|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 2:20PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2012
|
NailsBoneski, If there is an evil person in a party with Paladins, then there is an almost inevitable conflict brewing, in much the same way that the CIA might react to discovering one of it's agents had secret ties with terrorist groups and foriegn governments. When the discovery is revealed there is bound to be what the rogue might consider an over-reaction that the Paladin would consider as being prudent measures, lol.
I should have elaborated more. Everyone in the group, including myself, is brand new to D&D 4E, so we didn't even realise that it didn't affect the game mechanics anymore. I doubt the one playing the evil rogue even gave a second thought to playing an evil character, since none of his actions have even been "evil" so far. He's argued in favor of not killing an NPC unreasonably, wanted to return the NPC's staff to him, and argued in favor of using Diplomacy over Intimidate. "Evil" is just a word on his character sheet and doesn't affect his character's actions or interactions the way it does wildside316's. Because of that, I intend to change his alignment to "unaligned", whether he likes it or not (as DMs have always done).
Also, we don't have paladins in our group. Ew, ha.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 1:04AM
#52
|
|
|
You can be good or evil without having a game mechanic for it, Yagamifire. It is only when it is a game mechanic when people argue about it. I have never seen a alignments argument in 4e. Because it is not a mechanic.
Grimli approves and agrees with the majority of this statement (I've seen players argue good and evil acts without a game mechanic though).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 8:29AM
#53
|
|
|
Nailbonesski, then that changes things dramatically, in 4e the requirements for Paladins is significantly broadened.
I agree with you changing him to Unaligned. Really "evil" is a rather big statement in any system and it really serves no purpose for him.
|
|
|
