Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 2825176" data-attributes="member: 33904">Personally I don't have a problem with the world reacting apropiatly to the party's evil actions. The problem with that is simply that since the "slip" the party was in no part of the world where it would have been apropiate. The party was first in total wilderness and now they are in the worst town of the world, a haven of utter corruption and crime.Well, and only one player out of three actively desires a good game. Actually there isn't. The players are actively not very interested in inter party conflict and both druid and cleric came into the game when the necromancer was already there. That was after a encounter that killed the two only good characters in the party and the point where I think the "shift" happened. Anyway, the three characters have a view of death that pretty much meshes.That's actually quite a problem, the party always ends up killing their major leads.This is my personal aproach. If I let my opponent run I don't know if he will later stabb me in the back. Perhaps he'll even redeem himself. But I do know that things will get more interesting and I'd actually feel cheated if such a character simply disappeared.However, I don't think this is actually a metagame consideration by my players. It's simply that they tend to think from the position of the characters, but more or less always play pragmatic or jaded PC's. I think the most extreme reaction I've ever seen on the killing of prisoners was "I turn my back while he does it.".I'm not exactly sure how I'l handle all of this. While rythm rampage may have pulled back his wish for change (most likely in favor of game functionality, it's a tradition in this group to always keep in favor of game functionality), this whole thing made me realise one thing:On pure gameplay this has been my best campaign so far. However, while not the pathfinder guy that helps old ladies over the street, I consider myself to have developed a solid moral compass. In computer games I could never pull through the evil game options. While not appaled by violence at all (I can sit through fairly violent films all the time happily eating popcorn or whatever) I feel unconfortable if I can't feel like there's a justification or condoning (I'm not a great fan of Sin City, while my players are).I've found myself repeatetly incredulous at the parties reaction to various moral dillemas. I feel if you play a roleplaying game and not only a one shot, the PC's should be realistic characters, but also the good guys. Not necessarily the shining flawless heroes, but the guys you are rooting for.This still holds true when I DM. While I will throw hell at the PC's when the game calls for it (one TPK, at least one nigh TPK, various PC deaths and countless hard situations ), I'm still always rooting for them to pull through and proof themselfs to be the cooler guys in the end. With a group such as the current it just doesn't sit with me.On the other hand I've sworn myself I'd finish this game. Due to various reasons my earlier games have always ended prematurely and this is likely the last time I'll DM for them. Appart from this one problem, the game it's all running great.Further I love to DM, I hate to go any time without DMing and once I've moved it maybe some time before I get a new group. Starting a new game, however, may not be worth it anymore.</blockquote>

Verification