Restrictions on CDT content?

[JDiggity]

I've been toying with the idea of submitting a new character in the near future, and in flipping through the available classes I seem to find myself returning to the "assassin" time and time again.

So, I've decided to go for it, and I'm looking for some guidance as to what is acceptable (or, I suppose more precisely, unacceptable) CDT content.  Would it be alright for a character to describe an assassination - be it planned, completed or foiled - in a character application or CDT?  I can see a number of potential problems with it; but instead of just doing it and seeing where the dust settled, I thought it might be more productive to get some insight from the community first.

Beyond that, and while we're on the topic, are there any restrictions in general as to what a person can and cannot talk about in their thread?  Is it open creative license?  Restrictions against obscene violence / "adult" content?  Or even further?

--Possible Issues--
I can only really think of two problem areas (which I provide in an effort to get discussion flowing):

1. Falls (way) outside family-oriented content

2. Troublesome from a "world-management" perspective to have assassinations going on

Any thoughts on these, or further issues you can think of?

--Disclaimer--
1. I am well aware of how difficult this PrC is to obtain.  I am no looking for *any* form of approval, or promise of approval, for either this class or an evil-aligned character.  I do think it would be fun to try, though.

2. I am not advocating graphic, voilent, sexually explicit (and any adjectives I missed) content in CDTs.  The nature of the character I currently have in mind will involve pushing the boundaries (i think) with respect to violent content, and I wanted to know if there were boundaries I should keep in mind.

3. I am aware of the rules that exist for in game play; with respect to both (a) not killing PC's, and (b) keeping other player's enjoyment in mind.  I feel I have a fairly firm grasp on what I can do in the game.  My concern (or lack of awareness) extends more to CDT content.

4. I apologize if there is a thread devoted to this already.  If there is one, please direct me that way and I'll stop pestering y'all.  

--------------

Now ... any thoughts?

[Dorganath]

CDTs fall under the same guidelines for "family friendly" as the rest of the server.
  I can personally think of several ways to describe an assassination that gives more of an implication than an explicit description of exactly how it happens. So it can be done.
  What I see as perhaps a larger issue is that you have what sounds like a pretty controversial character concept in mind. I would suggest that you first see if you can get that approved before worrying about what can and cannot go into your CDT.
  One other point, as was brought up in the CDT metagaming thread, you can keep an "offline" CDT with greater, potentially unfriendly content, and send that to the GM Team when and if you wish to use that information for a PrC submission.

[JDiggity]

Ok, thanks for the quick reply.

[Weeblie]

Just as another word of warning in case you haven't noticed it.

An evil alignment is required to pick that PrC which requires, by itself, a huge effort.

An assassination is, in my opinion, already touching the borders of evil (at least the assassination attempts I feel you are talking about) and something I would recommend to get approved for before even mentioning that in your CDT (like, at the same time you ask for to being shifting to evil).

[JDiggity]

Yes, I did notice that.  I also noticed there are currently "no openings for evil characters" ... so the ultimate success of this scheme will depend on that changing.  However, just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  ( back at'cha)

As far as the evil-ness of an assassination, I would disagree.  It is so contextual that the broad and fuzzy concepts of "right" and "wrong" can barely wrap themselves around it, much less a pre-defined 9 part alignment system.  Although I'm no philosopher, I think that is the main aspect of this character I'd like to play around with.

That said, I can see where you are coming from Weeblie.  It will be a fine line to walk, no doubt about it.  At least for a start, we'll see how the approval process goes, and take it from there (which won't be started for awhile.  As I said, it's just an idea I've been mulling over).

[Talan Va'lash]

In PnP a requirement to take the assassin class is performing your first assassination. Especially since you can't start as evil and you can't take the PRC at first level, it wouldn't be really appropriate to have a full blown cloak and dagger type hired assassination in the character submission since the submission is for a 1st level character.

---

Re: the fuzziness of alignments - the D&D alignment system is inherently and intentionally fairly black and white. Assassinating a good aligned character (stabbing in the back/dishonourable combat) is evil. It doesn't matter what your character's motive is. A villian who kills children to save them from the hard life of work and toil that awaits them is STILL evil regardless of why they were doing it or the fact that they thought they were good.

Some of my favourite villians thought they were a different alignment than they were (of course they weren't thinking in terms of alignments, but you know what I mean.)

-----

Killing one person to save 50 is an evil action and as a DM I would give the character evil points for performing that action. I would also give them a much larger number of good points for saving 50 people.

The D&D alignment system is intended for this kind of pure black and white interpretation. Rather than discussing whether the above example is a good action or not, just let the numbers work themselves out.

Also, a character can most definitely believe they are of a different alignment than they truly are by justifying and rationalizing their actions with all manner of excuses.


----

Onto more... mature content of this nature, as Dorg said, contact a GM via PM or Email and privately send it to them for perusal. They could tell you whether it's appropriate to post or not, or if it isn't, evaluate your request without posting it publicly.

I'm fine with receiving such materials as I've been desensitized by gratuitous TV violence as a child. Just let me know that you're sending it (so I'm not shocked when I open my inbox) and don't expect an immediate response.

I know there are a handful of GMs that would be fine with going over something more adult but I also think that more than a few would not like to wake up to find it in their inbox so, make sure to establish a dialogue with a GM before sending anything like this out.

[JDiggity]

Perfect!  I'm not anticipating overly graphic content (for awhile, at least... *evil smile*), but I wanted to get a feel for what the boundaries were.  I think I have them, but I'll send questionable material your way before posting just to make sure.  Thanks for volunteering!

As far as the "black and white" alignment system goes, I'm not sure that clears anything up.  It's fair enough to say you just tally up the "good" and "evil" points that result from a given decision, and see how the numbers play out.  But the net result will end up depending on how much weight (or how many "points" ) you attribute the various aspects of the decision you're measuring.

Furthermore, it's questionable whether anyone can really fairly attribute these points without having some final result in mind.  If that's the case, a system which has the ability to give a "black and white" answer as to whether your action was good or evil (and, by extension, whether or not you're playing your character 'correctly' ) is really "grey" - in that you can't predict what answer a given person will arrive at.

For example, you might say the "good" aspect of saving 50 people outweighs the "evil" aspect of killing 1 person.  Thus, you would assign more good points than evil, and the action would come out a net "good" (despite the assassination still being classified as "evil" ).  Another might disagree, and (though they may give a few "good" points for the save) they would classify the decision on the whole as "evil" (because, in their view, killing a good person is simply evil no matter how you slice it, and would allocate points accordingly) .  

Anyway, maybe I mis-interpreted what you were saying, but at the end of the day I think the alignment system is subjective enough that there is certainly some wiggle room.

Wow ... this got off topic.  Heh, well - I'm still interested in what you (and others) have to say on alignments (as it will be highly relevant to subsequent character development) - so please post away if you feel the need to.  But as far as the original purpose of the post goes, I think I have my answer, so thank you to all who helped me out.