Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5434420" data-attributes="member: 42582">Mallus, everything you've said there is exactly what I'm talking about - including the importance of trust to this whole question.Mallus is describing an approach to RPGing in which designing the gameworld [/I]is part of[/i] - or at least a very deliberate prelude to - running the game.Not necessarily. In the latter case the player probably has not paid PC building resources to create and cement the relationship (in this respect D&D differs from eg HERO, or HeroQuest), so the cases are not necessarily parallel.Well, this is exactly what I'm disputing. I think this assumption about the GM's job - especially when it requires adjudicating using fundamental moral terms like "good" and "evil" - is a recipe for conflict at the game table.Well, it hasn't happened yet - though I have a wizard PC who started play as a lapsed Initiate of the Raven Queen (but still a devout worshipper of her), became unlapsed early on in the game (2nd level multi-classing feat), has now retrained from multi-class cleric to multi-class invoker (dedicated not only to the Raven Queen but also Erathis at least) and is displaying more and more interest in Vecna. This started when the PCs came across evidence of Vecna worship, the Raven Queen paladin denounced this as heresy, and the wizard/initiate PC, somewhat defensively, pointed out that Vecna is also a god of wizardry. Since then I have been taking various opportunities to poke the player a bit further in that direction, to see what (if anything) happens. I certainly wouldn't object to him being an invoker of Erathis, Vecna and the Raven Queen - making, secrets and fate seem easily combined to me - although (as is noted in the invoker class description, I think) this could provoke some queries from more orthodox worshippers.In an earlier campaign I have had PCs who were fighting heaven (or at least parts of heaven) and yet still, and at least in one case, correctly, regarded themselves as fully acting in the cause of righeousness.I don't think this is right. You seem to be saying that there are two options: (i) involved deities whom the GM runs, potentially at odds with the interests of the players, or (ii) distant deities a la Eberron. But my current campaign, and the previous one, have featured involved deities, but have eschewed GM control of those deities in such a way as to potentially hose the PCs/players who worship them.And one of the things that makes that eschewal easier is not using alignment rules.</blockquote>

Verification