So, in the previous campaign you could lose your character for performing "Evil Acts" since Evil characters weren't allowed. But there is no more alignment, and there doesn't appear to be any "Evil Acts" clause in the campaign guide. Is the only thing you can lose your character for now besides PvP?

Or did I miss something?

Intentionally using 'evil' as an excuse to wreck the experiences of the others at the table and be a psycho may not get your character lost but certainly might make it so no one wants to play with the player.

John

No, there are no more alignments, so if you want to flay every NPC that you meet and wear their skin as a coat while listening to "Goodbye Horses", that is up to you. That said, speaking as myself and as my character(s), I would not want to play with you if you do that as (as John above suggested) you would be no fun to play with. This is not always true, however, as my generally Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral Nierite Holy Judge has actively tortured information out of someone in one mod (a Cancerese worshiper of the ancient Infernal Lords), which is evil by almost anyone's view, but perfectly in character for him against such personages as that who oppose everything he believes in. While this raised a few eyebrows at the table, nobody mentioned to me that I made their table less fun to be at in the doing so, they simply felt it struck a dissonant chord for the character.

While there may be no objection in the campaign, acting (consistently) against the laws of the land is something that GM's need to chronicle. Personally, I have no issue giving out things like "Marked Man" Flaws if Heroes act completely and openly as evil criminals. I would never rip up character sheets, but I would feel absolutely fine with killing off PC's who ruin the fun of the rest of the table if I am running it. Always assume Wheaton's Law of "Don't be a dick!", and you'll do fine.

I wasn't thinking about anything that I think would ruin another players experience, but would definitely be evil. Just some of the implications of a human being able to absorb the essence of an Elorii (Heart of the Matter module from last campaign) or other Val family powers (Blood war information from the BL history). If a character wanted to try to hold on to some captive criminal val or "take away" a captured Malfean at the end of a module for some "testing." Keep it off screen from the module proper.

The players of the campaign are expected to be heroes.

That's part of why they are referred to as heroes in the A:RPG instead of "characters," "adventurers," or "schmucks." But you're right. There is no "alignment" in this game and there are lots of (different) ways to define what a hero is. And I'm sure mileage on this point varies a lot. My definition, for what its worth, is: "a hero is someone who attempts to make dynamic progress against a real problem no one else has the ability or will to solve."

That leaves a lot of room to sometimes choose to do "dark" or "evil" things.

And there are no shortages of characters in fiction who are "heroes" who are not people you want dating a loved one... Michael Moorcocks's Elric is the poster child of this. You could also look at Jack Vance's Cudgel the Clever, the story of Gilgamesh or half a dozen characters from Game of Thrones. I believe you can be a heroes and do all kinds of bad stuff.

That said ...

There was a guy in the old campaign who got a certed (heretical/cursed) Cloak of Eyes from a mod that featured the minions of the 1,000 Eyed Man. And that character openly showed up with said cloak at the first LARP set in King Osric's court (since it was grafted to his neck it was hard to leave behind ). I think the expectation was ... what's anyone going to do? And the answer was, execute the character. Choices have consequences. [There was a brief role play between the LLT who served the Inquisition and the Knights of the Kingdom over who had the right to execute him. The Knights prevailed. And that was the end of that character.] I want to add Henry talked to the guy first and explained what was going to happen and why, and that in Arcanis there are choices and consequences ... it wasn't like we just dragged the guy off into the corner, roughed him up and tore up his cert binder.

I don't think of myself as an adversarial GM, but I do expect a certain level of maturity from Arcanis players. If your character is doing dark things that "make sense" that's cool. Don't get caught by your enemies or authorities...you understand you're taking your own chances. If you're playing "a psycho" to act out...then as a judge I am (eventually) going to do something about it (as soon as a story appropriate "opportunity" arises).

I say all this, but really? In game play as a practical matter I don't think this comes up.

If its reasonable, I don't see why you couldn't claim to be doing this. There is at least one module out there with a secret mission that more or less asks you to do this. So sure.

At the same time a shared world campaign doesn't have time time or resources to go into this as you might in a home campaign. There is no "mechanical" benefits your character gets. Though you might justify it as why your PC is gaining ranks in Knowledge (Arcanum/Myths & Legends) its "doubtful" that anything happens in play because of it...

This thread makes me giggle. Everything is perspective. Every time a group of Heroes shows up ANWHERE, people die. (Sometimes in mass numbers. Think of your average Tultipetan...your royalty commands you to do X or you die. You go to defend your decimated enclave, only to have "Heroes" slaughter a good number of your remaining kinsmen. Now, everyone thinks they are the exception and that they are "doing good". But, the stereotype of adventures being wandering, murdering hobos exists for a reason. (but, that's ok...every table asks for a writ from the powers-that-be giving them legal authority and/or a "license to kill"). If I was a commoner in the Village of Nowherespecial and I heard that Heroes were in town, I would stay away from the bar (they always congregate there), pack up the family, and move a few towns over to Aunt Mildred's until they were long gone.

It's like what people should have done when Jessica Fletcher was in town.

John

Being a relative of hers was like being hit by an entropy curse. Heck, sadly, being a friend of a friend was practically a death sentence.

I always thought that the final episode should have revealed that she was the serial killer and had framed all the others to cover her own tracks.