myomer said:

Landing in a square with another char happens (or more to the point, could happen but sometimes you just head in the opposite direction) quite a bit in games. Second, Village and becoming Good? That happens pretty much in every game at least once, Village and Mystic is a valid choice, since unlike the bitch Enchantress in the City, Mystic has no negative results. Sure, if you're Evil and have Runesword, or Good and Grail + Lance, you might see align change as a negative, but then again, you probably won't head to Village if you have to roll at Mystic then.

You can only use Fate to influence dice you roll, not what others roll (at least that's what I recall from it, I still don't care about it and won't use it). It's just seems quite ridiculous to state that players get more control over their characters and then add something that leaves you hanging, unable to do anything in return if a Good character constantly rapes your Knight.

Design flaw, outright.

The problem with second edition, more than anything else, were all these little kinds of flaws throughout.  Lets hope we don't see any more of them in 4th revised!

Dam said:

D'oh my bad on that, yes you can only re-roll your rolls (gives me an idea for a character class though :) ).

If further mitigation is needed then I guess I would agree that losing 1 fate if a good aligned char attacks the Knight is a good idea. Added to this fact that good chars can only replenish fate in other areas like temple and adventure cards, it makes the penalty more of a penalty. It also puts the rule on the Knight itself, so it is not applied when the Knight is not in play.

Roy said:

Too late.. Most have been corected to my understanding and experience.  However a few loopholes and bugs are bound to be in..Its kinda the nature of the game.

Expect more loops, and wired circumstances with each new edition.

Does anyone remember any type of CCG?  the more cards they made, the more wacky things got.  Where each new edition, pounced all over the previous.  Lets hope Talisman keeps a level bar on that sort of stuff.

I like the simple idea that if a Good character attacks the Knight, then they turn EVIL.

It is like the equivalent of killing a Saint or even a regular Nun. Not good in the eyes of the Gods.

"But Necrozius", you might ask, "what about the Priest character? Surely HE would be considered holy as well?"

Well, my answer to THAT, my smart-ass friend, is to simply look at the Priest's illustration. He's fat and complacent. He wears the fancy, expensive robes, has the right spells, yes... But he might not TRULY believe. Hence he gets to add ONE to the prayer rolls, while the Knight gets TWO.

Yeah... That's right...

BAM. CASE CLOSED.

Oh please... interpreting a character's mechanics by the image attached to the card is ... ludicrous.  But since we're playing that game... in reality, a fall from grace does not make one Evil. It just makes one outcast from the group (priesthood, order, etc). As previously stated, messing further with arbitrary alignment shifts of a radical or other nature is already built into the game (and not always sensibly).  If we're going to create a house rule through reason, let's at least be reasonable.

HallowKnight said:

As you said... too late. There are considerable imbalances in 4th... which is part of why Fate was introduced (and brought a few more as well).  But also, as you said, those imbalances, loophools, (black holes), etc., have never stopped any of us from (1) enjoying the game and (2) correcting collectively or separately and moving on.

Necrozius said:

You sir should be the next Talisman designer!

Let's not forget the hint of a fiendish scowl on the priest's lips and those beady little eyes. You just can't trust a fat guy with beady little eyes. Heck, he should just START the game as an evil character.

Has anyone thought about if characters turn evil by attacking other good characters then you'll just have a bunch of evil characters running around except for the one good guy?

You need to have some way for evil characters to turn good again. Maybe donate a gold or object at the chapel? Seems like that's how most people try to buy their way into heaven anyway.

ameritrasher said:

And the problem would be? Since the Knight can't bitch-slap any Good chars, but has no hinderance against Neutrals or Evils (IIRC), I'd say that would solve the issue. Not that I like adding another houserule (Fate & Assassin so far), and all because FFG wanted to mess around with the chars & rules.

ameritrasher said:

*snicker

On a serious note, Village -> Mystic -> roll a 4 and you're Good again.

Dam said:

That is correct Dammit but what I meant to say is if players can take a specific action to turn their alignment to evil (like attacking a good player) then there should also be another specific action to turn their alignment to good. Having a random roll at board location doesn't really count for this criteria. How about if a player gives a gold or object to a good player? Since attacking a good player turns you evil, would not helping them turn you good? The reverse goes for evil too. If you are good and give an evil player something then you turn evil for helping them.

Problem solved!!!

Ok I have finally played the new years game and another.As I was setting the board in the first game and getting ready too apply the rule ideas...it came too me,why not keep it simple.Since the knight cannot attack another good character other good characters can not attack him unless they change their alignment which would at the same time leave them open for the knight too attack as well.It also fixed the problem that happened in the first game with the assassin turning good so he could assassinate the knight  and the knight could not attack back.Now the assassin turning good would result in niether character being able too attack each other, unless he keeps his alignment evil in which case the knight has open season on the assassin as well.There are still some loop holes present as I saw in the two games I played too test the knights house rule.The thief could change good and still steal from the knight and the knight could not attack him too take his stuff back.But I guess you have too leave soom loop holes or make a bunch more house rules.All in all the knight performed much better with that one simple rule change.I have a small modification too the rule too also include no special abilitys example:A good thief cannot steal or attack a knight,the knight cannot attack the thief,unless the thief stays neutral or turns evil,then attacks and special abilities work as normal.I will try this modified version on my next game,but the original simple version of this rulling worked well in both my new years eve games.I would love if FFG would make an official fix on the knight it would be one of my new years resolutions.