I would like the core rulebook to include a paragraph about the social contract between the DM and the players. I think it should say something along the line of DMs (or appropriate copyright term) can ask players to build PCs that are not interested in doing things that may make other players have less fun, including rape (assuming they want to use the r-word in a publication), harm to other players (though cinematic punching of one another is fine), and taking an unequal share of treasure (though players can still steal trinkets from one another if they are thieves). You may be able to play an Evil character that does none of these things, but if you are not creative enough to play an Evil character who does none of the prohibited things, just pick a different alignment.
I'm not sure how it will interact with alignment stuff, but they have already said they're going to have a more extensive section on the social contract in the PF2 corebook (though maybe not the playtest book due to space issues).
You seem to know everything. :) Thank you!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition I'd like to see something about the gm's not laying kafkatraps for players playing a class with a code of conduct that can cause abilities to disappear. An option where breaking the code might be the easier method is one thing, no win situations are another, thats the kind of jerk gm behavior that contributes to issues people have with the 1e paladin class.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition I'd like to see something about the gm's not laying kafkatraps for players playing a class with a code of conduct that can cause abilities to disappear. An option where breaking the code might be the easier method is one thing, no win situations are another, thats the kind of jerk gm behavior that contributes to issues people have with the 1e paladin class.
Yeah, I'd definitely appreciate that sort of thing being explicitly uncool as well. It's a dick move that far too many people seem to think is okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An option where breaking the code might be the easier method is one thing, no win situations are another, thats the kind of jerk gm behavior that contributes to issues people have with the 1e paladin class.
I'd say situation when you cannot I don't know save someone without breaking Code is one thing. I'd go for it. It's add to drama and heaviness of Code.
What is a problem are GM's who would put paladin in blackmail position, and then let him fall either way,