Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5425990" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks. I'm an academic lawyer and political philosopher - which is part of why I like to GM campaigns in which religious, political and moral choices for the PCs loom large, and which certainly affects my views on alignment as a mechanic, and especially my resonse to those who say that the requirements of alignment are pretty straightforward.&nbsp;I could imagine a game like this - in effect the PCs would have geases. But the geases would have to be specified in a way that made it pretty clear at the game table when the geas had been broken. &quot;Always be good&quot; or &quot;Never be chaotic/evil&quot; in my view falls very far short of satisfying this requirement.&nbsp;I just want to go the next step and say that they can be largely player adjudicated also. This is why, in the OP, I put it as a point about trust (and also canvassed a sort of game - hardcore gamist - where it would probably be a mistake to rely upon player adjudication).Because in my view GM's have no special expertise in judging when the requirements of &quot;super goodness&quot; have been upheld or violated. So why encourage them to make these sorts of judgements about the friends/acquaintances with whom they're RPGing?&nbsp;I can see this. I don't mind sharing with the GM, in the sense that a player could easily talk to the GM (who typically has a richer sense of the campaign world and campaign progression overall, than does any single player) about how the GM perceives the PC's compliance with the code, and what might be an interesting way to develop the PC. I would personally still balk at giving the GM the last word. To the extent that a last word is needed (if we worry that consensus isn't possible) then I would give it to the player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5425990, member: 42582"] Thanks. I'm an academic lawyer and political philosopher - which is part of why I like to GM campaigns in which religious, political and moral choices for the PCs loom large, and which certainly affects my views on alignment as a mechanic, and especially my resonse to those who say that the requirements of alignment are pretty straightforward. I could imagine a game like this - in effect the PCs would have geases. But the geases would have to be specified in a way that made it pretty clear at the game table when the geas had been broken. "Always be good" or "Never be chaotic/evil" in my view falls very far short of satisfying this requirement. I just want to go the next step and say that they can be largely player adjudicated also. This is why, in the OP, I put it as a point about trust (and also canvassed a sort of game - hardcore gamist - where it would probably be a mistake to rely upon player adjudication). Because in my view GM's have no special expertise in judging when the requirements of "super goodness" have been upheld or violated. So why encourage them to make these sorts of judgements about the friends/acquaintances with whom they're RPGing? I can see this. I don't mind sharing with the GM, in the sense that a player could easily talk to the GM (who typically has a richer sense of the campaign world and campaign progression overall, than does any single player) about how the GM perceives the PC's compliance with the code, and what might be an interesting way to develop the PC. I would personally still balk at giving the GM the last word. To the extent that a last word is needed (if we worry that consensus isn't possible) then I would give it to the player. [/QUOTE]

Verification