Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 2150497" data-attributes="member: 13654">And yet you claim that your campaign "addresses moral issues"?  I would have thought that would include not just having characters who are blindly, robotically, devoted to their alignment, but freely and openly examining the fallout of what happens when characters perform questionable, even heinous acts as well.But really your first mistake seems to have been your failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality; between the PLAYERS themselves and the CHARACTERS they portray in the game.What you should have done was not demand explanations but proceed to inform them of and apply consequences for their acts.In point of fact there are VERY few characters for whom there can be said to be any such thing as an "alignment violation".  It's limited to characters who are themselves limited by their class to a SPECIFIC alignment or type of alignment in order to continue in the class or retain class abilities.  Alignment in 3E is description.But even so you didn't proceed very sensibly in the midst of the events of the game.  If you're going to apply penalties or punishments for alignment violations by those characters who are required to maintain a given alignment then you need to warn them as soon as you see the possibility, warn them again if they persist, and then ALLOW them to proceed regardless of what you think about it.  Why?  BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST IT'S NOT YOUR FREAKIN' CHARACTER AND THUS IS NOT YOUR CHOICE OF WHAT THE CHARACTER SHOULD, OUGHT TO, OR WILL DO.  Because alignment is NOT in the game for you to use to whack PC'S over the head with when they do things YOU don't think they ought to do.Your place then as DM is to merely note the change in the characters behavior, warn the players of potential fallout from their actions (because it IS possible, even probable, that they aren't serenely contemplating all the moral implications of their characters actions at the moment despite the fact that your campaign "addresses moral issues") and then apply such consequences as are needed and desired.  In fact, it makes for BETTER roleplaying if they AREN'T as slavishly devoted to maintaining their alignments as you seem to think they ought to be.  They are playing their CHARACTER, not their characters ALIGNMENT.  It is good roleplaying when characters actions are not DICTATED by alignment but instead actually do vary according to the circumstances in the game AIDED by alignment when the player is attemting to keep the characters behavior reasonable and consistent.Well it's certainly not an excuse if that's what you mean.  A stressful survival situation and pitched emotional involvement doesn't give tacit permission to ignore morality, but it certainly can contribute to states of mind where people will behave in a manner that is quite contrary to what they otherwise would if they could dispassionately examine their situation.I assume of course that at the very outset of the campaign you warned all the players that any behavior contrary to their chosen alignment, regardless of circumstance or contributing factors, would in fact be grounds for such punishments and penalties?  And you realize of course that if you actually DID do such a thing you openly discouraged if not effectively ruled out the possibility of fallen paladins, redeemed villians, or indeed any such MORALLY ORIENTED roleplaying of a characters changing values.No.  They didn't.  Unless you were running some kind of house rules that required it for their class?  An ACTUAL paladin would have to atone in order to regain his paladinhood (because quite rightly he'd have lost it immediately in the incident) but there's no formal requirement for an aspiring paladin to atone.  Priests aren't much different.  Unless the details of the chosen deity's priests include maintaining a specific alignment or standard of behavior you don't have a formal need to obtain an atonement spell for acts which may well be singular aberrations and not willful misdeeds, etc.That doesn't mean there aren't still CONSEQUENCES for their acts, but this is definitely ad hoc punishment you were throwing down.And quite right too.  In particular, in a game which purportedly emphasizes questions of morality to refuse to let players put their characters into situations that ACTIVELY EXPLORE those questions of morality, and furthermore to PUNISH them for it when they do with email and in-person diatribes against the PLAYERS you got off VERY lightly.  In fact it was YOU who seem to have crossed the line throughout the whole incident, not them.Made it clear at the outset of the campaign what was REQUIRED of players and their characters in matters of alignment.  Questioned the players when it seemed to me that their characters actions might be ill-considered by the PLAYER given the possible consequences.  Warned the players of possible consequences, probably citing the specific consequences if necessary to be sure they knew full well what they were getting into.  Applied consequences after the incident, including changing alignments of those characters who may have more or less permanently crossed the line.  Expected (and openly stated my expectation) of roleplaying that dealt appropriately with the gravity of the incident.  And of course if they players lived up to those expectations and made the game more dynamic and interesting as a result of it all rather than rail against them I'd have PRAISED them for their efforts.At least, that is what I HOPE I would have done.  In practice in my own campaigns when this kind of incident has come up I haven't always been as proactive about it as I would claim to expect from other DM's, but then neither have my players ever even come close to threatening to walk out on me over such incidents.</blockquote>

Verification