Once again, this misses the point. If this sort of thing is so, it ruins the game for me, and prevents it being enjoyable. I don't *care* whether its realistic, or plausible, or whatever. That's why I'm looking for alternatives that make sense.
> > But here's a question for you Jeff, if you're reading this - if Kallyr
> > couldn't fill that role in your campaign, who could?
>
> In my last campaign, Kallyr began as a very distrusted figure.
So 'nobody', is your answer, yes? Not a game I'd want to play in, but it's a fair answer.
Perhaps, though, I should rephrase the question. Since I need at least one character like this in my campaign (i.e a major rebel leader who does not participate in atrocities), if it's not plausible for it to be Kallyr, who *could* it be?
> This isn't making Kallyr out to be a villain,
Oh, I disagree - it may not be your intent, but it's absolutely the effect, from my personal perspective. At the best, its making her out to be an anti-hero, who the player heroes should be opposing. I'd hate to play in any game where player heroes have the attitude 'well, I don't like it, but it has to be done', towards this sort of thing. IMO, being heroes is all about not accepting that kind of thinking.
> She
> is not a peacemaker, a justicebringer or a demogogue.
So who is? Whoever they are, they're going to be pretty essential to my campaign! :)
Powered by hypermail