Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="univoxs" data-source="post: 7923584" data-attributes="member: 6668320">I think there is a difference between justification and concept. If the concept is that the character is a baby eating anti-paladin but is working with the rest of the party for specific reasons like a shared enemy then I allow it as long as it continues to fit. If those goals become misaligned, then they have it out and everyone has a good time with the ensuing PvP.&nbsp; If the thing that came first was the player wants to make an anti-paladin and then tries to bend it to fit the good aligned campaign and there is no real concept then that works less well for me because the player is not roleplaying that aspect of the character but is instead ignoring what makes an anti-paladin evil. I make characters that are evil in good campaigns all the time and it is never a problem because I know what motivates the character and, at our table, we like a little interpersonal drama between the characters. The best roleplaying I have ever been a part of is when they players are all slightly at odds. Alliances held together by string and backstabbing abound. Its really about the theme of the game setting in the end and everyone agreeing to what they are trying to play. If one person shows up as the anti-paladin and everyone else is lawful good, there has been a miscommunication in what the adventure is about.If we think outside of D&amp;D and more about WoD, having conflicted party goals is nothing new and in fact that system often promotes it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="univoxs, post: 7923584, member: 6668320"] I think there is a difference between justification and concept. If the concept is that the character is a baby eating anti-paladin but is working with the rest of the party for specific reasons like a shared enemy then I allow it as long as it continues to fit. If those goals become misaligned, then they have it out and everyone has a good time with the ensuing PvP. If the thing that came first was the player wants to make an anti-paladin and then tries to bend it to fit the good aligned campaign and there is no real concept then that works less well for me because the player is not roleplaying that aspect of the character but is instead ignoring what makes an anti-paladin evil. I make characters that are evil in good campaigns all the time and it is never a problem because I know what motivates the character and, at our table, we like a little interpersonal drama between the characters. The best roleplaying I have ever been a part of is when they players are all slightly at odds. Alliances held together by string and backstabbing abound. Its really about the theme of the game setting in the end and everyone agreeing to what they are trying to play. If one person shows up as the anti-paladin and everyone else is lawful good, there has been a miscommunication in what the adventure is about. If we think outside of D&D and more about WoD, having conflicted party goals is nothing new and in fact that system often promotes it. [/QUOTE]

Verification