Author Topic: Would this be too restrictive?  (Read 6121 times)


  • Noob
  • Posts: 6
Re: Would this be too restrictive?
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2014, 08:45:24 pm »
And honestly, if a player has to ask 'Is this ok?' the answer is simply, NO. The world is black and white, and if you are trying to find a grey area, you are not seeing the world as it truly is. You won't be going undercover, you won't need to use deceitful tactics. Deceitful tactics will only weaken you. Virtue is your armor, honor your shield, righteousness your weapon. Slaughter the monsters and the evil, for they are irredeemable. Those who surrender may be given a second chance... by the courts, which are righteous and just. Those who fight, will fight to the death, because they are evil, and will give no quarter. This could be an excellent campaign.


  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: Would this be too restrictive?
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2014, 12:39:37 pm »
Yeah, I agree this could be a very fun campaign.  I hope I haven't been discouraging you, Alex; I just wanted to help you be aware of trouble-spots & clearly define what you want/mean.  I would hate for your campaign to be derailed by constant alignment debates.


  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
Re: Would this be too restrictive?
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2014, 06:37:45 pm »
I am thinking of giving players a "Hero" card that they could show me when they are going to do something that is morally good if pragmatically less likely to succeed.  That would be a signal that they don't want to be screwed over for doing the morally right thing.  I mean, I wouldn't be trying to screw them over but showing me the card would be a good reminder in case I get too "rules bound" and forget what I am trying to create in the campaign.
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!