PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:42568b19@clear.net.nz...
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>>> but I *DID* expect him to prevent the party from mercilessly
>>> interrogating (via torture) a prisoner,
>>
>> If you allow tortue to actually work (unlike IRL), then it
>> depends on the prisoner, and what the information was in aid of.
>> Convenience is bad, needed to save the day is fine.
>
> Not for a paladin, it isn't.

At least, not for keeping paladinhood. A *particular* paladin may
decide that the information is important enough to warrant torture.

He'd suffer consequences for acting on that decision, of course.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dh0q.vb9.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> At least, not for keeping paladinhood. A *particular* paladin may
> decide that the information is important enough to warrant torture.
>
> He'd suffer consequences for acting on that decision, of course.

This last statement is the key, of course. Sure, he can DO whatever he
wants, he just has to live with the repercussions, which, for a paladin, are
pretty severe.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:33:34 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:42568b19@clear.net.nz...
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>>> but I *DID* expect him to prevent the party from mercilessly
>>> interrogating
>>> (via torture) a prisoner,
>>
>> If you allow tortue to actually work (unlike IRL),

People who think that torture doesn't work in real life are fooling
themselves. It does work. Not as a method of determining guilt or
innocence of course, but when someone knows something you want to
know, and isn't willing to tell, and you have a way of checking what
he tells, then in situations like that, people have indeed gotten
torture to work.

then it depends on
>> the prisoner, and what the information was in aid of. Convenience is bad,
>> needed to save the day is fine.
>
>Not for a paladin, it isn't.

And really demanding that a paladin not stand for torture is not an
unreasonable standard. Incidentally, can Paladins gain back their
status by atoning the way Clerics can?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42566b81.7318457@news.telusplanet.net...

> And really demanding that a paladin not stand for torture is not an
> unreasonable standard. Incidentally, can Paladins gain back their
> status by atoning the way Clerics can?

Not for wilfull evil acts, they can't.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115dtg4dqq5n3e3@corp.supernews.com...
> > Perhaps it's not that my expectations are too high, but rather that
yours
> > are too low?
>
> Or, as is usually the case... something in the middle.
>
> I only mention that, because, like others, it get the feeling that your
> version of a Paladin's Code of Conduct is extremely harsh.

I'd have to agree with you. But I always viewed the paladin is a paragon of
virtue and honor. There are few characters in literature who measure up to
this level of behavior, even the characters the paladin is generally
considered to be modelled after(ala King Arthur, etc). On the other hand,
there are PLENTY of "good and noble fighters" to choose from.

> I don't disagree with the idea, mind you... it should be strict, and
> violations of it ought to result in punishments, atonements, geases, etc.

That's the idea, I thought. If a paladin falls from grace, atonement is NOT
done via a spell simulating contrition, but rather from actual blood sweat
and tears. At least that's how it is in our campaign.

An NPC Paladin once had to go back on his word to the party, and in order to
regain his paladinhood, he had to defeat an entire village worth of undead
skeletons, zombies and ghouls singlehandedly without outside help.

> You said in another post that you've never met a player that could play
> one correctly.
>
> I'm like others, and find that hard to believe. I haven't met many, but
> over the last 15 years or so, I have met a handful (maybe 10% of the
> players I've met could pull it off).

Well, I guess I tend to play with people who do the darker side better than
the light. The easiest alignment for me to personally play is NE(making me
a DM most of the time), and most people I play with do not like to play
characters who are lawful(but they are usually good).

> I can't help but chalk the difference up to either an abnormal player
> composition in your area, or, more likely I'd think, your personal
> expectations being higher than mine (and other posters).

I honestly think it's simply a matter of game style preference. I don't
tend to play with people who do the whole LG party thing, because it tends
to annoy me that I can't "fantasize" about doing less than scrupulous things
that other alignments allow for. I mean, I play a fantasy game so that I
can pretend I'm doing things I won't really do, not so I can be what I am
right now.

> Have you ever written up what you expect from a Paladin? I'd like to
> see it, if possible.

Unfortunately, it's just an ideal at the moment, but the ideal seemed pretty
clear to the player when I voiced it to him.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z6CdnWJybs2WZsvfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:K6-dnVaTJ6gxesvfRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>
> > Well, they actually AREN'T evil aligned. The torture was information
> > extraction, and was performed by a CG fighter. The executions were
> > "humane
> > justice dispensement", again performed by two CG fighters. I deemed
that
> > the actions were within the realms of a CG character, mainly because
while
> > they weren't necessarily lawful, they were for the common good. This
> > wasn't
> > simply killing and torture for amusement, the point was to serve the
> > greater
> > good, and therefore, I would not call it "inherently evil".
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well, we actually had a long conversation about something similar to
that.
> > Is it evil to kill a helpless creature that is evil, never going to be
> > reformed, and attacked you to start it out? Not wanting to start
another
> > alignment war or anything, so no need to comment on it, but suffice it
to
> > say that our decision was that it was evil to do that, and the paladin
> > should have prevented it.
>
> First you say that torture for information extraction and the execution of
> helpless prisoners is "within the realms of a CG character," because it
was
> done "for the common good" (even though you admitted earlier that it was
> just to find out why they were attacked, where the orcs' lair was, etc.).
> Now you say "it was evil to do that, and the paladin should have prevented
> it." Which is it?

I totally understand your confusion. The second portion pertained mostly to
the paladin specifically. The paladin would find it evil to torture and
kill helpless creatures, well, actually, I probably should have used the
term "unlawful". The problem he would have had with it was NOT in the
killing of evil creatures(he does that all day long and twice on sunday), it
was the lack of the law supporting such an act. Furthermore, there are
something to be said to the evil of killing a defenseless creature, but that
only applied insomuch as the creature didn't have a weapon, it was by no
means defenseless. It wasn't bound and gagged and then killed, it was just
killed. However, all that aside, the paladin should have stepped in to
prevent it.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BaSdnYC8UZMBYMvfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> >> Yes, because you should not have allowed a paladin in a party that
> >> behaves
> >> in such an evil fashion. You set him up for a fall, and your other
> > players
> >> helped.
> >
> > Not so much. Imagine a different scenario.
>
> No thanks. Your analogy stinks. The alcoholic performed a bad act; the
> paladin simply did not act. Big difference.

The paladin is supposed to be a champion of truth, justice, and the american
way(ITYKWIM). He *KNEW* what was going to happen(the other party members
made no secret about what they were going to do), and ACTIVELY left the area
to let it happen without him seeing it. By his action of leaving, he
consciously and actively condoned something that went against the very heart
of what it is to be a paladin(in our campaign).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
>Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> I have to wonder exactly how short the weapon list is in your campaign.
>> Nobody picks anything but EXACTLY the most effective weapon, metagame
>> mechanics wise, huh? What do wizards pick in your campaign(assuming the
>> classic restrictions still apply in 3E, haven't checked). Not a one picks
>> dagger, I take it, everyone, staff. How boring is that!?
>
> [explanations snipped]
> It's not a clear-cut choice at all.
>
>So, no.

Also, note that in 3E / 3.5E, Wizards are proficient in all of the
ultra-simple weapons (club, dagger, heavy & light crossbows, and
quarterstaff), not just "the one that they choose". And elves start
out with shortbow/longbow/longsword/rapier proficiency as well, even
if they're Wizards...

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Incidentally, can Paladins gain back their status by atoning the
>way Clerics can?

In 3.5E, sure. Not in 1E or 2E, though, and the original situation was
Goslin's game, which is (some variation of) 2E.

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d36k5q$2dcb$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >Incidentally, can Paladins gain back their status by atoning the
> >way Clerics can?
>
> In 3.5E, sure. Not in 1E or 2E, though, and the original situation was
> Goslin's game, which is (some variation of) 2E.

I know that there is an "atonement" spell in 3E, but the atonement I
referred to was a mission or quest to regain the paladin's honor and status,
to regain the favor of the gods. It is necessarily an arduous task that
will tax the paladin almost to the breaking point. That's the kind of
atonement a paladin would need to undergo in order to regain his status.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [general 3E weapon comparison deleted]
>> It's not a clear-cut choice at all.
>
>This is the kind of analysis I would expect from every character, and the
>reason for extensive weapon lists. That being said, the only conclusion
>every barbarian would draw would be to wield a great sword?

From an INT 6 half-orc barbarian? Sure. "Ug. Me hit things hard."
With an INT of 8, he'll probably bring along a morningstar (which does
piercing *and* bludgeoning damage) as a backup weapon. With a couple
more points of INT, maybe a bow of some sort...

But you gotta remember, those ragey folks aren't really known for their
*thinking*...

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d36l2g$2dn6$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >This is the kind of analysis I would expect from every character, and the
> >reason for extensive weapon lists. That being said, the only conclusion
> >every barbarian would draw would be to wield a great sword?
>
> From an INT 6 half-orc barbarian? Sure. "Ug. Me hit things hard."
> With an INT of 8, he'll probably bring along a morningstar (which does
> piercing *and* bludgeoning damage) as a backup weapon. With a couple
> more points of INT, maybe a bow of some sort...
>
> But you gotta remember, those ragey folks aren't really known for their
> *thinking*...

Surely this INT 6 half orc barbarian would prefer the "me hit things hard"
route that a hefty club offers?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:d36l2g$2dn6$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
>>>This is the kind of analysis I would expect from every character, and the
>>>reason for extensive weapon lists. That being said, the only conclusion
>>>every barbarian would draw would be to wield a great sword?
>>
>>From an INT 6 half-orc barbarian? Sure. "Ug. Me hit things hard."
>>With an INT of 8, he'll probably bring along a morningstar (which does
>>piercing *and* bludgeoning damage) as a backup weapon. With a couple
>>more points of INT, maybe a bow of some sort...
>>
>>But you gotta remember, those ragey folks aren't really known for their
>>*thinking*...
>
>
> Surely this INT 6 half orc barbarian would prefer the "me hit things hard"
> route that a hefty club offers?
>

Why? A greatsword hits things a hell of a lot harder. A club's a puny
one handed weapon you can't put any of your strength behind. Well, not
the way you can get your strength behind that greatsword (1.5 Str damage
bonus). And if you're really concerned about hitting things hard
instead of hitting them accurately, the greataxe is an even better
choice (x3 crit multiplier compared to the 19-20/x2 range and multiplier
of the greatsword).

How's a run of the mill club helping him hit things hard?

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uaD5e.70$rK.843800@news.sisna.com...
> > Surely this INT 6 half orc barbarian would prefer the "me hit things
hard"
> > route that a hefty club offers?
>
> Why? A greatsword hits things a hell of a lot harder. A club's a puny
> one handed weapon you can't put any of your strength behind. Well, not
> the way you can get your strength behind that greatsword (1.5 Str damage
> bonus). And if you're really concerned about hitting things hard
> instead of hitting them accurately, the greataxe is an even better
> choice (x3 crit multiplier compared to the 19-20/x2 range and multiplier
> of the greatsword).
>
> How's a run of the mill club helping him hit things hard?

I was thinking more along the lines of a *BIG* club. 😉

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uaD5e.70$rK.843800@news.sisna.com...
>
>>>Surely this INT 6 half orc barbarian would prefer the "me hit things
>
> hard"
>
>>>route that a hefty club offers?
>>
>>Why? A greatsword hits things a hell of a lot harder. A club's a puny
>>one handed weapon you can't put any of your strength behind. Well, not
>>the way you can get your strength behind that greatsword (1.5 Str damage
>>bonus). And if you're really concerned about hitting things hard
>>instead of hitting them accurately, the greataxe is an even better
>>choice (x3 crit multiplier compared to the 19-20/x2 range and multiplier
>>of the greatsword).
>>
>>How's a run of the mill club helping him hit things hard?
>
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of a *BIG* club. 😉
>

Well, a greatclub, then. 🙂
I don't recall 2e having a "greatclub," but I do know that "club" was a
regular weapon, so I went with that.

In that case, there'd be no problem on that line of thinking. Though
from a game-stats perspective, it has little to offer over a greatsword
or greataxe other than the fact it does bludgeoning damage. We might be
able to assume that in-character the barbarian notices the subtle
difference in the damage he can cause. After all, he may be only Int 6,
but there is ONE area in which he is an expert, and that is Smashing
Things! But if he's dense enough to not notice the difference, he may
just as well go with the club.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NUD5e.73$qK.842876@news.sisna.com...
> Things! But if he's dense enough to not notice the difference, he may
> just as well go with the club.

THAT is the kind of character I'm talking about. It's possible for a
barbarian to be VERY stupid, so stupid in fact, that he wouldn't carefully
evaluate his weapon choice("me say club worked before...*HEFT* READY TO
SMASH!!!").

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> This is the kind of analysis I would expect from every character, and
> the reason for extensive weapon lists. That being said, the only
> conclusion every barbarian would draw would be to wield a great sword?

Or a greataxe. Or something else that plays nicely with really good
strength. When it comes to barbarians, bigger is better, almost always.

If you're a barbarian with a longsword, raging gives you two more points
of damage. With a greatsword, it's 3 more. At high levels, it's *6*
more.

Barbarians are not about subtlety, so being able to conceal a weapon
isn't of much value. They gain some benefit from multiple weapon types
(blunt, slashing, etc.), but they tend to have quite good strength *and*
wear medium or light armor (movement benefits) -- they've got the
capacity to carry multiple big weapons if they want.

After that, consider the source literature. Barbarian-type characters
tend to use big weapons. Robert E Howard is probably the strongest
influence on the barbarian archetype here, so Conan, Kull, Bran Mak
Morn, and Wolfhere Skullsplitter are good examples. All are barbarians,
all used the big weapons when available -- it was a point of contrast
with the civilized weaklings around them, for that matter. His other
major characters (Solomon Kane and Cormac Mac Art) were still physically
significant, but could arguably be considered not barbarians.


Basically, it is both mechanically and thematically appropriate for
barbarians to use the bigass weapons. That's what they do.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
>> And really demanding that a paladin not stand for torture is not an
>> unreasonable standard. Incidentally, can Paladins gain back their
>> status by atoning the way Clerics can?

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> Not for wilfull evil acts, they can't.

According to the class description, they can:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an
evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all
paladin spells and abilities .... She regains her abilities and
advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the
/atonement/ spell description, page 201), as appropriate.

The atonement spell description confirms this:

A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil
act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

The spell costs 500 XP if the subject's misdeeds were deliberate.

The D&D 3.0 version of the spell noted that paladins couldn't atone for
willful misdeeds, which contradicted the class description. The D&D 3.5
version eliminates the contradiction. Paladins can atone for anything,
so long as they are sincerely remorseful.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dp4v.kjd.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> The D&D 3.0 version of the spell noted that paladins couldn't atone for
> willful misdeeds, which contradicted the class description. The D&D 3.5
> version eliminates the contradiction. Paladins can atone for anything,
> so long as they are sincerely remorseful.

To my thinking, that is the cheap way out. It seems that the whole reason
for the spell is to allow for paladins to do whatever they want, then just
feel really bad about it after the fact. There's not much point to the
alignment restrictions, then. A guy could be a paladin who is ostensibly
lawful good running around killing innocent children and puppies and such
for simple pleasure, and then find some cleric to atone him. Not much point
to the character at that point.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2JqdnSc1dYWoyMvfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>> > If they knew what caused such irregular behavior on my part, it would be
>> > nobody's fault but their own. And they *DO* know what causes it.
>>
>> Is that evenhanded or mature? No, not really.
>
> Knowing that it is out of character for me to do such things ....

Yeah, right.

> when they do happen, they must happen for a reason ....

And this is hardly mature.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> Are you under the impression the rulezeroing in my campaign goes on every
> session, unabated, like I'm on some kind of power trip or something?

That'd be a good guess, yeah.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:52:49 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I've been around the block a time or two, and I've "been there and done
> that". The only time a problem like this crops up that is worth mentioning,
> in every instance, power gaming of some variety or another has been the root
> cause. I'm just calling em like I see em. Sure, the player may not
> specifically be stating it, nor the DM in question complaining about this,
> but I've never had a case of "pure blind luck" cause a character to so
> totally overshadow another as to be worthy of noting. It's only *EVER* been
> a case of powergaming, so I have to say that I am comfortable in calling "a
> spade" a spade. Is it possible I'm wrong, sure, I haven't seen it all, but
> let's just say I'm playing the odds.

Back in the early 90s I fist encountered GURPS. A friend of mine had
bought it, and made up a quick little adventure for us to try it out
with, so we all made up characters. Quite by accident I stuck upon the
most obvious of the various optimisation tactics in GURPS 3e (buying
minimal skill levels and pushing the underlying stats up), and as a
result my fighter-mage type turned out to be as good a fighter as
either of the other two melee-type characters, and a capable
spellcaster as well. Was I power-gaming or mini-maxing at the time?
No, despite the fact that I tend to do both. It's perhaps ironic that
the one time I was 'being good', I did the most effective job of
out-powering the other PCs with mine.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:42:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I thank you for oversimplifying my stand on the issue. It's not that a
> barbarian is wielding a greatsword, it's the combination of all sorts of
> factors, one of which is the decision to choose a weapon based on damage
> potential, not character.

And your evidence for this is?

Besides, it's entirely in character for a person who has taken a
profession that excels in bashing things really, really hard to choose
the gnarliest weapon they can find. A no-brainer, in fact.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1mcc511da7gdrfohs8ioivlp3sr1cb2s1g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:42:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > I thank you for oversimplifying my stand on the issue. It's not that a
> > barbarian is wielding a greatsword, it's the combination of all sorts of
> > factors, one of which is the decision to choose a weapon based on damage
> > potential, not character.
>
> And your evidence for this is?

The original poster stated it was so. Do you guys even READ the other posts
in this thread?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:54:29 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:42:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> I thank you for oversimplifying my stand on the issue. It's not that a
>> barbarian is wielding a greatsword, it's the combination of all sorts of
>> factors, one of which is the decision to choose a weapon based on damage
>> potential, not character.
>
>And your evidence for this is?

The players reported reasons. Essentially, he's asking his players to
lie to him about their motives for design choices.