Honor, good, bad character

[Dangerous]

Well, but what I mean is that the declaration is not the same as the practice.

[Anansi]

I do not know about paper erpeg, but in computer games, if you did not stick to the predetermined character, then after some time of making wrong decisions, your character changed and, for example, it blocked certain classes.
The DnD system is ingenious, you have to admit it, but it limits too much and closes the character into one small table, so we have 9 types of characters and you cannot play with anyone else. Life is more difficult when it comes to morality, sometimes he cannot be described as bad, good or neutral.

[Vanity Fair]

But that's the point. Why are these 9 names, if you already know that the player will not act exactly like that, but usually completely different? There are no people who always behave the same. I mean, maybe they are, but I don't know them. Everyone uses a different value system in different aspects of life. For example, in 95% of my activities I am law-abiding, but when it comes to crossing the lanes, the color of the lights is irrelevant to me, so I am chaotic in this matter. That's why it doesn't make sense to me.

[Gor]

Well, in NWN this system was terrible. I wanted to play a CD - an anarchol for whom money is not of any value, i.e. rather chaotic, and at the same time to be guided rather by morality, etc. incredibly annoying. Besides, in many cases it seems to me that "good" at DnD, especially computer scenes, means "an uncompromisingly naive idealist". These schematic concepts are also hopeless.

[Kaikki]

Okay, but don't compare a computer game to a live session with a live MG. The game must have such things scripted and there must be moments when a specific decision causes a change of character. I doubt that the Ministry of Economy kept you such statistics on the basis of "oh, here you refused to steal, okay, I add you another line towards the rule of law, 5 more lines and I change your character?". Although who knows him there.

[Ciliren]

Man, you know. It's just that, both in a live game and in a computer game, this system makes no sense, for two extremely different reasons. In playing live, you can always turn the cat's tail properly and convince it to the point that the system is working out. In a computer game, a slightly different understanding of something and you suddenly lose the opportunity to be promoted into a paladin.

[Matsui]

I share your opinion and I will give you another example that always fascinates me - madmen. The type of madman (generally positive, see the character sheet below) is my favorite and partially defines me, because I am not a normal person myself: P. Unfortunately, in systems with a clearly defined character of characters, such as DnD, the stairs begin, because my character could quite piss off the more conservative MGs. Let's assume that I control a character that is extremely good, so good that he behaves like androids from "Robot I" and, for example, imprisons people in a basement to be able to look after them more easily. Or, on the contrary, I am a bad psychopath who has gotten myself off guard that pollen is deadly and is giving out bouquets to everyone. Not to mention characters with a multiple personality, because it is already a higher driving school, especially when different incarnations have separate levels of intelligence or charisma, and sometimes also the rest of the coefficients. Characters of this type are quite a troll for the whole system - unless they published a separate textbook of mental diseases, because if they have already written about architecture, principles of pregnancy in different races and cooking, why not publish "Dungeons & Dragons: Under the Skull": lol:?

[Woland]

Certain clinical freaks, especially personality fission, are an old and very cheap trick that usually proves that the player wants to focus most of the attention in the session on himself. Besides, usually such crooks quit when the Master says "cool, but you only control one personality, and I have the power over the other and the moments of change." Because I don't understand why someone would have two characters sharing a body at once. It doesn't add up. But it depends on the convention, I suppose.

[Triss Merigold]

When it comes to the stronger varieties, I will agree, Bird, but such a slight freak, I think that the session would not hurt, and in fact, from the perspective of the system, it is a problem. WH has a nice solution to it, because you can have any character, but during the game you can pick up insanity points, and then you can get mental illness thanks to them, and in the end, you can really become a freak. My one character, for example, caught two: She imagined that she is the savior of the world and that she is immortal, no one can kill her. On the other hand, she had a phobia of magicians. She thought that they were the only ones willing and able to get rid of it and put it magically into some object, since it cannot be killed. So all magicians were her mortal enemies. And that's what I got during the session.

[Brerg]

Getting something during the session is fun and it colors the story, makes it dynamic. It is worse when a player has an "idea" to start, which must be exposed at every step and absolutely unchanged.