Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5365801" data-attributes="member: 1165">It's in your right to try to get characters who fit the campaign.Man am I glad 4e got rid of &quot;good-aligned weapons&quot; though.One reason I don't like alignment - the kinds of consequences a player might suffer (especially if they do something non-drastic, like slipping from good to neutral). If you're going around burning orphanages, the problems are three-fold. IMO, they would be in this order:1) You're being disruptive to the game. (Unless you've got a game where burning orphanages is a big part of it.) Expect consequences, like being dumped by the other PCs, being hounded by police/paladins/whoever, etc.2) You're acting out of character. (Even most evil characters wouldn't do that.)3) Oh yeah, you can't use your hold sword anymore, either.The first point is so big I couldn't care less about point #3. The PC is being shown the door (becoming an NPC). He didn't just lost his holy sword, he lost his entire character.I think you picked a very mature way of dealing with the problem. Since alignments are a very small part of my games, if they become important at all, nothing like that would likely happen in my games. (For instance, if this were Eberron, changing alignments wouldn't harm your cleric at all... but if a PC did that anyway, after the discussion, I'd just sit back and watch the rest of the PCs dump 'em. Possibly. It sounded like a single [but very severe] case of inconsistent behavior, but not actually disruptive.)I guess we just have different ways of dealing with that. Alignment isn't important to me, other than having something to rant about on forums. I'd rather deal with character consistency without involving the rules at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5365801, member: 1165"] It's in your right to try to get characters who fit the campaign. Man am I glad 4e got rid of "good-aligned weapons" though. One reason I don't like alignment - the [i]kinds[/i] of consequences a player might suffer (especially if they do something non-drastic, like slipping from good to neutral). If you're going around burning orphanages, the problems are three-fold. IMO, they would be in this order: 1) You're being disruptive to the game. (Unless you've got a game where burning orphanages is a big part of it.) Expect consequences, like being dumped by the other PCs, being hounded by police/paladins/whoever, etc. 2) You're acting out of character. (Even most evil characters wouldn't do that.) 3) Oh yeah, you can't use your hold sword anymore, either. The first point is so big I couldn't care less about point #3. The PC is being shown the door (becoming an NPC). He didn't just lost his holy sword, he lost his entire character. I think you picked a very mature way of dealing with the problem. Since alignments are a very small part of my games, if they become important at all, nothing like that would likely happen in my games. (For instance, if this were Eberron, changing alignments wouldn't harm your cleric at all... but if a PC did that anyway, after the discussion, I'd just sit back and watch the rest of the PCs dump 'em. Possibly. It sounded like a single [but very severe] case of inconsistent behavior, but not actually disruptive.) I guess we just have different ways of dealing with that. Alignment isn't important to me, other than having something to rant about on forums. I'd rather deal with character consistency without involving the rules at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification