Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW
I've seen (in games I've played in, but not ones I've run) people justify the most disruptive actions by saying they are just playing their character realistically, then get upset when anyone else plays their character's realistic response to it. In D&D, that sort of behavior seems to be the default assumption of chaotic neutral, so if I ran that game (I don't, but if) I would be very reluctant to allow that alignment.
|
I ran into that in a campaign decades ago using one of my sets of homebrew rules. The PCs were a group of superheroes; but one of them was a thief in her civilian life. So during combat with a group of villains, she used her powers to pick up some of the current villains' loot. Another PC spotted her doing it, and used HER powers to shut down the first PC's powers, which was embarrassing and hazardous, though it didn't actually harm her.
The first player complained about this not being appropriate, because he was just playing his character as he had defined her. The second player said that he was playing HIS character as he had defined her: as someone who was morally opposed to theft and who didn't want a teammate stealing during missions. The argument lasted for months, because the first player simply couldn't get the idea that his character didn't have "PC immunity."