Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kaji" data-source="post: 1390538" data-attributes="member: 7738">Let me add some details:First, this player is famous for saying &quot;My character would not have done that&quot; right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring.Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice.Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous. Fourth, in retrospect, I wish I had maybe removed his spell access instead, something a little less dramatic but still painful. But in the end, I think the player actually might be more angry at himself for making another incredible mistake. This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH (with his last character, a dwarven cleric)to a good god by accident when trying to stop some other evil thing from happening. He killed them because he failed estimate the amount of damage the spell would do to commoners. It was not that much, but you don't need much to kill a guy with 4 hit points. In our new campaign, one of the players is playing a character who heard about the dwarven clerics misdeeds and is nameing himself &quot;charactername&quot;bane and plans on finding him to destroy this stain upon the honor of all dwarves everywhere. That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kaji, post: 1390538, member: 7738"] Let me add some details: First, this player is famous for saying "My character would not have done that" right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring. Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice. Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous. Fourth, in retrospect, I wish I had maybe removed his spell access instead, something a little less dramatic but still painful. But in the end, I think the player actually might be more angry at himself for making another incredible mistake. This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH (with his last character, a dwarven cleric)to a good god by accident when trying to stop some other evil thing from happening. He killed them because he failed estimate the amount of damage the spell would do to commoners. It was not that much, but you don't need much to kill a guy with 4 hit points. In our new campaign, one of the players is playing a character who heard about the dwarven clerics misdeeds and is nameing himself "charactername"bane and plans on finding him to destroy this stain upon the honor of all dwarves everywhere. That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others... [/QUOTE]

Verification