Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
I used to distinguish between rules that define the "world" of the game, and rules that define the "conventions" of the game. Since I am one of the few people who is legally allowed to play a Lawful Good assassin in D&D (after a 5 minute chat with Gary Gygax back in '79), that should give you an idea of how "seriously" I take the "conventions" of the game .

Back when I was in the Improvisational Olympics (that's improv acting, Stan ), we used to have an event where a team would be given a story beginning, middle and end and we would have to improv the scenes to achieve those points. We would be scored on plausibility of arriving at those scenes when we competed - very similar to a good tournament game.
Actually the idea of a LG assassin doesn't seem all that "beyond the pale" to me, provided that it makes sense within the setting of the game. I was always a big setting guy (and remain one to this day with my games), and the conventions of the world were always more important to me than the mechanics. Any set of rules can be tweeked or nudged to make them more workable, but a bad setting is just that...and many of them are impossible to fix (unless you count tossing them out the window and starting from scratch "fixing").

I get deep enough into setting that I reworked the entire RoleMaster rules system (including the magic stuff) to work logically within a world I created. Too much geekiness isn't always a good thing....