Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kk14" data-source="post: 4549647" data-attributes="member: 49619">I'm being little defensive about my game here.&nbsp; I hope Simm doesn't take any drastic action like leaving, but that is entirely up to him.I don't think that alignment differences (or differing opinions of an alignment) make for a bad game.&nbsp; 3K073jMSi6 is allowed his version of the neutral alignment, but it may or may not apply that way in my game, depending on if it agrees with mine.&nbsp; In general I try not to limit characters' actions, and kicking them out of the game for making decisions that are stupid seems wrongheaded, and so does kicking them out for disagreeing with or going against a paladin's ideals (which is, let's face it, pretty easy, and not uncommon).&nbsp; I want to entertain some debate about Ioun's principles, because I am unsure if my version (below) makes sense.To my mind the reason Ioun would be mad is because there was a person captured for the sake of information, which the cleric allowed to be killed, and then hid the fact.&nbsp; To my mind this makes the cleric in violation of his tenets twice: first, when he deliberately allowed the removal of an important source of information to the party (perhaps shaky ground there...), and secondly for keeping secrets (from his friends and party members) which Ioun is directly opposed to.&nbsp; The CDG was actually passed accross the table in a note, with the Warlock and Cleric's written discussion on the issue above.&nbsp; (Which was actually a pretty funny discussion...)I believe that 3K073jMSi6 is joking about the Geneva convention.&nbsp; But his point is that Good characters should uphold the ideals presented in the convention, whether or not it exists in game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kk14, post: 4549647, member: 49619"] I'm being little defensive about my game here. I hope Simm doesn't take any drastic action like leaving, but that is entirely up to him. I don't think that alignment differences (or differing opinions of an alignment) make for a bad game. 3K073jMSi6 is allowed his version of the neutral alignment, but it may or may not apply that way in my game, depending on if it agrees with mine. In general I try not to limit characters' actions, and kicking them out of the game for making decisions that are stupid seems wrongheaded, and so does kicking them out for disagreeing with or going against a paladin's ideals (which is, let's face it, pretty easy, and not uncommon). I want to entertain some debate about Ioun's principles, because I am unsure if my version (below) makes sense. To my mind the reason Ioun would be mad is because there was a person captured for the sake of information, which the cleric allowed to be killed, and then hid the fact. To my mind this makes the cleric in violation of his tenets twice: first, when he deliberately allowed the removal of an important source of information to the party (perhaps shaky ground there...), and secondly for keeping secrets (from his friends and party members) which Ioun is directly opposed to. The CDG was actually passed accross the table in a note, with the Warlock and Cleric's written discussion on the issue above. (Which was actually a pretty funny discussion...) I believe that 3K073jMSi6 is joking about the Geneva convention. But his point is that Good characters should uphold the ideals presented in the convention, whether or not it exists in game. [/QUOTE]

Verification