You''ve got a major level (belt color) and minor level (number of stripes). This is how you tell who''s more advanced than who in an HONORABLE system. I admit, people in reality usually don''t have honor and respect as it is taught in karate. But i believe levels can still be useful. How do you enforce roleplaying? you simply make it illegal to be out of character. My game features a reporting command to allow you to report people who''re talking out of character. This policy is STRICTLY enforced. Any GM on my staff who catches someone doing this can immediately send this person to what we call "OOC Jail". From there they get a warning the first time.. after that they either take a reduction in skill levels or they can attend RP Classes which we will sponser. This will be a session for anyone interested and anyone who has been sent to OOC Jail and choose this option. In it we will discuss how to RP and how not to. Anyone caught doing this a third time will get an even stiffer punishment You lose one strike against you every 3 or 6 months, because we all know accidents can happen.AD&D was originally based on storytelling. profeciencies are an OPTIONAL rule. Player''s OPTION: skills and powers is an OPTION. Anyone choosing to play that way accepts the risks. Try playing D&D without profeciencies and such.. only stats. The DM is forced to come up with their own guidelines as to how things should work. D&D is merely meant to provide the DM with a set of base rules to build something around. They never say "do this for certain" and in fact say "bend the rules if nessicary". AD&D is NOT designed to be played by the books all the time. A DM''s best judgement is the ruling factor. However, D&D provides rules for things the DM might not want to think about or might not know about
The_Minister, scarey name
First off.. i think you''re too realistic. Why? well it''s true.. in reality things like that happen. But how can we tell morals in a game? We can''t simply make a table of morals, can we? The paladin who slays something does on only because he must. Senseless killing is not in his nature, and this the character should resist attempts by the player to do certain actions! This character IS it''s own being, and the player is merely the consciousness of it. But it goes hand in hand with stats and skills to have the character resist the player''s commands if they go against the character''s alignment/profession or whatever. A paladin by nature would NEVER harm something that he feels is weaker than he is. He would merely turn it loose and let it go. This is why AD&D was VERY strict on this. If you acted out of alignment with a paladin, you could LOSE your title and become a mere FIGHTER! and you lose all the perks of being a paladin. This is the kind of playing that should exist. I don''t believe fighters should only have swords.. i think they should be able to pick a secondary guild they''d like to dabble in. perhaps they like to play with magic? cool for them. They''ll never gain magical abilities like a mage would.. but they can certainly learn some stuff. I totally agree with this, but they''re still a fighter! It''s just the rules of life.. hehe.I agree that people should respond to people who''ve done senseless killings. We''ve already discussed and turned away from the "murder-based" exp as landfish calls it. So how about we move on to something else instead of still trying to act like it''s an issue? Yes, i think some murder-based exp should exist. Why? because it''s a serious way to learn something. I don''t think we should say the character has no morals for killing something. I mean, if it were life and death, you''d kill something, too! I wouldn''t shun you for defending yourself. I admit, if they go nuts with it, they''d likely go mad from it, but we can''t program this yet. We don''t know how the human mind responds to these things, we could only guess. There are some people who''re emotionally cold and thus see killing as an act of mercy sometimes. They''re not evil because they kill, they just have "misguided morals" according to mainstream society. This is in no way wrong.. but the person is likely to be shunned and be a loner. But someone who kills dragons.. whoa.. there''s a different story. you could wipe out all sorts of dragons and NO ONE would really mind, except people who''re overly senseative to life. You''ve got to imagine that if you grew up with the threat of attack by goblins, or if you had your family killed by them at a young age, you''d likely be on a quest to wipe them all out. Why? because you''ve had a problem with them in the past and you''re tramatized. It happens in real life, too. How do you plan on coding things like this, where a player can justify their senseless killing of an enemy because of some past trama? I had something like this with some of my characters in which i particularly hated something. Rangers in AD&D must pick a species enemy at 2nd level. This is something they get a bonus to attacking because of some rage associated with something these creatures did to him/his friends in the past. it''s perfectly acceptable and happens in real life. So what about these things?
J
