I've got a friend who's running a 3.5 Ravenloft campaign and she's been coming to me a lot for advice on some of the more nuanced aspects of the game. The biggest, and most frustrating for me, is giving her advice on how to adjudicate actions as they pertain to alignment. After going to a game she ran to observe her technique I quickly realized why she was having problems.
The whole group nitpicks ethical and moral alignment down to the most simple acts.
I can understand some things, like is it truly chaotic to break laws that violate moral alignment or evil to bring a criminal to justice for an evil government. But some--like holding or not holding a door open for others, not donating to every charity box they pass, cursing, sexual issues, the list just goes on and on--are just plain superfluous.
I was able to help give them a fairly solid framework of good vs. evil in terms of actions, but not in regards to chaos vs. law. Aside from spells with alignment descriptors I couldn't give them a satisfactory explanation. So I'm turning to the Frat to help define acts as being chaotic, lawful, or neither. Not specifics so much as general outlines that will help a group that can't seem to see the forest for the trees. And I've already tried telling them to use the basics in the PHB. That didn't help a bit.
Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
-
High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
-
Zilfer
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:14 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: WA (Land of lots of trees)
- Contact:
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Ummm kind of a hard question to approach.
Mostly because there's a few ways you can see it and acceptions....
I mean what is the "Law" in a Chaotic Evil society is not the same as the "Law" being Lawful. (confusing sentence ahoy!)
Generally being lawful is following a set of laws or beliefs one has is my general view of it. Like a paladin obviously they should stay to their moral code to stay lawful.
Someone needs to weigh in this a little bit more so I can organize my thoughts off them. xD Horrible at starting conversations about this I think! XD
Edit:
Something I would say is chaotic is definitely murder or random acts of violence. Definitely when death is involved. Though you can murder someone lawfully if you were for example a Lawful Evil Assassin following the code of your Assassin's Order.... that's why I'm finding it hard to define. xD
Starting a Bar fight for example 'Just for fun' would also be chaotic to me, because you have no "good reason" to do it. It's just off a whim, which a lot of chaotic behavior is.
Now if you needed a distraction and started a bar fight that might not be so chaotic....
Mostly because there's a few ways you can see it and acceptions....
I mean what is the "Law" in a Chaotic Evil society is not the same as the "Law" being Lawful. (confusing sentence ahoy!)
Generally being lawful is following a set of laws or beliefs one has is my general view of it. Like a paladin obviously they should stay to their moral code to stay lawful.
Someone needs to weigh in this a little bit more so I can organize my thoughts off them. xD Horrible at starting conversations about this I think! XD
Edit:
Something I would say is chaotic is definitely murder or random acts of violence. Definitely when death is involved. Though you can murder someone lawfully if you were for example a Lawful Evil Assassin following the code of your Assassin's Order.... that's why I'm finding it hard to define. xD
Starting a Bar fight for example 'Just for fun' would also be chaotic to me, because you have no "good reason" to do it. It's just off a whim, which a lot of chaotic behavior is.
Now if you needed a distraction and started a bar fight that might not be so chaotic....
-
Resonant Curse
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:28 am
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
The easiest way to look at it is to determine the mindset of the person doing it. Is the action part of a consistent and thought out way of doing things? You can break laws all you want and still be lawful if you act and think in a methodical manner that's consistent. Chaotic actions are done more of on a whim or with little forethought. Is the murder part of a premeditated plan in which you thought out your actions and probably the consequences, or was it done in a fit of rage? Was there some plan to what you did, or was it largely spur of the moment? Does it fit into a larger narrative?
That would be my suggestion at any rate. I've had several wizards that act pretty spontaneously, but with very planned out actions when they do them, so I still count them as lawful. They're creative and curious, so they tend to think outside the box and explore, but when it comes to that plan to free the prisoners that you came across, you've got a 7 spell plan laid out.
That would be my suggestion at any rate. I've had several wizards that act pretty spontaneously, but with very planned out actions when they do them, so I still count them as lawful. They're creative and curious, so they tend to think outside the box and explore, but when it comes to that plan to free the prisoners that you came across, you've got a 7 spell plan laid out.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Hooboy.
Well, the problem with Law and Chaos, as I see it, is that none of the D&D writers agreed what it meant either. So we have a long long history of conflicting definitions. Here's how it was explained by one WotC author, in a way I happen to mostly agree with.
A Lawful person believes that social responsibility is more important than personal freedom. Thus, when someone's personal actions (including their own) starts causing harm to society, a Lawful person feels compelled to do something to stop it. A Lawful person is compelled to work within the laws because breaking them weakens the social fabric and trust in society.
A Chaotic person believes that personal freedom is more important than social responsibility. Thus, when a law or social pressure infringes upon their rights or someone else's rights, they feel compelled to rebel against it, provided the law or social pressure doesn't match up with the Chaotic person's moral code. (A Chaotic Good rogue might steal, but is all in favor of arresting a drug dealer, for example.)
In other words, a Lawful person feels they have the responsibility to take responsibility for another person's actions. A Chaotic person feels they either don't have the right, or don't have the obligation.
Neutral people have no strong compulsion one way or another. Most humans are neutral.
It is well within a Lawful person's alignment to break an unjust law. The paladin isn't obligated to walk into a den of slavers, see all their papers are in order, and go "welp, shucks," snap their fingers, and leave. What the paladin is obligated to do is consider the social ramifications of breaking the slaves free. Is it going to cause a diplomatic incident? Is it going to cause relatively innocent people to be punished in the paladin's stead? Is it going to result in conditions for slaves getting worse as a result? Is it going to result in slavers starting to take harsher, nastier measures?
A Chaotic person rightly would point out that they have no control over other people's actions, and should not let what other people might do affect them. On the other hand, Chaotic acts can cause social instability, and social instability can result in bad things. But so can totalitarianism.
Is there still a lot of room for argument here? Oh heck yes, but remember that people still have nasty, bloody, drawn out arguments over Good and Evil as well. Just remind the players that alignment, especially law and chaos, are guidelines and not straitjackets, and no paladin is going to fall for failing to hold the door open for someone.
Well, the problem with Law and Chaos, as I see it, is that none of the D&D writers agreed what it meant either. So we have a long long history of conflicting definitions. Here's how it was explained by one WotC author, in a way I happen to mostly agree with.
A Lawful person believes that social responsibility is more important than personal freedom. Thus, when someone's personal actions (including their own) starts causing harm to society, a Lawful person feels compelled to do something to stop it. A Lawful person is compelled to work within the laws because breaking them weakens the social fabric and trust in society.
A Chaotic person believes that personal freedom is more important than social responsibility. Thus, when a law or social pressure infringes upon their rights or someone else's rights, they feel compelled to rebel against it, provided the law or social pressure doesn't match up with the Chaotic person's moral code. (A Chaotic Good rogue might steal, but is all in favor of arresting a drug dealer, for example.)
In other words, a Lawful person feels they have the responsibility to take responsibility for another person's actions. A Chaotic person feels they either don't have the right, or don't have the obligation.
Neutral people have no strong compulsion one way or another. Most humans are neutral.
It is well within a Lawful person's alignment to break an unjust law. The paladin isn't obligated to walk into a den of slavers, see all their papers are in order, and go "welp, shucks," snap their fingers, and leave. What the paladin is obligated to do is consider the social ramifications of breaking the slaves free. Is it going to cause a diplomatic incident? Is it going to cause relatively innocent people to be punished in the paladin's stead? Is it going to result in conditions for slaves getting worse as a result? Is it going to result in slavers starting to take harsher, nastier measures?
A Chaotic person rightly would point out that they have no control over other people's actions, and should not let what other people might do affect them. On the other hand, Chaotic acts can cause social instability, and social instability can result in bad things. But so can totalitarianism.
Is there still a lot of room for argument here? Oh heck yes, but remember that people still have nasty, bloody, drawn out arguments over Good and Evil as well. Just remind the players that alignment, especially law and chaos, are guidelines and not straitjackets, and no paladin is going to fall for failing to hold the door open for someone.
"No, but evil is still being — Is having reason — Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-
Zettaijin
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:30 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Himeji, Japan
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
It should be said that the alignment system with the law/chaos and good/evil axis were more or less created with very common fantasy archetypes in mind.
Unfortunately, these archetypes rarely have to deal with the nitty gritty of real life and live in a very limited universe where chances are they'll never find themselves faced with uncomfortable situations.
The black knight obeys a strict code of chivalry despite his cruelty yet the average "good" monarch is never put into question for the perpetuation of social classes.
The paladin's piousness always seems to coincide with a general drive toward altruism and never with bloody, xenophobic holy wars.
The thief with a heart of gold never harms anyone and is more of a mischievous child than a threat to the local economy.
The barbarous orcs are vile, ugly, and incapable of anything but the most brutal acts of violence and selfishness. However no one ever asks how such a population could even manage to survive over time without major abuse of "the evil God/uber wizard/whatever great evil is keeping them under order by force" trope.
Unfortunately, these archetypes rarely have to deal with the nitty gritty of real life and live in a very limited universe where chances are they'll never find themselves faced with uncomfortable situations.
The black knight obeys a strict code of chivalry despite his cruelty yet the average "good" monarch is never put into question for the perpetuation of social classes.
The paladin's piousness always seems to coincide with a general drive toward altruism and never with bloody, xenophobic holy wars.
The thief with a heart of gold never harms anyone and is more of a mischievous child than a threat to the local economy.
The barbarous orcs are vile, ugly, and incapable of anything but the most brutal acts of violence and selfishness. However no one ever asks how such a population could even manage to survive over time without major abuse of "the evil God/uber wizard/whatever great evil is keeping them under order by force" trope.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
The way I run interpret it (and run it):
Law represents the forces of order in the universe. The forces of Law promote order, structure, and discipline. People who are lawful tend to believe in ordered hierarchies (whether they are legal, religious, social, or otherwise). They tend to be more cautious. Lawful people are less likely to take extreme risks and are more likely to plan for the future. They do not necessarily demand that they be the boss, but the almost universally expect SOMEONE to be the boss. They seek structure, and often have many connections, be it to family, friends, subordinates, superiors, or colleagues. They tend to build up around them, establishing something greater than themselves, from businesses to monuments to secret societies. They tend to have a greater respect for tradition than others do. Often times, their default position is to yield to (or at least give respect to) authority figures.
Neutral people tend to approach situations on a case-by-case basis. They tend to believe that traditions and structures are good things, but that there is a time and place to disregard them. ('Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, but sometimes the speed limit is just too damn slow.')
Chaos represents the forces of entropy. It is often regarded (especially by Lawful societies) as tantamount to evil. In many game systems (Marvel Heroes, for example) it is synonymous with evil. In D&D, this isn't necessarily the case. Chaotic people seek to break or avoid connections. They tend to avoid responsibility. They tend to circumvent or ignore laws, traditions, and cultural norms. Often, they have a strong desire to flaunt cultural traditions for no other reason than to do so. (The type of person who gets a series of gaudy piercings during high school to shock their parents, but cease to wear them in college, when no one cares, fits the mold of a Chaotic individual.) They often have few friends or permanent associations. They rarely build anything lasting, and when they do they rarely plan for it's continuation after they are no longer involved with it. They will take great risks if great rewards are offered. (A Chaotic person will always buy a lottery ticket, a Neutral person might if they feel like it, and a Lawful person never will. This isn't an absolute, but it's another good example.) Chaotic people tend to react negatively to authority figures even when the authorities are being reasonable. They rarely consider (or care about) the consequences of their actions.
Spike, from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, is a perfect example of a Chaotic individual. (Even more because he gradually transitions from CE to CG throughout the Buffy-Angel franchise.) Throughout his character arc, he remains staunchly Chaotic. His first instinct is to rebel from authority, even when he's being given perfectly reasonable advice or instructions. He rarely pauses to consider the ramifications of his actions, and is frequently surprised when they have consequences at all.
John Sheridan, from Babylon 5, is a wonderful example of a Lawful character (although in this case Lawful Good). His default course of action is to follow the rules and uphold the oaths he's sworn. When he does seek to rebel, it's only to uphold the greater traditions and ideals of his culture, and only in the face of a corrupt and illegal regime. Everywhere he goes, he seeks to build up something lasting around him, and to make the organizations and changes he brings about ones that are capable of lasting. When he has to take risks, he agonizes about the decision, and when he has to make plans, he pores over every detail to make sure it comes out right.
In my game, I use an alignment grid system. After every game, I tabulate peoples' actions and assign alignment drift points.
As you can see from the first three paragraphs, intent is key with Lawful/Chaotic actions. Here's an example of an actual event from one of my games. The party was in a city where the constabulary was dramatically underfunded and undermanned. The local sheriff kept running into the PCs whenever trouble reared up (they're adventurers after all!) and kept harassing them, seeing them as the focal point for the disturbances.
To get him on their side, the PCs offered to help fund the city watch out of their own pockets. Two of the PCs in the group were clearly doing this to make an ally, as well as to help a city watch that was faced with challenges they just didn't have the resources to deal with. They received Law points for their action. The other three PCs, on the other hand, pretty clearly just viewed this as a means of bribing the cops to stay out of their hair. They each received several Chaos points for their part in the event.
In any event, I hope all this helps clarify the situation.
Law represents the forces of order in the universe. The forces of Law promote order, structure, and discipline. People who are lawful tend to believe in ordered hierarchies (whether they are legal, religious, social, or otherwise). They tend to be more cautious. Lawful people are less likely to take extreme risks and are more likely to plan for the future. They do not necessarily demand that they be the boss, but the almost universally expect SOMEONE to be the boss. They seek structure, and often have many connections, be it to family, friends, subordinates, superiors, or colleagues. They tend to build up around them, establishing something greater than themselves, from businesses to monuments to secret societies. They tend to have a greater respect for tradition than others do. Often times, their default position is to yield to (or at least give respect to) authority figures.
Neutral people tend to approach situations on a case-by-case basis. They tend to believe that traditions and structures are good things, but that there is a time and place to disregard them. ('Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, but sometimes the speed limit is just too damn slow.')
Chaos represents the forces of entropy. It is often regarded (especially by Lawful societies) as tantamount to evil. In many game systems (Marvel Heroes, for example) it is synonymous with evil. In D&D, this isn't necessarily the case. Chaotic people seek to break or avoid connections. They tend to avoid responsibility. They tend to circumvent or ignore laws, traditions, and cultural norms. Often, they have a strong desire to flaunt cultural traditions for no other reason than to do so. (The type of person who gets a series of gaudy piercings during high school to shock their parents, but cease to wear them in college, when no one cares, fits the mold of a Chaotic individual.) They often have few friends or permanent associations. They rarely build anything lasting, and when they do they rarely plan for it's continuation after they are no longer involved with it. They will take great risks if great rewards are offered. (A Chaotic person will always buy a lottery ticket, a Neutral person might if they feel like it, and a Lawful person never will. This isn't an absolute, but it's another good example.) Chaotic people tend to react negatively to authority figures even when the authorities are being reasonable. They rarely consider (or care about) the consequences of their actions.
Spike, from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, is a perfect example of a Chaotic individual. (Even more because he gradually transitions from CE to CG throughout the Buffy-Angel franchise.) Throughout his character arc, he remains staunchly Chaotic. His first instinct is to rebel from authority, even when he's being given perfectly reasonable advice or instructions. He rarely pauses to consider the ramifications of his actions, and is frequently surprised when they have consequences at all.
John Sheridan, from Babylon 5, is a wonderful example of a Lawful character (although in this case Lawful Good). His default course of action is to follow the rules and uphold the oaths he's sworn. When he does seek to rebel, it's only to uphold the greater traditions and ideals of his culture, and only in the face of a corrupt and illegal regime. Everywhere he goes, he seeks to build up something lasting around him, and to make the organizations and changes he brings about ones that are capable of lasting. When he has to take risks, he agonizes about the decision, and when he has to make plans, he pores over every detail to make sure it comes out right.
In my game, I use an alignment grid system. After every game, I tabulate peoples' actions and assign alignment drift points.
As you can see from the first three paragraphs, intent is key with Lawful/Chaotic actions. Here's an example of an actual event from one of my games. The party was in a city where the constabulary was dramatically underfunded and undermanned. The local sheriff kept running into the PCs whenever trouble reared up (they're adventurers after all!) and kept harassing them, seeing them as the focal point for the disturbances.
To get him on their side, the PCs offered to help fund the city watch out of their own pockets. Two of the PCs in the group were clearly doing this to make an ally, as well as to help a city watch that was faced with challenges they just didn't have the resources to deal with. They received Law points for their action. The other three PCs, on the other hand, pretty clearly just viewed this as a means of bribing the cops to stay out of their hair. They each received several Chaos points for their part in the event.
In any event, I hope all this helps clarify the situation.
-
High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Good arguments, everyone. Jimsolo does make some pretty good points from both a cosmological and personal perspective regarding ethical axis, but everyone so far has given me a better idea of how to present things. Since I co-DM the group again tomorrow I hope this will help clarify things for them. If anyone else has comments, please post. This group needs all the help it can get.
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
A nice discussion of organisation and philosophical inclination among the chaotic evil:
Mostin: "“If you had eighteen thousand bar-lgura, a thousand or so chasme, several hundred nycadaemons, as many succubi and palrethees, a hundred goristros, and – how many kelvezu do you think Graz’zt has had the opportunity to enlist, by the way?”
“Now that is an interesting question, isn’t it?” Nufrut smirked.
“In any case,” Mostin continued, “is there a classical model or scenario for annexing or invading a demiplane such as Afqithan?”
“I’m sure there are several hundred, at least,” Nufrut answered.
Mostin: “But their organization – presuming they have any?”
“Do not make the error of assuming that because of their philosophical inclination towards freedom and satiation, that demons are an undisciplined rabble when gathered en masse,” Nufrut chided."
Mostin: "“If you had eighteen thousand bar-lgura, a thousand or so chasme, several hundred nycadaemons, as many succubi and palrethees, a hundred goristros, and – how many kelvezu do you think Graz’zt has had the opportunity to enlist, by the way?”
“Now that is an interesting question, isn’t it?” Nufrut smirked.
“In any case,” Mostin continued, “is there a classical model or scenario for annexing or invading a demiplane such as Afqithan?”
“I’m sure there are several hundred, at least,” Nufrut answered.
Mostin: “But their organization – presuming they have any?”
“Do not make the error of assuming that because of their philosophical inclination towards freedom and satiation, that demons are an undisciplined rabble when gathered en masse,” Nufrut chided."
The cure for what ails you
-
Zettaijin
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:30 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Himeji, Japan
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Dungeons & Dragons & Philosophers (comic number 23 if it changes to another one by the time you get there)
Sorry, I just had to...
Sorry, I just had to...
Last edited by Zettaijin on Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Five drops of blood for you ...Zettaijin wrote:Dungeons & Dragons & Philosophers (comic number 23 if it changes to another one by the time you get there)
Sorry, I just had to...
The cure for what ails you
-
Boris Drakov
- Criminal Mastermind
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:13 pm
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
As ethics are a quite relative subject in real life I enforce a less realistic version of it in my sessions.
Lawful just means following a guiding set of principles even when it is to your disadvantage.
Whether it's a good, neutral or evil set of morals doesn't matter. Whether it suits society's predominant principles doesn't matter as well.
A lawful good character can be a criminal even in a good society as long as his guiding principles; honour, religious dogma, code of conduct or any other are followed and acted out upon. Catholic monks in Elizabethan England, peasant highwaymen opposed to noble oppression etc( Suicidal or gravely self-endangering acts aren't necessary to stay true to your alignment though, unless you really want to. )
Neutral is bland but enables you to pick and choose more what rules to follow or not. Most regular folk really.
Chaotic to me is the unplanned, spontaneous, impulsive type. Individualistic sure, but also unprincipled.
Just important to avoid falling into the trap of seeing lawful-neutral-chaotic as grades of goodness, neutrality or evil.
A chaotic evil merchant might be much less evil than a lawful evil dictator.
Lawful just means following a guiding set of principles even when it is to your disadvantage.
Whether it's a good, neutral or evil set of morals doesn't matter. Whether it suits society's predominant principles doesn't matter as well.
A lawful good character can be a criminal even in a good society as long as his guiding principles; honour, religious dogma, code of conduct or any other are followed and acted out upon. Catholic monks in Elizabethan England, peasant highwaymen opposed to noble oppression etc( Suicidal or gravely self-endangering acts aren't necessary to stay true to your alignment though, unless you really want to. )
Neutral is bland but enables you to pick and choose more what rules to follow or not. Most regular folk really.
Chaotic to me is the unplanned, spontaneous, impulsive type. Individualistic sure, but also unprincipled.
Just important to avoid falling into the trap of seeing lawful-neutral-chaotic as grades of goodness, neutrality or evil.
A chaotic evil merchant might be much less evil than a lawful evil dictator.
"I kneel for no-one!"
-
High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Well, thank you for continuing the discussion but things have been sorted out. Kind of. I got roped into being the sole DM as my friend wants to play and the gradation of law/chaos and good/evil is pretty big (there is so much gray that the table on powers checks is more guidelines than hard rules).
This is off-topic, but has anyone had to deal with a group that meets two to three days a week to play? These five are practically marathon gamers. I can't just whip together a new adventure, or fully comprehend premade ones, in just one or two days and my on-the-fly skills are more than a little rusty after ten years.
This is off-topic, but has anyone had to deal with a group that meets two to three days a week to play? These five are practically marathon gamers. I can't just whip together a new adventure, or fully comprehend premade ones, in just one or two days and my on-the-fly skills are more than a little rusty after ten years.
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
-
Boris Drakov
- Criminal Mastermind
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:13 pm
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
We do some marathon sessions once a year with my old group since we live in separate cities.
Sometimes players have little understanding of the work involved with being a DM
What I do is making tons of different little story hooks which can even inspire you to develop them more if the players fall for them or are just dead ends if they do not pan out.
My current party I run like that.
Some bounty hunting for cash, some religious duties, some work for the University they study at to cover tuition, more encounters with minor villains they get acquainted with in their other endeavours and a hidden central storyline underneath it all of which you can scatter hints of throughout all these minor happenings.
Sometimes players have little understanding of the work involved with being a DM
What I do is making tons of different little story hooks which can even inspire you to develop them more if the players fall for them or are just dead ends if they do not pan out.
My current party I run like that.
Some bounty hunting for cash, some religious duties, some work for the University they study at to cover tuition, more encounters with minor villains they get acquainted with in their other endeavours and a hidden central storyline underneath it all of which you can scatter hints of throughout all these minor happenings.
"I kneel for no-one!"
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Had a Marvel game like this once, but I wasn't the one running it. It ended up running for almost a year-and-a-half, and I swear I could watch the GM aging as we played. There were days where it was like his GM screen was the Ark of the Covenant or something--it was pretty horrible.High Priest Mikhal wrote:Well, thank you for continuing the discussion but things have been sorted out. Kind of. I got roped into being the sole DM as my friend wants to play and the gradation of law/chaos and good/evil is pretty big (there is so much gray that the table on powers checks is more guidelines than hard rules).
This is off-topic, but has anyone had to deal with a group that meets two to three days a week to play? These five are practically marathon gamers. I can't just whip together a new adventure, or fully comprehend premade ones, in just one or two days and my on-the-fly skills are more than a little rusty after ten years.
I highly recommend taking some time off before you wind up walking into a Kroger with a revolver, six bullets, and some tough decisions.
-
High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Re: Lawful and Chaotic Acts Defined
Nice to see I'm not alone. And yes, players don't grasp how hard it is to DM. I'm also regretting a decision I made to let them incorporate certain books (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, and the infamous BoEF). The former two are proving trickiest; I'm not as versed in them as I probably should be and have to work on how supernatural abilities might be changed in Ravenloft. The last one is more how the players (mainly the three female players, guys aren't as into fantasizing) have nearly stalled the last two sessions at times. Fortunately they're busy with studies for finals next month so I get a few weeks to do studies of my own and relax. ::brain deflates like a balloon, cranium slumps inward::
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."