As I understand it, by Mark's reasoning the Crusades were ethical because
they were on a mission from God. Never mind that the first city captured /
butchered happened to be Christian, and even still spoke the language of
Jesus. Never mind that the Crusaders caused the streets of several cities to
run ankle deep in blood - of innocents. I do not think they were ethical
because their actions were not aligned with the values they claimed to
espouse.

I agree that Good need not equal stupid. Stupid does not, however, equal
ethical.

My point is that 'doing what is convenient at the time' does not make a code
of ethics. It makes an arsehole. A warrior that kills from behind because it
would be dangerous to fight face to face is not a 'Warrior': just a jerk
with added skill values.

The challenge is to choose a set of ethics (ie create a CHARACTER) and stick
to them. Weep when you fail.

In modern day parlance it may seem right to kill a terrorist in cold blood,
but it is still murder. And I would know it. Even if others don't understand
my point.

Finally, ethics need not be 'good'. Just consistent. And accepting the
consequences of your actions, rather than trying to squirm out and justify
them. If you kill from behind, then people will think less of you rather
than 'o wow, what a wonderful assassin you are - perfect stab to the
kidneys'. Hell, even Civ2 has a 'reputation'. Break treaties and loose
reputation. Loose reputation and people break treaties with you or won't
sign one.


The alternative is to wargame.

Ian

PS - I could ask why a 'good' character would be surrounded by slavers?
If surprised by teh slavers, then a Paladin or Warrior should stew over
attacking anyone from behind.  A good or honourable character should loose
some of their innocence when they work out that to kill the slavers will
require them to attack from behind.

If, instead, the party had decided to sneak in and slit the throats of
everyone (only to find them awake and expectant), then an ethical person may
have objected and resigned from the mission. (probably should as soon as it
becomes apparent that they were hired to slaughter people). On the other
hand the 'good' person may have a vigilante streak. But if so it should be
played every time, not just when convenient to the plot.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson <Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Monday, 2 July 2001 17:37
Subject: Re: [dq] character ethics and combat styles


>
>Andrew Withy wrote:
>
>>I agree with Ian on combat vs morality. Recently I found out that an "old"
>/
>>very experienced character who was reputed to be very nice, harmless and
>>"Good" always struck from behind while invisible in combat. Somehow their
>>white fluffy wings lost their shine after that.
>
>I disagree Andrew. Without getting into the specifics of the character and
>adventure (although I think you are not being fair to that player in your
>description of her actions), this gets back to the old "good does not mean
>stupid" arguement that used to rage in old Dragon Magazines.  Where, for
>example, you are the victim of an un-provoked attack by a large number of
>slavers that are looking to either enslave or kill you I dont think a
>"good" character needs to attack from the front hex, fully visable, having
>first issued a warning that you were about to use deadly force if they
>don't surrender. That would be just plain stupidity in my hypothetical
>example.
>
>A better indication of whether you are "good" or not comes when you capture
>(or have surrender) some of the bad guys hirelings. Where those hirelings
>are just that (ie innocent pawns rather than goblins or demonic imps) what
>you do with them may call into question what shade of grey your character
>is - killing them because it is expedient to do so would certainly "darken"
>that character in my eyes. The example cited above of attacking the slavers
>from behind/while invis would not.
>
>The old example cited in the Dragon magazines was could a Paladin cut the
>throats of goblins (or stand by and watch another party member do it) who
>had been slept by the Magic User. The answer, at least the one given in
>that  magzine by TSR was that yes the Paladin could (given that the goblins
>were inherently evil little creatures - as I believe they are meant to be
>in DQ).
>
>/\/\
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
>If you have received this communication by mistake,
>please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
>any attachments.
>The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
>Westpac Banking Corporation.
>Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

At 07:38 3/07/01 +1200, you wrote:
>As I understand it, by Mark's reasoning the Crusades were ethical because
>they were on a mission from God. Never mind that the first city captured /
>butchered happened to be Christian, and even still spoke the language of
>Jesus. Never mind that the Crusaders caused the streets of several cities to
>run ankle deep in blood - of innocents. I do not think they were ethical
>because their actions were not aligned with the values they claimed to
>espouse.

Actually their values and actions were reasonably consistent - it's just 
that calling them "Christian" is something of a misnomer. Certainly most 
people who called themselves "Christian" at the time did not embrace the 
same set of values that a modern western Christians do.

>My point is that 'doing what is convenient at the time' does not make a code
>of ethics. It makes an arsehole. A warrior that kills from behind because it
>would be dangerous to fight face to face is not a 'Warrior': just a jerk
>with added skill values.

I tend to rule that it depends on who or what you're fighting. Some things 
really don't count as far as ethical combat is concerned. Mainly because 
they're monsters, they're inherently evil, they eat villagers, and the 
ethical action is to destroy them as quickly and effectively as possible.

>The challenge is to choose a set of ethics (ie create a CHARACTER) and stick
>to them. Weep when you fail.
>
>In modern day parlance it may seem right to kill a terrorist in cold blood,
>but it is still murder. And I would know it. Even if others don't understand
>my point.

Unlike a lot of DQ players, I've played quite a bit in the modern thriller 
genre (and I don't mean "World of Darkness"). My character has shot and 
killed a dozen times - but never in cold blood. It just doesn't seem to 
happen that way.

>Finally, ethics need not be 'good'. Just consistent. And accepting the
>consequences of your actions, rather than trying to squirm out and justify
>them. If you kill from behind, then people will think less of you rather
>than 'o wow, what a wonderful assassin you are - perfect stab to the
>kidneys'. Hell, even Civ2 has a 'reputation'. Break treaties and loose
>reputation. Loose reputation and people break treaties with you or won't
>sign one.

You know, it's a really odd thing, but I find the opportunity to get one in 
from behind rarely arises. Go figure.

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood wrote: 
> I agree that Good need not equal stupid. Stupid does not, however, equal
> ethical.

This is a good point, and often overlooked. Being good, also, doesn't
not equal being stupid, either.

> My point is that 'doing what is convenient at the time' does not make a code
> of ethics. It makes an arsehole. A warrior that kills from behind because it
> would be dangerous to fight face to face is not a 'Warrior': just a jerk
> with added skill values.

Here is what I think about this. 

1) There is no need to have a skill that requires ethics on the part of
the character. Even 'though it IS a magical world, I don't see how that
might happen.

2) I think that a Warrior would be taught just about any means to slay
his enemies, and stay alive. It seems to me that it's a job, not a
vocation.

3) There are too many advantages for players who have a pragmatic
approach to playing.

> The challenge is to choose a set of ethics (ie create a CHARACTER) and stick
> to them. Weep when you fail.

In the scheme of things, and given the nature of the power of the DM,
there are only two things in a game that a player can do that the DM can
never better.

1) The sacrifice of some quality, whether it be money, future character
development, or continuance of play.

2) Bravery in the face of dreadful odds.

Hopefully, we have all seen examples where a player has decided that his
character will make a stand, and fight the dragon, knowing that they're
doomed, to give their friends the opportunity to escape. And, as a DM,
to be forced by the exigencies of the story to enforce that death.
Partly because there just isn't a sensible way of avoiding killing the
character, and partly because it honours the deed.

For all that the character is lost, the soaring emotional power of that
kind of tragedic drama is wonderful. And, it is the very stuff of why we
play. This is an entertainment, not a competition about how a player
moves his character from one game position to another. If some of that
entertainment is powerfully moving, and creates a story that stays with
us long after the game has ended, then we have created everything that
the medium can bear, and a bit more.

> 
> In modern day parlance it may seem right to kill a terrorist in cold blood,
> but it is still murder. And I would know it. Even if others don't understand
> my point.

I would think it would depend what you mean by cold blooded murder. If I
had a gun, and I could shoot a man who was going to blow up Eden Park
during a Rugby Test, then I wouldn't think it was murder to shoot him,
if there was no other way that I could see to stop him detonating his
bomb. Although...I'd resent it. The opportunity to see so many rugby
followers go up in a fiery conflagration is not something I'd like to
miss.

> 
> Finally, ethics need not be 'good'. Just consistent. And accepting the
> consequences of your actions, rather than trying to squirm out and justify
> them. If you kill from behind, then people will think less of you rather
> than 'o wow, what a wonderful assassin you are - perfect stab to the
> kidneys'. Hell, even Civ2 has a 'reputation'. Break treaties and loose
> reputation. Loose reputation and people break treaties with you or won't
> sign one.
> 
> The alternative is to wargame.

I think it depends on what you want to have for your character. I
imagine that there are some people who would applaud a graceful stroke
to the left kidney, actually. I would never meet with them in dark
alleys, mind you.

I don't think that the Warrior skill can really inculcate a code of
ethics. I do think that every character should be working towards one,
however. And, I think it's fine to have noble knights who would never
engage in deeds of dishonour. I really wouldn't like to see the place
filled to the gunwales with them, though...The halls of the Adventurer's
Guild would ring to the sound of their goosestepping...

There are precious few players who choose to play to a code of ethics of
one sort or another. O, sure, there are people who say that their
characters are cowards, or vile, twisted sneaky types. It seems to me
that they play these characters because it gives them undeniable
advantages, like being able to run out on their 'friends'. 

And, while I suppose we could develop some kind of reputation system, 
I'm reminded of Xool, the Magnificent...Or, to those of us who know him
'The man who comes back, alone'. Now, there's a reputation that would
make everyone want to avoid you. And, it's just one of those strange
twists of fate where every time Carl has played Xool, Xool has returned
to Seagate alone...I think that pursuing reputation may be a mistake,
when taken to a certain extreme. 

One can argue at length about being good and being stupid. In fact, as
far as the ethical and moral choices for your character are concerned,
stupidity isn't even an issue. I would like to feel that my players
examined their character's motives. But, I don't think it's about
whether or not a particular moral or ethical code is more efficient or
cleverer. It's about what you're trying to capture as a form of
behaviour. It's about playing a ROLE. Some characters make poor ethical
and moral choices, just like some people do.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Were the Crusaes ethical? I'd say most of the particpants thought they were.
Sure, you raped murdered and pillaged - but the Church gave you an out - you
were also doing Gods work. Indescretions, murder, looting or whatever were
expected and forgiven and were basically an acknowledged bonus of the job of
Crusading.
Crusading was also exciting - grab some loot, sack a city, and maybe get a
piece of land your God given title entitled you to.
We measure things by modern standards. By the satandards of the time most
people probably regarded a succesful knight back from raping and pillaging
as a kind of rock star - and one who did God's work as well.
He was enitled to murder un-christain heathens becuase
a: they were heathen
b: he was a knight

Enough said.
Just a pity times have changed....


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ian Wood wrote:
>As I understand it, by Mark's reasoning the Crusades were ethical because
>they were on a mission from God. Never mind that the first city captured /
>butchered happened to be Christian, and even still spoke the language of
>Jesus.

So killing slavers who attack you is the same as slaughtering women and
children in the crusades is it Ian. Clearly you dont understand my
reasoning.

All my post was trying to say was that I do not think that attacking
slavers who had launched an unprovoked attack on your group (a group which,
I might add, was more that just the party, and included women and children
of a tribe we were travelling with) from behind and/or invisible should not
sully ones reputation as "good" (which was how I read Andrews original
post, although that may not be what he meant to say).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I think its an ethical position that this behaviour is "good" or not "good".

This is precisely my point - one character thought this was good behaviour,
another thought it was not, so their opinion of the 1st character (formed
through reputation) changed based on their style of combat.

You are treated based on other people's opinion of your behaviour.

Whether it is "good" in any absolute or historical sense is besides the
point.


Andrew
-----Original Message-----
I do not think that attacking slavers who had launched an unprovoked attack
on your group (a group which, I might add, was more that just the party, and
included women and children of a tribe we were travelling with) from behind
and/or invisible should not sully ones reputation as "good" (which was how I
read Andrews original post, although that may not be what he meant to say).


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Tuesday, July 3, 2001, at 10:49  AM, Jim Arona wrote:

> 1) There is no need to have a skill that requires ethics on the part of
> the character. Even 'though it IS a magical world, I don't see how that
> might happen.

This point I agree with wholeheartedly. If we place an ethical 
constraint on a skill or college we introduce one of the ills of a class 
system (IMHO). While the ethics of my character may constrain her as to 
which skills she will choose to learn, and while the ethics of a trainer 
may constrain who they will willingly teach, neither of these places an 
ethical constraint on the skill or college in question.

While this allows people to play to get the best set of numbers if that 
is what they wish, it also allows people to play white witches, 
ethically good mind mages, and Robin Hoods. Don't compare your character 
to where they could be if they had just min-maxed. So what if they 
remain low for a few more adventures?

Developing a set of ethics for your character and going through with 
them is good roleplaying. Developing a set of ethics which mean you 
can't participate in a typical guild party may be destructive 
roleplaying in this context, so tread carefully before you do.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> I think its an ethical position that this behaviour is "good" or
> not "good".
>
> This is precisely my point - one character thought this was good
> behaviour, another thought it was not, so their opinion of the
> 1st character (formed through reputation) changed based on their
> style of combat.

I think it is a perfect opportunity to add something to the adventure to see
if the characters morals and beliefs could actually withstand further poking
or whether they are a thin vaneer to cover an excuse for a course of action.
Then apply roleplaying EP as apropriate. Along with details of what they
might need to consider in the future for the style of character they have.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Well, it might be, but there's precious little point in talking about it
here, though ,is there?

I mean, they're not going to be able to revisit it, and we have no real
idea of what went on. I would venture to suggest that the conflict in
belief between the players was wholly unstated, and completely
invisible, otherwise, the DM would probably have run with it.

I don't know, I can't comment, and I don't see what good it does to
bring the point up, George.

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
> 
> > I think its an ethical position that this behaviour is "good" or
> > not "good".
> >
> > This is precisely my point - one character thought this was good
> > behaviour, another thought it was not, so their opinion of the
> > 1st character (formed through reputation) changed based on their
> > style of combat.
> 
> I think it is a perfect opportunity to add something to the adventure to see
> if the characters morals and beliefs could actually withstand further poking
> or whether they are a thin vaneer to cover an excuse for a course of action.
> Then apply roleplaying EP as apropriate. Along with details of what they
> might need to consider in the future for the style of character they have.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> Well, it might be, but there's precious little point in talking about it
> here, though ,is there?
>
> I mean, they're not going to be able to revisit it, and we have no real
> idea of what went on. I would venture to suggest that the conflict in
> belief between the players was wholly unstated, and completely
> invisible, otherwise, the DM would probably have run with it.
>
> I don't know, I can't comment, and I don't see what good it does to
> bring the point up, George.

This specific occourance no, however we do play a game that is likely to
continue into the future and idea's and suggestions for future reference are
always handy.

Learning from experiance.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> 
> This specific occourance no, however we do play a game that is likely to
> continue into the future and idea's and suggestions for future reference are
> always handy.
> 
> Learning from experiance

Well, you might think it provides a DM with needed assistance. I think
it's too basic. I think we can safely assume that most people running
games are fully cognisant of the benefits of inter-party conflicts, and
their disadvantages, as well.

It is a reversal that can arise by the actions of the players, and it
isn't the sort of thing that you can engender in any regular way. It
probably requires a DM who is comfortable with improvising. Some are,
some aren't.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Socially DQ is set somewhere about the 8th century, at
least in cazala, might makes right, there is no other
law and the guild is a tryanny. Something like a city
state. Other baronies seem about 12th century except
the western kingdom which is about 15th socially with
a developed church, king, free cities etc.

To be precise the guild by its very environment will
attract the lowest forms of life on the plane as they
can live and get away with being horrid necromacers,
pacted daemon worshippers and cannibals without any
rule of law forbiding them. If you wish the guild to
be ethical and move into a more modern setting then
having an organised religion, king, free cities and a
rule of LAW. not guild law. Put a code of ethics in
the guild such as no more necros, pacted devil
worshippers, assasins or thieves in the guild would
first off make parties gell better and make them more
socally acceptable for games.

As for historic accuracy i think this can be overdone
as to be accurate wife beating was expected and
acceptable, murdering children was ok if they hadn't
been fed yet when born, killing a serf resulted in a
fine of about a dozen sheep as that was his value, etc
and it goes on, it is a bit horrible if this is taken
too far, although it depends on the gm and setting
flavour.


=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> Well, you might think it provides a DM with needed assistance. I think
> it's too basic. I think we can safely assume that most people running
> games are fully cognisant of the benefits of inter-party conflicts, and
> their disadvantages, as well.
>
> It is a reversal that can arise by the actions of the players, and it
> isn't the sort of thing that you can engender in any regular way. It
> probably requires a DM who is comfortable with improvising. Some are,
> some aren't.

And for those that are not the more options they are made aware of the
better. Unfortunately Jim we are not all omniscient, some us us have to rely
on talking to people to gain idea's, insights and ways of dealing with
things.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is tempered by 20th/21st century morality creeping in wherever
possible, to make the players squirm less.

Putting a code of ethics such as suggested below would simply stop certain
character type from being played, including many currently in play.

It is sometimes possible to have assassins, necromancers, demon worshippers
and their opposites in parties, depending on how the players temper their
characters reactions to fit in with each other. Occasionally this can't be
done and a character leaves the game, or even a player quits. On the other
hand, converting/corrupting other PCs is fun if everyone is civilised about
it.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Livingston [mailto:arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2001 12:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Re Ethics


Socially DQ is set somewhere about the 8th century, at
least in cazala, might makes right, there is no other
law and the guild is a tryanny. Something like a city
state. Other baronies seem about 12th century except
the western kingdom which is about 15th socially with
a developed church, king, free cities etc.

To be precise the guild by its very environment will
attract the lowest forms of life on the plane as they
can live and get away with being horrid necromacers,
pacted daemon worshippers and cannibals without any
rule of law forbiding them. If you wish the guild to
be ethical and move into a more modern setting then
having an organised religion, king, free cities and a
rule of LAW. not guild law. Put a code of ethics in
the guild such as no more necros, pacted devil
worshippers, assasins or thieves in the guild would
first off make parties gell better and make them more
socally acceptable for games.

As for historic accuracy i think this can be overdone
as to be accurate wife beating was expected and
acceptable, murdering children was ok if they hadn't
been fed yet when born, killing a serf resulted in a
fine of about a dozen sheep as that was his value, etc
and it goes on, it is a bit horrible if this is taken
too far, although it depends on the gm and setting
flavour.


=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Noel Livingston wrote:
> 
> Socially DQ is set somewhere about the 8th century, at
> least in cazala, might makes right, there is no other
> law and the guild is a tryanny. Something like a city
> state. Other baronies seem about 12th century except
> the western kingdom which is about 15th socially with
> a developed church, king, free cities etc.

Etc, etc, etc.

This isn't about the historical ethics of the time, although, I suppose,
it could be. It's about playing a character with a code of ethics. 

As players of a game set in a fantastical medieval world, we don't share
the ethical framework that people would have had then. Pursuing
historical accuracy will only lead to disenchantment, because there's so
much that we, as modern people, just can't put up with.

Slavery is an accepted practice in almost all medieval societies,
whatever name it goes by. As modern people, the thought repels us. The
world was rife with sexism and racism, not to mention religious
intolerance. These things we can accept initially, but too much exposure
just annoys us. We, as much as people in the middle ages, are the
product of our times.

Games set in medieval periods seek to find some middle ground, so that
that the appearance of the inequities that we object to can be
circumvented in some pleasing manner. In a fantasy novel, the role of a
woman is usually someone who is free to start with, or endowed with high
social rank, sufficient to provide her with the liberty she needs to
move through the plot. There are exceptions, and I'm not really
interested in seeing a list of books where the heroine was a serf, or a
scullery maid. 

In the same way, we mitigate the effects of the medieval zeitgeist so
that it is enjoyable to us, when we play.

HOWEVER:

What is being discussed is a code of behaviour, whether it be ethical,
or something else. And, depending on how well it's played, then that can
be pretty much anything that the player likes, regardless of
contemporaneous influences.

A knight could be a champion for the rights of oppressed black people.
It might be hard to do, but it's within the bounds of possibility.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> 
> And for those that are not the more options they are made aware of the
> better. Unfortunately Jim we are not all omniscient, some us us have to rely
> on talking to people to gain idea's, insights and ways of dealing with
> things.


I was never under the impression that you were omniscient. 

I am also under the impression that most people can pick up a storyline
and run with it, all by themselves, without having to be coached.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Placing our Campaign in a period of our history is inaccurate.
The campaign world is closer to the worlds of modern fantasy writers.  Sure
we draw on lots of source material and inspiration from our history but it
is tempered with Politcal Correctness, the presence of magic, modern law and
ethics, and a desire for heroism.
It is also a world and a campaign where we can play (or play with) our
favorite characters and worlds of modern fantasy writers.

Justifying something in our campaign because it happened in history or was
permitted under law in 9th century Germany is inappropriate and doesn't fit
with our campaign.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Noel Livingston [SMTP:arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, 3 July 2001 12:06
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	[dq] Re Ethics
> 
> Socially DQ is set somewhere about the 8th century, at
> least in cazala, might makes right, there is no other
> law and the guild is a tryanny. Something like a city
> state. Other baronies seem about 12th century except
> the western kingdom which is about 15th socially with
> a developed church, king, free cities etc.
> 
> To be precise the guild by its very environment will
> attract the lowest forms of life on the plane as they
> can live and get away with being horrid necromacers,
> pacted daemon worshippers and cannibals without any
> rule of law forbiding them. If you wish the guild to
> be ethical and move into a more modern setting then
> having an organised religion, king, free cities and a
> rule of LAW. not guild law. Put a code of ethics in
> the guild such as no more necros, pacted devil
> worshippers, assasins or thieves in the guild would
> first off make parties gell better and make them more
> socally acceptable for games.
> 
> As for historic accuracy i think this can be overdone
> as to be accurate wife beating was expected and
> acceptable, murdering children was ok if they hadn't
> been fed yet when born, killing a serf resulted in a
> fine of about a dozen sheep as that was his value, etc
> and it goes on, it is a bit horrible if this is taken
> too far, although it depends on the gm and setting
> flavour.
> 
> 
> =====
> cheers noel
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Stephen Martin wrote:
> 
> Placing our Campaign in a period of our history is inaccurate.

Etc.

Agreed


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

It is unethical to warp a players character and then
not allow him to play as he no longer fits in the
campaign or allow people to play characters who will
not fit in the campaign. This is a great way of
pissing off players and loosing them, is this what you
want ?


=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Noel Livingston wrote:
> 
> It is unethical to warp a players character and then
> not allow him to play as he no longer fits in the
> campaign or allow people to play characters who will
> not fit in the campaign. This is a great way of
> pissing off players and loosing them, is this what you
> want ?

Rubbish.

Players get warped every time they play, one way or another. However, if
they start playing in a way, for whatever reason, that isn't enjoyable
to other players, then they get to lose.

There is no ethical quality in this. The responsibility is the players,
to find a way to play, within the constraints.
> =====
> cheers noel
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --