
![]() |

So the general idea of this thread is that I want to record and score any things that might be considered and evil act. Mainly for the purpose of keeping an eye on actions and their affects on any given PC's alignment.
I am currently trying to fully wrap my head around a reasonable Paladin, with a realistic ethics, and morality code.
The scoring system has a range from 1 - 5
1- Least evil act, would generally seem reasonable with a bit of logic or explanation, ex- Lying to the magistrate to protect a friend.
5- Most vile, disgusting act a PC could possibly engage in, ex- Cold blooded murder and rape, possible torture and sadism.
The format should be as follows
Score 1-5/"Evil act described"
This is very much a participation thread so chip in as much as you dare or like :D

![]() |

Name Violation wrote:Gorbacz wrote:6/Discussing alignments in D&D+1+infinity
Talk with your specific group about what alignments should mean, because there is no general solution to this equation.
If you change groups/members, reassess this discussion.
Um, this has nothing to do with "group dynamics"
I was simply asking for a discussion on what acts the community considered evil and how evil they in fact are.
I don't see why you guys seem to want to avoid discussion about alignment like it is the plague, or some trolling attempt. The system constitutes a major element of the game and discussion derived thereof is conducive to the understanding of the beast.

![]() |

its because everything becomes a debate about alignment given long enough. Talkin bout poison? alignment debate. Talkin bout Animate dead? alignment debate. Talkin bout makin a boat? alignment debate.
Its been done. Over and over and over again. the community will never agree, hell my group of 6 people can barely agree and its why no one can play a paladin in my games because I don't think "SLAYERS OF EVIL" are being LAWFUL GOOD. LAWFUL GOOD protects the innocent and has mercy, not SMITE ON SIGHT (some exceptions apply like demons and undead), but in my games the only reason people wanna be pally's in my games is to yell SMIIIIIITEEE!!!!!!!! and i don't think thats acceptable behavior.
so alignment debates are best had before each campaign begins and can vary from game to game and person to person.

![]() |

If you're going to use alignment at all, ignore real world political or moral considerations, because they change daily and by zip code. (Example, at the end of WW2, the US executed seven Japanese generals for ordering the waterboarding of US GIs and it was popular consensus that their actions were both evil and war-crimes. Five years ago, the suggestion that waterboarding might be unethical or immoral was denounced as un-American and treasonous by various media personalities, religious and political leaders. Morality is constantly being re-defined (usually down...) in the real world, and arguing about whether or not torture, rape, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, etc. is evil with your friends is just a good way to not have friends anymore, since everyone draws the lines in different places and some have little tolerance of those who don't draw the line in the 'right' place.)
Decide which gods in your game setting approve and disapprove of which behaviors, and make their beliefs very explicitly clear to their followers (who have had potentially *centuries* of being able to call them up on the Commune hotline and ask them directly if baby-eating is kosher or tref).
This totally avoids moral quandaries in-game, and if something comes up that you didn't think of, allow any player a Knowledge (religion) roll to 'remember' what their diety thinks about [feeding Pepto-Bismol to seagulls to watch them explode] or whatever it is that you didn't think to make a ruling about beforehand.
In time-honored GM tradition, 'make stuff up.'
"Yeah, you remember now that Calistria thinks it's funny to play potentially fatal tricks on dumb animals, unless they are wasps. 'Splode gulls all you want."
By linking it to the only meaningful arbiters of alignment in the game system (the gods and their churches), you can accomodate different viewpoints within each ethical and moral alignment, so that a LG Paladin of Iomedae and a LG Paladin of Erastil might have different viewpoints, and a LE Cleric of Zon-Kuthon (torture, yay!) might be very different from a LE Cleric of Asmodeus (contract slavery, yay!).
One pitfall of a point-scale is the notion of intent vs. action. If I make casting a 4th level [Evil] spell like Summon Monster IV (fiendish dire badger) a 4 pt. Evil act, that suggests that Summon Monster IV (summon *celestial* dire badger) is a 5 pt. Good act and that someone could 'game the system' by performing incremental acts of good to 'buy off' or 'offset' evil deeds, which may sound ludicrous, on the face of it, but was standard practice in ye olde days, with people buying from the Church special 'Pardons' that granted them forgiveness for some sinful thing that they shouldn't be doing anyway.
If you're game ends up with characters donating money to build an orphanage to try and 'offset' their actions in the last town they burned to the ground, or starts UMDing scrolls of Protection from Evil to cast [Good] spells to 'offset' all those Death Knell spells they've been casting to bump their CL, it's just making an even bigger mockery of the concept of morality and ethics than the alignment system already does.

![]() |

And just like that..... this post goes down in flames. I think folks that don't want to touch this subject should just ignore this thread, instead of shooting down the OP.
Let me see if I can help the OP out a bit.
Ignoring a Begger. 1
Slapping a begger who insulted you. 2
Beating up a begger. 3
Killing a begger for no reason. 4
Stabbing your mother in the back because she mouthed off at you. 4
Raping a horse. 4
Burning an inhabited town to cinders. 5
How's that? For some reason, I got stuck on doing bad things to beggers. *Snickers*

![]() |

StabbittyDoom wrote:Name Violation wrote:Gorbacz wrote:6/Discussing alignments in D&D+1+infinity
Talk with your specific group about what alignments should mean, because there is no general solution to this equation.
If you change groups/members, reassess this discussion.
Um, this has nothing to do with "group dynamics"
I was simply asking for a discussion on what acts the community considered evil and how evil they in fact are.
I don't see why you guys seem to want to avoid discussion about alignment like it is the plague, or some trolling attempt. The system constitutes a major element of the game and discussion derived thereof is conducive to the understanding of the beast.
Despite your claim it has EVERYTHING to do with group dynamics. Group A might consider slavery a 4, where group B thinks it's only a 2 and neutral if you treat the slaves well.
There will never be consensus on alignments. It's hard for even one person to be sure about where they stand morally on all issues, much less a group. There's simply too much gray to properly break it down into black and white.As such, my suggestion stands. If you want this sort of system, make it in the context of your group and avoid attempting to get a large consensus on an issue that has already proven to be well nigh impossible to nail down (if not outright impossible).

Ramarren |

With the understanding that not everyone will agree, my thoughts.
Murder for amusement - 5
Murder for gain - 4
Murder for revenge - 3
(Note that not all killings are murders)
Causing the death of an innocent as a result of wilfull carelessness - 2...maybe 3. (I believe this is referred to as 'Depraved Indifference' in various crime shows)
Causing the death of an innocent in order to 'serve the greater good' -1...this is a touchy one...the idea that I'm trying to get across with something like this is that such acts 'stain the soul', and over time may be a gateway to further evils.
Casting a spell with an [Evil] descriptor in order to fight/harm/counter a good creature/effect - 2...So Summoning a Fiendish Viper to attack wolves is irrelevant...but doing so in order to fight a lantern archon, or to take out a guard who is good-aligned (even if you don't know his alignment), that's an evil act. Similarly, if you cast Protection from Good to free a comrade from mental control of some evil wizard, that's not an evil act, but if you do so to protect yourself from an Angel, that's an evil act. (entirely separate from the evil you may be committing that would cause you to need protection from an Angel).
In these cases, I'd make the casting of spells with a [Good] Descriptor a good act of the same magnitude when used to counter/harm an evil effect/creature...same with [Lawful] and [Chaotic] descriptors.
For those situations where there is not a direct effect against something (Animate Dead, for instance), I'd say that casting any [ x ] spell in the furtherance of an x act, is a separate x act of magnitude 2.

Kaisoku |

Some of you guys are toeing the line of being disruptive, to the point of being flagged.
.
I seem to recall that the Honor system in Oriental Adventures (that was carried over to Unearthed Arcana, so OGL, find it here) had some charts that could give you some ideas on what is good or evil.
It's all about honor though, and has some odd-ball societal influence (overindulgence in food or drink is dishonorable, for example).
Since you are thinking about how things apply to a Paladin though, he's got a code of honor to stand by, so there's some lawful aspects that you might want to consider, beyond the simply good/evil stance.
For example, taking a bribe might be good or evil for other reasons, but it's ultimately NOT a lawful act, and something a Paladin should be conscious of.

Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |

Honestly, listen to Set on this.
Also, talk with you players and figure out what sort of paladin they want to play and what sort of morality code they want to go with, both for their character concept and their personal comfort level.
Don't go with this scenario:
DM: This is my home-brewed world. Here are the gods and goddesses. If you want to play a paladin, you have to pick one of the lawful good deities.
Me: Cool. I'll take the love goddess. She seems nice.
*TIME PASSES*
DM: (two weeks into the game) By the way, I've been thinking more about my gods and goddesses. The love goddess requires all her paladins to be bisexual. Oh, and you have to volunteer two weekends a month as an unpaid temple prostitute. If you're not up to the roleplaying challenge, we can retcon in another god.
Me: (rolleyes, grumble) Okay, whatever. "Welcome, weary pilgrim! Your breasts are like leaping gazelles! And your friend's pecs are like, um, furry mongeese...."
What I'd advise for paladins is an old-fashioned chivalric code mixed with some fairly traditional morality. That way you can have your paladin not doing a lot of things because they're "ignoble" or "unknightly" without them actively being "evil."
That said, paladin codes don't have to be as hidebound as a geas, otherwise every paladin is going to run into a Cuchullain dilemma:
Cuchullain Geas #1: Never refuse hospitality
Cuchullain Geas #2: Never harm your totem animal (the hound)
Scenario:
Hag #1: Hail, weary traveler! We are but old women, but we have prepared a fine meal and there's more than we can eat. Please join us!
Cuchullain: Thank you, good dames. What's for dinner.
Hag #2: Elkhound! Mmm, yummy!
Hag #1: Do you like original or extra crispy?
I'd give them a prime directive about being good and protecting innocents and a bunch of frippery with various things that they're not supposed to do but can atone for if they end up having to use them, like the paladin who loses his holy avenger and then the only weapon he has to slay dragons and rescue virgins with is the assassin's dagger of venom. Poison may be ignoble, but standing by prissily while the dragon chows down on Dulcinea while you wait for some golf caddy to fetch you a new holy avenger? Please.

KaeYoss |

Right, let's kill this thread before it turns ugly.
Sodomizing children/1
Stealing candy from the store/5Oh wait ... too late !
You're not even trying!
Write something like...
"Denying the husband his marital rights/5"
...and you have a s@~@storm metering in at "OMFG!" on the storm scale.

![]() |

"Your breasts are like leaping gazelles!"
Note to self; must use this as a pick-up line.
Addendum; call ambulance first, for quicker response time.
Evils of the Internet;
5 - starting a post with 'Um' or 'Sorry, but...'
5 - quoting a fourteen page manifesto or list of 26 bullet points to reply 'This' or 'QFT' or 'Fail'
4 - constructing a straw man.
4 - agreeing with a poster in such an inflammatory and insulting way that they wish you weren't on their side.
3 - starting a thread about the alignment of James Bond or Batman.
3 - setting a straw man on fire.
2 - starting a thread about the superiority of the Katana.
2 - soliciting feedback and when the feedback doesn't agree 100% with every jot and tittle of your OP, savagely attacking the poor fool who responded.
1 - mentioning Chuck Norris.
1 - starting a thread with the words 'necromancy' 'evil' and a question mark in the title.
1 - constructing a straw man so big that it's really a burning wicker man full of the screaming souls of everyone sucked into the discussion.

![]() |

So the general idea of this thread is that I want to record and score any things that might be considered and evil act. Mainly for the purpose of keeping an eye on actions and their affects on any given PC's alignment.
I am currently trying to fully wrap my head around a reasonable Paladin, with a realistic ethics, and morality code.The scoring system has a range from 1 - 5
1- Least evil act, would generally seem reasonable with a bit of logic or explanation, ex- Lying to the magistrate to protect a friend.5- Most vile, disgusting act a PC could possibly engage in, ex- Cold blooded murder and rape, possible torture and sadism.
The format should be as follows
Score 1-5/"Evil act described"This is very much a participation thread so chip in as much as you dare or like :D
In terms of a game it actually depends on whether you want to run low or high fantasy. In a high fantasy setting, things tend to be fairly clear cut black and white. You have the good guys and bad guys and they are generally very easy to distinguish, as high fantasy is based upon archetypes. Low fantasy is quite different, as it cleaves to shades of grey in which no decision is ever morally pure.
In terms of the game, you must also take into consideration the faith to which the paladin adheres. The "Lawful" component of a paladin's alignment indicates their strong preference for justice, order, and the rule or law. Those laws are the laws of their god(ess) first, and rulers second. The "Good" component of a paladin's alignment indicates their preference for mercy, compasion, and sacrifice in the name of their faith and service to others.
To that point, a true paladin is not a smiting machine, but a defender of the faith, and protector of the weak. To go into more details, requires that we actually contentextualize the conversation with setting details.

![]() |

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:"Your breasts are like leaping gazelles!"Note to self; must use this as a pick-up line.
Addendum; call ambulance first, for quicker response time.
Evils of the Internet;
5 - starting a post with 'Um' or 'Sorry, but...'
5 - quoting a fourteen page manifesto or list of 26 bullet points to reply 'This' or 'QFT' or 'Fail'
4 - constructing a straw man.
4 - agreeing with a poster in such an inflammatory and insulting way that they wish you weren't on their side.
3 - starting a thread about the alignment of James Bond or Batman.
3 - setting a straw man on fire.
2 - starting a thread about the superiority of the Katana.
2 - soliciting feedback and when the feedback doesn't agree 100% with every jot and tittle of your OP, savagely attacking the poor fool who responded.
1 - mentioning Chuck Norris.
1 - starting a thread with the words 'necromancy' 'evil' and a question mark in the title.
1 - constructing a straw man so big that it's really a burning wicker man full of the screaming souls of everyone sucked into the discussion.
win (hey, it wasn't on there)

![]() |

Yes, it is a complicated thing to discuss and sometimes futile...
But the OP posted in good faith, so why spend time telling him (in essence) that he shouldn't have posted?GRU
Amen GRU! I've been saying this all along. On other threads as well. It seems there is a group of individuals that love telling people they shouldn't have posted something, or to keep certain discussions off the forums just because they don't want to see them.
Well, I say, if you don't want to see it, then don't look at it. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then don't post something bashing the OP.
![]() |

GRU wrote:Yes, it is a complicated thing to discuss and sometimes futile...
But the OP posted in good faith, so why spend time telling him (in essence) that he shouldn't have posted?GRU
Amen GRU! I've been saying this all along. On other threads as well. It seems there is a group of individuals that love telling people they shouldn't have posted something, or to keep certain discussions off the forums just because they don't want to see them.
Well, I say, if you don't want to see it, then don't look at it. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then don't post something bashing the OP.
I do not see my comments as a lack of contribution: I suggested that he ask the people he plays with their opinions on such a scale because where things lie will change with every group. A consensus drawn from your group will also have the players feel less cheated if they get an alignment shift from their own judgement as opposed to that of the anonymous crowd of forum-goers.
Even if he really was trying to find a true community consensus (devoid of the context of a particular gaming group), my comment about the lack of such consensus is still a contribution (though not that meaningful, I admit).My primary suggestion negates my ability to add any suggestions on how certain acts rank on the evil scale without being a hypocrite. I would probably have left it with my initial suggestion if not for further comments attempting to paint me as some kind of idiot/troll.
Then again, I'm a supporter of playing alignment-free games, so maybe I'm already biased. Ironic considering that my first D&D character was a Paladin.
Anyway, I've made my suggestion, take it or leave it.
5/Suggesting playing without alignments

![]() |

I do not see my comments as a lack of contribution: I suggested that he ask the people he plays with their opinions on such a scale because where things lie will change with every group. A consensus drawn from your group will also have the players feel less cheated if they get an alignment shift from their own judgement as opposed to that of the anonymous crowd of forum-goers.
Even if he really was trying to find a true community consensus (devoid of the context of a particular gaming group), my comment about the lack of such consensus is still a contribution (though not that meaningful, I admit).
Oh for sure, I do my best not to take things personally and you are very right in suggesting that the lack of community consensus is contributing, in some way at least.
A bit on the alignment free games, I would have no problem doing it but for the fact that it encourages an overly "low" fantasy type setting with the justifications and the like. I am not bashing on low fantasy, don't get me wrong but right now, I am just plain not prepared to set up golarion in such a way to justify everything through each parties individual mindset and POV. It is however something that I would be interested in PLAYING in, and possibly looking forward to doing in the future (Much like my campaign of traveling bards).
Also,

![]() |

The Book of Vile Darkness (3.5 Suppliment by WotC) has an excellent section dedicated to this topic an how it relates to a fantasy setting where you have living embodiements of moral and ethical ideals walking around. Check it out if you get the chance.
Please ... noooooo ... not the Book of Being Bad, And By Being Bad I Mean Totally Nasty !!!

Charender |

I don't know, I find most of the alignment discussions on the forum to be fairly useful.
I play in a pretty tight knit group, we have a general consensus on alignment, but seeing other people's opinions has helps me with a few things like....
Integrating a new player into the group, who may or may not be on the same page with alignments.
How to deal with players who are just using alignments as an excuse to have fun at the expense of the group.
Ideas for interesting moral delimmas to throw at my players.
As for my thoughts on evil acts.
Redeeming a villain and putting them on the path of good = -5 evil
Killing a villain and making the world safe for no reward = -4 evil
Offering help to those in need for no reward = -3 evil
Killing a villain for reward = -2 evil
Offering help to those in need for a reward = -1 evil
Doing nothing = 0 evil
Threatening innocents for personal gain = +1 evil
Injuring innocents for personal gain = +2 evil
Injuring innocents for fun = +3 evil
Killing innocents for personal gain = +4 evil
Killing innocents for pleasure = +5 evil

![]() |

A bit on the alignment free games, I would have no problem doing it but for the fact that it encourages an overly "low" fantasy type setting with the justifications and the like. I am not bashing on low fantasy, don't get me wrong but right now, I am just plain not prepared to set up golarion in such a way to justify everything through each parties individual mindset and POV. It is however something that I would be interested in PLAYING in, and possibly looking forward to doing in the future (Much like my campaign of traveling bards).
Although I haven't done a test-run of it yet, I was planning on trying to run a Pathfinder alignment-free game. The idea isn't to avoid high fantasy, but rather make it easier to insert moral conundrums and other classic tropes without punishing a player in the process.
Demons and Devils can be evil to their core without the game system needing to put a little "evil" tag next to their type.My hope in an alignment-free game is NOT to remove the idea of morality or ethics, but rather to make it default to subjectivity rather than objectivity. If I, as a DM, say that X is evil in an aligned game, the player (possibly rightfully) complains. If I do it in an alignment-free game, the player sees it for the plot point it must be, since there is no mechanical effect.
Of course, this does mean I'd have to punish evil acts by sending out crusaders of justice and making them generally disliked in town, etc. It players end up wanting to go about saving the world in an "evil" manner, so be it as far as I'm concerned. They'll reap the negative consequences of their approach inevitably (it's very hard to hide in a world of diviners).
It's also quite possible that such a game would just replace one set of problems with another. In this case, well, at least it's different ;)

![]() |

Killing innocents for pleasure = +5 evil
My PC in a Second Darkness campaign did this. Basically, set a minor outbreak of plague zombies loose in a drow city. It was justified as an effective method to tie up enemy resources and cause an equal number of deaths that the drow caused in a human city, but he got a lot of pleasure out of it too. He earned his +5 evil that day.

![]() |

Themetricsystem wrote:A bit on the alignment free games, I would have no problem doing it but for the fact that it encourages an overly "low" fantasy type setting with the justifications and the like.Really? That somewhat surprises me. Doesn't just an "okay, you're the good guys," work?
I guess it MIGHT in some peoples games but not mine. We do some pretty heavy role-play and most characters tend to be pretty fleshed out with their own set of perspectives and the like.
Loosing the Alignment system would open them up to much more freedom and they in turn would have to come to perceive the world around them without the prior dichotomy of good vs. bad. Goblins may be prejudiced against but they are not by nature "evil" it is the culture and harsh fates handed to them that they become such ravenous little buggers; Products of their environment in other words.
It changes things from "The black bird sings" to "Why does the black bird sing?"

Ganzir |

I guess the reason you started this thread, was to get answers, which outline a general guideline of what is good and what is evil, what is lawful and what is chaotic. From my experience this is a discussion, that might never come to an end, when even two people are engaging in it. So nearly everything is up for an endless dispute. How to solve this problem?
You are the GM so it is up to you to determine what is good and what is evil period.
You are everything the players are not. You decide what works and what not. As any rulebook will tell you, as a GM you have the final say. Since there is no way to scientifically proof what is good and what is evil (otherwise this discussion would not exist) it remains a subject of arbitrariness - with you as the arbiter.
This is one of the few topics I will never discuss with my players, in this point my world is law. This I tell my players should they be new at the table and the reason why I rule this way (see above) until now they have always accepted this judgment since it is one of the few viable ways out of this dilemma. The only exception I am willing to make is, that the rulebook states, that act X is a good/evil whatever act, since the game designer obviously wanted the world to work in this fashion. If you do not want to leave your players completely in the dark, you might tell them, when they act how you categorize this act. You don't need to give a justification, since this will start the debate all over, just to give the players a feeling what you consider good an evil so they can act accordingly if they want to.
Greetz
Ganzir

moon glum RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
So the general idea of this thread is that I want to record and score any things that might be considered and evil act. Mainly for the purpose of keeping an eye on actions and their affects on any given PC's alignment.
It is easiest if you figure out what 'evil' means in your campaign. I once made a 16 dimensional alignment system. In that system, evil was selfishness, and good was selflessness. So, stealing was evil, because it was selfish, as was hurting or killing things just because doing so would profit you, or just because you were angry. Good, on the other hand, would involve going through trouble or expense or putting yourself at risk for the benefit of others.
So rescuing a village from a dragon was good. If you kept the dragon's hoard for yourself, that would be neutral (since you had to kill the dragon anyway to save the village). But just finding some old, hapless dragon and killing it for its treasure would be evil (unless the dragon, for some reason, needed killing).

Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |

Actually, if you look at the illustrations in the BoVD, you can figure out how evil someone is by the number of pieces of body jewelry you can see.
Total baddies seem to have both nipple rings, a nose ring, an eyebrow or lip ring, and the assumption they've got at least one Prince Albert underneath their skull-themed codpiece.
Actually, if you don't have a Prince Albert under your skull-themed codpiece, you're probably a poser, and that would be a great use for a ring of X-ray vision.
So, in short, count body jewelry. Each piece counts as an evil pip.

Brian Bachman |

How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)
Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hour

![]() |

Actually, if you look at the illustrations in the BoVD, you can figure out how evil someone is by the number of pieces of body jewelry you can see.
Total baddies seem to have both nipple rings, a nose ring, an eyebrow or lip ring, and the assumption they've got at least one Prince Albert underneath their skull-themed codpiece.
Actually, if you don't have a Prince Albert under your skull-themed codpiece, you're probably a poser, and that would be a great use for a ring of X-ray vision.
So, in short, count body jewelry. Each piece counts as an evil pip.
I've had the same vibe from BoVD... according to it, Evil is:
1. Body piercings
2. Use of drugs and/or poison
3. Wearing leather clothing
Wait... that means death metal fans are Evil !

![]() |

I've had the same vibe from BoVD... according to it, Evil is:
1. Body piercings
2. Use of drugs and/or poison
3. Wearing leather clothingWait... that means death metal fans are Evil !
PSA: If your party's elf dresses like a goth party clown, he or she may be in danger of turning drow.

Mr.Fishy |

Evils of the Internet;4 - agreeing with a poster in such an inflammatory and insulting way that they wish you weren't on their side.
3 - setting a straw man on fire.
2 - soliciting feedback and when the feedback doesn't agree 100% with every jot and tittle of your OP, savagely attacking the poor fool who responded.
1 - constructing a straw man so big that it's really a burning wicker man full of the screaming souls of everyone sucked into the discussion.
Can we do some of these Mr. Fishy is really looking forward to NUMBER 1!
Burning souls for everyone!!! IT'S A FORUM INFERNO!!! BURN BABY BURN!
Wait! What are we talking about?

Mr.Fishy |

3-Teabagging the corpses of the enemies you've pwn'd. And then talking smack about them.
His name was Botreks the Tea Bagger. His battle cry was "I SAW WHAT YOU DID TO MY FRIENDS!" then he would crit for a one shot kill. One hit killed the adventures villain and teabagged his corpse. Mr. Fishy thought it was great, the DM thought Mr. Fishy was ass.

![]() |

How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hour
What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?

Charender |

Brian Bachman wrote:What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hour
Or...
You are actively working to destroy an unwanted year long paranoia campaign because the DM won't let you get critical hits, and your critical misses are getting the party killed at which time the DM does a celebration dance, and puts a notch in his DM screen. You preferred methods of campaign destruction are not bringing cookies for the DM, and being mean to the newbies by enganging in unwanted player to player interacting that often result in rules arguements than exceed 30 minutes...

Caineach |

0gre wrote:Brian Bachman wrote:What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hourOr...
You are actively working to destroy an unwanted year long paranoia campaign because the DM won't let you get critical hits, and your critical misses are getting the party killed at which time the DM does a celebration dance, and puts a notch in his DM screen. You preferred methods of campaign destruction are not bringing cookies for the DM, and being mean to the newbies by enganging in unwanted player to player interacting that often result in rules arguements than exceed 30 minutes...
your next clone appears and all is good.

Brian Bachman |

Brian Bachman wrote:What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hour
Touche'. The point is yours, sir

Brian Bachman |

0gre wrote:Brian Bachman wrote:What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hourOr...
You are actively working to destroy an unwanted year long paranoia campaign because the DM won't let you get critical hits, and your critical misses are getting the party killed at which time the DM does a celebration dance, and puts a notch in his DM screen. You preferred methods of campaign destruction are not bringing cookies for the DM, and being mean to the newbies by enganging in unwanted player to player interacting that often result in rules arguements than exceed 30 minutes...
I think you've maxed the evil meter. :)
FYI by player vs. player, I'm referring to PCs actively plotting against each other or even trying to kill each other. While most of this was firmly tongue in cheek, that actually is something that can destroy a game fast unless everyone agrees its fair game.

Brian Bachman |

Charender wrote:your next clone appears and all is good.0gre wrote:Brian Bachman wrote:What if you are actively working to destroy a paranoia campaign because your GM won't run anything else?How about ratings for DM and player evil, as opposed to game evil?
DM:
5 - Telling everyone without preconsult that you will be running Paranoia exclusively for the next year.
4 - Doing an endzone celebration dance every time you kill a PC. Insisting the players dump a bucket of Gatorade over you with a TPK.
3 - Coming to a game completely unprepared
2 - Informing the PCs that they can't get critical hits, but can get critical misses
1 - Cutting a notch in your DM screen for every PC killed (Oh, wait, I do that, just forget I said it)Player:
5 - Failing to bring cookies for the DM
4 - Actively working to destroy a campaign because you want to play something else
3 - Being mean to newbies
2 - Engaging in player vs. player conduct when no one else at the table wants to
1 - Engaging in any rules argument for more than half an hourOr...
You are actively working to destroy an unwanted year long paranoia campaign because the DM won't let you get critical hits, and your critical misses are getting the party killed at which time the DM does a celebration dance, and puts a notch in his DM screen. You preferred methods of campaign destruction are not bringing cookies for the DM, and being mean to the newbies by enganging in unwanted player to player interacting that often result in rules arguements than exceed 30 minutes...
I really hated those damned clones! Could have had something to do with the maniacal laughter from the GM every time one of mine bit the dust in some futile manner.