Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ysgarran" data-source="post: 4942451" data-attributes="member: 709">Well, I see an NPC's alignment heavily influencing their character so I'm really asking how does a PC determine when a NPC is deserving for a chance at redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp; By the rules that NPC is evil but it still leaves room for contra-indicators in the NPCs personality and actions.&nbsp;&nbsp; I enjoy creating villians with complex motivations.&nbsp; The PCs in my campaign agonized over the final fate of the main antagonist in Pazio's &quot;Burnt Offerings&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't think I could have done that if the NPC was remittingly evil without some at least some redeeming qualities.&nbsp;&nbsp; The lawful characters thought the case was pretty cut and dried.&nbsp;&nbsp; The neutral ones argued for a bit more leniency.I usually like symmetry but I'm not sure if it holds up here.&nbsp; As we go back to the definition of 'good' this NPC has not been willing to make sacrifices in the cause of good.&nbsp; I would lean towards neutral.&nbsp; An aspect to the campaigns I run is that alignment is not a straight-jacket and NPCs can display a variety of actions and behaviours.&nbsp; For me the answer is a very clear yes.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is the key, behaviour can be based on the cultural milieu and how that culture interacts with other cultures.&nbsp; It is not uncommon for treatment of others to be strictly determined on cultural boundaries.&nbsp; If you are part of the tribe then you are treated with kindness and respect, if you are not part of the tribe then you have no protections (within the tribal traditions).&nbsp; Cultural overlays do have an effect on how someone is treated.&nbsp; Depending on the tribe the reaction can be anywhere from extreme and violent xenophobia to a polite escort out of the tribal lands.I also said this is not how D&amp;D is often played (i.e not a common paradigm for D&amp;D).&nbsp; If you consider this one of those strange *edge cases*...shrug...thats fine too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ysgarran, post: 4942451, member: 709"] Well, I see an NPC's alignment heavily influencing their character so I'm really asking how does a PC determine when a NPC is deserving for a chance at redemption. By the rules that NPC is evil but it still leaves room for contra-indicators in the NPCs personality and actions. I enjoy creating villians with complex motivations. The PCs in my campaign agonized over the final fate of the main antagonist in Pazio's "Burnt Offerings". I don't think I could have done that if the NPC was remittingly evil without some at least some redeeming qualities. The lawful characters thought the case was pretty cut and dried. The neutral ones argued for a bit more leniency. I usually like symmetry but I'm not sure if it holds up here. As we go back to the definition of 'good' this NPC has not been willing to make sacrifices in the cause of good. I would lean towards neutral. An aspect to the campaigns I run is that alignment is not a straight-jacket and NPCs can display a variety of actions and behaviours. For me the answer is a very clear yes. There is the key, behaviour can be based on the cultural milieu and how that culture interacts with other cultures. It is not uncommon for treatment of others to be strictly determined on cultural boundaries. If you are part of the tribe then you are treated with kindness and respect, if you are not part of the tribe then you have no protections (within the tribal traditions). Cultural overlays do have an effect on how someone is treated. Depending on the tribe the reaction can be anywhere from extreme and violent xenophobia to a polite escort out of the tribal lands. I also said this is not how D&D is often played (i.e not a common paradigm for D&D). If you consider this one of those strange *edge cases*...shrug...thats fine too. [/QUOTE]

Verification