NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8921009" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I strongly dislike it, and would not do this. Moral consequences don't require "your character is fundamentally different, doesn't matter what you think." Becoming known for betraying allies (even if they are allies of convenience), having deities who turn you away because you did evil things, etc.--that kind of thing has been more than enough for my game.Of course they are. The patronage thing is only relevant in the form of really awful mechanics like "ah, you didn't pray to the four directions this morning, now your character sucks forever." It's stupidly, egregiously, punitively harsh for no reason other than to be egregious and punitive.Everything else can--and should--be handled with, y'know, actually managable processes and actions, not sudden, instant, from-on-high (or, I guess, from-on-low, given most warlock patrons) declarations of irrevocable change.Sure he did. He was telling her, "You thought you were playing Good, but you were actually playing Netural. Better luck next time, enjoy your permanent disbarment from tons of stuff until you cross the magical, invisible line that fixes things again!"The problem with these sorts of declarations isn't that alignment can change (because any functional system thereof should permit that.) It's that it is sudden, coming from a near-total lack of communication, and instantly enforced. Had this been a clear and explicit pattern, with clear warnings beforehand, then sure, have at it. But most alignment-loving DMs I've seen never do that. They spring it on an unsuspecting player who's simply done a few things they thought were fine but the DM did not, and the latter never spoke of it until it crossed an invisible, unstated line.This, incidentally, is a big part of why I'm so thoroughly skeptical of things like "invisible rulebooks" and "the rules are just suggestions" and the like. Because way, way, WAY too many DMs simply refuse to communicate for whatever reason.I just say "no evil." Easy enough, and "evil" as a term has existed for a long, long time before any of this "alignment" business.It absolutely is not. There are PLENTY of ways to drive actually substantial discussion, rather than the trivial nonsense "discussion" that alignment almost always fosters when it gets discussed at all. Gods and devils, contracts, keeping one's word, curses/geasa, reputation, all sorts of things.Okay. It's worked extremely poorly for a ton of people for more than 35 years.Which, again, aren't actually present (though I know you've already recognized this.)This is just a fancy way of saying "you've been playing wrong, time to suffer for it!" You literally admit this in your final sentence: there is an "external/universal perception" and it is the correct one essentially all of the time. That's literally telling people there is a right way to play!Sure I can, because my reason isn't "I am restricting this alignment." As I have made clear many, many, many times in the past, my reason for saying, "Please don't play evil PCs" is I can't run a good game for evil characters. It has nothing to do with playing Moral Policeman and everything to do with, "I want to offer you the best experience I can, and I can't offer a good experience for evil characters. That's a me problem, but I can't change it."</blockquote>

Verification