From: fletcher@netcom.com (F. Sullivan Segal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games,rec.games.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:46:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct8.234635.10915
Organization: bottom up!

>> o	Only Lawful characters are permitted to be PC's, and therefor
>> 	cannot kill without first doing whatever is legally neccessary.
>> 
>> o	Only Good characters are permitted to be PC's so no characters
>> 	will ever willingly kill one another
>
>I'm not going to start up an old debate, so I'll just say that I think
>these are unfair restrictions you make on the players. Suppose I
>don't _want_ to be Lawful or Good? The more restrictions you make, the
>less people are going to like it...
>
These still leave fairly wide lattitude.  Depending on the environment,
you could be say 'Lawful Evil', plotting the demise of your enemies,
and pulling them through without ever ruining your good reputation.  Or
you could be totally independent, demonstrating against any sort of 
controls.  

Really these are only character restrictions.  NPC's could still be
Chaotic Evil, or whatever you like.  And of course PC's could become
increasingly CE until they destroy their characters.

In the campaigns I've run, I've found that too wide a lattitude of allowable
alignments destroys the campaign.  If people don't enjoy playing some type
of good, or some type of lawful, they should join a chaotic only, or evil
only campaign, where everyone else is interested in the same thing.

>> 
>> o	PC's are initially invisible to one another, and must *meet* before
>> 	they can interact.  (I might leave a sign, indicating my userid,
>> 	and where I am, so that someone else can find me.)  PC's should
>> 	be able to change their looks and become  anonymous again.
>
>This is odd. Invisible? I don't get the gist of this, so I can't comment on it.
>(Is "Invisibility" an "obvious alternative"? I love it! :)
>

Obvious as a solution to the problem of 'population' versus 'player characters'.
You walk in to a town:

   Graenham:  Population 2800
     Stores:  Leather Tanner
              Black Smith
  Also here:  Byron Niels, adventurer, wearing a light kilt.
              Jackson Roykirk, adventurer, no posessions.

There are 2800 people here.  Why are BN, and JR highlighted this way.
Well, the reason is, that the other 2800 people aren't really here.  So
why should the PC's really be here?  They should be lost in the crowd, 
and there should be some reason why the PC's meet before they are introduced.

In an AD&D campaign, I wouldn't think of bringing in a new character 
through an act of god.  They appear for a reason, they are introduced,
and they like eachother, or don't like eachother, and the new player
has to create a new character which will be accepted in the group.

>> 
>> o	Offer inexpensive 'raise dead' spells.  Presumably anything
>> 	left in the bank or whatever would still be available.  Say 
>> 	200 G.p. or more in trust at the nearest Temple, and you'll
>> 	be raised automatically when you die (assuming you aren't
>> 	mutilated.)  1000 G.p or more, and you'll be resurrected even
>> 	if you are mutilated.
>
>
>Good idea. But I can see abuse of this--there has to be a point where you
>must say "Well, you're dead, and that's it". Granted, it shouldn't be for
>some time, but you can't let someone go around attacking anyone and everyone
>just because they don't have any more money. They deserve to die just for being
>so stupid.
>
Of course if you are out of money, you won't be raised.  (see above).


--
                           -F. Sullivan Segal
_______________________________________________________________
 _
/V\  E-Credibility:  (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that
 '   the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than
someone's made up crap.
_______________________________________________________________
Mail to: fletcher@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games,rec.games.misc