Message from discussion 3.5E Build to be a Ruler
Received: by 10.68.136.33 with SMTP id px1mr1142937pbb.7.1336087957239;
Thu, 03 May 2012 16:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com>
Subject: Re: 3.5E Build to be a Ruler
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 16:32:37 -0700
Organization: the dolphins-cove
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <MPG.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: gist.usc.edu 1336087956 23036 126.96.36.199 (3 May 2012 23:32:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 23:32:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
'tis on this 4/14/2012 2:44 AM, wrote Tetsubo thus to say:
> On 4/14/2012 5:28 AM, Rast wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote...
>>> The entire town was under a
>>> permanent consecrate(whatever it's called), evil people couldn't enter
>>> the town and if someone became evil they'd take damage.
>> In the old days this would have been great flame bait.
>> Seriously though, did anyone else do a double take at that sentence?
>> Joe The Peasant becomes evil and dies?
> If your design goal is to keep your settlement free from evil, this works. And if the population knows about it, it's a self-selection issue. Evil folks will just stay away. Or die.
But what about when the best farrier or blacksmith is also evil? I guess just because they are evil, doesn't mean they aren't necessary in other capacities? Or if you have to hire them for an adventure you didn't have time for? Someone's castle or plot of land I can see the use of consecrate, but a whole town?
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>