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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3281447" data-attributes="member: 198">Fair enough. I think you're dead wrong, but I also think you've got every right to hold that opinion. Only for people who necessarily agree with your definitions. Some of us don't.Not necessarily any and all others, however, IME. For example, let's say that there's an adventurer who is completely and fanatically devoted to his companions and will eliminate anyone who threatens them, with extreme prejudice, using any method whatsoever. He will happily poison, torture, maim, etc. anyone who he thinks is a current or possibly future danger to his allies. IME, he would be an evil character, but he's one who would never work against his allies. Does that make him "well behaved" or non-evil? Hell, no!Another definition issue. I personally think what you described as a mature player here is a significantly immature and not particularly creative player. D&D is a roleplaying game, and forgetting that it's a game is as silly as forgetting that it's about roleplaying. And characters are not set in stone, just as human beings in real life aren't. Most people in any given situation might react in a lot of different ways. The same should be true for most D&D characters. In a given situation, the chances are that the evil character can justifiably do a lot of different things, some of which will be more conducive to continuing play in the campaign than others. The mature and creative player, IMNSHO, is the one who will find a way to be both true to his character concept and continue the game. If he has one and only one possible choice to fit his character concept, the chances are that he's not too creative a thinker and/or has a very limited character concept.To use an example I did in another thread, based on what we have of his character in the play, Hamlet can justifiably not trust his father's Ghost. And he can justifiably trust it too. He can justifiably reject Ophelia, and he can justifiably be besotted with her too. He can justifiably kill Claudius and he can justifiably spare him. None of those opposed options are closed to him. Why? Because he's a complex and realistic character. I personally think it's a good idea to have characters in D&D, evil or good, be similarly complex.Not a necessity at all.Amazingly, we agree <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Whereas I think it is about maturity and there's no absolute need for an evil PC to turn on other PCs. Aren't opinions cool?And, as I said at the start, I think you're absolutely wrong. Luckily, as I also mentioned, my opinion has no influence on your game and yours has none on mine.Game on!</blockquote>

Verification