RE: Characters w/out their players (was: Rougtero Vivocefo)

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Quite true, Kris.  However, to avoid complications, I have learned
by experience that it might be a good idea to inform the affected
_player_ that their adventurer now has certain _obligations_, and
failure to meet those obligations could very likely result in their loss
of that position of power.  If the player is not so informed before-
hand (though it should be obvious that power has the price of
responsibility), then complications may arise where players start
to take the consequences of their adventurer's actions personally.

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Kris Ames [SMTP:kris@cioe.com]

Well,

I agree that something similar would be a good way to handle an absence,
but if a player character assumes a job/position which inherently
requires them to almost always be in X place, going adventuring or not
being there a large portion of the time would severely impact their job
performance.  I mean just imagine if the Pope decided that he was going
to reguarly make unannounced trips across the globe (I am not talking
schedualed PR type things or official tours).  Certain jobs require
attendance.  That is also (IMO) a good way to balance out the power that
would come with a high position with the "cost" to the character.

-Kris