still the right thing to do. Then the consequences of losing his abilities is the cost of his choosing what he thinks is the morally correct thing to do. If it is up to him alone to decide of it it effects his abilities then there is no challenge being presented.I have a caveat here with concerns to actually taking away things from players the players and DM have to have open communication going on. If it is going to totally upset and piss off the player then the DM should rethink the challenge or consequences.As I pointed out in an earlier thread we did talk about what we all wanted. I think the player of the dwarf has changed what he wants. I think he right now wants to play what we call DnD lite. More killing more rewards less gray areas. Which is why I am thinking of running something short and more light hearted like Chill.</blockquote>

Verification