PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:55:52 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Eh, I wonder whether they're actually causing an imbalance.
>
> I really do not see how they could. They are simply not that bad. I also
> wonder why the Hell Mr. Fighter would not want to use them.

I think the likely reason was mentioned a few days back - they let the
barbarian rage without consideration of the future - if he runs out of
rages he can pop a berry. This means that any half-way serious fight
has a raging barbarian, whereas without the backup the barbarian can't
afford to rage unless it looks like their won't be any more fights, or
it _needs_ the rage to overcome the enemy.


--
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 wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:55:52 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>>Eh, I wonder whether they're actually causing an imbalance.
>>
>>I really do not see how they could. They are simply not that bad. I also
>>wonder why the Hell Mr. Fighter would not want to use them.
>
>
> I think the likely reason was mentioned a few days back - they let the
> barbarian rage without consideration of the future - if he runs out of
> rages he can pop a berry. This means that any half-way serious fight
> has a raging barbarian, whereas without the backup the barbarian can't
> afford to rage unless it looks like their won't be any more fights, or
> it _needs_ the rage to overcome the enemy.

Exactly right. Several people have asked whether I run the recommended
four encounters per day. THe answer, of course is, it depends =)

Two of the scenarios have been investigation based, so the PCs pace
drove the plot most of the time, which meant the rate of encounters was
determined by when the PCs would depart their home base after doing
research.

The other two I've run, which were 'dungeon' based, had far more than
four a day.

The Barb's ability to guess (based on my poor acting skills) whether an
encounter was mook based or not, plus his backup of berries for when he
can't guess, allows him to husband his natural rages such that he always
has had one available when he needs it.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

MI wrote:
>> I really do not see how they could. They are simply not that bad. I
>> also wonder why the Hell Mr. Fighter would not want to use them.

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> I think the likely reason was mentioned a few days back - they let the
> barbarian rage without consideration of the future - if he runs out of
> rages he can pop a berry. This means that any half-way serious fight
> has a raging barbarian ....

But that happens in my game too, even without the rage berries.

> ... whereas without the backup the barbarian can't afford to rage
> unless it looks like their won't be any more fights, or it _needs_ the
> rage to overcome the enemy.

I could see that happening in a game where the players are very
conservative about spending their resources, but D&D3 isn't very
friendly to that attitude in the first place.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote...
>> "Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Fiv5e.1$Cv.70726@news.sisna.com...
>>> Turning a blind eye to torture and slaughter of prisoners...
>>> That's not even garden variety Lawful Good, let alone the standard
>>> to which a paladin should be held.

>> That's precisely what I thought. What happened was the player said,
>> at the end of a battle that we had prisoners, "I'm going to go uh
>> water the horses", even as other party members were actively
>> preparing to torture and kill the prisoners. The other characters
>> were fully within their alignment to do so(situationally, it was
>> something that was both necessary and important, they were mostly
>> CG).
>
> You are saying that torturing and killing helpless prisoners is "fully
> within" the Chaotic Good alignment?

A lot depends on *why* they think torturing is necessary, but I
wouldn't call it CG by a *long* stretch. It is CN at best, possibly
CE.

There is the rub I suppose, because Jeff G. is playing 2e AD&D, and CN
is specifically mentioned as 'unplayable' in the PHB. Something I have
always had problems with, but I wouldn't be surprised if he took those
comments quite literally.

Remember, in AD&D you have to almost roll a die ("Odd, I'm Good, even
I'm Evil") for each action when you're CN. The alignment is defined as
being pathologically unreliable, to the point of insanity.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:8764yx3u9s.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> > You are saying that torturing and killing helpless prisoners is "fully
> > within" the Chaotic Good alignment?
>
> A lot depends on *why* they think torturing is necessary, but I
> wouldn't call it CG by a *long* stretch. It is CN at best, possibly
> CE.

I should also point out that when I say "torture", what it amounts to is
roughing up an orc. They slapped him around a bit, punched him in the gut,
taunted him, and so on, nothing permanent, nothing likely to outright kill
him. What ended up working was a bunch of psychological ploys more than the
physical torture, but the psychological tricks wouldn't have worked without
the prior roughing up.

Don't think of my word "torture" as indicative of a prepared torture chamber
with racks and thumbscrews and flails (oh my!), but rather a few guys
roughing up an orc to get some information. We, as a group, decreed that
permanent injury during interrogation would constitute the "line not to be
crossed".

Basically, I probably overstated the situation when I used the word
"torture". I used "torture" in the way that cops would use the good cop bad
cop routine.

--
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:
>
> "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?

Interesting point, perhaps: 'lawful good' is more about the common good,
'chaotic good' is more about the specific good. Consider: a LG society
is one that does the best it can for *everybody*, though it does mean
that some will see less good... but a CG society tries to do the best
for each person, though it may mean the society as a whole does not
benefit as much.

As such, it seems it'd actually be *more* likely a LG would resort to
torture than a CG.

However, in *neither* case would they like it.


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?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:06:01 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>news:8764yx3u9s.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> > You are saying that torturing and killing helpless prisoners is "fully
>> > within" the Chaotic Good alignment?
>>
>> A lot depends on *why* they think torturing is necessary, but I
>> wouldn't call it CG by a *long* stretch. It is CN at best, possibly
>> CE.
>
>I should also point out that when I say "torture", what it amounts to is
>roughing up an orc. They slapped him around a bit, punched him in the gut,
>taunted him, and so on, nothing permanent, nothing likely to outright kill
>him. What ended up working was a bunch of psychological ploys more than the
>physical torture, but the psychological tricks wouldn't have worked without
>the prior roughing up.
>
>Don't think of my word "torture" as indicative of a prepared torture chamber
>with racks and thumbscrews and flails (oh my!), but rather a few guys
>roughing up an orc to get some information. We, as a group, decreed that
>permanent injury during interrogation would constitute the "line not to be
>crossed".
>
>Basically, I probably overstated the situation when I used the word
>"torture". I used "torture" in the way that cops would use the good cop bad
>cop routine.

Oh hey, c'mon. Then you were being overly strict with the paladin.
At least on that occasion.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4256af2d.24645308@news.telusplanet.net...
> >Basically, I probably overstated the situation when I used the word
> >"torture". I used "torture" in the way that cops would use the good cop
bad
> >cop routine.
>
> Oh hey, c'mon. Then you were being overly strict with the paladin.
> At least on that occasion.

Well, the idea at the time was to get the information, then kill the
remaining orcs. The paladin knew it, and walked away. The information was
gained thru roughing up, and then the orcs were killed.

--
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:
> "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.

"I CALL BULLSHIT, MORTAL! NO ATONEMENT FOR YOU!"

if someone is making frequent use of atonement to (try to) work around
the alignment restrictions, it fails. If the god (as represented by the
DM) doesn't believe the character is truely atoning, it doesn't happen.
The example you give above ('killing innocent children and puppies and
such for simple pleasure') would *not* be eligible for atonement. The
spell is usable if the paladin was forced to perform the act (perhaps
through mind control, a curse, etc.), was tricked into performing the
act, or was compelled by circumstance to do so. In the latter case it
may have been a conscious choice -- 'willingly' -- to perform the act,
but there may have been sufficient justification... an unfortunate
situation with no good solution, just a 'least bad'.

Even though they mirror the sale of indulgences by the church, they are
not money-based 'get out of sin free' cards.


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?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:52:07 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"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.

After the first couple of times, I, as GM, would be dubious about how
genuine their repentence was. And Atonement only works on the
repentant.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4256afb3.24779813@news.telusplanet.net...
> After the first couple of times, I, as GM, would be dubious about how
> genuine their repentence was. And Atonement only works on the
> repentant.

If atonement is needed more than once, is that character really up to the
challenge of being a paladin?

--
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?)

In article <RI2dnXcxJZPq0cvfRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"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?

They/we read them, but interpret them differently than you do. To be fair,
your characterisation makes some sense to me, but other people's alternative
explanations made a bit more sense.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <mIydnSaVaeA1NMjfRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>He wanted to play a paladin, which was the first sign of trouble. I have
>*never* run into a player who I thought actually played a paladin well.
>Their alignment restrictions are almost never followed strictly enough,
>meaning that the paladin is little more than a fighter on massive steroids.
>However, he assured me to no end that he could role play the character well
>enough, so I relented from my previous decision not to allow player
>character paladins. Sure enough, within one session, he had abandoned the
>guidelines of how I expected a paladin to be played in our campaign in
>almost every way. I warned him that the in-game punishments were coming if
>he didn't change, not once, but twice. Then I hit him with them, and he got
>pissed. There's only so much I can do to telegraph this sort of stuff.

I have forgotten the details of 2e paladins, aside from needing high stats --
sorry. But in 3e it isn't accurate to call a paladin "a fighter on steroids".
They have some moderately nice bonuses against evil enemies, but a fighter
gets a lot more "feats" with which to specialize and improve his fighting
ability.

Also, the 3e alignment system (like, I think, its ancestors) is a very
black-and-white kind of thing. Putting an "absolute good" paladin up against
a morally ambiguous universe isn't quite playing fair.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <KpWdnU26wdm1QcvfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Fiv5e.1$Cv.70726@news.sisna.com...
>> Turning a blind eye to torture and slaughter of prisoners... That's not
>> even garden variety Lawful Good, let alone the standard to which a
>> paladin should be held.
>
>That's precisely what I thought. What happened was the player said, at the
>end of a battle that we had prisoners, "I'm going to go uh water the
>horses", even as other party members were actively preparing to torture and
>kill the prisoners. The other characters were fully within their alignment
>to do so(situationally, it was something that was both necessary and
>important, they were mostly CG). The paladin could not have been blind to
>what was going on, he should have stuck around to ensure the safety of these
>"prisoners of war".

That's pretty blatant. Somehow I was expecting something more subtle. But I
think I've learned enough of what you were complaining about to say that I've
known several people who would have had their paladin do the right thing
there.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "David Johnston" wrote
> > >Basically, I probably overstated the situation when I used the word
> > >"torture". I used "torture" in the way that cops would use the good
cop
> bad
> > >cop routine.
> >
> > Oh hey, c'mon. Then you were being overly strict with the paladin.
> > At least on that occasion.
>
> Well, the idea at the time was to get the information, then kill the
> remaining orcs. The paladin knew it, and walked away. The information
was
> gained thru roughing up, and then the orcs were killed.

and the problem with this is?


John

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SfqdnSJnb_ZCksrfRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > 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!!!").

Sorry Jeffie, but cause and effect are quite apparent to even int-6
characters.
The fact that this is not apparent to you ...

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jqWdncmivMarkcrfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> Well, the idea at the time was to get the information, then kill the
> remaining orcs. The paladin knew it, and walked away. The information
was
> gained thru roughing up, and then the orcs were killed.

I find it interesting that you seem to insist that the paladin make
*everyone else* obey the code of honor that only applies to _him_.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VfKdndsVR8phZMvfRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> > 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 would you assume that being less skilled at hard thinking somehow
would correlate with being *uncivilized*?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

In article <eNF5e.3083$yq6.2247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:jqWdncmivMarkcrfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> Well, the idea at the time was to get the information, then kill the
>> remaining orcs. The paladin knew it, and walked away. The information
>was
>> gained thru roughing up, and then the orcs were killed.
>
> I find it interesting that you seem to insist that the paladin make
>*everyone else* obey the code of honor that only applies to _him_.

The kind of interference Jeff is expecting is part of one of the BOED Vows --
Peace or Nonviolence, which not all paladins are required to take.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin<autockr@comcast.net> gave the game away:
> Paladins in our campaign do NOT rough people up. Thieves do things like
> that. It is not "honorable" for a paladin to do it.

There goes that whole "smiting" gig.

--
Matt Alexander
majelix@geh-hibidy-hoo-ha
Student, Consumer, Tool.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d374tf$536$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> >The original poster stated it was so. Do you guys even READ the other
posts
> >in this thread?
>
> They/we read them, but interpret them differently than you do. To be
fair,
> your characterisation makes some sense to me, but other people's
alternative
> explanations made a bit more sense.

Even after the original poster EXPLICITLY STATED that the player of the
barbarian was a min/max power gamer honed for years on Diablo and more years
of playing D&D(ie precisely what I pegged)?? That's odd. I know you're
desperate to have your world make sense, to view me as, once again, wrong in
your eyes, but honestly, when the original poster explicitly confirms my
suspicions, what more need be said?

Ya know, if you want to move the goalposts to Valhalla, I'm confident I'll
never be able to reach THOSE ones.

--
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?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d375a5$5h8$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> I have forgotten the details of 2e paladins, aside from needing high
stats --
> sorry. But in 3e it isn't accurate to call a paladin "a fighter on
steroids".
> They have some moderately nice bonuses against evil enemies, but a fighter
> gets a lot more "feats" with which to specialize and improve his fighting
> ability.

Suffice it to say: if you are allowed the leeway to ignore the alignment
and behavior restrictions normally placed on paladins in general, paladins
are a FAR better choice for a fighter in the 2E D&D world. All the skills
of a fighter with spells and turning and self healing and a shiny new set of
silvery armor to boot, with NO drawbacks(if you ignore the alignment
restrictions)? Well now, that's a deal.

> Also, the 3e alignment system (like, I think, its ancestors) is a very
> black-and-white kind of thing. Putting an "absolute good" paladin up
against
> a morally ambiguous universe isn't quite playing fair.

Nobody ever said life was fair. 😉

Honestly, I've never found the concept that the paladin seems to embody to
be a very realistic way of going around adventuring. In almost every
situation I've ever been in, it's only been a hindrence to have a paladin
hanging around. Basically, I don't much like paladins, they seem to be a
beefed up fighter that nobody (that I have run into) can truly do justice
playing. They seem like fighter candy, more than anything else.

Kind of like the barbarian.

"I want to be able to cream anything I run into by bopping it on the head
harder than anyone else."
"Well Mr. Power Gamer, it's definitely the BARBARIAN model for you, sleek
lines, and not a penny more than the regular model fighter!"
😉

--
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?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d375ne$60t$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> >important, they were mostly CG). The paladin could not have been blind
to
> >what was going on, he should have stuck around to ensure the safety of
these
> >"prisoners of war".
>
> That's pretty blatant. Somehow I was expecting something more subtle.
But I
> think I've learned enough of what you were complaining about to say that
I've
> known several people who would have had their paladin do the right thing
> there.

Yes, it was pretty blatant. You're starting to appreciate the scope of the
problem I was facing. The player swore up and down that he could play a
paladin correctly, and perhaps it was a bit of enthusiastic naivete on my
part, but he had at least tentatively convinced me. Until about an hour
into his first session. When the prisoner's dilemma was put forth.

--
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?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news😱TE5e.542962$w62.120581@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Jeff Goslin" wrote
> > "David Johnston" wrote
> > > >Basically, I probably overstated the situation when I used the word
> > > >"torture". I used "torture" in the way that cops would use the good
> cop
> > bad
> > > >cop routine.
> > >
> > > Oh hey, c'mon. Then you were being overly strict with the paladin.
> > > At least on that occasion.
> >
> > Well, the idea at the time was to get the information, then kill the
> > remaining orcs. The paladin knew it, and walked away. The information
> was
> > gained thru roughing up, and then the orcs were killed.
>
> and the problem with this is?

A properly played paladin should have stuck around to ensure the "proper"
treatment of his prisoners, whatever proper might happen to be according to
the law of the land and the (good) morality of the paladin. It's possible
that the law of the land is that prisoners of war are executed, if that's
the case, so be it, he turns them over to the proper authorities, and he's
done with it, no blood on his hands.

In this instance, the paladin had only one realistic choice: tie them up
and leave them there. He couldn't let them go(they would warn their
superiors too quickly), he couldn't kill them(they were surrendering to
him), and he didn't have time to turn them over to the powers that be(time
was a factor in the mission they were on). Leaving them bound and gagged
would have given them enough time to leave the area without being followed
by the critters, and left no blood on the hands of the paladin.

--
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?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZLF5e.3081$yq6.1949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sorry Jeffie, but cause and effect are quite apparent to even int-6
> characters.

Any clue what INT6 compares to in real life? What am I saying, of COURSE
you know what INT6 compares to in real life, given that you live that dream
on a daily basis.

Honestly, MSB, you have nothing to offer this discussion except lip service
and froth for our coffees.

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