Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5582338" data-attributes="member: 4937">I understand this point in the context of 'Dogs', but surely even in 'Dogs' this depends on the group having some consensus about what valid ethical responces might be and addressing the problems posed in a way that the group finds to be mature and sophisticated.What happens if one or more of the 'Dogs' play like psychopaths, using their position to abuse and terrorize people? To a large extent I think this quote, &quot;The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.&quot;, entirely misses the point.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even in D&amp;D I seldom (if ever) am giving or withholding dice on the basis of 'the state of a PC's soul', and the game is unbiased with regards to which alignment stance is the correct one.&nbsp;&nbsp; I never go, &quot;Since your CE you get a -2 penalty on all actions.&quot;&nbsp; Yet, presumably, D&amp;D is one of the systems which 'Dogs' is judging in that quotation. When I think of holding a player to the consequences of their actions, I'm rarely if ever thinking about this in terms of mechanics rather than narrative.&nbsp; The narrative develops according to the players actions and the dictates of the setting.&nbsp;&nbsp; A player that acts like a psychopath is going to be feared and resented by most, and admired or groveled before by a some others.&nbsp; They are going to attract the attention of those that hunt down psychopaths, and they are going to be subject at times to rebellion by a few that refuse to be intimidated.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is going to occur regardless of my judgement upon the evils (or lack there of) of being a sadistic sociopathic killer.&nbsp; It's just a natural consequence of the actions.&nbsp; If you threaten a person, society, or community then at some level they'll try to defend themselves.&nbsp; If there is any chance they've been so threatened in the past, then they are probably pretty good at defending themselves.When I play D&amp;D, for every diety out there willing to judge someone deficient for any action, there is almost certain another diety that looks on the action approvingly.&nbsp; I have my own feelings on the matter, but I know more try to impose those directly than I cheat on the dice.&nbsp; I usually have much less to worry about me judging the players actions, than I do have to worry about one player judging another player's actions as incompatible or unacceptable.I would presume that that is the far more likely conflict in Dogs as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5582338, member: 4937"] I understand this point in the context of 'Dogs', but surely even in 'Dogs' this depends on the group having some consensus about what valid ethical responces might be and addressing the problems posed in a way that the group finds to be mature and sophisticated. What happens if one or more of the 'Dogs' play like psychopaths, using their position to abuse and terrorize people? To a large extent I think this quote, "The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.", entirely misses the point. Even in D&D I seldom (if ever) am giving or withholding dice on the basis of 'the state of a PC's soul', and the game is unbiased with regards to which alignment stance is the correct one. I never go, "Since your CE you get a -2 penalty on all actions." Yet, presumably, D&D is one of the systems which 'Dogs' is judging in that quotation. When I think of holding a player to the consequences of their actions, I'm rarely if ever thinking about this in terms of mechanics rather than narrative. The narrative develops according to the players actions and the dictates of the setting. A player that acts like a psychopath is going to be feared and resented by most, and admired or groveled before by a some others. They are going to attract the attention of those that hunt down psychopaths, and they are going to be subject at times to rebellion by a few that refuse to be intimidated. This is going to occur regardless of my judgement upon the evils (or lack there of) of being a sadistic sociopathic killer. It's just a natural consequence of the actions. If you threaten a person, society, or community then at some level they'll try to defend themselves. If there is any chance they've been so threatened in the past, then they are probably pretty good at defending themselves. When I play D&D, for every diety out there willing to judge someone deficient for any action, there is almost certain another diety that looks on the action approvingly. I have my own feelings on the matter, but I know more try to impose those directly than I cheat on the dice. I usually have much less to worry about me judging the players actions, than I do have to worry about one player judging another player's actions as incompatible or unacceptable. I would presume that that is the far more likely conflict in Dogs as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification