See, my next character happens to be a Gnoll (of the primal, demonside-shunning nature). And as a scavenger, I plan on him eating the corpses of the things he kills during the five minute rests after encounters. I realize that its probably dependent on the DM, but would you foresee this being a problem for him?
Hello all. I'm relatively new to the RPGA, did some 3.5 stuff way back, but have only made one character in the new edition so far. As I was building my next character for LFR I began to wonder if actions he would take would cause problems for the character (aside from role play problems). I know worshiping evil deities is not allowed and neither is having an alignment of evil, and I vaguely recall something like two 'evil acts' and your character is retired or something like that (though that may be from 3.5 as I couldn't find anything about evil acts in the creation guide). And my question is what exactly constitutes an 'evil act'?
See, my next character happens to be a Gnoll (of the primal, demonside-shunning nature). And as a scavenger, I plan on him eating the corpses of the things he kills during the five minute rests after encounters. I realize that its probably dependent on the DM, but would you foresee this being a problem for him?
There's nothing evil about eating...though it's cannibalism if there happen to be other gnolls...Now if you killed them specifically to eat them, when there was other food readily available, that would be evil. But eating the bodies of enemies...that's just reducing waste...if a little creepy to more civilized characters.
Under what circomstances might a unaligned paladin of Silvanus, in his quest to return people to nature be allowed to, say, burn a city?
It's not like there's some fine line we are treading here. A Living campaign is not a place for these Philosophy 101 debates. Some players, depending on the table composition, might enjoying roleplaying a debate with a PC who wants to do something dubious based on some ill-conceived justification. But no, burning a city to the ground and killing countless people, leaving them without their homes and possessions, is not something PCs should be doing.
You want your PC to be edgy/different? Great. Roleplay him that way. When you are in Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate, mutter to yourself that these places are an abomination. But don't go around killing, destroying, pillaging, and stealing from innocents unless you are playing with some home group/home DM and want to run that kind of campaign without making the majority of the players of the campaign who want to play heroes deal with it.
I don't want any of this to sound too harsh, but what we are trying to create here is a place for people to come together and create stories jointly. I have seen too many people ruin a table's fun (both in the RPGA and out equally) by insisting that their right to play an obnoxious PC to the nth degree "in the name of roleplaying" is somehow more important or valuable than the collective enjoyment of the entire table.
I love unique characters and fun interplay between PCs, and I wish there could be more of that. But we all have to remember that, at the table, we are only about 17% of the people involved, and we should moderate ourselves to make sure that while we are contributing to the fun, we are not overstepping our bounds and making it not fun for others simply to gratify our own wishes.
Thanks,
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Hello all. I'm relatively new to the RPGA, did some 3.5 stuff way back, but have only made one character in the new edition so far. As I was building my next character for LFR I began to wonder if actions he would take would cause problems for the character (aside from role play problems). I know worshiping evil deities is not allowed and neither is having an alignment of evil, and I vaguely recall something like two 'evil acts' and your character is retired or something like that (though that may be from 3.5 as I couldn't find anything about evil acts in the creation guide). And my question is what exactly constitutes an 'evil act'?
See, my next character happens to be a Gnoll (of the primal, demonside-shunning nature). And as a scavenger, I plan on him eating the corpses of the things he kills during the five minute rests after encounters. I realize that its probably dependent on the DM, but would you foresee this being a problem for him?
Historically, there have been many cultures in which warriors ate portions of their defeated enemies (typically the brains) in order to consume the essence/wisdom/strength/etc. of their enemies. Although they didn't cover it in the movie Troy, Achilles did just that after he killed Hector (amongst other disgusting things that I won't mention). I see no reason why Gnolls couldn't follow the same philosophy. In fact, if the Gnoll PC at my table did it, I would think that it was pretty cool, both as a player and as a DM.
Of course, if you go overboard with any sort of role-playing, especially something that could be considered repulsive, people might object to it. You should also consider that some "more sensitive" people would have a problem with you doing this. We should try to be mindful of those peoples' objections while role-playing our PCs.
Under what circomstances might a unaligned paladin of Silvanus, in his quest to return people to nature be allowed to, say, burn a city?
Never? Seriously... mass murder is evil. I've read the thread of what you are looking for as a background but not replied to it. Personally, I think you're on the wrong track with your character. It's better than your original proposition, but still not a good fit for a heroic campaign.
Bah... maybe I should take this over to that thread. :P
My old Living City "primal creature" druid used to eat the bodies of fallen enemies on occasion.
It was generally when the druid was in a beast form, though, and mostly only on foes she wanted to make sure didn't come back.
It's fairly difficult to resurrect someone that's been digested after all.
:D
Wasn't the only societal norm she had trouble understanding, either. Growing up in the wild with little human contact will do that.
-karma
Burning entire cities (with non-evil inhabitants) to the ground: Occasionally socially appropriate, but clearly evil.
The former is not banned, but should probably be approached with some consideration for the sensibilities of the others at the table. The latter is not allowed in the RPGA.
Carl
I say "Burn a city." You say, "No, mass murder is evil."
Alright, so don't kill anyone.
Consider an epic level CHA paladin. Imagine a massive skill challange, where he convinces the entirety of the inhabitants of the city to give up the trappings of civilization, to return to nature and take up a more simple, village life. The city organizes the exodus, every man, woman and child carrying off personal belongings suited to their new life, with supplies set aside to allow the dozens of new villages to get their feet under them. And as a final touch, the empty city is set ablaze, as a beacon of the new resolve and belief in the gods of nature.
Can you honestly call that evil?
You can't just empty a city and have them go back to nature without problems or casualties due to the city going away. It affects far more than just the city inhabitants itself.
I notice a blindspot many of you have when it comes to my statement.
I say "Burn a city." You say, "No, mass murder is evil."
Alright, so don't kill anyone.
Consider an epic level CHA paladin. Imagine a massive skill challange, where he convinces the entirety of the inhabitants of the city to give up the trappings of civilization, to return to nature and take up a more simple, village life. The city organizes the exodus, every man, woman and child carrying off personal belongings suited to their new life, with supplies set aside to allow the dozens of new villages to get their feet under them. And as a final touch, the empty city is set ablaze, as a beacon of the new resolve and belief in the gods of nature.
Can you honestly call that evil?
I notice a blindspot many of you have when it comes to my statement.
I say "Burn a city." You say, "No, mass murder is evil."
Alright, so don't kill anyone.
Consider an epic level CHA paladin. Imagine a massive skill challange, where he convinces the entirety of the inhabitants of the city to give up the trappings of civilization, to return to nature and take up a more simple, village life. The city organizes the exodus, every man, woman and child carrying off personal belongings suited to their new life, with supplies set aside to allow the dozens of new villages to get their feet under them. And as a final touch, the empty city is set ablaze, as a beacon of the new resolve and belief in the gods of nature.
Can you honestly call that evil?
Again, instead of getting into every Philosophy 101 corner case, let me say this. No such skill challenge is every going to take place in LFR. Not only wouldn't the global admins approve it, WotC wouldn't approve it even if one of us did.
And again, you are talking about putting something in an adventure that would probably only appeal to 1 player in the entire campaign. The entire campaign cannot and should not be about the whims of 1 player. It has to be about the entire campaign.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Important Play Information
While each program has its own set of rules, there are three
bits of information you’ll want to keep in mind when playing
your character.
It’s a team game. While creating a brooding loner
character can be interesting, the character should still be
able to function well in a team environment. 4th Edition
D&D is all about working together to overcome
challenges, and the mechanics of the game reinforce that
aspect. Roleplay your character however you like, so long
as you remember the importance of assisting your fellow adventurers.
Creating an edgy character is fun some times, but really sort of out of place in this campaign for the most part. I believe that half the fun of a borderline character is having the internal conflict and roleplaying, pushing limits and having to deal with the consequences.
In a home game, there is plenty of time for that type of roleplaying and the DM will let no wrong go unpunished. The actions of one person can have an impact and will change the world around them.
In LFR, spending some time in character arguing about the principles of XYZ probably means that you won't have enough time to finish in 4 hours. Also, if you somehow managed to burn down a village one day, A) you won't suffer any consequences in future events and B) the village will be there next time you travel to the environs, completely unaware of your rampage.
I think you'd have more fun pushing the opposite edge, one of being too good and too heroic. For example, you try encouraging your teammates to not take a short rest in order to stick it to the enemies. Or one that always does nonlethal damage. Or something of the like. Everyone and their brother has played someone of the unaligned bordering evil edge, I haven't seen much of the too good for their own sake edge (they must die off much faster
)Welcome to the Druid hit list....
Creating an edgy character is fun some times, but really sort of out of place in this campaign for the most part. I believe that half the fun of a borderline character is having the internal conflict and roleplaying, pushing limits and having to deal with the consequences.
In a home game, there is plenty of time for that type of roleplaying and the DM will let no wrong go unpunished. The actions of one person can have an impact and will change the world around them.
In LFR, spending some time in character arguing about the principles of XYZ probably means that you won't have enough time to finish in 4 hours. Also, if you somehow managed to burn down a village one day, A) you won't suffer any consequences in future events and B) the village will be there next time you travel to the environs, completely unaware of your rampage.
I think you'd have more fun pushing the opposite edge, one of being too good and too heroic. For example, you try encouraging your teammates to not take a short rest in order to stick it to the enemies. Or one that always does nonlethal damage. Or something of the like. Everyone and their brother has played someone of the unaligned bordering evil edge, I haven't seen much of the too good for their own sake edge (they must die off much faster
I actually intend on playing "dark and gleeful," not brooding at all.
My current working-playstyle is "BTW, when the time is right, I'm going to return home and turn chaotic evil, but for now I'm unaligned and more than happy to assist you goody-two shoes. After all, if it's a threat to good, it's also a threat to Yeenoghu."
Everyone and their brother has played someone of the unaligned bordering evil edge, I haven't seen much of the too good for their own sake edge (they must die off much faster
You must not have played in Veluna.
Originally Posted by Solodan
Everyone and their brother has played someone of the unaligned bordering evil edge, I haven't seen much of the too good for their own sake edge (they must die off much faster )
My upcoming bard is actually running against the dark and brooding trope. I'm playing him as a 100% Mr. Positive kind of guy. Along the lines of a workplace team-building seminar leader. ...Wait. Maybe that's actually evil incarnate. :P
As others have stated, starting fires in cities for the purpose of burning the city down (otherwise known as arson), will be evil and illegal. I would expect the NPCs to turn very hostile towards that character, and possibly the other PCs by assumption they condone it or support it.
As Shawn stated, there will never be a skill challenge to burn down a city in LFR. This is a shared world campaign and an official setting. We share it with WotC writers & designers. We would have to get approval to put an entire city at risk, as that would remove a dot from their map, make the campaign guide have obsolete information. For some of us (Waterdeep, and Baldurs' Gate), it is our entire region. Not going to happen. Also remember, in a shared world campaign, the results are driven by the majority of tables...so only if more than half the tables did that action would it be part of the official history. That seems very unlikely, even for a small village.
I could see a possible plot where some community plans to clear a large swath of forest, for expansion or a new community, and that might be opposed by the faithful of Silvanus. I think they would act before a city/village was built, before too many trees were cut down, to express their discontent. That would be an interesting combat/skill challenge, in which the characters might be of divided viewpoints if done well.
Keith