Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!mazina
From: mazina@pur-ee.UUCP (Der Kaiser)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Forced Alignment Change (Tempting Choices)
Message-ID: <3106@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 18:45:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.3106
Posted: Thu Aug  1 18:45:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 03:37:19 EDT
Reply-To: mazina@pur-ee.UUCP (Der Kaiser)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 70

>1.  It is not black-mail to ask a GM whether his game is the kind you
>	will like before playing.  Telling him what you don't like
>	allows him to answer 'Yes' or 'No' instead of rambling on about
>	irrelevant criteria.

	I dislike most questioning of this kind for two reasons:

		1) Either it is so vague as to be useless, i.e.:
			"Don't change my character's alignment",
		   or it evolves into horribly complicated statements
		   like:
			"Don't change my character's alignment unless
			 I, specifically indicate that I wouldn't mind,
			 and the moon isn't full" 1/2 :-)

	Also, because some people make statements like the above to
	cover everything. Mostly, I was objecting to quitting without 
	having made your requirements in a campaign clear from the start.

>2.  Implying people are Munchkins is impolite.
>	Munchkins, as I understand the pejorative, don't value any
>	effort they put into building a character's /personality/.

	Yes, Copper, I'll take the rap on this one! It was uncalled 
for. I'll plead fatigue and extraneous reasons, and beg pardon.

>3.  One could interpret Robert Plamondon's advice in the light of "Der
>	Kaiser"'s guideline of only quiting if a decision is "really
>	unjustified" as implying he considers required change of character
>	to be "really unjustified."

	I meant unjustified, as in totally unjustified. I guess I am the 
only one who has seen a DM say "Zeus looks down and decides he doesn't like
you the way you are" I'm not kidding. I've seen a so-called DM do that. 

>4.  "The proper solution" is a trifle presumptive.  Unless, of course,
>	one is quoting from the latest authoritative Holy Tome from
>	the monks of Lake Geneva.

	Agreed, I should have said: A more proper solution. 

>5.  Agreed that soul-searching /et al/ can be fun.  But ... (there's
>	always a 'But' ;-)  My characters get into enough
>	soul-searching without girdles of alignment-changing forcing
>	the issue.  For instance, my current main character in a
>	Traveler variant will have a rough decision when we trade in
>	the current ship: does she abandon her lover the captain or her
>	dream of a ship of her own?  From what I've heard of a related
>	campaign Robert Plamondon has played in, I suspect his
>	characters have quite enough soul-searching /etc./ without
>	artificial assistance.

	From what I've seen, and heard of, such an extra factor will not
hurt characterization if you are creative. More soul-searching is rarely
a drawback...

>
>Reading between the lines, I suspect characterization is R. Plamondon's
>joy in gaming.  Perhaps it is our anonymous critic, "Der Kaiser",
>who is missing something in the hobby.

	Nope, sorry, you miss on that one. The reason I play RPG's is to 
Role Play. I am none of the many types of Munchkins, or Statisticians, or
any other warped types. I try to role play, with more or less success.
BTW, my name is Thomas Ruschak. I thought I put a signature on the silly
thing. Sorry.


					Thomas Ruschak
					pur-ee!mazina